Study analysis · Food Science & Nutrition · 2018
A special tomato supplement boosted blood lycopene by 4 times and slashed ‘bad’ oxidized cholesterol by 5-fold in just 30 days – but only if it’s the right formulation.
A special form of lycopene called lycosome-formulated lycopene greatly increased lycopene levels in the blood and improved heart health markers, while regular lycopene supplements barely worked.
Overview
What the study found
The study in plain English — the bottom line, every takeaway we extracted, and what to do with them.
In simple terms
This study compared two different types of lycopene pills in people with heart disease. They gave one group one type and another group the other type. But there was no group that got a fake pill (placebo), so we can't tell if the changes were because of the lycopene or just because they were in a study. So we can only say that one type seemed to work better than the other, not that lycopene itself helps the heart.
What’s the bottom line?
Lycopene is a nutrient in tomatoes that is hard for our body to use. Scientists made a special 'lycosome' version that is easier to absorb. They gave it to people with heart disease for 30 days and saw that it helped reduce bad changes in the blood and improved blood vessel function. The regular version didn't work as well.
How strong is this study?
The study randomly split people into two groups, which is a good way to make them similar. But the doctors and patients might have known which group they were in (no blinding), and the study only lasted one month. Also, the company that makes one of the pills helped pay for the study. These things make it harder to trust the results completely.
40 / 100
- COI disclosure+40/40
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
50 / 100
- Randomization+20/20
- Blindingblinding unclear
- Control groupno control group
- Sample size (n=142)+10.2/20
- Follow-up+10/10
100 / 100
46 / 100
- P-values+15/15
- Effect sizeno effect size reported
- Confidence intervals+15/15
- Pre-registrationnot pre-registered
Each component is scored out of 100 and then capped by the study design — a case series cannot reach the ceiling a randomised trial can, however well it is reported.
Where it sits
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 557 / 100
Probability of being correct
Participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, minimizing bias. The gold standard for testing whether an intervention causes an effect.
This design cannot establish causation — the findings describe an association, not a cause. The study lacks a placebo control group; it compares two active formulations of lycopene without a no-treatment group. Without a placebo, changes observed cannot be definitively attributed to lycopene versus no intervention, and regression to the mean or placebo effects cannot be excluded. Thus, causal claims about lycopene's effects on cardiovascular parameters are not supported.
Major COI
Major conflicts that significantly reduce study credibility
Study was conducted by Lycotec Ltd, the developer of the lycosome-formulated GA lycopene product tested, which showed superior results compared to a competitor's product. No conflict of interest or funding statements were disclosed, raising concerns about objectivity.
Funders
Conflict Details
Lycotec Ltd: Study conducted by Lycotec Ltd; company developed the lycosome-formulated GA lycopene product tested
No COI declaration or funding statement present. The study compares a product from Lycotec (supplier) with a Nestle product, and Lycotec's product showed superior results. Possible bias due to company involvement in trial conduct. No independent oversight mentioned.
Key takeaways
- 01
The special lycopene increased the amount of lycopene in the blood by 4 times after 4 weeks.
- 02
It also lowered a bad type of cholesterol by 5 times and reduced signs of swelling in the body.
- 03
Blood flow improved by about 10%.
- 04
These changes are meaningful for heart health, but the study was small and short.
- 05
More research is needed to know if it prevents heart attacks or other serious problems.
Surprising findings
- Regular lycopene supplements had almost no effect, despite the same dose. The formulation is everything.Many people assume all lycopene is the same; this shows absorption varies hugely.
- Lycopene reduced antibodies against Chlamydia pneumoniae by threefold.This links lycopene to fighting a chronic infection that may contribute to heart disease.
Practical takeaways
If you want to try lycopene for heart health, look for a lycosome-formulated product or eat cooked tomatoes with oil to enhance absorption.
This was a small, short, unblinded study without placebo. More research is needed.
medium confidenceCook tomatoes with olive oil to make lycopene more bioavailable.
Even so, the lycosome formulation was far more effective; whole foods may not reach those levels.
low confidenceWhy this study matters
Bioavailability is everything
Standard lycopene supplements (lactolycopene) barely raised blood levels – only 0.5-fold after 4 weeks. But the lycosome formulation boosted lycopene by 2.9-fold at 2 weeks and 4.3-fold at 4 weeks. That's because it uses a phospholipid chaperone to bypass poor absorption.
Most people assume all supplements are the same, but this shows the delivery system matters hugely.
Lycopene fights inflammation and oxidation
Lycosome lycopene cut oxidized LDL by 5-fold and an inflammatory marker (IOD) by 3-fold. It also reduced Chlamydia pneumoniae IgG by 3-fold, suggesting an anti-inflammatory effect. These are key drivers of heart disease.
People know cholesterol is bad, but oxidized LDL is the truly dangerous form. This shows lycopene may protect directly.
Better blood flow in just 30 days
Flow-mediated dilation improved by 10.7% and tissue oxygenation increased by 15.9%. These measure how well blood vessels dilate and how much oxygen reaches tissues – both critical for heart health.
These are real-world measures of cardiovascular function, not just lab markers.
Want the whole report?
Detailed mode opens the full scientific breakdown — every score component, the methodology, conflicts of interest, the evidence analysis behind each claim, and the raw study data.
Overview
What the study found
The study in plain English — the bottom line, every takeaway we extracted, and what to do with them.
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
Lycopene is a nutrient in tomatoes that is hard for our body to use. Scientists made a special 'lycosome' version that is easier to absorb. They gave it to people with heart disease for 30 days and saw that it helped reduce bad changes in the blood and improved blood vessel function. The regular version didn't work as well.
Research results
The special lycopene increased the amount of lycopene in the blood by 4 times after 4 weeks. It also lowered a bad type of cholesterol by 5 times and reduced signs of swelling in the body. Blood flow improved by about 10%.
What this means - more context
These changes are meaningful for heart health, but the study was small and short. More research is needed to know if it prevents heart attacks or other serious problems.
To investigate the pharmacokinetics and impact of highly bioavailable lycopene on cardiovascular variables, markers of inflammation, and oxidation in patients with coronary vascular disease.
This 30-day randomized trial compared two lycopene formulations (lactolycopene vs. lycosome-formulated GA lycopene) in 142 CVD patients. Lycosome lycopene significantly increased serum lycopene, reduced oxidized LDL, inflammatory markers, and improved flow-mediated dilation and tissue oxygenation, while lactolycopene showed minimal effects. Note: This study has published corrections/errata; readers should check the correction notices for updated information.
Methods Used
142 patients with coronary vascular disease were randomized to receive 7 mg daily of lactolycopene (n=68) or lycosome-formulated GA lycopene (n=74) for 30 days. Serum lycopene, lipid profile, blood pressure, flow-mediated dilation (FMD), tissue oxygenation (StO2), ankle-brachial index, and markers of inflammation/oxidative stress (CRP, Chlamydia pneumoniae IgG, oxidized LDL, IOD) were measured.
Main Finding
Lycosome-formulated lycopene (7 mg/day for 30 days) increased serum lycopene by 2.9-fold at 2 weeks and 4.3-fold at 4 weeks; reduced oxidized LDL by fivefold, Chlamydia pneumoniae IgG by threefold, and IOD by threefold; and improved FMD by 10.7% and StO2 by 15.9%. Lactolycopene only increased serum lycopene by 0.5-fold at 4 weeks and had no significant effects on other outcomes.
Confidence Level
Moderate – randomized design, but no blinding, no placebo group, short duration (30 days), and small sample size.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •No placebo control group
- •No blinding reported
- •Short follow-up (30 days)
Surprising Findings
Regular lycopene supplements had almost no effect, despite the same dose. The formulation is everything.
Many people assume all lycopene is the same; this shows absorption varies hugely.
Practical Takeaways
If you want to try lycopene for heart health, look for a lycosome-formulated product or eat cooked tomatoes with oil to enhance absorption.
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 557 / 100
Probability of being correct
Participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, minimizing bias. The gold standard for testing whether an intervention causes an effect.
Human RCT
Subject
Moderate probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
This study compared two different types of lycopene pills in people with heart disease. They gave one group one type and another group the other type. But there was no group that got a fake pill (placebo), so we can't tell if the changes were because of the lycopene or just because they were in a study. So we can only say that one type seemed to work better than the other, not that lycopene itself helps the heart.
Major conflicts — industry funding with significant control over the research. Reporting score and overall score cap have been reduced.
Strengths
- Randomization reduces selection bias
- Baseline characteristics well-matched between groups
- Multiple endpoints assessed, including objective biomarkers
Weaknesses
- No placebo control group
- Blinding unclear (unknown if patients or assessors were blinded)
- Short follow-up (30 days)
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
Lycopene is a nutrient in tomatoes that is hard for our body to use. Scientists made a special 'lycosome' version that is easier to absorb. They gave it to people with heart disease for 30 days and saw that it helped reduce bad changes in the blood and improved blood vessel function. The regular version didn't work as well.
Research results
The special lycopene increased the amount of lycopene in the blood by 4 times after 4 weeks. It also lowered a bad type of cholesterol by 5 times and reduced signs of swelling in the body. Blood flow improved by about 10%.
What this means - more context
These changes are meaningful for heart health, but the study was small and short. More research is needed to know if it prevents heart attacks or other serious problems.
To investigate the pharmacokinetics and impact of highly bioavailable lycopene on cardiovascular variables, markers of inflammation, and oxidation in patients with coronary vascular disease.
This 30-day randomized trial compared two lycopene formulations (lactolycopene vs. lycosome-formulated GA lycopene) in 142 CVD patients. Lycosome lycopene significantly increased serum lycopene, reduced oxidized LDL, inflammatory markers, and improved flow-mediated dilation and tissue oxygenation, while lactolycopene showed minimal effects. Note: This study has published corrections/errata; readers should check the correction notices for updated information.
Methods Used
142 patients with coronary vascular disease were randomized to receive 7 mg daily of lactolycopene (n=68) or lycosome-formulated GA lycopene (n=74) for 30 days. Serum lycopene, lipid profile, blood pressure, flow-mediated dilation (FMD), tissue oxygenation (StO2), ankle-brachial index, and markers of inflammation/oxidative stress (CRP, Chlamydia pneumoniae IgG, oxidized LDL, IOD) were measured.
Main Finding
Lycosome-formulated lycopene (7 mg/day for 30 days) increased serum lycopene by 2.9-fold at 2 weeks and 4.3-fold at 4 weeks; reduced oxidized LDL by fivefold, Chlamydia pneumoniae IgG by threefold, and IOD by threefold; and improved FMD by 10.7% and StO2 by 15.9%. Lactolycopene only increased serum lycopene by 0.5-fold at 4 weeks and had no significant effects on other outcomes.
Confidence Level
Moderate – randomized design, but no blinding, no placebo group, short duration (30 days), and small sample size.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •No placebo control group
- •No blinding reported
- •Short follow-up (30 days)
Surprising Findings
Regular lycopene supplements had almost no effect, despite the same dose. The formulation is everything.
Many people assume all lycopene is the same; this shows absorption varies hugely.
Practical Takeaways
If you want to try lycopene for heart health, look for a lycosome-formulated product or eat cooked tomatoes with oil to enhance absorption.
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 557 / 100
Probability of being correct
Participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, minimizing bias. The gold standard for testing whether an intervention causes an effect.
Human RCT
Subject
Moderate probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
This study compared two different types of lycopene pills in people with heart disease. They gave one group one type and another group the other type. But there was no group that got a fake pill (placebo), so we can't tell if the changes were because of the lycopene or just because they were in a study. So we can only say that one type seemed to work better than the other, not that lycopene itself helps the heart.
Major conflicts — industry funding with significant control over the research. Reporting score and overall score cap have been reduced.
Strengths
- Randomization reduces selection bias
- Baseline characteristics well-matched between groups
- Multiple endpoints assessed, including objective biomarkers
Weaknesses
- No placebo control group
- Blinding unclear (unknown if patients or assessors were blinded)
- Short follow-up (30 days)
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Scoring
How strong is this study?
The study randomly split people into two groups, which is a good way to make them similar. But the doctors and patients might have known which group they were in (no blinding), and the study only lasted one month. Also, the company that makes one of the pills helped pay for the study. These things make it harder to trust the results completely.
40 / 100
- COI disclosure+40/40
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
50 / 100
- Randomization+20/20
- Blindingblinding unclear
- Control groupno control group
- Sample size (n=142)+10.2/20
- Follow-up+10/10
100 / 100
46 / 100
- P-values+15/15
- Effect sizeno effect size reported
- Confidence intervals+15/15
- Pre-registrationnot pre-registered
Each component is scored out of 100 and then capped by the study design — a case series cannot reach the ceiling a randomised trial can, however well it is reported.
Where it sits
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 557 / 100
Probability of being correct
Participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, minimizing bias. The gold standard for testing whether an intervention causes an effect.
This design cannot establish causation — the findings describe an association, not a cause. The study lacks a placebo control group; it compares two active formulations of lycopene without a no-treatment group. Without a placebo, changes observed cannot be definitively attributed to lycopene versus no intervention, and regression to the mean or placebo effects cannot be excluded. Thus, causal claims about lycopene's effects on cardiovascular parameters are not supported.
Major COI
Major conflicts that significantly reduce study credibility
Study was conducted by Lycotec Ltd, the developer of the lycosome-formulated GA lycopene product tested, which showed superior results compared to a competitor's product. No conflict of interest or funding statements were disclosed, raising concerns about objectivity.
Funders
Conflict Details
Lycotec Ltd: Study conducted by Lycotec Ltd; company developed the lycosome-formulated GA lycopene product tested
No COI declaration or funding statement present. The study compares a product from Lycotec (supplier) with a Nestle product, and Lycotec's product showed superior results. Possible bias due to company involvement in trial conduct. No independent oversight mentioned.
Standing
Who’s using this study?
The videos and claims on this site that lean on this study, and the researchers who wrote it.
1 video from Physionic cite this study, drawing 1 claim from it.
- Good evidence
Good evidence supports this claim, with little to contradict it.
Evidence