Lycopene

View my plan →

The short answer

Raises blood lycopene, but prevention and treatment outcomes are inconsistent.

Evidence and scope: Mixed evidence
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Trials are inconsistent or small, so a reliable clinically important benefit is not established.
Before deciding: Key concern: Blood-pressure medicines, bleeding risk, pregnancy, and prostate-cancer treatment require review.

01 / PRACTICAL GUIDE

Dose, absorption, and combinations

These are indication-specific reference or studied ranges—not a personalized prescription. Start with the objective, then check the form, label, medicines, and health conditions.

Reference range by objective

Meeting usual needs10–30 mg/day in many short trials; no established health dose

Reference or studied range—not a personalized prescription. The product label or a clinician may specify a different dose.

Dose source ↗

More is not automatically better. A clinician or product label may specify a different amount.

Absorption / solubilityFat-soluble / lipid-based

Fat-soluble or lipid-based. Absorption generally improves with a meal containing fat.

How it is commonly taken

Take with a fat-containing meal; cooked tomato food is an effective source.

Do not combine casually

Blood-pressure medicines, bleeding risk, pregnancy, and prostate-cancer treatment require review.

Dose and use source ↗

Dose and use links lead to primary or official source material. Search links are discovery tools, not proof that every returned paper applies.

02 / EVIDENCE

What the research says

We keep supportive, mixed, negative, safety, and contextual findings together. The headline never replaces the underlying papers.

1research papers in this ledger

6unique primary studies represented

—unique participants represented

These are audited counts for this JIVANA collection, not search-result totals. Participants are counted once when multiple papers use the same cohort; review papers are not added again to participant totals.

Open the research timelineResearch timeline

Entries are ordered by publication year. A study period appears only when the source reports it.

2021

Does not support the tested claimPMID 33355018

Lycopene and prostate-specific antigen in non-metastatic prostate cancer

Lycopene did not significantly reduce prostate-specific antigen overall. A higher-baseline subgroup favored lycopene, but heterogeneous subgroup findings and a surrogate marker do not establish slower cancer progression, improved survival, or treatment benefit.

Published: 20216 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials
Population: Men with non-metastatic prostate cancer; the abstract did not report a pooled participant total
Intervention: Lycopene supplementation versus control
Outcome: Circulating prostate-specific antigen

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence390 candidate publicationsSearch run: Aug 21, 2026

Complete for the displayed PubMed query at the search timestamp—not for all databases or every possible synonym. Candidates can be irrelevant, duplicate the same study, or report negative findings. They are never summed as evidence or participants until screened.

03 / SOURCES

Start with the source material

Official evidence overviewPubMed bounded human-evidence search Live PubMed discovery searchNational Library of Medicine

The live search is for discovery only. Search-result counts change and are not included in the audited totals above.

Recent PubMed discovery recordsDirect links to the first 12 records returned by the reproducible search. These are discovery candidates—not reviewed summaries or a count of supportive findings.

04 / EXPERT CONTEXT

Expert context—not evidence

Expert positions are dated context—not scientific evidence. They never raise the evidence status or become consensus by repetition.

No direct, source-verified endorsement is currently recorded. Research authorship or discussion alone is not treated as endorsement.