Standards
How we read research
“Studies show” is doing an enormous amount of work in this field, usually to disguise how thin the evidence is. Here is what that phrase means when it appears here.
Not all evidence is equal, and the gap between “this worked in mice” and “this works in people” is where most longevity marketing operates. Every substantive claim here is placed on the scale below, in the text, at the point the claim is made.
- 01
Well established
Multiple randomized controlled trials in humans, or a systematic review of them, pointing the same way. Effect sizes are known and reproducible.
- 02
Reasonably supported
Human trials exist and are consistent, but are small, short, or run in narrow populations. The direction is probably right; the magnitude is uncertain.
- 03
Observational only
Association found in cohort or epidemiological data with no interventional evidence. Confounding is likely and causation is not established.
- 04
Mechanistic or preclinical
The biological rationale makes sense, and there may be cell or animal data, but it has not been shown to work in people. Most of the longevity market lives here.
- 05
Unsupported
Claimed benefits with no meaningful evidence behind them, or evidence that failed to replicate.
Sources are linked
Where a study is referenced, it is linked directly so you can read it yourself and decide whether the interpretation here is fair. If a claim appears without a source, treat that as an editorial failure and tell us about it.
Conflicts
This publication takes no money from anyone selling supplements, compounds, testing services, or clinical programs. If that ever changes, it will be disclosed on the page where it matters rather than in a footer nobody reads.
What gets left out
No dosing guidance, no protocols, and no sourcing information appear here — not because they aren’t interesting, but because publishing them responsibly requires a clinical relationship this newsletter doesn’t have with you.