Longevity claims after 40: when a better biomarker is not enough
Oats, experimental peptides and biological-age tests show why the value of a biomarker depends on what it can tell us about health.
Oats, experimental peptides and biological-age tests show why the value of a biomarker depends on what it can tell us about health.
Human trials show why better magnesium absorption, higher NAD+ and convenient supplement blends need to be judged against the health outcomes they actually measure.
Trials of metformin, rapamycin and muscle-building drugs reveal why biological changes must be judged against the health benefits they actually deliver.
Research on sleep, neurofeedback and diet reveals why changing a biological signal does not necessarily mean clearer thinking.
Neurofeedback, Alzheimer’s treatments and lifestyle trials reveal why changing a brain measurement is only part of demonstrating a benefit.
Blueberries, neurofeedback and Alzheimer’s treatments reveal why a measurable improvement needs careful interpretation before it becomes a brain-health claim.
Preserving muscle matters, but strength and everyday function need their own measurements, as ageing studies and muscle-preserving drug trials show.
Brain-age scores and genetic findings offer intriguing clues, but decisions about brain health still depend on what studies actually measured.
Kidney markers and blood-pressure trials connect vascular health with cognitive ageing, but they support different conclusions about prevention.
Exercise, heat exposure and thyroid research reveal why longevity priorities should depend on demonstrated benefits, personal circumstances and what remains uncertain.