When choosing a collagen supplement, a common question arises: is marine or bovine collagen better?
Both can be excellent sources of collagen. Their origin and composition differ, but the source is not the only criterion that determines the quality of a supplement.
Here's what you should really look for.
Where does marine collagen come from?
Marine collagen is generally extracted from fish skin, scales, or bones – parts naturally rich in collagen.
It is mainly composed of type I collagen, the most abundant type of collagen in the human body, found in the skin, bones, tendons, and connective tissues.
What about bovine collagen?
Bovine collagen typically comes from the skin and other collagen-rich tissues of cattle.
It primarily provides type I and III collagen.
Type III is notably found in the skin and various connective tissues.
However, this does not mean that one is systematically superior to the other.
So, which one to choose for skin?
This is where you need to look beyond marketing shortcuts.
It is sometimes suggested that marine collagen is necessarily "better" for the skin.
Scientific data does not support this as a general rule.
Studies on hydrolyzed collagen peptides from different sources have observed interesting effects on certain skin parameters, including hydration, elasticity, and wrinkle reduction.
A meta-analysis of 26 randomized trials¹ found no significant difference between the different collagen sources studied regarding the improvement of skin elasticity.
In other words: origin matters, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
What may matter even more: hydrolysis
Whether marine or bovine, collagen intended for supplementation is often hydrolyzed.
Hydrolysis breaks down large collagen proteins into much smaller peptides that are much better absorbed by the body.
It is this form – hydrolyzed collagen peptides – that is found in many studies on oral supplementation.
Hydrolyzed collagen provides specific amino acids, such as hydroxylysine and hydroxyproline, which are important for regenerating our own collagen, benefiting both skin and joints.
So, when comparing two products, don't just look at marine or bovine.
Also look at:
Is it hydrolyzed?
How many peptides does it actually provide?
What is its source?
What else does the formula contain?
Why did we choose marine collagen?
At Maison Jacynthe, our choice of marine collagen is also based on a value that is dear to us: not encouraging additional fishing to produce our collagen.
The peptides we use are prepared from by-products of fishing already intended for consumption, materials naturally rich in collagen that would otherwise have been discarded.
In this way, we make use of what already exists rather than requiring fish to be caught specifically to make our supplement.
It is this logic of valorization that appealed to us.
Our formula provides 10g of hydrolyzed marine collagen peptides, to which we have added 120mg of hyaluronic acid.
Sugar-free.
A well-considered choice of source, a valued material, and a formula where each ingredient has its purpose.
"Marine" alone is not a guarantee of quality
Two products both bearing the mention marine collagen can be very different.
One may provide a significant amount of hydrolyzed peptides in a clean formula.
The other may provide much less within a mixture containing many other ingredients.
You have to turn the container over and read.
How much collagen?
Is it hydrolyzed?
What other ingredients are present?
In what quantities?
Is there sugar?
Is the formula transparent?
In summary
Marine collagen: primarily type I and from fish.
Bovine collagen: primarily types I and III and from bovine.
Both can be good sources.
To make an informed choice, do not stop at the origin of the collagen. Look at the form, quantity, quality, source, and overall formulation.
Because, once again, not all collagens are alike.
Also read in The Extraordinary Library
Not all collagens are alike: how to choose a good collagen?
Reference
1 Pu S-Y, Huang Y-L, Pu C-M, et al. (2023). Effects of Oral Collagen for Skin Anti-Aging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients, 15(9), 2080. It includes 26 randomized controlled trials and 1,721 participants.
