About this site

Why this site exists

Search any longevity question and the first results are usually some mix of supplement-store blogs, influencer videos summarising one viral paper, glossy magazine pieces citing nothing, and forum threads arguing past each other. The signal exists — in randomized trials, Mendelian-randomization analyses, large prospective cohorts, and the occasional good meta-analysis — but it sits buried under marketing, anecdote, and isolated findings dressed up as breakthroughs. Most popular write-ups stop at one or two pet studies and skip everything that complicates the headline.

This site is an attempt to surface the actual evidence base. Each topic was reviewed across a large body of peer-reviewed literature, distilled into something a healthy midlife adult can read in a sitting — with the evidence strength and the load-bearing citations attached, and the limits of the data named out loud rather than smoothed over.

The source corpus

The site sits on top of long-form research reviews — one per major topic (sleep, VO₂ max, protein and mTOR, sauna, alcohol, geroprotectors, and so on). Each review synthesises a large slice of the published literature for its domain, and together they draw on thousands of primary sources: randomized controlled trials, Mendelian-randomization analyses, prospective cohorts, meta-analyses, and the occasional landmark mechanistic paper. The breadth is the point — a single trial rarely settles a longevity question, and the picture only emerges once the surrounding literature is read alongside it.

Wherever a claim on this site is meaningful enough to anchor a recommendation, you should be able to find its source named in the running text — by trial, journal, and year (e.g. “PREDIMED, NEJM 2018”) — and a hyperlink to the paper or trial registry where one exists.

The method: AI-assisted deep research

Each of the underlying research reviews was produced using agentic deep-research models that read and cross-checked hundreds of papers per topic, surfaced the load-bearing citations, and reconciled conflicting findings. A human editor then distilled those reviews into the hierarchical structure you see here — homepage, pillar overview, deep dive — and tightened the prose for an average reader.

AI is good at breadth and recall; it is less reliable at calibration. So the editorial pass focuses on the things that actually matter: that effect sizes are quantified, that the study design behind each claim is named, that observational associations are not dressed up as causation, and that commercial bias (industry-funded trials, surrogate endpoints, short follow-up) is flagged.

Evidence grading

Every substantive health claim carries one of four tags:

• Strong — multiple large RCTs or meta-analyses with hard endpoints (mortality, MI, dementia diagnosis).
• Moderate — consistent RCTs but with heterogeneity, surrogate endpoints, or limited populations.
• Weak / preliminary — small or single trials, mostly animal data, or only observational associations.
• Caution — documented harm signal at common doses.

The grade lives next to the claim, not at the bottom of the page. A pillar overview tells you the rating up front; the deep-dive article behind it walks through the underlying studies.

Editorial principles

• Plain language at the top, depth deeper down. Teasers and pillar pages are written for an average reader; acronyms and trial names appear once the context is set.
• Quantify when possible.“30% reduction in CVD events” beats “significantly reduces.”
• Acknowledge uncertainty. Observational data, Mendelian-randomization caveats, and industry funding are called out rather than hidden.
• Don't moralize. Especially around alcohol, weight, or behavioral choices. The evidence is presented; readers decide.
• No supplement, brand, or program promotion. Generic recommendations only.

What this site is not

• Not medical advice. Nothing here is a prescription. Discuss any meaningful change with a clinician who knows your history.
• Not exhaustive. The deep-dive articles are distillations. If a claim matters to you, follow the citation through to the primary source.
• Not static. The evidence base moves — the alcohol J-curve has largely collapsed since 2019, the dementia-risk attributable fraction keeps climbing as new modifiers are identified. Pages are updated when meaningful new evidence lands.

Corrections and feedback

If you find a factual error, a missing citation, or a study that should overturn a current claim, the easiest way to reach the editor is the address listed in the site footer. Corrections are merged quickly; structural changes take longer.