Let’s Talk Nutrition With Nico: What the Menopause Industry Is Getting Wrong

Most people know that menopause brings change. What the supplement industry has been slower to reckon with is that the science meant to support women through that change is often built on the wrong foundation.

In the second episode of “Let's Talk Nutrition with Nico,” a collaborative video series from The Educated Patient and Nutritional Outlook, senior editors Lana Pine and Nico Saraceno dig into a question that sits at the intersection of women’s health, clinical research and consumer trust: Are menopause-focused supplements actually being tested in the people they are designed for?

The conversation begins with a striking data point. A large cohort study published in JAMA Cardiology, tracking more than 10,000 Black and White women between 1964 and 2018, found that premature natural menopause (defined as menopause occurring before age 40) is associated with a 40% higher lifetime risk of coronary heart disease compared with women who reach menopause at a typical age. More than 2 million women in the United States enter menopause annually, and the findings held consistently across both racial groups, making it one of the most comprehensive examinations of this connection to date.

For Saraceno, that study underscores a larger problem in the nutraceuticals space. Clinical research, he argues, has long relied on generalized, one-size-fits-all models that fail to capture the physiological realities of specific life stages: perimenopause, menopause and postpartum. The result is a body of evidence that may not reflect what actually happens in the bodies of the women these products are supposed to help.

Isabelle Raymond, Ph.D., senior vice president of clinical and medical affairs at Nutrafol, makes the case plainly in a piece Saraceno references: “Nutritional needs evolve, and supplements designed to support specific outcomes must be studied not only in the population it is intended for but also within the life stage they aim to address to capture their true biological impact.”

The implications are practical. Studying supplements in perimenopausal women, for example, can reveal specific effects on metabolism and hair health that would be invisible in a broader mixed-population trial. Research designed for postpartum women can better evaluate safety and efficacy during hormonal shifts that are simply not present in other life stages. Without that specificity, efficacy claims rest on extrapolation rather than evidence, and consumers have no reliable way to know whether a product was ever tested in someone like them.

Raymond frames the stakes clearly: “Health doesn't exist in a vacuum, and neither should research. If meaningful innovation starts with meaningful science, then it’s time to ask why life stages experienced by so many remain overlooked in the studies meant to serve them.”

The call to action is not abstract. Regulatory and scientific standards are increasingly moving toward representative data requirements, and consumer confidence in the supplement space is directly tied to whether the science behind products reflects real-world experience. As Saraceno puts it, investing in life-stage-specific research is not just good science, it is the necessary foundation for building products that actually work for the people using them.