Magnesium glycinate

View my plan →

The short answer

A well-tolerated magnesium form used to correct low intake; sleep-specific superiority is not established.

Evidence and scope: Conditional or population-specific
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Benefit depends on the population, formulation, baseline status, and objective; results should not be generalized.
Before deciding: Key concern: Separate from antibiotics and bisphosphonates; avoid unsupervised use with kidney impairment.

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 needs100–350 mg/day elemental magnesium

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 / solubilityFormulation-dependent

Not usefully classified as a fat- or water-soluble vitamin; absorption depends on the salt, extract, delivery system, and meal.

How it is commonly taken

Take with food if GI symptoms occur; dose by elemental magnesium, not compound weight.

Do not combine casually

Separate from antibiotics and bisphosphonates; avoid unsupervised use with kidney impairment.

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

1unique primary studies represented

155unique 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.

2025

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 40918053 · DRKS00031494

Magnesium Bisglycinate Supplementation in Healthy Adults Reporting Poor Sleep

Insomnia scores fell 3.9 points with bisglycinate and 2.3 with placebo; the between-group result was borderline (p=0.049) and small (d=0.2). Other psychological outcomes did not differ, and objective sleep was not measured.

Published: 2025Duration: 4 weeksn=155 participants

Study design and methods

Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Population: 155 adults aged 18–65 with self-reported poor sleep
Intervention: Magnesium bisglycinate providing 250 mg elemental magnesium daily or placebo
Outcome: Insomnia Severity Index and psychological questionnaires

Funding or conflict note: One author directs a contract research organization that receives nutraceutical-company funding and has received nutraceutical presentation honoraria. This is the only directly formulation-specific trial located in this audit.

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence4 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.