Gummies or pills: which is absorbed better
and why the only serious study was paid for by people who sell gummies
Gummies. In a single randomised study, on vitamin D3, gummies delivered almost twice as much vitamin into the blood as tablets. That is all we have: one study, one vitamin, a single dose, thirty-one healthy adults and money from a company that sold gummies. The figure is real and worth stating. But it is not a law of nature, and the moment you understand why, the question “gummies or pills” loses half its importance. The other half remains, and it matters more: what fits into a gummy and what simply cannot.
The short answer,
asterisks included
If you want a single sentence: for vitamin D3, in a study carried out in humans, gummies clearly beat tablets. If you want the honest sentence, it is longer. There is exactly one randomised study that has put the two forms head to head, with the same substance, in the same people. It was published in 2019 in the journal Nutrients, by a team from Charleston led by Carol Wagner and Bruce Hollis. Its result is large and consistent. The number of studies that have repeated it, with different money and different products, is zero.
Meanwhile, in Romanian, the sentence has become “gummies are absorbed better”, with no study, no figures and no nuance. We read the top results of a Romanian search on the subject: none of them cites a paper, none gives a number, and those that say anything concrete say gummies “dissolve faster”, which is not even the same thing as “more gets absorbed”.
“Gummies are absorbed better” is a statement about one study, not about a category of products. The difference between the two is what this whole article is about.
What the study measured,
exactly
There were actually two studies put end to end. The first, a small one, in nine adults. The second, the confirmation study, in thirty-one. All healthy, aged between 18 and 45, with a body mass index between 18 and 30, no anaemia and no vitamin D deficiency. Each participant received a single dose of 20,000 IU of vitamin D3, either as gummies or as tablets, with blood samples taken at the start and then at 3, 6, 10, 24 and 48 hours. After a two-week break, the same people received the other form. In other words, each person was their own control.
| What was measured | Gummies | Tablets |
|---|---|---|
| Area under the curve, 48 hours | 1,474 ng·h/mL range 1,393 to 1,555 | 774 ng·h/mL range 693 to 855 |
| Peak concentration reached | 47.3 ng/mL | 23.4 ng/mL |
| Participants | 31 | the same 31 |
| Statistical significance | p below 0.0001 for both comparisons | |
A technical detail that changes how you read the table: what was measured in the blood was cholecalciferol itself, the molecule you swallowed, not 25(OH)D, the form used to assess your vitamin D status in blood tests. These are two different questions. The first is “how much got in”, the second is “where you ended up after weeks of taking it”. The study answers the first. It says nothing about the second, and it is honest in not claiming otherwise.
Why the gummies came out ahead:
three explanations, none of them proven
The authors propose three mechanisms and have the good grace to state in black and white that they have proven none of them.
You chew. A gummy is chewed, so dissolving starts in the mouth, mixed with saliva. A tablet is swallowed whole and first has to break down in the stomach. It is the simplest explanation and probably the most important.
The rest of the recipe is completely different. The gummies tested contained syrup, sucrose, gelatine and pectin. The tablets contained cellulose gel, maltodextrin, gelatine and maize starch. Vitamin D3 is fat-soluble, and what surrounds it determines how easily it moves into the phase that gets absorbed. You are not comparing two forms, you are comparing two entire recipes.
The sublingual hypothesis. The authors speculate that some of the vitamin might be absorbed directly under the tongue while chewing, bypassing the liver. They themselves add that further studies would be needed to check this. For now it is a hypothesis, not an explanation.
Taken together, the three lead to the same conclusion, an awkward one for marketing: the study did not compare “the gummy” with “the tablet”. It compared this gummy with this tablet. If you change the tablet's recipe, you may well change the result too.
Who paid for the study
and why we are telling you
The funding is written in the paper, in plain sight: an unrestricted grant from Church & Dwight, plus two public research grants. At the time, Church & Dwight owned two of the best-selling American brands of vitamin gummies. The authors declared no conflict of interest, and “unrestricted” means exactly what it sounds like: the funder did not control the protocol and did not control the result.
So no, this does not invalidate the study. But it does mean that the only study in the world saying gummies win was paid for by someone who stood to gain from that answer, and it has not been repeated by anyone without a stake in it. In any other field, that sentence would be followed by “we await replication”. In supplements, it is followed by a banner.
What the study does not say:
five limitations, four of them written by the authors
Vitamin D3 is fat-soluble and behaves differently from vitamin C, zinc, magnesium or iron. Nothing in the result transfers automatically to them.
20,000 IU taken once. Not 2,000 IU a day for three months, which is exactly the scenario you are in.
Healthy adults, without a deficiency, with a body mass index of up to 30. People with a deficiency or with obesity absorb and distribute it differently.
What was measured was plasma cholecalciferol over 48 hours, not 25(OH)D after weeks. A different marker, a different question.
The fifth limitation is also written by them: the person giving the dose was not blinded, although those taking the blood samples and the laboratories were. In a pharmacokinetic study this matters less than in one with patient-reported symptoms, but it is worth saying, because the authors said it first.
The format is not the risk.
The amount actually in the product is
While you argue about whether the gummy beats the capsule, you miss the question that really can catch you out: is the amount in the product what it says on the box?
In 2025, the Belgian federal laboratory analysed 50 melatonin supplements, 25 from legal distribution channels and 25 from suspect sources. Of those from the legal channel, 12 per cent broke the law: either through unauthorised health claims, or because they contained at least three times the amount of melatonin permitted in Belgium. This is not about the black market. It is about ordinary shelves.
None of this has anything to do with the form of the product. A tablet can contain three times the declared dose just as easily as a gummy. What protects you is not the form, but the boring things: the dose written clearly, the chemical form of the nutrient written next to it, the batch, the manufacturer, and the absence of claims that are not allowed to be there.
What fits into a gummy
and what simply cannot
This is the real difference between formats, and it has nothing to do with absorption. It has to do with volume. A gummy weighs around three grams, almost all of which is what keeps it solid and edible. The active substance has to fit into what is left.
Nutrient reference value: 5 µg per day. The dose in our gummies, 4,000 IU, is 100 µg, a ten-thousandth of a gram. In a three-gram gummy, the active substance is a rounding error. Vitamin D3 fits into absolutely any form: gummy, tablet, capsule, drops, spray. Here the format really is a matter of preference.
Nutrient reference value: 80 mg per day. 80 mg in a three-gram gummy is less than 3 per cent of its mass. It fits easily, which is why vitamin C gummies are everywhere. The tricky part is something else: ascorbic acid is an acid, and that acidity shows in the taste and fights with the texture, so manufacturers buffer it or mask it with sugar. A recipe compromise, not an absorption one.
Nutrient reference value: 375 mg of elemental magnesium per day. Magnesium does not travel alone but bound to a salt. In magnesium citrate, magnesium makes up about 16 per cent of the molecule's mass, so to reach 375 mg of magnesium you need around 2.3 g of citrate. In a three-gram gummy. It does not fit, or if you force it in, the gummy can no longer be eaten. That is why magnesium gummies have much lower doses than capsules, and that is a physical limit, not a marketing trick.
The same arithmetic explains why you do not see iron gummies at a full dose, why powders still exist and why the capsule remains the format with the greatest capacity. The rule in short: the more milligrams a nutrient needs, the more the format matters, and the less it favours the gummy.
Sugar, polyols
and the warning the law requires
The standard criticism of gummies is sugar, and for many of them it is well founded. What is said less often is what happens when the sugar is taken out.
To stay a gummy without sugar, the product needs something else to provide bulk and sweetness. Usually that means polyols: maltitol, isomalt, xylitol, sorbitol. European law has a precise provision for them. Annex III of Regulation 1169/2011 requires any food with more than 10 per cent added polyols to carry the statement on its label that excessive consumption may produce laxative effects. A three-gram gummy held together by maltitol passes that threshold effortlessly.
It is not a safety problem. It is a problem of daily arithmetic: if you take two gummies of one product, two of another and one more of a third, you add up five servings of polyols without ever having thought about them. A tablet does not have this problem, because it does not need to taste good.
Children. A gummy looks and tastes like a sweet, and that is exactly its risk. Supplements in gummy form should be kept out of children's reach just like anything else in the medicine cabinet, and adult doses are not shared with them. Our gummies with 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 per daily serving are formulated for adults and are not to be given to children. For children, the dose is set with the GP or the paediatrician, not by halving an adult product.
What the law says about form:
absolutely nothing in your favour
In the European Union, food supplements are foods, not medicines. Directive 2002/46/EC defines them as concentrated sources of nutrients or other substances, sold in dose form: pills, tablets, capsules, measured liquids. The form is a manufacturing choice, nothing more. It neither opens nor closes any legal door.
What matters legally is the nutrient. A health claim can only be attributed to a nutrient that has an authorised claim in the European Union, and only if the product contains a significant amount of it. Vitamin D3 has them: vitamin D contributes to the normal function of the immune system and to the maintenance of normal muscle function. Zinc has them, vitamin C has them, melatonin has a very precise one. Ashwagandha, apple cider vinegar, kombucha, berberine and collagen have none, and putting them in a colourful gummy changes nothing.
There is also a grey area worth knowing about. “Our gummies are absorbed better” is not a health claim in the legal sense, it is a claim about the product. Which means it does not need to be authorised by anyone, but it ought to be backed by a study carried out on that product. Almost nobody on the Romanian market has one, including us. That is why we do not write it.
Five claims doing the rounds
and what is left of them
It is a statement about one study, not about a category of products. The study exists, it is serious and it measured a large difference, but it compared a particular gummy with a particular tablet, for a single vitamin, at a single dose of 20,000 IU, in adults without a deficiency. The generalisation from “this gummy” to “gummies” was made by marketing, not by the authors.
Gummies are a manufacturing form, not an age category. What matters is the dose inside: a product with 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 per serving is formulated for adults and is not given to children, even if it tastes of oranges. Conversely, a children's gummy has low doses precisely because it is for children. Read the dose, not the form.
Many do. Those that do not use polyols instead of sugar, which bring their own discussion: above 10 per cent added polyols, European law requires the warning about laxative effects with excessive consumption. So the right question is not “does it have sugar or not”, but “what exactly holds the gummy together, and how much of it do I eat a day”.
How serious a supplement is shows in the declared dose, in the chemical form of the nutrient, in a traceable batch and in what the manufacturer does or does not write on the page. None of that can be read from the form. There are capsules with nonsensical doses and gummies with clean labels, and the other way round.
The dose matters most, but the format decides which doses are possible. Vitamin D3 fits anywhere, because 100 µg is a ten-thousandth of a gram. Magnesium at the reference value does not fit into a gummy, however much you might want it to. And the format decides something else that is very practical: which of them you actually take every day.
What is in our gummies
with vitamin D3
We sell gummies. Which means the 2019 study suits us, and that is exactly why we read it carefully instead of putting it on a banner.
Our vitamin D3 gummies contain 2,000 IU per gummy and 4,000 IU in the daily dose of two gummies, that is 100 µg. The flavour comes from sweet orange essential oil. The label says sugar-free. They are made in Romania.
What we do not promise you: that our gummy is absorbed better than any given tablet. We have not done that study. The Wagner study is about other gummies and other tablets, and its results cannot be borrowed. What is true about vitamin D3, whatever the form, is the authorised claim: vitamin D contributes to the normal function of the immune system and to the maintenance of normal muscle function. The same sentence applies to the tablet from the pharmacy.
If you want less vitamin D in a single product, the gummies with vitamin C, zinc and D3 have a lower dose per serving. And if your real question was about quantity rather than form, we have written at length about how many units of vitamin D a day, by age.
Frequently
asked questions
In a single randomised study, yes, and the difference was large. In 31 healthy adults who received a single dose of 20,000 IU of vitamin D3, gummies produced an area under the curve of 1,474 ng·h/mL compared with 774 for tablets, and the peak concentration was 47.3 compared with 23.4 ng/mL. That is all. One study, one fat-soluble vitamin, a single very large dose, a particular gummy compared with a particular tablet. There is no evidence that the result carries over to vitamin C, zinc, magnesium or any product other than the two tested.
The authors propose three explanations and admit they have proven none of them. First: a gummy is chewed, so dissolving starts in the mouth, whereas a tablet is swallowed whole. Second: the rest of the recipe is completely different, the gummies contained syrup, sucrose, gelatine and pectin, the tablets contained cellulose gel, maltodextrin, gelatine and maize starch. Third, and most speculative: some of it might be absorbed under the tongue. They themselves write that further studies would be needed.
It is trustworthy as a method and it is published, but it is worth knowing who funded it. The money came from an unrestricted grant from Church & Dwight, the company that at the time owned two of the best-selling American brands of vitamin gummies, plus two public research grants. The authors declared no conflict of interest, and an unrestricted grant means the funder does not control the result. The problem is not fraud, it is that the only study saying gummies win has not been repeated by anyone without a stake in the answer.
Because of arithmetic, not ill will. The nutrient reference value for magnesium in the European Union is 375 mg of elemental magnesium per day. As magnesium citrate, in which magnesium makes up about 16 per cent of the molecule's mass, you need around 2.3 g of the substance to get there. A whole gummy weighs about 3 g. It does not fit, or if you force it in, the gummy can no longer be eaten. That is why magnesium gummies almost always come with much lower doses than capsules.
They are different, not automatically better. Sugar is usually replaced with polyols, meaning maltitol, isomalt, xylitol or sorbitol. European law requires a food with more than 10 per cent added polyols to carry the statement on its label that excessive consumption may produce laxative effects, and a three-gram gummy easily passes that threshold. It is not a reason to panic, it is a reason to read the label and not to stack four different products on the same day.
No, not at all. In the European Union food supplements are foods, not medicines, and Directive 2002/46/EC defines them as concentrated sources of nutrients sold in dose form, meaning pills, tablets, capsules or measured liquids. A health claim can only be attributed to a nutrient that has an authorised claim, and only if the product contains a significant amount of it. Vitamin D3 has such claims. Ashwagandha, apple cider vinegar, kombucha, berberine and collagen have none, in any form.
Note: the information in this article is for educational purposes. It does not replace personalised medical advice. The absorption data quoted here come from a single study, carried out on two specific products, and cannot be generalised to other products or other nutrients. Food supplements are not medicines and are not intended to diagnose, treat or prevent disease. Do not exceed the recommended daily dose. Keep out of the reach of children.
Comments (0)
There are no comments for this article. Be the first one to leave a message!