When you look at supplement labels or clinical trials, one detail decides whether something actually works or not:
the dose.
Too little, and you’re just swallowing expensive decoration.
Too much, and you may increase side effects or even risk harm.
In pharmacology and nutrition, this is called the dose–response relationship – and it’s one of the most important concepts in evidence-based longevity and supplementation.
1. The Goldilocks zone: not too little, not too much
Most nutrients and bioactives follow some version of a curve:
-
very low dose → no effect (or deficiency)
-
optimal range → benefit
-
very high dose → side effects or toxicity
Vitamin D is a classic example:
-
Meta-analyses show correcting deficiency can improve bone health and reduce fracture risk, especially in older adults.
-
But large trials using very high doses (e.g. single massive bolus dosing) have sometimes increased falls or fractures instead of reducing them.
That’s why guidelines typically recommend:
-
moderate daily or weekly doses to reach a healthy blood level,
-
not chronic megadosing “just in case.”
Same logic applies to many longevity-relevant compounds: more is not automatically better.
2. Clinical trials use specific doses – copying TikTok does not
When a paper says “X supplement lowered HbA1c” or “improved metabolic markers,” it’s never “random pills”:
-
berberine trials that show improved blood sugar and lipids usually use something like 500–1500 mg/day in divided doses, over 8–24 weeks.
-
omega-3 (EPA/DHA) trials that lower triglycerides or reduce cardiovascular risk use gram-level doses (e.g. 1–4 g/day), not one tiny capsule with 100 mg of fish oil.
-
ashwagandha stress/anxiety trials generally use 300–600 mg/day of standardized root extract for 6–12 weeks – not 50 mg here and there.
If you take:
-
half the dose,
-
for half the time,
-
from a non-standardised product,
you shouldn’t expect the same results that show up in PubMed.
For a science-based brand, it’s honest to say:
“Our doses are chosen to be in line with human studies, not random fairy-dust amounts.”
3. Underdosing: the “fairy dust” problem
A common marketing trick is to put many “hero ingredients” on a label at tiny doses:
-
5 mg resveratrol,
-
10 mg curcumin,
-
25 mg ashwagandha,
-
etc.
It looks impressive, but the dose is far below what most trials use, so you get:
-
no meaningful effect,
-
but the customer thinks they’ve “covered all bases”.
For example:
-
Clinical resveratrol studies that show metabolic or vascular effects usually use 100–1000 mg/day, not 5–10 mg.
-
Curcumin trials with anti-inflammatory or joint outcomes often use 500–2000 mg/day of standardised extract (often with bioavailability enhancers), again far above token label amounts.
Being transparent about using fewer ingredients at real doses is actually a competitive advantage if your brand is science-first.
4. Overdosing: more is not always better
On the other side, pushing doses far beyond what’s studied can:
-
raise side effects,
-
stress detox organs (liver/kidneys),
-
interact with medications.
Examples from the literature:
-
Very high-dose vitamin D regimens (large bolus doses) have been associated in some trials with increased falls and fractures in older adults, even though moderate dosing is beneficial.
-
Case reports now link high or prolonged ashwagandha use to rare but sometimes severe liver injury in susceptible individuals.
-
Mega-dosing antioxidants has, in some trials, failed to show benefit and in specific contexts even been linked to worse outcomes (e.g. some high-dose beta-carotene trials in smokers).
That doesn’t mean these ingredients are “bad.” It means:
“Effective” and “safe” live inside a window, not at the extreme edges.
5. Why “per kg body weight” and context matter
In pharmacology, doses are often discussed per kilogram of body weight. Two people taking the same pill:
-
55 kg vs 95 kg,
-
different liver/kidney function,
-
different medications,
are not experiencing the same effective dose.
Clinical trials often:
-
restrict participants (age, kidney function, medication use),
-
control diet and lifestyle variables,
-
monitor blood markers and side effects.
In real life, people:
-
combine multiple supplements,
-
change nothing about sleep, diet or alcohol,
-
sometimes already take prescription meds.
That’s another reason why sticking close to studied dose ranges – and recommending people speak with their healthcare provider – is safer than making up aggressive “hero doses.”
References:
-
Pilz S, et al. Vitamin D and falls: a critical appraisal. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2017;86(5):609–616.
-
Bjelakovic G, et al. Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(3):CD007176.
-
Sun Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of berberine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2012:591654.
-
Abdelhamid AS, et al. Omega-3 fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;(3):CD003177.
-
Lopresti AL, et al. A review of ashwagandha and its psychotropic effects. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2020;18(7):1084–1115.
-
Lubarska M, et al. Ashwagandha-induced liver injury: case report and review. Cureus. 2023.
-
Sahebkar A. Effects of resveratrol supplementation on plasma lipids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Rev. 2013;71(12):822–835.
-
Panahi Y, et al. Curcuminoid treatment for metabolic syndrome: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Phytother Res. 2014;28(4):514–521.