CoQ10: from energy to evidence

31 OCTOBER 2026 · STRENGTH COLLECTION UPDATE · SEPTEMBER REVIEW

CoQ10: from energy to evidence

What would make a supplement worth taking: a persuasive explanation of cellular energy, or a measurable difference in what we can do? The Arising’s October 31 full article asked that question of CoQ10. The review it covered was published in September; this is a fresh reading of existing research, not a new trial announced today.

The question the review tested

Researchers gathered 33 randomized trials involving 3,317 participants; 21 contributed to quantitative pooling. Eligible studies had a mean or median age of at least 40, which does not mean every participant was over 40. Populations ranged from healthy adults to people with chronic disease. CoQ10 was compared with placebo, no supplementation or an otherwise equivalent control. Treatment periods ranged from 17 days to 60 months, with different formulations and doses.

The number behind the headline

Only five studies, involving 172 participants, contributed to the primary pooled estimate of relative peak oxygen uptake. The average difference favored CoQ10 by 0.73 mL/kg/min, but the 95% confidence interval ran from -0.07 to 1.54. That interval includes no benefit. The authors rated this evidence low certainty. The total of 3,317 participants should not be mistaken for the sample behind this particular result.

Uncertain does not mean proven useless

The primary estimates for walking capacity, strength, chair-rise performance and muscle quantity also remained uncertain. Evidence across key outcomes was low or very low certainty. An expanded oxygen-uptake analysis that used additional statistical assumptions favored CoQ10, but it did not replace the primary analysis or establish a clinically meaningful benefit. The review cannot settle every disease-specific use or identify a reliable responder subgroup.

A mechanism needs a functional test

CoQ10 has a role in mitochondrial energy production. That makes it a reasonable research question; it does not demonstrate that taking more improves everyday function. The authors found frequent risk-of-bias concerns and sparse evidence for individual outcomes. Frail older adults with sarcopenia were not specifically represented as a target population. No lifespan-extension claim follows from these findings.

The next useful question

Better studies should specify which people might benefit, measure meaningful physical outcomes and report harms alongside efficacy. This review is not a comprehensive safety assessment, and we did not independently audit every underlying trial or supplement. It provides no basis here for personal instructions to start or stop CoQ10. In our strength collection, it sits beside articles on activity, rehabilitation, muscle preservation and cognition: different outcomes, each requiring its own evidence.

Sources and review limits

Adapted from The Arising, October 31, 2026, feature 05, pages 15–17: “CoQ10 Not Shown to Improve Muscle or Fitness in Older Adults.” Source PDF FILE_9321.pdf. Primary source: Liu et al., Antioxidants 15(10):1219; DOI 10.3390/antiox15101219; PMID 42939793. PubMed dates publication September 22, 2026; the publisher’s version record also records September 22. This October 31 review checked the PubMed abstract and PMC main text. Supplements and individual trials were not independently reanalysed. Funding: Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2026KYPT05 and 2026KYPT06); authors declare no conflicts. Underlying-trial funding was not independently audited. Claim IDs AR-20261031-COQ-01–04. Earlier booklet articles retain their original review dates.

PubMed record · Read the full review · Publisher version history