Wow! Surprisingly bad result. I’ve been taking Glucosamine for the cardiovascular and mortality benefits for at least five years ever since that one observational came out.
I treat Glucosamine as part of ATP enhancement, but I don’t do that every day.
1 Like
This was the only thread I found with glucosamine in the title.
It seems quite a few people who do the rejuvenation olympics type of testing are using Novos Core, which has glucosamine in it (1000mg).
Not sure if various companies have tested each individual supplement/product, to compare in results.
It would not surprise me if glucosamine is one of the best rated supplement in certain aging tests being used.
Would be nice to see a list of every medication tested as well.
Not sure if anyone has the best human studies with longevity and supplements. Though it appears that glucosamine has rated very good in some large populated studies.
Maybe there is something that can counter the cancer issue(s) mentioned in the thread.
2 Likes
From Vera AiI
Current evidence suggests that glucosamine use is associated with lower all-cause mortality and reduced cancer risk in large observational cohorts, but causality remains unproven, and Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses challenge these associations.
Evidence on All-Cause Mortality
- **UK Biobank prospective cohort (495,077 participants, median follow-up 8.9 years):**Regular glucosamine use was linked to 15% lower all-cause mortality (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.82–0.89), with reductions in CVD, cancer, respiratory, and digestive mortality 1 (Level I evidence, prospective cohort).
- US NHANES cohort (38,021 participants, 1999–2014): After full adjustment, no significant association between glucosamine use and all-cause or cancer mortality was found (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86–1.21) 2 (Level I evidence, prospective cohort).
- Other cohorts (e.g., European Journal of Epidemiology, 2012): Reported mortality benefit, but these are also observational and prone to selection bias 3 II.
Evidence on Cancer
- UK Biobank cancer mortality cohort (453,645 participants, median follow-up 12.1 years): Glucosamine use was associated with lower overall cancer mortality (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90–1.00), and significantly reduced kidney, lung, and rectal cancer mortality 4(Level I evidence, prospective cohort).
- Lung cancer–specific cohort (439,393 participants): Regular glucosamine use was linked to 16% lower lung cancer incidence (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75–0.92) and 12% lower lung cancer mortality (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81–0.96) 5 (Level I evidence, prospective cohort).
- **Meta-analysis (13 studies, 1.69M participants, 55,045 cancers):**Glucosamine/chondroitin use was associated with reduced colorectal cancer risk (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87–0.94) and lung cancer risk (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79–0.89) 6 (Level I evidence, meta-analysis).
Causality Concerns
- Mendelian randomization (MR) studies (2024): Found no protective causal effect of glucosamine; in fact, genetically proxied use was linked to increased risk of certain cancers (e.g., melanoma, colon, lung adenocarcinoma) and benign tumors 7(Level I evidence, MR study).
- Pharmacoepidemiology review: Suggests observed mortality/cancer benefits in cohorts may be due to selection bias and healthier user effect 8 III.
Summary Table
| Outcome | Key Findings | Clinical Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| All-cause mortality | HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.82–0.89) reduction in UK Biobank 1 | Large prospective cohort, Level I |
| Cancer mortality (overall) | HR 0.95 (95% CI 0.90–1.00) 4 | UK Biobank, Level I |
| Lung cancer | ↓ incidence (HR 0.84) and mortality (HR 0.88) 5 | UK Biobank, Level I |
| Colorectal cancer | OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.87–0.94) 6 | Meta-analysis, Level I |
| Mendelian randomization | No causal protective effect; ↑ risk for some cancers 7 | MR, Level I |
| Bias concerns | Possible selection bias in observational studies 8 | Review, Level III |
Conclusion:
Glucosamine use is consistently associated with lower all-cause mortality and reduced risk of lung and colorectal cancers in large observational cohorts. However, genetic causal analyses do not support a protective effect and even suggest increased risk for some cancers. At present, glucosamine cannot be recommended for mortality or cancer prevention, and its use should remain limited to approved indications (e.g., osteoarthritis). Further randomized long-term trials are needed.
3 Likes
Right on, that was a nice write up!
IIRC you have not done any of those aging tests (Rejuvenation Olympics).
Though it would be cool to see your results. I’d bet you would rank very good.
Your stack seems to have most of the same supps that Novo’s use in their formulas, plus a lot of other stuff.
Here is another study with glucosamine doing well.
1 Like
Also, Brad Stanfield submitted a glucosamine proposal to the ITP and they accepted it, so that’s good. I’m sure it’ll be a long wait for those results but at least it’s being studied further.
2 Likes
Very cool! That is probably new (2025) about the glucosamine, as ITP has not updated there supported Interventions page on pubmed since Dec 2024.
Will be interesting to know one day if to see if glucosamine tests out any better on it’s own vs a combination of products together as is commonly sold in stores such as: glucosamine/chondroitin, and sometimes with other stuff added such as msm, or some herbal extracts etc.
Another N=1 here: have been taking glucosamine/chondroitin for decades. On the rare occasions when I didn’t take it for a few days I could feel the pain in my knees returning, especially when descending stairs. So, I know it is having a positive effect. This, together with magnesium (both mag glycinate in pill form and magnesium foam that I put on my legs every night) are my most valuable players.
5 Likes
I’m on his Discord server since I use his Microvitamin+ powder so I asked him about it and he said it was approved. It must have been pretty recent.
Personally, I take a glucosamine/chondroitin/MSM supplement so I’d like it to work
2 Likes