Fertility evidence
Which supplements should I take before pregnancy?
Folate is the one health authorities agree on: they recommend women who could become pregnant take it before conceiving, and it is the best-supported item on this list. Choline has published intake figures too, though from fewer authorities. Neither is established to make you conceive faster, and this page does not cover every supplement you may have read about.
Eleven records: nine from health-authority guidance (NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, FDA, WHO/FAO, NASEM) and two from systematic reviews. One of the nine carries two independent authorities; the rest rest on one each. Nothing on this page has been reviewed by a clinician.
What this means for your decision
If you are planning a pregnancy, folate is the item with the clearest backing behind it, and the authorities' own figures are below. What the evidence here does not support is treating any supplement as something that will help you conceive sooner — that is a different claim, and these records do not test it. Bring the figures to whoever prescribes for you rather than acting on them here.
Who this applies to, and when it changes
These figures are set for women planning a pregnancy or already pregnant. They are not fertility-treatment protocols, and they change if you are breastfeeding, if you take medication that affects folate, or if a clinician has set you a different dose — a previous pregnancy affected by a neural tube defect is the common reason for a much higher one.
Evidence snapshot
- Question and decision
- Which supplements should I take before pregnancy? The decision is what, if anything, to start taking in the months before trying to conceive.
- Who was studied
- Women planning a pregnancy, and women in early pregnancy. Not women in fertility treatment specifically, and not a treatment protocol.
- What was compared
- Folate/folic acid and choline at the intakes health authorities publish. There is no comparator: these are intake recommendations, not a trial of one supplement against another or against nothing.
- Outcome measured, and over what period
- Nutrient adequacy during conception and early pregnancy. Not conception, not clinical pregnancy, not live birth — none of the records here measures any of those.
- Kinds of evidence included
- Health-authority guidance (NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, FDA, WHO/FAO, NASEM) plus two systematic reviews.
- Studies and participants
- Not reliably reported in the evidence.
- What the evidence shows
- Reported as the authorities state them, in DFE — dietary folate equivalents, the unit authorities use so folate from food and folic acid from supplements can be counted together. Folate: 600 mcg DFE a day in pregnancy, 500 while breastfeeding (FDA). Supplemental folic acid counts double — 1 mcg of folic acid is 2 mcg DFE, and 1 mcg from fortified food is about 1.7 mcg DFE (ODS). Choline: 425 mg a day for women trying to conceive (NASEM) and 450 mg in pregnancy (ODS). These are the authorities' figures, not our instruction.
- Consistency and disagreement
- The folate figures are consistent across ODS, FDA and WHO/FAO, and one folate record carries two independent authorities. The two choline figures each rest on a single authority, and no second independent authority was found for either — a real difference in strength between the two halves of this page.
- Confidence in this answer
- moderate — high that these are the published intakes, low that taking them changes anyone's chance of conceiving, because nothing here tested that
- Strength of the sources
- guideline_stated on eight records, multi_authority_consensus on one, systematic_review_supported on two
- Review status
- machine_verified; clinical_review pending
- Who this does and does not describe
- Describes women planning or in early pregnancy. Does not describe women in IVF cycles, women on medication affecting folate metabolism, or anyone given a different dose by a clinician. A previous pregnancy affected by a neural tube defect changes the folate figure substantially and is a clinician's call.
- Harms, trade-offs and when to seek care
- Folate from food alone is very hard to overconsume (ODS). Supplements are a different matter and prenatal products vary, so totals should be added up rather than assumed. The gap this page cannot close is whether any of it affects your chance of conceiving; if that is the question, it is a conversation with a clinician, not a supplement choice.
- Last searched, and the records behind this
- Last evidence search 2026-08-25. Records: REG:crs_25793991a7@2026-08-25, REG:crs_ea94463acf@2026-08-25, REG:crs_41dd112a10@2026-08-25, REG:crs_a13c52462b@2026-08-25, REG:crs_2d7718b479@2026-08-25, REG:crs_8057a1ef1e@2026-08-25, REG:crs_2c2425242e@2026-08-25, REG:crs_0cd5296f3a@2026-08-25, REG:crs_026c4336de@2026-08-25, REG:crs_18783fa8dc@2026-08-25, REG:crs_969ef97036@2026-08-25.
What we are not sure about, and when to get care
The honest limit is what was measured. Every figure here is an intake recommendation, set to meet a nutritional requirement. None of these records measures conception, clinical pregnancy or live birth, so none of them can tell you what taking a supplement does to your chances. The choline figures rest on a single authority each, which is weaker than the folate ones. Talk to a clinician before starting or changing anything you take, and sooner if you are on medication, have a diagnosed condition, or have had a pregnancy affected by a neural tube defect.
How we looked, and what we found
Sources were read on 2026-08-25 across the T-058 authority panel (ACOG, ASRM, NICE, Cochrane, CDC, NIH-ODS, WHO, NHS) plus pre-specified PubMed searches for systematic reviews. Each record below was fit-checked against its own source passage — the test being whether that passage, read alone, supports the sentence as a reader would take it. Records that failed that check are not on this page.
- REG:crs_25793991a7@2026-08-25
- REG:crs_ea94463acf@2026-08-25
- REG:crs_41dd112a10@2026-08-25
- REG:crs_a13c52462b@2026-08-25
- REG:crs_2d7718b479@2026-08-25
- REG:crs_8057a1ef1e@2026-08-25
- REG:crs_2c2425242e@2026-08-25
- REG:crs_0cd5296f3a@2026-08-25
- REG:crs_026c4336de@2026-08-25
- REG:crs_18783fa8dc@2026-08-25
- REG:crs_969ef97036@2026-08-25
Who wrote this, who checked it, and when
Written by the Gyna evidence team from the T-058 register. Review status: machine-verified, clinical review pending — no clinician has read this page, and it will say so until one has. Corrections go to /trust/corrections and are answered whether or not we agree.
Last evidence search 2026-08-25. Last updated 2026-09-01.
This page has not yet been tested with readers for whether its meaning survives. This review step is deferred by operator ruling of 2026-09-03; it is lifted when the target-user comprehension protocol is run and passed at the object's tier (T-047 comprehension protocol v1); recruitment remains a separate Mac approval.
No clinician has reviewed this page. This review step is deferred by operator ruling of 2026-09-03; it is lifted when a clinical reviewer is seated (T-040) and the applicable T-038 risk-route review is recorded for the object; the reviewer/outreach pause itself is unchanged.
Other questions women ask about this
What were you trying to decide when you looked this up?