Study analysis · Nutrients · 2026
Eat more tomatoes? Study links lycopene with 30% lower odds of artery thickening – but the benefit may be stronger for men.
Higher blood levels of lycopene are linked to thinner artery walls, suggesting a protective effect against early atherosclerosis, especially in men.
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
Imagine a big report that put together many smaller studies where they checked people's lycopene levels and measured the thickness of a neck artery. They found that people with more lycopene usually had thinner arteries. But it's like noticing that people who wear glasses often read more—it doesn't mean wearing glasses makes you read. We can't say that lycopene causes thinner arteries; we only see a connection at one moment in time.
What’s the bottom line?
Researchers looked at 13 studies and found that people with more lycopene in their blood tended to have less thickening of their artery walls, which is a sign of heart disease risk.
How strong is this study?
This report did a good job by searching carefully for studies and checking for tricks like publication bias. But the studies they used were not perfect—some didn't adjust for important things like smoking or age, and they had to change numbers from different studies to combine them. So the results give us a general idea, but we shouldn't trust the exact numbers too much.
40 / 100
- COI disclosure+40/40
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
0 / 100
- Randomizationrandomization unclear
- Blindingblinding unclear
- Control groupno control group
- Sample sizeno sample size reported
- Follow-upno follow-up reported
100 / 100
100 / 100
- P-values+15/15
- Effect size+20/20
- Confidence intervals+15/15
- Pre-registration+15/15
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 553 / 100
Probability of being correct
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies. They sit above a single cohort study but below a single randomized trial, because the underlying evidence is still observational.
This design cannot establish causation — the findings describe an association, not a cause. The meta-analysis is based on cross-sectional associations from predominantly observational studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional). Reverse causation and residual confounding cannot be excluded. The study design does not allow causal inference.
No Conflicts
No conflicts of interest identified
No conflicts identified
Independent Analysis Safeguards
- Study followed PRISMA guidelines
- Pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251003810)
No conflict of interest or funding information was provided in the text. The study appears to be an independent systematic review.
Key takeaways
- 01
People with higher lycopene levels had about 30% lower odds of having thicker artery walls.
- 02
The link was stronger in men (38% lower odds) than in women (26% lower odds).
- 03
This suggests lycopene might protect arteries, but we cannot be sure because these studies only took a snapshot in time, and other factors like diet and lifestyle could explain the link.
Surprising findings
- Beta-carotene, often touted for heart health, showed only a marginal inverse association with carotid IMT (OR 0.96).Beta-carotene is a common supplement for antioxidants, but the data suggest it may not independently protect arteries.
- Lycopene’s association with IMT was stronger in men than in women, a 12-percentage-point difference in odds reduction.Most nutritional studies don't report sex-specific effects, yet this could change how we tailor advice.
Practical takeaways
Include lycopene-rich foods like cooked tomatoes, watermelon, or pink grapefruit in your diet for potential vascular benefits.
This is based on observational data; don't rely solely on lycopene to prevent heart disease – maintain overall healthy lifestyle.
medium confidenceMen might particularly benefit from lycopene-rich diets, but women shouldn't cut them out – the effect is still positive, just smaller.
No clinical trials yet confirm sex-specific recommendations; more research is needed.
low confidenceWhy this study matters
Lycopene vs. Beta-Carotene: Not All Antioxidants Are Equal
High lycopene levels were associated with 30% lower odds of having thicker carotid arteries (pooled OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59–0.84), while beta-carotene showed only a marginal effect (OR 0.96, 0.92–0.99). This suggests lycopene may be more potent for vascular health.
Many people assume all carotenoids are equally heart-healthy, but this study highlights that lycopene from tomatoes might be specifically beneficial.
Why Men May Benefit More from Lycopene
The inverse association was stronger in men (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45–0.84) than in women (OR 0.74, 0.58–0.95). Estrogen’s antioxidant effects might mask lycopene’s benefit in women.
This sex difference is rarely discussed in nutrition advice; it could lead to personalized dietary recommendations.
The Blood Pressure Twist
Meta-regression showed that systolic blood pressure modified the lycopene-IMT association (p=0.024), meaning the protective link may vary depending on BP levels.
High BP is a major risk factor, and this suggests lycopene’s effect might be context-dependent.
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
Researchers looked at 13 studies and found that people with more lycopene in their blood tended to have less thickening of their artery walls, which is a sign of heart disease risk.
Research results
People with higher lycopene levels had about 30% lower odds of having thicker artery walls. The link was stronger in men (38% lower odds) than in women (26% lower odds).
What this means - more context
This suggests lycopene might protect arteries, but we cannot be sure because these studies only took a snapshot in time, and other factors like diet and lifestyle could explain the link.
To systematically review and meta-analyze the associations between circulating lycopene and β-carotene levels and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in adults, including sex-specific effects.
Higher lycopene levels were significantly associated with lower IMT (pooled OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59–0.84), with stronger effect in men (OR 0.62 vs 0.74). β-carotene showed a marginal inverse association (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92–0.99). Meta-regression suggested systolic blood pressure modifies the lycopene-IMT relationship.
Methods Used
Systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to March 2025; 13 studies (n=9131) included, 8 in meta-analysis. Random-effects meta-analysis using Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. Quality assessed with NHLBI tools.
Main Finding
Higher circulating lycopene is inversely associated with carotid IMT (pooled OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59–0.84), consistent across sexes but stronger in men. β-carotene association is weaker and less consistent (OR 0.96, 0.92–0.99).
Confidence Level
Moderate; all data cross-sectional, substantial heterogeneity (I² 65-78%), but sensitivity analyses robust and no publication bias detected.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •Cross-sectional data preclude causal inference
- •Substantial heterogeneity (I² 64.7% for lycopene, 72.6% for β-carotene)
- •Variability in adjustment for confounders across included studies
Surprising Findings
Beta-carotene, often touted for heart health, showed only a marginal inverse association with carotid IMT (OR 0.96).
Beta-carotene is a common supplement for antioxidants, but the data suggest it may not independently protect arteries.
Practical Takeaways
Include lycopene-rich foods like cooked tomatoes, watermelon, or pink grapefruit in your diet for potential vascular benefits.
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 553 / 100
Probability of being correct
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies. They sit above a single cohort study but below a single randomized trial, because the underlying evidence is still observational.
Human Meta-Analysis
Subject
Moderate probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
Imagine a big report that put together many smaller studies where they checked people's lycopene levels and measured the thickness of a neck artery. They found that people with more lycopene usually had thinner arteries. But it's like noticing that people who wear glasses often read more—it doesn't mean wearing glasses makes you read. We can't say that lycopene causes thinner arteries; we only see a connection at one moment in time.
The study has a COI section but no disclosure was found. A small penalty has been applied.
Strengths
- Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines with PROSPERO registration
- Comprehensive search across multiple databases
- Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses
Weaknesses
- Cross-sectional associations from primarily observational studies
- High heterogeneity (I² > 60%) for both lycopene and β-carotene
- Transformation of effect measures into a common OR metric introduces approximation
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
Researchers looked at 13 studies and found that people with more lycopene in their blood tended to have less thickening of their artery walls, which is a sign of heart disease risk.
Research results
People with higher lycopene levels had about 30% lower odds of having thicker artery walls. The link was stronger in men (38% lower odds) than in women (26% lower odds).
What this means - more context
This suggests lycopene might protect arteries, but we cannot be sure because these studies only took a snapshot in time, and other factors like diet and lifestyle could explain the link.
To systematically review and meta-analyze the associations between circulating lycopene and β-carotene levels and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in adults, including sex-specific effects.
Higher lycopene levels were significantly associated with lower IMT (pooled OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59–0.84), with stronger effect in men (OR 0.62 vs 0.74). β-carotene showed a marginal inverse association (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92–0.99). Meta-regression suggested systolic blood pressure modifies the lycopene-IMT relationship.
Methods Used
Systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to March 2025; 13 studies (n=9131) included, 8 in meta-analysis. Random-effects meta-analysis using Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. Quality assessed with NHLBI tools.
Main Finding
Higher circulating lycopene is inversely associated with carotid IMT (pooled OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59–0.84), consistent across sexes but stronger in men. β-carotene association is weaker and less consistent (OR 0.96, 0.92–0.99).
Confidence Level
Moderate; all data cross-sectional, substantial heterogeneity (I² 65-78%), but sensitivity analyses robust and no publication bias detected.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •Cross-sectional data preclude causal inference
- •Substantial heterogeneity (I² 64.7% for lycopene, 72.6% for β-carotene)
- •Variability in adjustment for confounders across included studies
Surprising Findings
Beta-carotene, often touted for heart health, showed only a marginal inverse association with carotid IMT (OR 0.96).
Beta-carotene is a common supplement for antioxidants, but the data suggest it may not independently protect arteries.
Practical Takeaways
Include lycopene-rich foods like cooked tomatoes, watermelon, or pink grapefruit in your diet for potential vascular benefits.
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 553 / 100
Probability of being correct
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies. They sit above a single cohort study but below a single randomized trial, because the underlying evidence is still observational.
Human Meta-Analysis
Subject
Moderate probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
Imagine a big report that put together many smaller studies where they checked people's lycopene levels and measured the thickness of a neck artery. They found that people with more lycopene usually had thinner arteries. But it's like noticing that people who wear glasses often read more—it doesn't mean wearing glasses makes you read. We can't say that lycopene causes thinner arteries; we only see a connection at one moment in time.
The study has a COI section but no disclosure was found. A small penalty has been applied.
Strengths
- Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines with PROSPERO registration
- Comprehensive search across multiple databases
- Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses
Weaknesses
- Cross-sectional associations from primarily observational studies
- High heterogeneity (I² > 60%) for both lycopene and β-carotene
- Transformation of effect measures into a common OR metric introduces approximation
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Scoring
How strong is this study?
This report did a good job by searching carefully for studies and checking for tricks like publication bias. But the studies they used were not perfect—some didn't adjust for important things like smoking or age, and they had to change numbers from different studies to combine them. So the results give us a general idea, but we shouldn't trust the exact numbers too much.
40 / 100
- COI disclosure+40/40
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
0 / 100
- Randomizationrandomization unclear
- Blindingblinding unclear
- Control groupno control group
- Sample sizeno sample size reported
- Follow-upno follow-up reported
100 / 100
100 / 100
- P-values+15/15
- Effect size+20/20
- Confidence intervals+15/15
- Pre-registration+15/15
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 553 / 100
Probability of being correct
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies. They sit above a single cohort study but below a single randomized trial, because the underlying evidence is still observational.
This design cannot establish causation — the findings describe an association, not a cause. The meta-analysis is based on cross-sectional associations from predominantly observational studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional). Reverse causation and residual confounding cannot be excluded. The study design does not allow causal inference.
No Conflicts
No conflicts of interest identified
No conflicts identified
Independent Analysis Safeguards
- Study followed PRISMA guidelines
- Pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251003810)
No conflict of interest or funding information was provided in the text. The study appears to be an independent systematic review.
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.
- Strong evidence
At least some randomized or controlled trials support this claim.
Evidence