Oxaloacetate dosage and evidence
Written by Aaron CuhaReviewed Sep 2026
The short answer
Fed to mice from 4 months of age, it did not change how long they lived, in either sex. The human record is two small studies. One had 82 people with chronic fatigue syndrome. One had 30 people with Alzheimer's disease. Neither measured anything about ageing.
Evidence grade for Oxaloacetate: Moderate. The rule: at least one finished study in people, and at least 100 people who took it. The sum on this page: 2 completed trials, 112 people given it. A grade counts how much has been done to people, not whether it works.
- People given it
- 112
- Human studies
- 2
- Found nothing
- 1
Dose
No human dose established
Amounts that were given in studies sit in Human evidence on this page. None of them is a personal dose.
2 completed trials, 112 people given it
4 effects reported, 2 unwanted, 2 wanted, by people using it, not a trial
Goal pages: Fat loss and metabolism, Brain, memory and mood, Ageing and longevity, Sleep
In plain English
In plain English, from Aaron
This is how I would explain it to a friend. The evidence, with the numbers, is further down the page.
Oxaloacetate is a small molecule your cells use to turn food into energy. It is sold as a supplement for ageing and brain energy. The idea came from worm studies.
What people take it for
- Living longer.
- Copying the effects of eating less.
- Brain energy.
- Chronic fatigue.
What studies in people showed
Only about 112 people have taken it in published studies. In 82 people with chronic fatigue syndrome, fatigue fell more than 25 percent over three months. It fell about 10 percent in the comparison group. People rated their own fatigue, and nobody else has repeated it. In 30 people with Alzheimer's disease, it raised brain sugar use on scans, but thinking did not improve. Now the animals. It made worms live longer. A US program fed it to mice, and they did not live longer.
What people report
Reports, not study results
The good
- People with chronic fatigue felt less tired in one study. About 40.5 percent had a big drop in fatigue.
- It was well tolerated at the doses tested.
The bad
- It has only been tested in about 112 people, for three months at most.
- Thinking did not improve in the Alzheimer's study.
- We have not collected user reports on this one yet.
Where these come from: The studies on this page. We have no forum reports on this one.
My bottom line
Interesting for fatigue, unproven for anything else. The live-longer claim failed in mice. I would not spend money on it for ageing.
An opinion, not a finding. I am a coach, not a doctor.
What it has been measured to do
Measured in people
Goals Oxaloacetate has been tested for in people, biggest studies first. We count only what the studies on this page say, so the real numbers may be higher.
- Energy and fatigue82 people · 1 study
- Blood sugar and insulin30 people · 1 study · 1 found nothing
- Memory and thinking30 people · 1 study · 1 found nothing
Animal and lab work, not yet tested in people
Real results, but from animals or cells, not people. What works in a mouse often does not work the same way in a person. Nobody can patent this, so nobody would ever earn back the cost of a study in people. That is usually why there is none. The record on this one is set out below.
- Living longer1 animal or lab study
32 of the 36 indexed goals have no study of any kind behind Oxaloacetate
No study in people, animals or cells on this page reports a result for these. That does not prove Oxaloacetate does nothing for them. It does mean anything you have heard about Oxaloacetate and one of these did not come from a study cited here.
Show full evidence
What is Oxaloacetate?
Fed to mice from 4 months of age, it did not change how long they lived, in either sex. The human record is two small studies. One had 82 people with chronic fatigue syndrome. One had 30 people with Alzheimer's disease. Neither measured anything about ageing.
Oxaloacetate is a small molecule your cells use in the process that turns food into energy. It is sold in a dried, stabilised form, because the plain form breaks down fast. The longevity interest came from worms. Giving it to tiny worms made them live longer, apparently through two known ageing switches, AMPK and FOXO. There was also an idea that it shifts a key energy balance inside cells, NAD to NADH, in a way that copies some effects of eating less.
The Interventions Testing Program tested it in the same run as resveratrol, green tea extract, curcumin and MCT oil. Treatment started at 4 months of age. None of the five changed lifespan in either sex. A side analysis hinted that green tea extract might cut midlife deaths in females only.
The human record is thin, and none of it is about ageing. In a three-month study, 82 people with ME or chronic fatigue syndrome got 2,000 mg a day or were in a comparison group. Fatigue fell by more than 25 percent from where they started, against about 10 percent in the comparison group. In a one-month study to find the dose, 30 people with Alzheimer's disease took up to 1,000 mg twice a day. It was safe. At the higher dose, brain scans showed the brain took up more sugar, and an antioxidant called glutathione rose. But memory and thinking scores did not improve, and blood levels did not track the dose.
That is the whole human evidence base. About 112 people, none studied for longer than three months, none measured on anything to do with ageing.
How does Oxaloacetate work?
Inside your cells, oxaloacetate joins with a fuel molecule to start the cycle that turns food into energy. The idea is that extra oxaloacetate shifts the balance between NAD and NADH, two forms of a key energy helper. That is where it is said to overlap with eating less and with NAD boosters. In worms, it seemed to work through AMPK, an energy sensor, and a FOXO gene, which are known ageing switches. In the Alzheimer's study, the brain took up more sugar, which fits an energy effect. But blood levels did not track the dose in any clear way, so nobody knows how the body handles it.
What have studies in people found about Oxaloacetate?
Two small, short studies with about 112 people in total. One was in chronic fatigue syndrome and one in Alzheimer's disease. Neither measured anything about ageing, and neither ran longer than three months.
- Chronic fatigue syndrome, 82 people, three months: fatigue fell more than 25 percent from where people started, against about 10 percent in the comparison group. That gap was unlikely to be chance.
- Alzheimer's disease, 30 people, one month: 1,000 mg twice a day was safe and raised how much sugar the brain took up on scans. Thinking scores did not improve.
- That Alzheimer's study found blood levels did not change in step with the dose, so nobody knows how much reaches the body.
- No human study has looked at lifespan, healthy ageing, deaths or any disease of ageing.
What this does not tell you: In the fatigue study, people rated their own fatigue. In this illness that is the only practical measure, and many people feel better on a dummy pill too. It is also the only study of its size for this compound. The Alzheimer's study was built to check safety, and to see whether the compound reaches the brain and does something there. It was not built to show a benefit. Neither study supports a live-longer claim, and neither was built to.
The state of the research
When this program finds no lifespan effect, that is a real, costly, careful result. It is also narrower than it sounds. It tested one amount in the food, started at one age, in one kind of mouse, and it counted deaths. A no-effect result tells you that this dose, in these mice, did not change how long they lived. It does not tell you the compound does nothing. It does not tell you a different dose would fail, that the idea behind it is wrong, or that the reason people actually take it has been disproved. Those are separate questions, and most were never asked. This site tries to avoid mistakes in both directions. A mouse lifespan win is not proof a supplement works. A mouse lifespan miss is not proof it does nothing.
Oxaloacetate is where that point has to be applied carefully the other way. The mouse result is a clean miss, and it would be easy to write the compound off. But almost nothing about oxaloacetate has been settled either way. About 112 people have taken it in a published study, for three months at most, on measures that have nothing to do with ageing.
The honest position is this. The exact claim tested, that oxaloacetate in the food from 4 months of age makes mice live longer, failed. The claim most buyers respond to is usually about copying the effects of eating less, or about brain energy. That has never been properly tested in people. A small fatigue study and a one-month brain scan study are a start, not an answer.
The worm result that sparked the interest also needs perspective. A huge number of compounds make tiny worms live longer, and most of them do nothing in mice. The mouse program is what happens when one of them gets checked.
The Interventions Testing Program is paid for by the US National Institute on Aging. It runs each test at three separate labs at the same time, in Bar Harbor, Ann Arbor and San Antonio. It uses a mixed breed of mice, a cross of four strains, so no result can come from one odd strain. It tests males and females. Each group is big enough to spot about a 10 percent change in lifespan. Each compound is mixed into the food from a set age. And the program promises in advance to publish results that show nothing, alongside the ones that work. That promise is why this page can exist. Almost nothing else in ageing research reliably tells you what did not work.
The evidence, in charts
Fig. 1a · how many people
112people, across 2 studies in people cited here
| Study | People | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Frontiers in Neurology 2024 | 82 | 73% |
| Alzheimer's and Dementia 2021 | 30 | 27% |
One study holds 73% of these people, so the total rests more on one study than its size suggests. Counts are the number of people each study on this page says it signed up. That includes studies that only watched people and gave nobody the compound. Studies still signing people up are left out, and only studies cited on this page are counted.
Fig. 1b · evidence mix
2 of 3 sources here are studies in people. The rest is not.
- Study in people · done in people267%
- Animal study · done in animals133%
Counted from the list of sources on this page. It counts only what we cite, so there may be more studies out there. A review counts once, however many studies it sums up.
Fig. 2 · evidence over time
The studies cover 3 different years, 2013 to 2024, counted from the list of sources on this page.
Fig. 3 · legal status at a glance
US
Not approved
UK
Not approved
AU
Not approved
CA
Not approved
Not approved in any of the four countries shown. This is what the law says, not a verdict on the science. See Legal status below for the full text and any notes.
Fig. 4 · how much does what
Nobody has tested different amounts in people
This chart would show how the effect changes as the amount goes up. For this compound, nobody has measured that in people. So we leave it empty. We will not borrow an animal chart and pretend it works the same in people.
Fig. 5 · what the molecule is
- Kind of compound
- Supplement
- Molecule weight
- 132.1 Da. A four-carbon dicarboxylic acid.
- Half-life
- Stated in words, not a numbersee the exact wording below
- Chain length
- None on file
Half-life as stated on file: Very short and poorly characterised. Free oxaloacetate is chemically unstable, which is why supplements use a stabilised anhydrous form, and the Alzheimer's study did not find consistent blood level changes with dose.
No amino acid sequence is on file for Oxaloacetate, which is expected: a supplement is not built from amino acids.
The studies we cite
- Study in people2024RESTORE ME: a RCT of oxaloacetate for improving fatigue in patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome
Oxaloacetate cut fatigue more than the comparison group in people with ME and chronic fatigue syndrome. 82 people took 2,000 mg a day for three months, assigned by chance, and nobody involved knew who got what. Fatigue fell by more than a quarter in the treated group against roughly a tenth in the controls. About 40.5 percent were strong responders, averaging a 63 percent drop. It was well tolerated at that dose. Fatigue here is what people reported about themselves, and no other team has repeated this result.
82 participants, three months, randomised and double-blinded, 2,000 mg oxaloacetate daily against control. Fatigue fell by more than 25 percent from baseline in the treated group against roughly 10 percent in controls, with the between-group comparison significant at p equals 0.0039. About 40.5 percent of the treated group were classified as enhanced responders with an average 63 percent fatigue reduction. The compound was well tolerated at the dose tested.
- Study in people2021Safety and target engagement profile of two oxaloacetate doses in Alzheimer's patients
It was safe and it reached the brain, but thinking did not get better. 30 people with Alzheimer's disease, 15 in each group, took 500 or 1,000 mg twice a day for one month. Both doses were tolerated. The higher dose raised how much sugar the brain took up in several regions and lifted an antioxidant in two of them. Blood levels moved inconsistently. Cognitive scores did not improve. One month in 30 people tests safety and biology, not whether anyone benefits.
30 participants with Alzheimer's disease, 15 per group, given 500 or 1,000 mg twice daily for one month. Both doses were safe and tolerated. The higher dose increased FDG PET glucose uptake across multiple brain regions and raised parietal and frontoparietal glutathione. Blood level changes were not consistent, and cognitive scores did not improve.
- Animal study2013Evaluation of resveratrol, green tea extract, curcumin, oxaloacetic acid, and medium-chain triglyceride oil on life span of genetically heterogeneous mice
In mice. Five supplements were mixed into the food from 4 months of age, at three labs: resveratrol, green tea extract, curcumin, oxaloacetic acid and MCT oil. None of them changed how long male or female mice lived. A side analysis hinted that green tea extract might lower midlife deaths in females only.
Interventions Testing Program, three test sites, treatment beginning at 4 months of age. None of the five agents, oxaloacetic acid included, had a statistically significant effect on lifespan of male or female mice by log-rank test at the concentrations tested. A secondary analysis suggested green tea extract might diminish the risk of midlife deaths in females only.
Common questions
Has Oxaloacetate been tested in people?
Yes. 112 people given it across 2 completed trials cited here, 1 of which found nothing. Fed to mice from 4 months of age, it did not change how long they lived, in either sex. The human record is two small studies. One had 82 people with chronic fatigue syndrome. One had 30 people with Alzheimer's disease. Neither measured anything about ageing.
What is the Oxaloacetate dosage?
No human dose established. Amounts that were given in studies sit in Human evidence on this page. None of them is a personal dose. 2 completed trials, 112 people given it
Is Oxaloacetate FDA-approved?
Sold as a dietary supplement. Not an approved drug and not approved to prevent or treat anything.
Does oxaloacetate extend lifespan?
In mice fed it from 4 months of age, no. The National Institute on Aging found no real effect in either sex. The lifespan result that sparked interest was in a tiny worm. Worm lifespan results only rarely carry over to mice.
Does it help chronic fatigue?
One three-month study in 82 people with ME or chronic fatigue syndrome found fatigue fell more than 25 percent from where people started on 2,000 mg a day, against about 10 percent in the comparison group. That is one study, where people rated their own fatigue, in an illness where many people feel better on a dummy pill. It is a reason for a bigger study, not a settled result.
Does it reach the brain?
A one-month study in 30 people with Alzheimer's disease found 1,000 mg twice a day raised how much sugar the brain took up on scans. It also raised an antioxidant, glutathione, in part of the brain. That is what it means to say it reached its target. Thinking scores did not improve, and the study was not built or big enough to show that they would.
Is it a calorie restriction mimetic?
That is the idea. It is based on shifting the balance of NAD and NADH inside cells and switching on the energy sensor AMPK. It has never been tested against any result of eating less in people, and the one mouse lifespan test found nothing.