Loading…
We use essential cookies (authentication, your saved goals/stack) by default. With your permission we'll also enable privacy-respecting analytics (Vercel Web Analytics, anonymous load-time metrics) and error-replay diagnostics (Sentry — DOM snapshots only when an error fires) so we can fix bugs faster. Learn more
Head-to-head evidence comparison — which supplement is right for you?
Methylfolate wins 1 of 3 categories. Both are solid choices — the best pick depends on your specific goals.
Verdict
Likely helps
13 of 15 studies with measurable effects showed benefit.
Top outcomes
Verdict
Likely helps
11 of 14 studies with measurable effects showed benefit.
Top outcomes
Shared outcomes (1)
Outcomes where both Methylfolate and Pine Bark Extract have evidence — compare verdict strength side-by-side.
400-800mcg daily
Morning with or without food, Consistent daily timing
L-Methylfolate (5-MTHF)
100-200mg daily
Morning with food, Can be divided into two doses
Pycnogenol (standardized extract)
2-4 weeks
1-3 weeks
4-8 weeks
Days to weeks
4-8 weeks
6-12 weeks
4-8 weeks
Initial use
Efficacy of B-vitamins and vitamin D therapy in improving depressive and anxiety disorders: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Nutritional neuroscience (2023) · Systematic review · n=2256
Systematic review examining Methylfolate efficacy
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of L-Methylfolate Augmentation in Depressive Disorders
Pharmacopsychiatry (2022) · Meta analysis · n=6707
In the meta-analysis of categorical Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-17 response, (three studies, N=483) adjunctive L-methylfolate was associated with a small effect versus antidepressant monotherapy (relative risk: 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.08 to 1.46, p=0.004).
Folic acid/methylfolate for the treatment of psychopathology in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Psychopharmacology (2018) · Meta analysis · n=925
Pooled FA + AP treatments were more effective than placebo + AP for negative symptoms (N = 5, n = 281; SMD = -0.25, 95% CI = -0.49, -0.01, p = 0.04, I2 = 0%).
Phlebotonics for venous insufficiency
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (2020) · Meta analysis · n=7690
Pooled data suggest that phlebotonics probably increase adverse events slightly, compared to placebo (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27; 37 studies; 5789 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).
Pine bark (Pinus spp.) extract for treating chronic disorders
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (2020) · Meta analysis · n=1641
In a mixed group of participants with type 1 and type 2 DM we do not know whether pine bark extract decreases HbA1c (MD -0.20 %, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.43; one study; 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
Effect of pycnogenol supplementation on blood pressure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials
Phytotherapy research : PTR (2020) · Meta analysis · n=922
Pooled analysis suggested that pycnogenol supplementation can reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) of (-3.22 mmHg; 95% CI [-5.52, -0.92]) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; -1.91 mmHg; 95% CI [-3.64, -0.18]).
Based on meta-analysis showing small effect size for adjunctive L-methylfolate. RCT showed efficacy at high doses but effectiveness appears modest. Risk increases with higher doses due to overmethylation symptoms.
Based on meta-analyses showing modest reductions in systolic (-3.22 mmHg) and diastolic (-1.91 mmHg) blood pressure. Effects are clinically small and studies show heterogeneity.
AI-estimated from published studies. Interpret as directional guidance.
Methylfolate has a higher evidence score (9/10 vs 9/10) and wins in 1 of 3 categories.
Both Methylfolate and Pine Bark Extract score equally (60) for sharpen focus.
No known interactions between Methylfolate and Pine Bark Extract have been documented in our database. However, always consult a healthcare provider before combining supplements.