CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-07-18). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 2 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.6.
Verdict No. 507 · Search date 2026-07-18 · Methodology v0.6

L-ornithine,
does it really help with Improvement of sleep quality related to stress and fatigue?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 40 · Safety acceptable
Perceived sleep signals exist, but improvement in objective sleep architecture has not been established
What the
research shows
A 52-person trial in healthy workers found improvements in selected OSA-MA sleep domains and stress-hormone markers after 400 mg/day for eight weeks. The rating is C because this is one small study concentrated among Kirin and Kyowa investigators, relies on questionnaires and cortisol-related measures, and provides no objective sleep-architecture data such as polysomnography.
What the
ads claim
Marketing can turn phrases such as 'sleep amino acid,' 'deeper sleep by lowering cortisol,' and 'fatigue-recovery sleep' into claims of objective sleep improvement. Direct evidence is concentrated in one 52-person trial in a selected population.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Korean online and cross-border retail listings include standalone 500 mg L-ornithine capsules and arginine-ornithine combinations.
  • The pivotal sleep trial used 400 mg/day of L-ornithine before bedtime for eight weeks.
  • Standalone L-ornithine, L-ornithine-L-aspartate, and arginine-ornithine blends are not equivalent products.
  • No prominent serious safety signal appeared in the short 52-person trial, but long-term data and data in patients and during pregnancy or lactation are limited.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 507 · C 40
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

The 2014 trial by Miyake and colleagues randomized 52 Japanese workers with mild stress and fatigue to L-ornithine at 400 mg/day or placebo before bedtime for eight weeks. It assessed serum cortisol and DHEA-S, POMS, AIS, and OSA-MA and reported positive signals in selected OSA-MA domains and the cortisol-to-DHEA-S ratio. Author affiliations included Kirin laboratories, Kyowa Hakko Bio, and academic institutions. No trial directly measuring objective sleep stages or nocturnal awakenings was identified.

02

Why this is classified as C (40)

The existence of a randomized trial prevents a deferred rating, and a positive signal prevents D. A single small manufacturer-linked study, subjective outcomes, stress surrogates, no objective sleep testing, and absent independent replication support C with 45 points.

Counterpoint. An adequately powered independent trial combining actigraphy or polysomnography with validated insomnia scales is needed to judge objective sleep efficacy.

Rejudgment record. New verdict — Accepted subjective sleep and stress signals from the 52-person manufacturer-linked trial but applied rules ① and ②-b because objective sleep architecture and independent replication are absent

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Subjective sleep quality and stressCA 52-person manufacturer-linked trial was positive for selected OSA-MA domains and the cortisol-to-DHEA-S ratio
Objective sleep duration and architecture?No human efficacy trial using polysomnography or actigraphy was identified

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Miyake M et al. 2014Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial52Kirin and Kyowa Hakko Bio investigators with a Kyowa ingredientCortisol, DHEA-S, POMS, AIS, and OSA-MASelected OSA-MA domains and the cortisol-to-DHEA-S ratio improved after 400 mg/day for eight weeks, but no objective sleep test was used.Key
Kokubo T et al. 2013Randomized double-masked placebo-controlled crossover trial16Kirin investigators and a Kyowa productNext-morning fatigue, mood, OSA-MA perceived sleep length, and salivary cortisolSelected next-morning fatigue, perceived sleep-length, and cortisol signals were reported, but this was not an objective sleep-efficacy trial.Indirect
§

Receipt — 2 References

All 2 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-07-18).

Miyake M, Kirisako T, Kokubo T, Miura Y, Morishita K, Okamura H, Tsuda A. Randomised controlled trial of the effects of L-ornithine on stress markers and sleep quality in healthy workers. Nutr J. 2014;13:53. PMID: 24889392. PMCID: PMC4055948. DOI: 10.1186/1475-2891-13-53.
checked
Kokubo T, Ikeshima E, Kirisako T, Miura Y, Horiuchi M, Tsuda A. A randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled crossover trial on the effects of L-ornithine on salivary cortisol and feelings of fatigue of flushers the morning after alcohol consumption. Biopsychosoc Med. 2013;7:6. PMID: 23414576. PMCID: PMC3583691. DOI: 10.1186/1751-0759-7-6.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-07-18 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

L-ornithine x stress- and fatigue-related sleep quality Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] L-ornithine x stress- and fatigue-related sleep quality — Evidence Grade C·40. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/sleep/l-ornithine-sleep-quality-stress-fatigue/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.