Cross-referencing clinical data
A pairing appears on this page only when a trial gave both ingredients together and measured the result. Lithothamnium has none that clears that bar.
Stitching two separate single-ingredient studies into a pairing is the one thing this engine will not do. When a study of the combination itself holds up at source, it lands here with its citation.
No invented synergy. Where actives were studied on their own rather than together, the record shows each on its own evidence, never a combined effect no trial measured.
Research strength. Research strength says how much work stands behind the combination. It is never a product score.
Independent record. Every finding is cited to a named trial, dated, and never written by the brand.
20 pairings are live across the library today. Checked 20 July 2026.
No study gave these as a pair, so they are not in the card above. But the reason they belong together is settled biochemistry, not a guess, so it is worth knowing.
Calcitriol drives the transcription of the intestinal calcium transport machinery, so calcium uptake is bounded by vitamin D status regardless of which calcium salt is supplied. A calcium source paired with inadequate vitamin D delivers less than its label suggests. This is why the two are conventionally formulated together.
Gamma-glutamyl carboxylase needs vitamin K to add the calcium-binding groups to osteocalcin and matrix Gla protein. Without that step those proteins cannot incorporate calcium into bone matrix. The pairing is mechanistic and settled, though it does not on its own establish an outcome for any particular calcium source.
Coralline red algae deposit magnesium-substituted calcite rather than pure calcium carbonate, which is why magnesium appears on the certificate of analysis alongside calcium. Anyone adding a separate magnesium supplement should count what the algal material already supplies. The magnesium content varies with harvest site and species.
Boron appears in bone-support formulas alongside calcium sources by convention. Human evidence for the addition is thin and the mechanism is not settled. The pairing is formulation practice, and it should be presented that way rather than as an established interaction.
A substantial calcium dose taken together with iron reduces iron absorption, an inhibition documented across calcium salts and applying to an algal calcium source as much as to any other. Separating the two doses by two or more hours avoids it. This is one of the more practically important mineral interactions and it belongs on the label rather than in the small print.
Zinc and calcium compete when both arrive in the gut at once, particularly at supplemental calcium doses. The effect scales with the calcium dose rather than with the calcium source. Splitting the doses across the day is the practical answer.
Calcium carbonate, including the algal calcite form, needs gastric protons to release ionised calcium. In people with low stomach acid, or those on acid-suppressing medication, carbonate sources dissolve poorly. An acid source or simply taking the dose with food addresses the same problem.
Calcareous marine algae have been compared with sodium bicarbonate as a rumen buffer in cattle, which is a buffering application rather than a nutritional one. The two supply alkalinity through different mineral chemistry and different dissolution rates. That work is agricultural and does not transfer to people.
Purified calcium carbonate and algal calcite deliver calcium through the same carbonate chemistry, with the algal material additionally carrying magnesium and trace minerals from its matrix. They occupy the same slot in a formula, so combining both mostly duplicates the elemental calcium contribution. The choice between them is about the accompanying mineral profile and the sourcing story, not about ranking one above the other.
Nothing specific on file for Lithothamnium. Match the label to the daily amount above, and tell your doctor what you take.
Not medical advice. Show the label to your pharmacist.These are the studies our verdict leans on, chosen from the 3 we read for Lithothamnium. The full linked list is below.
Read this carefully. These are 154 voluntary, unverified reactions reported to the FDA (openFDA). The number mostly reflects how popular Lithothamnium is, not how risky it is. A report is not proof Lithothamnium caused anything. It is a signal of what to watch for, nothing more.
Source: openFDA adverse-event reports. Voluntary reporting, not an incidence rate.
FDA Disclaimer: These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is for educational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Consult your healthcare provider before starting any supplement regimen.