Are Seed Oils Bad for You? New Research Reveals the Truth

 For a while now, claims have been floating around the internet highlighting the ‘health risks’ of seed oils. Such oils include kitchen mainstays like rapeseed oil and sunflower oil (most vegetable oils are seed oils), which are generally rich in omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids.

Although omega-6 fatty acids are essential for the body, some critics have argued that elevated levels can lead to inflammation, which, in turn, can increase your risk of certain diseases, including heart disease, obesity, and cancer.

Why Do Some People Think Seed Oils Cause Inflammation?

The argument that seed oils can cause inflammation comes from the way they are metabolised in the body. Omega-6 fatty acids – particularly linoleic acid (found in seed oils) – are converted into arachidonic acid by our body. When the body needs to respond to an event, for example, an injury or infection, arachidonic acid is converted into a type of signalling molecule (a tiny chemical messenger), which may promote inflammation to help deal with the injury/infection.

It’s a normal immune response, but it could potentially be harmful if chronically elevated over time. Some researchers have argued that the issue lies in the ratio of omega-6s to omega-3s (which tend to produce anti-inflammatory compounds). In other words, if somebody is consuming too much omega-6 compared to omega-3 through their diet.

However, new research presented at the American Society for Nutrition’s recent annual meeting has challenged this school of thought entirely, suggesting that omega-6 fatty acids found in seed oils may reduce inflammation and support cardiometabolic health.

What Did the Study Find?

Based on a study of almost 1,900 people, the researchers found that higher levels of linoleic acid in blood plasma were associated with lower levels of biomarkers of cardiometabolic risk, including those related to inflammation.

While several observational studies have already shown higher intake of linoleic acid to be associated with lower risks for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular events (like heart attacks and strokes), this new study employed more robust methods. Researchers used objective biomarkers rather than diet records or food frequency questionnaires to assess linoleic acid intake, making the results more reliable.

The researchers found that those with higher linoleic acid showed lower levels of glucose and insulin, as well as something called HOMA-IR, which is a biomarker of insulin resistance. They also had lower levels of inflammation biomarkers, including C-reactive protein, glycoprotein acetyls, and serum amyloid A.

In layman’s terms, ‘their blood tended to have a healthier overall risk profile for heart disease and diabetes,’ the researchers explain.

Butter or Oil – Which is Best?

These findings are supported by another recent large-scale study of 221,054 adults, which compared the effects of butter with plant-based oils. The study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that higher butter intake was associated with increased total and cancer mortality. Conversely, higher intake of plant-based oils was associated with lower total, cancer, and cardiovascular disease mortality.

Those who ate the most butter had a 15% higher risk of dying during the study’s follow-up than those who had the least butter, while those who consumed the most plant oils had a 16% lower risk of dying during the study’s follow-up than those who consumed the least.

Based on further calculations, the researchers conclude that swapping 10g of butter per day with an equivalent amount of plant-based oils is linked to an estimated 17% reduction in total mortality and 17% reduction in cancer mortality.

The Bottom line

This isn’t to say you need to go on a butter rampage and rid your fridge of all the evidence. Certainly not when a tub of the good stuff is so pricey these days. No – it’s simply about moderation. It’s probably not a good idea to slather everything in oil either.

We know we say it all the time, but as long as you’re consuming something as part of a balanced diet, there’s likely very little risk involved. Perhaps if you have a lot of butter, it might be worth cutting down and using plant-based oils for cooking instead. However, as long as you are consuming butter and oil in moderation, you should be alright.

It’s more about challenging the messaging that something is inherently unhealthy. There’s almost always nuance involved.

Next time you see somebody slating seed oils, you’ll have the information and evidence to take their claims with more than a pinch of salt.

Your birth order could be affecting your health, according to a new study

Birth order has always been one of those things people argue about in families.

There’s the responsible eldest, the overlooked middle child, the carefree youngest… you get the picture. However, a huge new study suggests there may be something more going on, with researchers finding links between birth order and the risk of a wide range of health conditions, including autism, allergies, migraines, and gut problems.

That doesn’t mean your place in the family decides your future. What it does mean is that researchers are starting to spot patterns that could help explain how early life experiences shape health in ways we didn’t fully understand before.

This is one of the largest birth-order studies ever carried out.

The research looked at data from more than 10 million siblings, making it far bigger than most previous studies on the topic. Instead of focusing on one condition at a time, it examined a wide range of health outcomes across the population.

That scale matters because it gives the findings more weight. Earlier research often relied on smaller groups or focused on narrow questions, which made it easier for bold claims to get ahead of the evidence and see the bigger picture.

Firstborn children showed higher risk for some conditions.

One of the clearest patterns was that firstborn children appeared to have a higher risk of certain neurodevelopmental and immune-related conditions. That includes things like autism and some allergic conditions.

It’s important to keep this in context, of course. This doesn’t mean most firstborn children will develop these conditions. It simply means that across a very large group, the risk was slightly higher compared to their younger siblings.

Later-born siblings had different risks, not fewer.

The study didn’t find that younger siblings were simply better off overall. Instead, they tended to show higher risk in different areas, including issues linked to gut health and substance use later in life. That suggests this isn’t a simple ranking system where one birth position is “better” than another. It’s more about different patterns of risk that change depending on where someone falls in the family.

The autism link has been seen before, but this adds weight to it.

Previous research has already suggested that firstborn children may have a slightly higher risk of autism compared to later-born siblings. What this new study does is show that the same pattern appears even when looking at a much larger population. That doesn’t explain why it happens, but it does suggest there’s something consistent enough for researchers to keep investigating rather than dismissing it as coincidence.

The findings go beyond one or two conditions.

What makes this study stand out is how wide-ranging the results are. It’s not just about autism or one specific illness. The patterns showed up across multiple types of health conditions, including things like migraines and digestive issues, which makes the findings feel broader and more complex than the usual birth-order theories people are used to hearing.

There are likely multiple reasons behind these patterns.

Researchers don’t think there’s one simple explanation. Instead, it’s likely a mix of biological and environmental factors that change slightly with each child. This could be everything from differences between pregnancies to changes in the mother’s body over time, or even how family life evolves once there’s already a child in the home.

Family dynamics may also play a role.

Beyond biology, there are everyday differences in how children are raised depending on when they arrive. Firstborn children often get more one-to-one attention early on, while later-born children grow up in a busier environment. The changes in attention, routine, and even exposure to things like infections could all contribute in small ways that add up over time.

This doesn’t mean parents are doing anything wrong.

It’s easy for research like this to feel personal, but it’s not about blaming families or suggesting anyone has made a mistake. These are patterns seen across millions of people, not individual stories. Health outcomes are shaped by a wide mix of factors, including genetics, environment, and chance. Birth order may be one piece of that puzzle, but it’s far from the whole picture.

The research still needs to be reviewed further.

Another important point is that the study has been released as a preprint, which means it hasn’t yet gone through full peer review. That doesn’t make it unreliable, but it does mean the findings could still be refined. As with any large study, other researchers will look closely at the methods and conclusions before anything is considered settled.

This isn’t proof of the old birth-order stereotypes.

It’s tempting to connect this kind of research to familiar ideas about personality, like eldest children being more responsible or youngest siblings being more relaxed. However, this study isn’t about personality traits. It’s about patterns in health risk across large groups, which is a much more specific and less dramatic finding.

The bigger picture is about early life influences.

What this research really highlights is how much early life can shape long-term health. A child doesn’t grow up in isolation, they grow up within a family that changes over time. Each new child arrives into a slightly different environment, and those small differences may leave a subtle mark that shows up later in life.

NHS advice to anyone taking common allergy antihistamine medication

 Certain people are advised to speak with a GP before taking a common antihistamine. The medication is used to relieve symptoms of insect bites, eczema, conjunctivitis and chickenpox, as well as allergies like hay fever, and is available on prescription and in pharmacies.

Although you might not be familiar with chlorphenamine, you've probably heard of Piriton, Allerief or Pollenase, which all contain it as a main active ingredient. Most adults and children aged over one year old can take chlorphenamine, but there are 12 main groups who should always take caution.

According to the NHS, this includes anyone with the following symptoms, who should always speak with a doctor or pharmacist first:

Anyone who's had an allergic reaction to chlorphenamine or any other medicine

Anyone with an eye problem called primary angle closure glaucoma

Anyone who has taken a type of antidepressant called monoamine oxidase inhibitors in the last 14 days

• Anyone with problems peeing or emptying their bladder
• Anyone with epilepsy or another health problem that can cause fits or seizures
• Anyone who has breathing difficulties such as asthma or a lung condition
• Anyone who has heart disease or very high blood pressure
• Anyone with an enlarged prostate
• Anyone who has liver or kidney problems
• Anyone due to have an allergy test, as taking chlorphenamine may affect the results, so you might need to stop taking it a few days before the test – ask a pharmacist or your doctor for advice
• Anyone who is unable to have any alcohol – some liquid chlorphenamine products contain a very small amount of alcohol, so check the ingredients and the packaging carefully
• Anyone who is a frail, older adult – they may have more side effects, such as confusion

The health service also adds: "If you or your child has been prescribed chlorphenamine, follow your doctor's instructions about how and when to take it.

"If you've bought chlorphenamine or any medicine containing chlorphenamine from a pharmacy, follow the instructions that come with the packet, or ask your pharmacist for advice. If you or your child's symptoms do not get better within a few days, talk to a doctor."

People taking chlorphenamine should also be mindful when combining it with other medications to avoid side effects. Check with a doctor or pharmacist if you're already taking medications such as:

• A type of antidepressant called a monoamine oxidase inhibitor, such as phenelzine
• Phenytoin (an anti-epilepsy medicine)
• Any medicines for anxiety or to help you sleep
• Any medicine that makes you drowsy, gives you a dry mouth, or makes it difficult for you to pee – taking chlorphenamine might make these side effects worse

Children under six years old should also not take cough or cold medicines containing chlorphenamine alongside other ingredients. However, NHS guidance warns: "These are not all the medicines that may cause problems if you take them with chlorphenamine. For a full list, see the leaflet inside your medicine packet."

It adds: "It's safe to take chlorphenamine with painkillers like paracetamol or ibuprofen that you buy from a pharmacy or shop. But if you take chlorphenamine with painkillers that contain codeine (such as co-codamol) or other prescription painkillers, you're more likely to have side effects."

Chlorphenamine generally starts working within 30 minutes to an hour, and users should wait at least four hours before taking another dose. Typical side effects include nausea, dizziness, headaches, sleepiness, blurred vision and difficulty concentrating.

Anyone experiencing dizziness, sleepiness, or blurred vision should avoid riding a bike or driving a car until their symptoms resolve. Alcohol should also be avoided when taking chlorphenamine.

Children are getting taller... because they’re fat

Children are growing taller, but only because they are becoming fatter, research shows.

A study by the University of Oxford shows that 11-year-old girls are almost an inch taller than those just over a decade ago, while boys of the same age are half an inch taller.

Researchers said the trend was being fuelled by childhood obesity, with much of their growth spurt taking place during the pandemic.

Being overweight or obese causes hormonal changes, which accelerate children’s development. Obese children grow faster, so they tend to be taller than their peers who are at a healthy weight.

However, they also have a greater risk of conditions such as heart disease and diabetes later in life.

Children were taller in poorer areas

The research showed the sharpest increases in height were in the most deprived areas, while rates of obesity rose. When the figures were standardised, the growth of girls in poor areas increased twice as much as those in wealthy parts.

Andrew Moscrop, a researcher from Oxford’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, said: “It might look like a simple good news story, as on average children in Britain are getting taller.

“But in fact, it’s a complex bad news story, because this trend is mostly due to height changes among poorer children, and these are being driven by increases in obesity prevalence, which are themselves driven by unfair determinants of health.

“Children in poorer areas are exposed to more unhealthy food outlets and fewer healthy food sources, while they have less access to outdoor spaces and safe streets for exercise.”

Overall, the average height of 11-year-old girls went from 145.75cm (just under 4ft 8in) in 2008-9 to 148cm by 2020-21.

Meanwhile, boys saw a rise from 145cm to 146.5cm over the same period.

‘Remarkable’ growth during the pandemic

The figures show a “remarkable” rise in the average height of children during the pandemic.

Researchers said the jump reflected a rise in obesity prevalence, as children ate less healthily and took less exercise during lockdown.

Among 11-year-old girls in England, average height jumped from 146.6cm to 148cm between school years 2019-20 and 2020-21, while prevalence of overweight and obesity among this age group increased in the same period from 35.2 to 40.9 per cent.

The increase in average heights from 2019-20 to 2020-21 was 1.3 cm in boys and 0.7 cm in girls, compared with rises of 0.7cm seen between 2009 and 2019, researchers found.

For five-year-olds, average height increased between 2019-20 and 2020-21 by 0.5 cm in boys and 0.4 cm in girls, more than the 0.2cm rise seen from 2009 to 2019.

However, researchers also highlighted some poor record-keeping during the pandemic, which might explain the patterns, some of which levelled out.

Researchers said their interest in children’s heights was prompted by reports in 2023 claiming that children were shrinking during the pandemic, which was found not to be the case.

However, the research suggests heights have now started to fall.

Records for 2022-23 show five-year-old girls and boys were at least half a centimetre shorter than they were in 2021-22, with a similar dip seen among 11-year-old girls.

Child Measurement Programmes routinely measure the height and weight of every child during their first year of state education in Britain.

In England, approximately 600,000 children aged between four and five are measured annually, while fewer are measured in Scotland (50,000 to 55,000) and Wales (30,000 to 35,000).

Children in England are also measured between the ages of 10 and 11, in their final year of primary education.

Hidden body fat could be secretly ageing you, even if you're skinny - but bigger things could help protect...

Slim people may still be at risk of a deadly heart attack—because of hidden fat that accelerates ageing of the heart, a major study has found.

The dangerous fat—known as visceral fat—builds up deep inside the body, wrapping around the liver, stomach and intestines.

Unlike the fat you can see and pinch, it is invisible from the outside, meaning many people who appear slim may still be carrying harmful amounts.

Researchers analysed data from more than 21,000 people and found those with higher levels of visceral fat showed signs their hearts and blood vessels were ageing more quickly. 

Blood tests revealed this type of fat also triggered inflammation throughout the body—a process long linked to premature ageing and disease.

The findings, published in the European Heart Journal, also suggest that body shape may be more important than weight alone when it comes to heart health.

Men who carried fat around the belly in an 'apple-shaped' body type were much more likely to show accelerated heart ageing.

By contrast, 'pear shaped' women genetically predisposed to storing fat around their hips and thighs—known as gluteofemoral fat—appeared to have healthier, younger hearts. 

This lower-body fat may even help guard against heart disease, strokes and type 2 diabetes.

The researchers also found that higher oestrogen levels in premenopausal women were linked to slower heart ageing—suggesting the hormone could play a protective role.

To reach their conclusions, scientists at the Medical Research Council's Laboratory of Medical Sciences in London analysed MRI scans from participants in the UK Biobank.

Whole-body images were used to map the amount and location of fat, while detailed scans of the heart and blood vessels were assessed with artificial intelligence to detect signs of ageing—such as tissue becoming stiff or inflamed.

Each participant was then given a 'heart age', which researchers compared with their actual age.

Lead researcher Professor Declan O'Regan, from Imperial College London, said: 'We have known about the apple and pear distinction in body fat, but it hasn't been clear how it leads to poor health outcomes.

'Our research shows that 'bad' fat, hidden deep around the organs, accelerates ageing of the heart. But some types of fat could protect against ageing—specifically fat around the hips and thighs in women.

'We also showed that BMI wasn't a good way of predicting heart age which underscores the importance of knowing where fat is stored in the body and not just total body weight.

'The goal of our research is to find ways to increase healthy lifespan. While being active is important, we found that hidden fat could still be harmful even in fit people.'

His team now plans to investigate whether new weight-loss jabs such as Ozempic can target the ageing effects of this hidden fat.

The drugs, which mimic the hunger-suppressing hormone GLP-1, have already been shown to cut levels of dangerous visceral fat—and could one day help keep the heart younger for longer.

Professor Bryan Williams OBE, chief scientific and medical officer at the British Heart Foundation added: 'We already know excess visceral fat around the heart and liver can lead to increased blood pressure and high cholesterol, so it is concerning that it could also help to speed up ageing of the heart and blood vessels.

'As the pattern of fat distribution typically seen in women's bodies is linked to oestrogen, that hormone may be key to future therapies developed to tackle heart ageing.

'Eating a healthier diet and becoming more active can help to reduce visceral fat levels.'

Earlier this summer, US researchers developed a free online test that they claim can help you calculate if your heart is aging faster than the rest of your body. 

By utilising data provided by the American Heart Association it can help you better understand how much stress your heart is under.

It asks you to enter your sex, age, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, whether or not you have diabetes, and if you take medication for blood pressure or statins.

It also requires you to input your eGFR (estimated glomerular filtration rate) which is used to measure how well your kidneys are functioning.

The age calculator was tested on more than 14,000 US adults between the ages of 30 and 79 from the year 2011 up until 2020. 

New Epstein twist brings Trump under fire again

Proper distraction

A recent survey indicates that a notable portion of Americans think that the controversy surrounding the Epstein files and President Donald Trump might have played a role in escalating the conflict between the U.S. and Iran.

Trump promised to release the Epstein files while campaigning

Trump promised while on the campaign trail that if he were reelected to the presidency, his new administration would release the federal government's files from its years-long investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his many alleged crimes.

The President never delivered on his promise

The issue helped Trump regain the presidency in 2024. However, after retaking power, Trump failed to deliver on his promise, and Congress stepped in to force the President to release the Epstein files through the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Congress forced Trump’s hand in the scandal

Despite being legally required by Congress to release the federal government’s files on Epstein and his crimes, Trump and his administration bungled the release, and the whole situation has mired Trump in a scandal that threatened to bring down his presidency.

Accusations of creating crises to cause distraction

 
Trump has been accused of creating political crisis after crisis to distract the American people from the Epstein files scandal, including by Representative Thomas Massie, a leading figure in the drive to get the Epstein files released.

Massie’s public attack on Trump

“PSA: bombing a country on the other side of the globe won’t make the Epstein files go away, any more than the Dow going above 50,000 will,” Massie said on X on March 1st.

Polling is starting to reveal a new problem

While accusations similar to Massie’s X attack against President Trump have been growing, some polls are now showing that many Americans believe Trump started the war against Iran as a distraction from the dangerous scandal.

Most say the Epstein scandal is why Trump went to war

On March 17th, The Telegraph reported that recent findings from the left-leaning, new media organization Zeteo found that over half of people in the United States believed that Trump started the war with Iran to distract the country from the Epstein files scandal.

What the polling revealed

Newsweek reported Zeteo surveyed 1,272 likely voters between March 6th and March 8th, and found that 52% of respondents believed Trump was “at least partly motivated to take military action against Iran in order to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.”

Many disagree with the accusation

Another 40% of those polled reported that the Epstein files had no motivation for President Trump’s decision to use military force against Iran, whereas 8% said they were unsure.

Democrats were the biggest backers of the idea

The new media organization reported that Democrats were the most likely to think that Trump was using the Iran war as a distraction from the Epstein files scandal, with 81% of Democrats saying so. However, they were not alone.

Independents and Republicans

A majority of independents (52%), and even 26% of Republicans, believe that Trump is using the war in Iran to distract from the Epstein files. Interestingly, 64% of Republicans said they did not believe the Epstein files were a factor in Trump’s decision.

Similar findings from another poll

However, Zeteo isn’t the only media outlet that has made this shocking discovery about why Trump went to war with Iran. Others have picked up the question, and more information on this critical viewpoint is becoming increasingly available.

What a left-of-center polling firm found

On March 18th, Navigator Research released its latest polling data on what Americans think about the war with Iran. It found that 40% of Americans think Trump “wants to use the conflict to distract away from other issues like the Epstein files.”

Other possible reasons for the war

Another 40% believe Trump started the war to get access to oil or other resources from the region, whereas 38% think President Trump started the conflict because he “actually felt Iran’s nuclear and missile programs posed an imminent threat.”

Few think Trump wanted to help Iranians

Slightly fewer respondents (31%) said Trump started the conflict to liberate the Iranian people from an oppressive regime. A near majority of respondents (46%) said that they think the war had made the world less safe, compared to 28% who said the opposite.

Support for the war isn’t high

The polling firm also noted that 40% of the 1,000 American adults it surveyed between March 12th and March 16th said that they supported the war, while 49% said that they did not support the conflict, and 11% reported they were “not sure”.

Another assessment of the war’s support

On March 18th, the latest findings from YouGov and The Economist showed that just 39% approved of Trump’s handling of Iran, and 52% disapproved. This was far lower than his handling of the Epstein files, which had 24% approval and 59% disapproval, the worst of the eight major issues the polling surveyed.

Supplements for menopause: here’s what the evidence actually says

Social media is saturated with menopause solutions: powders for brain fog, gummies for sleep or capsules promising hormonal balance. Supplements such as magnesium, lion’s mane, creatine and collagen are being marketed as must-haves for perimenopause and menopause. But how much of this is actually grounded in science?

During perimenopause and menopause, fluctuating and declining oestrogen levels can trigger symptoms such as hot flushes, night sweats, sleep disruption, anxiety, brain fog, joint pain and changes in muscle mass and body composition.

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) remains the most effective treatment for many symptoms, but not everyone can or wants to use it. This is why alternative remedies attract so much attention.

Magnesium

Magnesium plays a role in more than 300 metabolic processes, including muscle relaxation, nerve signalling and blood pressure regulation. Several menopause-related symptoms overlap with areas where magnesium has effects.

For instance, many menopausal women experience sleep problems. Clinical trials in adults, including older women, show magnesium can improve how fast you fall asleep and reduce insomnia severity.

Anxiety can also be an issue for menopausal women. Meta analyses show magnesium supplements can modestly reduce anxiety symptoms – particularly in people with low magnesium levels. However, this research wasn’t specifically done in menopausal women.

Menopause also places women at higher risk of osteoporosis (weakened bones). As oestrogen levels fall during menopause, certain bone cells become more active, causing bone to be lost faster than it’s rebuilt.

But magnesium contributes to bone density by encouraging the formation of new bone. Given some older women may have low magnesium levels and low bone density, this supplement may help address this menopause-related issue.

However, magnesium has not shown benefit for hot flushes, weight changes or cognitive symptoms.

The type of magnesium you take matters. Magnesium citrate and glycinate tend to be better absorbed by the body, while magnesium oxide is absorbed less efficiently.

It’s also important to note high doses can cause diarrhoea and may affect the heart and nervous system. People with kidney disease should avoid supplementation unless medically supervised.
Lion’s mane mushrooms

Lion’s mane mushroom is promoted to help with brain fog, a common complaint for women going through the menopause.

Animal studies suggest lion’s mane extract may stimulate new brain cell growth and support the hippocampus – the brain structure involved in memory and emotional regulation.

A different animal study also showed the supplement reduced depressive-like behaviour in menopausal rats.

But the small human trials that have been done show mixed results – with only some reporting mood improvements. Importantly, none of these studies involved menopausal women.

If you’re still keen to try the supplement, it’s usually well tolerated – though those with mushroom allergies should avoid it.

Creatine

Although researchers have studied creatine for decades, most of that work has focused on men. But emerging research suggests it has many benefits for women in perimenopause and menopause.

A 14-week study found creatine supplementation significantly increased lower body strength and improved sleep quality in perimenopausal women. These improvements in muscle strength are notable, given the increased risk of sarcopenia (loss of muscle mass and function) during menopause.

However, evidence in post-menopausal women is mixed. One review found creatine may offer minor short-term benefits in post-menopausal women, but sustained supplementation didn’t produce significant muscle or bone health improvements.

Creatine may also support the brain. Growing evidence suggests it may support memory, focus and mood – particularly during periods of hormonal fluctuation or mental fatigue. However, more research is needed specifically in menopausal women.

Perimenopausal women have about a 40% higher risk of developing depressive symptoms or receiving a depression diagnosis than premenopausal women (premenopause is the period before any menopausal changes; perimenopause is the transition phase leading to menopause, when symptoms begin to appear). Some limited data suggests that taking creatine alongside an antidepressant can accelerate symptom improvement in women.

Creatine is generally safe, though those with kidney disease should seek medical advice before taking it.

Collagen

Collagen supplements are widely marketed for skin elasticity, joint health and healthy ageing.

Collagen is the body’s most abundant protein, giving structure to bones, cartilage, tendons, ligaments, muscles and skin. As we age, collagen-producing cells become less active. This contributes to visible skin ageing and weaker bones that are more prone to fracture.

A year-long trial in postmenopausal women found daily collagen supplementation led to small but significant increases in bone mineral density compared with a placebo. This suggests collagen supplements may help counter age-related bone loss in postmenopausal women.

Research also indicates collagen supplements may ease joint discomfort and stiffness, particularly in people with osteoarthritis. This could be relevant for menopausal women as many experience the onset or worsening of joint issues during this time. However, more robust research in needed in menopausal women.

It’s important to note that collagen supplements differ widely due to how they’re produced and the source they come from. This makes the evidence hard to interpret.

This means different products can behave very differently in the body. Grouping them together can therefore obscure important differences in how they work. For instance, hydrolysed collagen is absorbed far more easily than the collagen molecules found in food. This means collagen is more likely to reach tissues where they may support skin, joint and muscle health.

Side effects tend to be minimal, although people with liver or kidney conditions should consult a doctor or pharmacist first.

Final verdict

So, are supplements worth it? Based on the current evidence out there, magnesium and creatine seem to be the most beneficial. However, it’s clear more research is needed. Supplements can also be expensive – and their quality can vary widely.

While supplements can feel empowering, until stronger evidence emerges proving their benefits, a healthy lifestyle remains the best, evidence-based way to navigate perimenopause and menopause.

Regular exercise (especially strength training), good sleep habits, balanced nutrition, limiting alcohol and managing stress all support menopausal wellbeing. These approaches also improve long-term health outcomes, including heart and bone health.