CoQ10 and calcium AKG: two different longevity conversations

Walk down a longevity shelf and you'll often find a bottle of CoQ10 sitting next to a tub of calcium AKG, as if they were two flavours of the same idea. They aren't. One is a molecule that cardiologists have been testing in trials for decades; the other made headlines after a 2020 mouse study and has barely been tested in people at all.

So this page keeps them apart. CoQ10 first, with its own identity, evidence and cautions. Then calcium alpha-ketoglutarate (calcium AKG), with its own. The short version: CoQ10 has a real, if mixed, human evidence base in heart failure and muscle symptoms on statins, and almost none of it is about "anti-ageing" in the sense the shelf label implies. Calcium AKG has appealing animal results, one small uncontrolled human report, and placebo-controlled trials whose results had not been published as of 8 October 2026.

At a glance: two different evidence bases

• : What it is; CoQ10 (ubiquinone / ubiquinol): A fat-soluble molecule your cells make themselves, used in energy production; Calcium AKG: A salt of alpha-ketoglutarate, a molecule your cells make as part of the Krebs cycle
• : Strongest human data; CoQ10 (ubiquinone / ubiquinol): Randomised trials in heart failure; several small trials in statin muscle symptoms; Calcium AKG: One uncontrolled before-and-after report in 42 people
• : Longevity-type evidence; CoQ10 (ubiquinone / ubiquinol): A Swedish trial in older adults using CoQ10 plus selenium together; Calcium AKG: Mouse and worm studies, with one large multi-site mouse test finding no lifespan effect
• : Main caution; CoQ10 (ubiquinone / ubiquinol): Interactions (blood-thinner warfarin is the best-known), trial results that don't agree; Calcium AKG: No published placebo-controlled human results yet, and no long-term human safety dataset
• : What we can say about "longevity"; CoQ10 (ubiquinone / ubiquinol): Supplementing hasn't been shown to slow ageing; Calcium AKG: Unknown in humans

---

Part one: CoQ10, the molecule you already make

What CoQ10 is, and why there are two names on the label

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) is made in every cell of your body. It's an essential part of the mitochondrial electron transport chain, the machinery that makes cellular energy, and it also works as an antioxidant in cell membranes and lipoproteins (Hernández-Camacho et al., 2018, Frontiers in Physiology).

It exists in two forms that your body swaps between. Ubiquinone is the oxidised form and ubiquinol is the reduced form. Food contains both: a review of CoQ10 in foods found that meat, fish, nuts and some oils are the richest sources, and that average dietary intake is only about 3 to 6 mg a day, around half of it in the reduced form (Pravst et al., 2010, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition). Supplements are a different scale entirely, which is part of why trial doses and food intakes can't be compared directly.

Where the "longevity" interest comes from: tissue CoQ10 levels are reported to be lower in ageing and in some chronic diseases, which led to the hypothesis that topping up might help (Hernández-Camacho et al., 2018). That's a hypothesis, and the trials below are how it has been tested.

Ubiquinone or ubiquinol?

Ubiquinol products are usually pitched as the better-absorbed option, and there's some support for that in blood levels. In a small crossover study of 12 healthy volunteers, 200 mg a day for four weeks raised plasma CoQ10 from 0.9 to 2.5 µg/mL on ubiquinone and from 0.9 to 4.3 µg/mL on ubiquinol, using identical soft-gel capsules (Langsjoen and Langsjoen, 2014, Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development).

Higher blood levels are not the same as better outcomes, though. A 2023 review of 28 clinical trials noted that the long-term heart-failure results discussed below came from ubiquinone studies, not ubiquinol ones (Fladerer and Grollitsch, 2023, Current Cardiology Reports). No head-to-head trial in the sources behind this page shows one form is better for any health outcome, so the choice is mostly about what the study you care about actually used, plus price and format.

Heart failure: the best-known CoQ10 trial

Q-SYMBIO is the trial everyone cites. It randomised 420 people with moderate to severe chronic heart failure to CoQ10 100 mg three times daily or placebo, on top of standard treatment, for two years. The short-term (16-week) measures, which included symptom class, a six-minute walk and a blood marker, showed no significant change. The long-term primary outcome, major adverse cardiovascular events, occurred in 15% of the CoQ10 group versus 26% on placebo (hazard ratio 0.50), with lower cardiovascular and all-cause mortality too (Mortensen et al., 2014, JACC: Heart Failure).

A later analysis of the European participants reported a similar pattern; in that paper the supplement was Pharma Nord ubiquinone and the funding was a grant from the International Coenzyme Q10 Association, a non-profit (Mortensen et al., 2019, Cardiology Journal).

Here's how Cochrane summarised the wider picture in 2021: across 11 trials and 1,573 participants, CoQ10 "probably" reduces all-cause mortality and heart-failure hospitalisation, but the mortality finding rests on a single study (Q-SYMBIO), every included study had unclear or high risk of bias, and the reviewers concluded there is currently no convincing evidence to support or refute its use in heart failure (Al Saadi et al., 2021, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). That is a promising but not settled result, in people with a serious condition who were already on standard care. It says little about healthy people.

Statins and muscle symptoms

Statins lower plasma CoQ10: a 2015 meta-analysis of eight placebo-controlled arms found a significant reduction, though it said the clinical relevance wasn't clear (Banach et al., 2015, Pharmacological Research). The logical next question is whether replacing it eases statin muscle pain. The trials disagree:

• Study: Taylor et al., 2015; What it combined: One trial, 41 people with confirmed statin muscle pain, 600 mg/day ubiquinol for 8 weeks; Finding: No reduction in muscle pain
• Study: Banach et al., 2015; What it combined: 6 trials, 302 patients; Finding: No significant benefit on pain or creatine kinase
• Study: Qu et al., 2018; What it combined: 12 trials, 575 patients; Finding: Improvement in muscle pain, weakness, cramps and tiredness
• Study: Kennedy et al., 2020; What it combined: 7 trials, 321 patients; Finding: No benefit on pain or on staying on the statin
• Study: Kovacic et al., 2025; What it combined: 7 trials, 389 patients, 100 to 600 mg/day for 30 to 90 days; Finding: A small reduction in pain, with a confidence interval that only just excluded zero (-1.88 to -0.03)

Our read: the trials are small and short, they pool different doses, and the reviews reach different conclusions from overlapping data. If you're on a statin and have muscle symptoms, that's one to raise with your doctor before adding a supplement.

Ageing-related trials: KiSel-10

The most "longevity-flavoured" CoQ10 trial is the Swedish KiSel-10 study. It enrolled 443 healthy people aged 70 to 88 in a rural municipality and gave them 200 mg a day of CoQ10 plus 200 µg a day of selenium yeast, or placebo, for about four years. Cardiovascular mortality over a follow-up of roughly five years was 5.9% in the active group and 12.6% on placebo (Alehagen et al., 2013, International Journal of Cardiology). Follow-ups reported hazard ratios of 0.51 at ten years (Alehagen et al., 2015, PLoS ONE) and 0.59 at twelve years (Alehagen et al., 2018, PLoS ONE).

Three things matter before this turns into a headline. First, the participants were low in selenium, and the intervention was CoQ10 and selenium together, so the trial can't tell you what CoQ10 did on its own. Second, it's a single, fairly small study; the authors themselves call the findings hypothesis-generating. Third, the products were Pharma Nord's, and the company supported part of the analysis costs in the ten-year paper (the authors state the funders had no role in design, analysis or the manuscript). It's interesting science, and a long way from showing that CoQ10 slows ageing in a typical reader.

Cautions and interactions

• Warfarin. Case reports raised the possibility that CoQ10 weakens warfarin's effect. In a randomised crossover trial of 24 people on stable long-term warfarin, 100 mg CoQ10 daily for four weeks didn't change INR or the warfarin dose (Engelsen et al., 2003, Ugeskrift for Laeger, the Danish-language report of what appears to be the same trial that was published in English in 2002). That is a small, short trial at a modest dose. Germany's BfR (Federal Institute for Risk Assessment) says interactions with coumarin-type anticoagulants and blood-pressure medicines haven't been sufficiently studied, and advises anyone on anticoagulants to speak to a doctor before taking more than 100 mg a day (BfR FAQ, 2023).
• Tolerability. The BfR notes occasional adverse effects, mainly digestive, at additional intakes up to 300 mg a day. A review reports that the highest dose used in well-designed randomised trials was 1,200 mg a day (Hernández-Camacho et al., 2018). In the Cochrane review the evidence on adverse events was very low quality and inconclusive: the estimate leaned towards fewer events, but the range included more.
• Pregnancy and breastfeeding. The BfR notes that German labelling rules require a warning that pregnant and breastfeeding women, children and adolescents shouldn't consume CoQ10 products. Dutch guidance on this is a separate question, so check with a pharmacist.
• For the general principle of checking supplements against medicines, see our guide to supplement and drug interactions.

CoQ10 in the Netherlands and EU

As of 8 October 2026 no Dutch government guidance specific to CoQ10 supplements turned up. We couldn't confirm the EU novel-food status of CoQ10, so we make no statement about it. Check the Commission's Novel Food Status Catalogue before buying; German and other national positions aren't Dutch rules, and law changes.

---

Part two: calcium AKG, a very different conversation

What AKG is

Alpha-ketoglutarate (AKG, also called 2-oxoglutarate) is an intermediate in the Krebs cycle, the tricarboxylic acid cycle at the heart of cellular energy metabolism. It also sits in amino-acid metabolism, nitrogen transport and cell signalling (Korstanje et al., 2026, GeroScience). A review lists further roles, including collagen biosynthesis and acting as a required ingredient for DNA and histone demethylases, the enzymes involved in epigenetic regulation (Bayliak and Lushchak, 2021, Ageing Research Reviews).

So, like CoQ10, you make it yourself. That your body makes something doesn't tell you what swallowing more of it does. Its blood and tissue levels are reported to change with fasting, exercise and ageing (Asadi Shahmirzadi et al., 2020, Cell Metabolism), and that observation, not a human outcome, is the seed of the longevity idea.

"Calcium AKG" is simply AKG delivered as a calcium salt, which is the form used in the best-known mouse study. Don't confuse it with arginine AKG, an ingredient in some sports "nitric oxide" products, or ornithine AKG, a different compound studied in settings such as pressure ulcers. Their evidence doesn't transfer. One case series linked arginine-AKG supplements to palpitations and other symptoms that needed emergency care (Prosser et al., 2009, Human & Experimental Toxicology); the authors suggested the arginine and nitric-oxide effect as one possible explanation, so it tells you nothing direct about calcium AKG, but it shows why the exact form matters.

Worms, flies and mice

The story starts in 2014, when researchers reported that AKG extended the lifespan of adult C. elegans roundworms, with effects tied to ATP synthase and the TOR pathway (Chin et al., 2014, Nature). A fruit-fly study reported lifespan extension linked to mTOR inhibition and AMPK activation (Su et al., 2019, Aging).

The mouse study that put calcium AKG on shelves came in 2020. Starting at 18 months of age, C57BL/6 mice were fed a diet containing 2% calcium AKG. In two cohorts of about 45 females and 45 males each, median lifespan in females was significantly extended, by 16.6% in the first cohort and 10.5% in the second. Males had median lifespans 9.6% and 12.8% longer, but the survival improvement in males wasn't statistically significant in either cohort. The treated mice also had lower frailty scores (Asadi Shahmirzadi et al., 2020). Several authors were shareholders in Ponce de Leon Health, a company that sells AKG products, and the paper names a patent application; the company was also among the funders. That doesn't invalidate the work, but it's the sort of detail worth knowing.

Then came a larger check. The US National Institute on Aging's Interventions Testing Program tests compounds in genetically varied mice at three separate sites. Its 2026 report tested AKG started at seven months of age (target dose 20,000 ppm in the diet, achieved dose 3,262 ppm). Median lifespan in males was 841 days on AKG versus 813 days in controls (p = 0.429), which wasn't significant; in females, the analysis the authors report using two of the three sites (because of unusually long-lived controls at one site) also showed no significant increase. The paper also notes that an earlier ITP test with AKG started at 18 months had no significant effect in either sex (Korstanje et al., 2026, GeroScience). Different mouse strain, different start age and a different achieved dose mean the two results aren't a clean contradiction, but together they say the lifespan effect isn't robust, even in mice.

What exists in people

This is where the answer is short.

An uncontrolled before-and-after report. In 2021, researchers analysed 42 people (mean age about 63) who were already customers of a product called Rejuvant and had two saliva-based DNA methylation tests. The product is 1,000 mg calcium AKG, plus vitamin A for men or vitamin D for women, taken as two sustained-release tablets daily for 4 to 10 months. Their "biological age" on a proprietary test (TruAge, which looks at 9 methylation sites) fell by an average of 8 years (Demidenko et al., 2021, Aging). There was no control group, the participants were existing customers, the test and the product are commercially linked (one author is a consultant and board member at the company marketing it), and the paper reports no safety data. The authors themselves say placebo-controlled trials are needed. An epigenetic clock is also a statistical estimate from methylation patterns, not a measure of health, function or survival.

A placebo-controlled trial that should settle more. ABLE, run in Singapore, randomised 120 healthy adults aged 40 to 60 with a DNA-methylation age above their chronological age to 1 g of sustained-release calcium AKG or placebo for six months, with three months of follow-up. Its primary outcome is change in methylation age (Sandalova et al., 2023, GeroScience, protocol). A 2025 paper reports that all 120 participants were recruited (Lim et al., 2025, Experimental Gerontology). As of 8 October 2026 no published efficacy results had turned up.

A sponsor-registered trial. The ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT04821401, sponsored by Ponce de Leon Health, lists a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 100 participants, completed in 2022, with C-reactive protein as the primary endpoint and safety and methylation age as other measures. As of 8 October 2026 the registry entry had no results posted (ClinicalTrials.gov), and no peer-reviewed report of it turned up.

So the honest summary is that there are no published human outcome data for calcium AKG on lifespan, disease or function, and the only completed human result described here is uncontrolled and uses a biomarker.

Safety and form

No long-term human safety dataset for calcium AKG supplements turned up. The Rejuvant report doesn't cover safety, and the registered trials have no posted results yet. "It's a natural metabolite" is a reason for curiosity rather than a safety result. Practical things we can say from what's published: the studied human formulation was a sustained-release calcium salt, not plain AKG powder, and the calcium form adds calcium to your intake, which is worth knowing if a clinician has asked you to watch yours. The mouse diet (2% of food) isn't something we can convert to a human dose, and we won't try.

AKG in the Netherlands and EU

As of 8 October 2026 no Dutch government guidance that mentions AKG turned up. We couldn't confirm the EU novel-food status of AKG or calcium AKG, so we make no statement about it. Check the Commission's Novel Food Status Catalogue before buying, and read the product's own label.

---

How to read a label for either one

Both categories reward a few minutes with the label. The list below is what to look for, not a recommendation:

• Which compound exactly? "CoQ10", "ubiquinone" and "ubiquinol" are not interchangeable in price or in what's been tested; "AKG" can mean calcium AKG, arginine AKG, ornithine AKG or the free acid.
• Amount per serving, not per bottle. Trials above used, for example, 100 mg three times daily (Q-SYMBIO), 200 mg (KiSel-10, with selenium) and 1 g sustained-release calcium AKG (ABLE). Those are what the studies gave their participants, in their populations, not instructions.
• Is a claim attached? Phrases such as "reverses biological age" go well beyond the human data in Part two.
• Extras in the capsule. The only human AKG data described here are for a blend with vitamins, so a study of one product isn't a study of every AKG capsule.

Our guide to how to read supplement labels goes through the general mechanics, and our introduction to supplements covers the basics if you're new to all of this.

So, which conversation is worth having?

• CoQ10 is a long-studied molecule with a real clinical conversation, mostly in heart failure, and a muddled one in statin muscle symptoms. Its "longevity" evidence is one Swedish trial using CoQ10 and selenium together. Interactions, particularly with warfarin, are worth a conversation with a pharmacist or doctor before you start.
• Calcium AKG is an interesting idea with a shaky mouse story and almost no human outcome evidence. Reasonable people can be curious about it. The evidence doesn't yet support expecting it to change how you age.
• Neither is shown to slow human ageing. Interest and evidence are different things, and it's fine to hold one without the other.

Written by Smart Supplements with AI assistance from the sources linked in the text. It has not been reviewed by a clinician.

Last updated: 12 October 2026

This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended as medical advice. Always consult a healthcare professional before starting any new supplement, especially if you take prescription medication.