Neurogan HealthSCIENCE / RESEARCH REVIEW

CATALOG INGREDIENT · RESEARCH REVIEW

Urolithin A.
A muscle-health question.
Not a settled answer.

Urolithin A has encouraging findings in selected muscle-fatigue and strength tests. The larger story is mixed: important primary outcomes were null, and the pooled walking estimate is still uncertain. This is a neutral review of a listed catalog ingredient, not a recommendation to take it.

See the measured results

Ingredient and formulation research, not proof of finished-product results. Reviewed 10 September 2026.

THE RESULTS, IN PLAIN ENGLISH

Walking farther is not the same as beating placebo.

A before-and-after improvement can reflect repeat testing, behavior changes or other influences. The placebo comparison is what helps isolate the supplement’s effect. In the older-adult trial, that comparison was not significant.

Both groups walked farther

Change in six-minute walking distance, metres

Urolithin A
60.8± 67.2 m SD
Placebo
42.5± 73.3 m SD
080
Four months; 1,000 mg/day; 30 participants per group with reported walking changes. Mean ± SD. The treatment difference was not statistically significant. SD describes wide person-to-person variation, not precision of the mean. [1]

The pooled estimate is still uncertain

Difference in walking-distance change versus placebo, metres

Two trials
17.0395% CI -5.33 to 39.4
-1050
2026 systematic review. 95% CI −5.33 to +39.40 m crosses zero; p = 0.135. Low-certainty evidence. Only two trials contributed to this pooled outcome, not all 236 participants in the review. [4]

UNDERSTANDING THE INGREDIENT

What the name does, and does not, tell you.

The molecule

Urolithin A can be produced by gut microbes from dietary ellagitannins. Eating pomegranate is not a standardized urolithin A dose; people differ in conversion.

The mechanism

Mitophagy is the recycling of damaged mitochondria. Laboratory and human biomarker findings make this an interesting target, but do not establish longer life or reverse aging.

The preparation

Several key trials used sponsor-supplied urolithin A, including Mitopure. A different particle size, capsule or supplier requires evidence of equivalence before borrowing a branded formulation’s results.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE HUMAN RESEARCH

Read the result.
Keep the limits in view.

Positive findings, null results and reviews are shown together. Open any study for the population, dose, duration and limitations. Every summary is available without JavaScript.

LIU · 2022 · RANDOMIZED TRIAL

An endurance signal, but no clear walking advantage

Isolated muscle-fatigue tests improved at two months. The primary walking and ATP-production outcomes did not significantly beat placebo. [1]

Study design, measured results and limitations
Who and how
Sixty-six adults aged 65 to 90 were randomized, 33 per group, to urolithin A 1,000 mg/day or placebo for four months. The sponsor-supplied preparation used four softgels daily. Participants were predominantly women and all White. Thirty per group contributed the reported four-month walking changes.
What changed
Six-minute walking distance increased 60.8 ± 67.2 m with urolithin A and 42.5 ± 73.3 m with placebo (mean ± SD). The difference was not statistically significant. Hand and leg muscle endurance favored urolithin A at two months, but not significantly at four months as placebo performance also improved.
What it means
The positive fatigue-test result is not proof of broad everyday energy, more muscle mass or increased lifespan. Many endpoints were tested without correction for multiple comparisons. Maximal ATP production, another primary outcome, did not significantly improve. Short-term adverse-event rates did not differ statistically. This sponsor-linked formulation was not a Neurogan capsule.

Read the source · Primary full text

SINGH · 2022 · ATLAS TRIAL

Selected strength gains, not a successful primary endpoint

Hamstring strength favored Mitopure. Cycling peak power, the prespecified primary outcome, did not. [2]

Study design, measured results and limitations
Who and how
Eighty-eight overweight, untrained, middle-aged adults were randomized: 29 placebo, 29 at 500 mg/day and 30 at 1,000 mg/day of Mitopure urolithin A, for four months. Seventy-nine completed. The main analysis used the randomized population.
What changed
Hamstring strength improved significantly compared with placebo. The study did not establish a significant primary cycling peak-power benefit. Walking distance at 1,000 mg improved from the group’s own baseline, but the comparison with placebo was not significant (p = 0.098).
What it means
Within-group improvement does not establish a treatment effect. The study was exploratory and funded by Amazentis, with author commercial ties. Biomarker changes are consistent with effects on mitochondrial biology but do not prove a patient-important anti-aging benefit. Matching the milligram dose does not establish equivalence between Mitopure softgels and a different micronized capsule.

Read the source · Primary full text

ZHAO · 2024 · RANDOMIZED TRIAL

A small athlete trial is not a universal strength claim

Selected isometric and repetition outcomes were encouraging; bench-press and squat maximums were not clearly better than placebo. [3]

Study design, measured results and limitations
Who and how
Twenty resistance-trained male athletes took 1 g/day of urolithin A or placebo for eight weeks. Investigators measured lifting performance, muscle endurance and blood and urine biomarkers.
What changed
The abstract reports no significant between-group difference in bench-press one-repetition maximum (p = 0.462) or squat maximum (p = 0.710). Selected endurance measures were more favorable.
What it means
The small sample, several outcomes and trained male population limit generalization. Biomarker differences are not proof of reduced inflammation throughout the body. The accessed abstract does not establish that this preparation was the current Neurogan product or clinically interchangeable with Mitopure.

Read the source · Primary abstract

DAO · 2026 · SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

The pooled walking estimate still includes no benefit

The latest reviewed synthesis rates the walking evidence as low certainty. [4]

Study design, measured results and limitations
Who and how
Five randomized trials included 236 participants overall. Doses ranged from 500 to 1,000 mg/day and durations from four weeks to four months. The search covered studies through December 2025. Only two trials were sufficiently comparable to pool six-minute walking distance.
What changed
Pooled difference in walking-distance change: +17.03 m versus placebo, 95% CI −5.33 to +39.40 m; p = 0.135; I² = 0%. The confidence interval includes zero. Strength and endurance results were summarized narratively because methods and populations differed.
What it means
The review combined the two active ATLAS arms to avoid counting the shared placebo twice. Low statistical heterogeneity across two studies does not eliminate clinical uncertainty. Small, short trials and varied populations, including athletes, do not establish reliable benefit in people with sarcopenia. The review includes the trials above and must not be counted as an independent intervention.

Read the source · Systematic review, full text

This is a selected evidence review, not an exhaustive systematic review of every possible use. A review can contain the trials shown above; those are not additional independent experiments. A p-value describes statistical evidence, not the size or importance of a benefit.

FROM THE STUDY TO THE LABEL

Compare the actual formulation.

Current catalog labels are product information, not independent proof of efficacy, identity, potency or bioequivalence. No finished Neurogan product below was the intervention in the cited trials.

Urolithin A Capsules

Supplement Facts: 700 mg urolithin A per one-capsule serving.

Directions: Directions: one capsule daily. Label lists vegetable cellulose capsule as the other ingredient.

Research comparison: Not identified as Mitopure on the reviewed label. The key older-adult trial used 1,000 mg/day in softgels; matching ingredient name alone does not establish clinical equivalence.

Current product listing · Original label image

View the label used for this comparison
Supplement Facts for Urolithin A Capsules. Full amounts are transcribed above.

This is the label image linked by the live product record when reviewed on 10 September 2026.

Serving size and daily directions are listed separately. A dose similarity is not evidence that a different formula produces the same outcomes.

Labels and listings can change. Check the package you receive and discuss individual use with a qualified clinician.

Urolithin A Pro Capsules

Supplement Facts: 1,000 mg urolithin A per two-capsule serving.

Directions: Directions: two capsules daily, equivalent to 500 mg per capsule. The listing describes an ultra-micronized preparation.

Research comparison: The daily mass matches one research dose, not necessarily the research formulation. The label does not identify Mitopure. No product-specific trial or head-to-head absorption equivalence was identified.

Current product listing · Original label image

View the label used for this comparison
Supplement Facts for Urolithin A Pro Capsules. Full amounts are transcribed above.

This is the label image linked by the live product record when reviewed on 10 September 2026.

Serving size and daily directions are listed separately. A dose similarity is not evidence that a different formula produces the same outcomes.

Labels and listings can change. Check the package you receive and discuss individual use with a qualified clinician.

SAFETY AND REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS

Short trials cannot settle long-term safety.

Short trials generally found acceptable tolerability and no clear excess of adverse events in their selected populations. They were not designed to exclude uncommon harms or establish years-long safety. Evidence is limited in pregnancy, breastfeeding, children and people with serious medical conditions. Medication-interaction data are incomplete. Discuss supplementation with a clinician rather than replacing exercise, adequate nutrition or prescribed treatment. Neither the regular nor Pro product is recommended by this review.

Read the safety context

How to use this review responsibly

This page is educational, not a diagnosis, treatment plan or individualized dose recommendation. Do not stop prescribed treatment or replace established care on the basis of a biomarker result. “No significant difference” does not prove two treatments are equivalent, and “well tolerated” in a small trial does not rule out rare harms.

Bring the full ingredient list, medicines and health history to a clinician or pharmacist. In a blend, the safety question concerns every ingredient together, not only the name on the front label.

REFERENCES AND ACCESS

Follow the evidence.

Links lead to primary publications or systematic reviews. Access limitations are stated rather than filled with assumed methods or outcomes. Product comparisons use the live product records and linked label images above.

  1. LIU · 2022 · RANDOMIZED TRIAL

    An endurance signal, but no clear walking advantage. Access reviewed: Primary full text.

    Open publication · Return to study summary
  2. SINGH · 2022 · ATLAS TRIAL

    Selected strength gains, not a successful primary endpoint. Access reviewed: Primary full text.

    Open publication · Return to study summary
  3. ZHAO · 2024 · RANDOMIZED TRIAL

    A small athlete trial is not a universal strength claim. Access reviewed: Primary abstract.

    Open publication · Return to study summary
  4. DAO · 2026 · SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

    The pooled walking estimate still includes no benefit. Access reviewed: Systematic review, full text.

    Open publication · Return to study summary