10 approaches that travel under the name of longevity, each summed up in one line by a scientist, a clinician, and an investor. The places where the three disagree are the ones worth watching. The lines change when new research comes in.
No intervention has piled up this much evidence for lowering mortality.
Prescribing it is easy. The real question is whether you're still doing it six months later.
The best evidence in the field, and nothing to sell. The money detours into trackers and coaching.
Sleeping too little clearly hurts. Proof that sleeping better makes you live longer is still missing.
The area with the most room to improve without drugs. Screen for snoring and sleep apnea first.
Wearables already own measurement. The next fight is over selling improvement.
What's confirmed in humans is a shift in metabolic markers. 'Cellular cleanup' is still a mouse story.
We still can't tell whether the benefit comes from losing weight or from fasting itself.
Something you can do for free only makes money once it's packaged as an app or a meal subscription.
Large trials show fewer cardiovascular events. 'Slowing aging' is a different sentence.
It works. Stop, and the weight comes back — and some of what's lost is muscle.
Almost the only square on the longevity map where evidence and money stand on the same side.
Blood NAD+ goes up. The data stalls at the next step.
If you take it without deciding what to measure, you'll never know the benefit or the harm.
The shelf grew faster than the evidence. One line of regulation can redraw this market.
Proven as a diabetes drug. Slowing aging in people without diabetes still awaits a large trial.
Some reports say it blunts the benefits of exercise. For people who train, the math gets complicated.
Off-patent, so no one gets rich from it. What's at stake is the precedent of treating aging as an indication.
The strongest animal lifespan data in the field. No long-term data in healthy people.
Its day job is suppressing the immune system. Low-dose regimens haven't left the experimental stage.
The original drug is generic. The money is moving toward 'safer analogs.'
Impressive in animals. Human trials are small and early.
There's no evidence to recommend it outside trials — yet it's already on clinic menus.
Money keeps coming even after early failures. Expectation is running ahead of evidence.
Turning back the cellular clock has been shown in dishes and in mice. Humans are still at the blueprint stage.
No contact with the clinic yet. The biggest question isn't efficacy — it's cancer.
The widest gap between evidence and investment on the map. Only capital that can wait a long time gets in.
Different clocks give different answers. There's no agreement yet on what they measure.
You get a number, but no treatment to change it. What's left is anxiety.
The test is the product, and the retest is the business model.