Sulforaphane

View my plan →

The short answer

Biomarker and condition-specific studies are promising, but disease-prevention benefit is unproven.

Evidence and scope: Emerging evidence
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Early human findings are hypothesis-generating; efficacy, long-term safety, and optimal dose remain uncertain.
Before deciding: Key concern: Thyroid disease with low iodine, pregnancy, cancer therapy, and CYP interactions 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 needsAbout 20–100 micromol/day in early trials; product conversion varies

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

Products need active myrosinase or verified sulforaphane yield.

Do not combine casually

Thyroid disease with low iodine, pregnancy, cancer therapy, and CYP interactions 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

8unique 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.

2023

Does not support the tested claimPMID 38074675 · CRD42022323788

Sulforaphane in cancer treatment trials

Some biomarkers changed, but other key genes did not, prostate-specific antigen findings conflicted, and a pancreatic-cancer survival difference was not significant. High clinical and methodological heterogeneity prevented pooling, so the review does not establish sulforaphane as cancer treatment.

Published: 20238 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Systematic review of 8 randomized controlled trials
Population: People with prostate, breast, pancreatic cancer, or melanoma; the abstract did not report a pooled participant total
Intervention: Sulforaphane as the primary experimental treatment versus comparison controls, with inconsistent dosing regimens
Outcome: Genes and histologic biomarkers, prostate-specific antigen, overall survival, and adverse events

Funding or conflict note: The authors declared no commercial or financial conflicts of interest.

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence86 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.