TheYavue ingredients: all twenty-four on the panel, with the dose each one’s research used

The pigment the macula concentrates, and the reason a bottle like this exists. It is not synthesised in the body; it arrives from dark leafy greens, egg yolk and maize, and it accumulates in the retina over weeks.

AREDS2 randomised 10 mg a day alongside 2 mg of zeaxanthin in more than four thousand people and followed them for five years. The long-term follow-up reported on the same cohort at ten. Those are the reference doses for this ingredient, and they are the only ones worth quoting.

Listing lutein first means it outweighs the other nine. It does not mean it reaches 10 mg, and nothing on this label says whether it does.

An anthocyanin-rich berry extract with a long reputation and a mixed record.

The reputation is night vision, and a 2004 systematic review went looking for it across twelve placebo-controlled trials. The four most rigorous, in healthy people with normal sight, were all negative. That is the single most useful thing anyone can tell you about bilberry.

The better evidence is elsewhere. A 2020 randomised trial gave 240 mg a day of standardised extract for twelve weeks and measured objective ciliary muscle contraction after screen work, which is a narrower claim and a more convincing one.

Hold that 240 mg figure next to the blend total of 240.5 mg a capsule. Bilberry is second of ten here.

An antioxidant that is soluble in both fat and water, which is unusual and is why it turns up in formulas aimed at tissue with a high metabolic rate.

Two trials set its range. A phase II trial randomised 1,200 mg a day against placebo in geographic atrophy. An earlier trial used 300 mg a day for three months and measured contrast sensitivity in people with diabetes.

Three hundred milligrams is the smaller of the two and it is still more than the entire daily blend. Third by weight out of ten cannot get close to it.

A herb named for this exact use, with essentially nothing behind the name.

Four separate PubMed searches for a clinical trial of oral Euphrasia returned nothing at all. The only human record is a 2000 cohort, a single-arm prospective cohort of single-dose eye DROPS in conjunctivitis. The only other is an in-vitro corneal-cell assay.

Drops onto the eye and a capsule swallowed are not the same intervention, and conjunctivitis is not vision. This desk records eyebright as a refused claim. It is fourth by weight in a ten-ingredient blend, which means it is displacing something with a better record.

Lutein’s partner, and the pigment that sits at the very centre of the macula where lutein thins out. The two are always discussed together and were always tested together.

AREDS2 used 2 mg of it, a fifth of the lutein dose, so finding it below lutein on a label is expected. Finding it below three botanicals is the part worth noticing.

A 2024 network meta-analysis pooled the supplementation trials that measured macular pigment optical density directly and found the carotenoid arms raise it. That is a measured biological effect rather than a marketing claim, and it is the strongest thing this category has.

A flavonol with a large laboratory literature and a well-documented absorption problem. A 2013 trial found dietary fat raises how much reaches the blood, and a lecithin phytosome study exists because plain quercetin is absorbed so poorly that delivery systems are built for it.

Human trials of quercetin cover altitude sickness, vaccine response and inflammation. None of the ones this desk found measured an eye outcome. Sixth by weight in a 240.5 mg blend, in a form known to absorb badly.

A flavonoid glycoside from the same plant as the quercetin above, which is why the two appear together.

Its best evidence is vascular. A 2015 systematic review reviewed the hydroxyethylrutoside trials in chronic venous insufficiency, where the outcome is leg oedema and heaviness. That is a real result about capillary behaviour and it is not an eye result.

The reasoning for putting it in an eye formula is that retinal capillaries are capillaries. That is an argument, not a finding.

The retina holds taurine at a higher concentration than almost any other tissue, and the evidence that it matters is unusually direct for a supplement ingredient. It is also evidence of the wrong kind.

A 2009 study showed that the anti-epileptic drug vigabatrin causes retinal damage by depleting taurine, and a 2012 follow-up followed the mechanism through cone photoreceptors and ganglion cells. Taurine deficiency damages the retina.

What does not follow is that adding taurine to a person who is not deficient does anything. Deficiency evidence is not supplementation evidence, and this desk does not treat it as though it were.

A proanthocyanidin source with a genuine randomised literature, all of it cardiovascular. A 2022 meta-analysis ran a dose-response analysis across controlled trials of flow-mediated dilation, blood pressure and heart rate, and a 2016 meta-analysis pooled sixteen trials on blood pressure alone.

There is no eye endpoint at any dose. The panel prints its Latin name as “Vitis vinfera L.”, which is a typesetting slip for vinifera; the ingredient is what everyone means by grape seed extract.

This is also the ingredient the distributor’s product sheet never names and one of the seller’s own graphics does, which is how the pack was shown to be an extract of the label rather than a contradiction of it.

The tomato carotenoid, and last of the ten, which means there is less of it here than of anything else in the blend.

Its macular evidence is observational. A case-control study found serum carotenoid levels differ between people with and without age-related macular degeneration, and a 2005 study reported that lycopene specifically falls in serum and lipoproteins in those patients.

A lower blood level in people with a condition is an association. It does not establish that raising it helps, and tenth of ten is not a dose in any case.