← All claims

Longevity & Aging · Metabolic & Cardiometabolic

dietary and anti-aging supplements do-not-improve hard health outcomes in well-nourished non-deficient people

In plain terms: If I eat well and have no deficiency, will supplements make me healthier?

Leans support Longevity & Aging 🔬 Includes disconfirming
RefutedContestedStrong support
consensus score 0.56

Broadly supported for hard endpoints (mortality, CVD, cancer) where multivitamins and popular longevity supplements show null RCT results — but not absolute: at least one large RCT (COSMOS) found a modest multivitamin benefit on cognition.

Evidence ladder

How far up the ladder this claim has climbed. A high consensus on a low rung means "consistent so far," not "proven in people."

Top evidence so far: All trials, pooled (Meta-analysis)

MechanismIn-vitroAnimalObservationalRCTMeta-analysis

How the studies fall

8 support 2 contradict 0 tested null 2 mixed · 12 sources, 10 independent groups

The evidence (12)

SourceGradeStanceQualityFinding
Lippman
2009 · JAMA
RCT supports high SELECT: selenium and/or vitamin E did not prevent prostate or other cancers in generally healthy men, supporting no-benefit.
Baker
2023 · Alzheimers Dement
RCT mixed moderate COSMOS-Mind: multivitamin showed a modest cognitive benefit in older adults while cocoa extract did not, a partial exception on a soft outcome.
Tobias
2025 · Nat Commun
RCT supports high VITAL-T2D: vitamin D supplementation did not reduce incident type 2 diabetes in a general older US population.
Yeung
2023 · Am J Clin Nutr
RCT contradicts moderate COSMOS multivitamin RCT: modest improvement in memory/cognition in older adults without diagnosed deficiency — a genuine positive exception that narrows the absolute claim.
Alexander
2013 · J Am Coll Nutr
meta-analysis supports moderate 12 cohorts plus 3 RCTs: multivitamin use not associated with reduced all-cause/CVD/cancer mortality in healthy adults — null for the outcomes that matter.
Park
2026 · Thromb Haemost
RCT supports moderate COSMOS ancillary: neither cocoa extract nor multivitamin significantly reduced venous thromboembolism in older adults.
Ogata
2023 · Nutrients
RCT supports moderate Reanalysis of VITAL using win-ratio composite outcomes found marine n-3 supplementation did not meaningfully reduce cardiovascular events in healthy older adults.
Li
2023 · Diabetes Care
RCT supports high COSMOS: cocoa extract supplementation did not reduce incident type 2 diabetes in older adults, supporting no hard-outcome benefit.
Setayesh
2026 · Int J Obes
meta-analysis mixed moderate Resveratrol RCT meta-analysis: inconsistent/inconclusive effects on anthropometrics and adipokines — no reliable outcome benefit, consistent with claim.
Gaziano
2012 · JAMA
RCT contradicts high PHS II: daily multivitamin modestly but significantly reduced total cancer incidence in male physicians, a hard-outcome benefit that partly contradicts the no-benefit claim.
O'Connor
2022 · JAMA
meta-analysis supports high USPSTF evidence review: insufficient/no benefit of vitamin-mineral supplements for preventing CVD or cancer in generally healthy, non-deficient adults; possible harm (beta-carotene) — strongly supports the claim for hard outcomes.
Neves
2026 · Cureus
meta-analysis supports moderate Narrative synthesis concluded that in generally nourished adults multivitamins do not reduce cardiovascular events or mortality and cancer-prevention evidence is marginal.

Disagree, or know a study we missed?

We grade by evidence, not opinions. The way to weigh in is to point us to a study we haven't cited (check the evidence table above first), or to flag a problem with one we have. Every submission is reviewed; if it holds up, the grade updates and shows in Science Changes Its Mind.

📚 Suggest a study ⚑ Flag / request reclassification

Opens a short form. You'll sign in with Google so submissions are tied to a real account — we don't display your identity, and we only accept a link we can verify (PubMed, DOI, ClinicalTrials.gov).

Educational only, not medical advice. Grades and scores reflect published evidence weighted by study design and quality; see the methodology.