Supplement evidence

026 / 575Lipid support

Plant sterols/stanols

View my plan →

The short answer

Modestly lowering LDL cholesterol as part of a dietary strategy.

Evidence and scope: Supported for specific outcomes
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: LDL lowering has not established a supplement-specific lifespan benefit.
Before deciding: Not appropriate for rare sitosterolemia; may reduce absorption of carotenoids.

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

LDL cholesterol1.5–2 g/day with meals

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

Divide across meals containing fat.

Do not combine casually

May reduce carotenoid absorption; not a replacement for indicated lipid-lowering therapy.

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.

4research papers in this ledger

124unique 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.

2014

Supports a specific usePMID 24780090

LDL-cholesterol-lowering effect of plant sterols and stanols across different dose ranges

Across 0.6–3.3 g/day, LDL cholesterol fell by about 6–12%, with a continuing dose response to roughly 3 g/day. These are lipid changes, not evidence of fewer heart attacks or longer life.

Published: 2014124 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Meta-analysis of 124 randomized controlled studies (201 treatment strata)
Population: Adults across trials of plant sterol- or stanol-enriched foods and supplements
Intervention: Plant sterols or stanols, average 2.1 g/day (range 0.2–9.0 g/day), versus control
Outcome: LDL cholesterol by dose

Funding or conflict note: Two of three authors were affiliated with Unilever R&D. The abstract did not report a participant total, so participants are excluded from the aggregate total.

Open research record ↗

2013

Supports a specific usePMID 24144075

Cholesterol-lowering efficacy of plant sterols/stanols provided in capsule and tablet formats

Capsule or tablet products lowered LDL cholesterol by about 12 mg/dL (0.31 mmol/L), similar to enriched-food delivery. The trials were short and did not test cardiovascular events.

Published: 2013Duration: Included trials: 4–6 weeks8 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of eight clinical trials
Population: Adults in placebo-controlled trials of capsule or tablet products
Intervention: Plant sterols/stanols 1–3 g/day, usually with main meals, versus placebo
Outcome: LDL cholesterol

Funding or conflict note: These trials overlap the larger dose-response synthesis and are excluded from aggregate totals.

Open research record ↗

2009

Safety signalPMID 18270526

Safety assessment of common foods enriched with natural nonesterified plant sterols

No serious adverse effects emerged over 15 weeks. Sitosterol increased and alpha-tocopherol fell before adjustment for lower LDL, leaving long-term fat-soluble-vitamin effects uncertain.

Published: 2009Duration: 15 weeksn=71 participants

Study design and methods

Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled feeding trial
Population: 71 adults with mild-to-moderate hypercholesterolemia
Intervention: Foods providing plant sterols stepped from 1.25 to 2.5 to 5 g/day, or matched foods without sterols
Outcome: Serum plant sterols, sex hormones, fat-soluble vitamins, and adverse effects

Funding or conflict note: This trial may be represented in the broader meta-analysis and is excluded from aggregate totals.

Open research record ↗

2008

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 19109655

Plant sterols/stanols as cholesterol lowering agents

LDL fell by 0.31 mmol/L on average, but response varied by baseline LDL, food carrier, timing, and frequency; a single morning dose was not effective.

Published: 200859 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Meta-analysis of 59 randomized clinical trials
Population: Adults across trials of plant sterol-enriched products
Intervention: Plant sterol-containing products versus control
Outcome: LDL cholesterol and modifiers of response

Funding or conflict note: These trials overlap the larger dose-response synthesis and are excluded from aggregate totals.

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence333 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 overviewNIH/NCCIH evidence overview 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.