Vital Nutrients Hawthorn Extract 450 mg Review

Human evidence that hawthorn helps reverse aging or repair cells and DNA is limited and mixed. This product gives 900 milligrams a day, the same amount used in the trials. In a six month placebo-controlled trial, 36 adults who finished taking 900 milligrams a day of hawthorn fruit powder had better facial skin hydration than the placebo group. However, telomere length, a marker of cell aging, and most other skin measures did not change ^[1]. In a larger six month placebo-controlled trial of 120 people with chronic heart failure, 900 milligrams a day of hawthorn extract did not change oxidative stress or inflammation compared with placebo. Heart pumping function was slightly better, but more side effects were reported ^[2]. In a small laboratory test, blood cells taken after a single 1 gram dose showed about 36 percent fewer signs of DNA damage at one hour when later exposed to a damaging chemical, compared with cells taken before the dose ^[3]. This was a lab test, not a trial of aging in people. Overall, there is no good evidence that hawthorn reverses biological age, but the studies do not clearly show it has no effect either. Animal and cell studies are never counted.

Only two of the ten panelists spoke about hawthorn, the main ingredient in this product, so the panel gives limited guidance as a group. One of them recommends hawthorn berry extract as a natural remedy for angina, irregular heartbeat, and various circulatory and respiratory problems, and suggests keeping it on hand, especially when traveling. The other uses hawthorn berries in a smoothie, which points to a whole berry form rather than an extract. Neither gave a dose, neither named anything to pair it with beyond the smoothie ingredients, and nobody voiced a caution or said they stopped taking it.

The studies are mixed rather than showing hawthorn does not work: one trial found no change in oxidative stress, another found no telomere change but better skin hydration, and a lab test found less DNA damage, so the evidence is thin and disagrees, which fits tier 4, not tier 5. So it is graded Tier 4, as the studies disagree.