Several states restrict or prohibit doctors from promoting products they have undisclosed financial interests in. But in the above 2025 podcast, Dr. Mark Hyman and Dr. Anurag Singh, who is introduced only as an “immunology scientist,” promote Mitopure, a branded Urolithin A supplement, without disclosing that Singh is the chief medical officer of the company selling Mitopure online, or that Hyman earns commissions for marketing it on his own website.

In February, I wrote an article, “Is your longevity doctor scamming you?” that reveals how Dr. Mark Hyman regularly urges his newsletter readers to buy longevity supplements that he has an undisclosed financial interest in promoting. Which raises a bigger question.

Can doctors legally pitch supplements for money?

This article examines the legality of licensed medical professionals promoting longevity supplements in which they have an undisclosed financial interest. In response to my questions, the medical boards of California and Ohio said they would open investigations into Hyman’s marketing practices. Massachusetts may do the same but declined to answer my direct question about whether it would. In Texas, a spokesman for the state medical board said it only investigates complaints formally submitted through its online form or the mail.

lon·​gev·​i·​ty chis·​el·​er, n. someone who intentionally promotes unproven anti-aging products, claims or research for personal or professional gain.

Each state’s response is reported in detail below. But first, a brief backgrounder on state laws governing doctors, legally and ethically.

become a paying subscriber

In case you missed it:

How states regulate doctors

Every U.S. state regulates doctors and sets rules governing their conduct and business practices. State medical boards enforce punishments when licensed professionals disobey the rules. If a board determines that a doctor violated state laws or regulations, it may issue enforcement actions or recommend criminal charges.

Share

Dr. Hyman’s misstatements about unproven supplements

EDITOR’S NOTE: I reached out to Dr. Hyman and his website’s support staff by email last week, indicating I was planning to write about his email claims about fatty15 and Mitopure, and asking whether he believed his marketing of supplements violated laws in states where he is licensed to practice medicine. He did not respond.

fatty15: a clinically unproven supplement Hyman presents as proven

My previous article, from February, described how one of Hyman’s email newsletters had urged his readers to buy a supplement, fatty15, that he described as backed by rigorous research. He didn’t disclose that the majority of the research he cited was done by the company selling the supplement, that the research showed no evidence that fatty15 worked in humans, and that Hyman was paid by the company to promote the supplement.

Mitopure: a mitochonrial supplement Hyman earns money from on the sly

Two months later, on April 21, Hyman sent out an email pushing another supplement, Mitopure, that he also appears to have an undisclosed financial interest in promoting. Hyman markets the supplement through his website, drhyman.com, and the company that sells Mitopure online features Hyman on his own partner program web page (www.timeline.com/partners/mark-news). That email also misrepresents the scientific support for Mitopure and its benefits for people:

• every study of Mitopure on its branded webpage was funded by Amazentis, the company that sells it, and was authored by its employees, board members or scientific advisors.1

• the two muscle trials behind the strength claims both failed the main test the studies were designed to answer. In fact, the placebo worked just as well. Hyman’s email presents Mitopure’s evidence as settled science when the research reports describe themselves as only proof-of-concept studies needing confirmation.2

In a podcast3 last year, Hyman interviewed the chief medical officer of the company that sells Mitopure online, naming the product 10 times without disclosing Singh’s relationship to it or Hyman’s role as a Mitopure marketing affiliate that earns commissions from sales of the supplement through his website, drhyman.com.

Four state medical boards respond to my questions

I asked the state medical boards in California, Texas, Massachusetts and Ohio if Hyman’s promotions of supplements are violations of their laws or professional codes of conduct.

Each state medical board responded to my questions with varying levels of specificity and transparency. Two states—California and Ohio—indicated outright that they regarded my inquiry as an official complaint that they would investigate. Texas and Massachusetts didn’t explicitly say they took my questions as a formal complaint, but the language of their replies indicated that they likely did.

Share

Here’s how each state replied to questions about Hyman’s actions in regard to their laws.

California

California law prohibits physicians from receiving any compensation as an inducement for referring patients, clients or customers to any person or entity, under Business and Professions Code §650(a). A 2001 California Attorney General Opinion concluded that a clinician's profit-sharing arrangement to promote a third party's nutritional products to patients violates that statute. B&P §17500 separately prohibits false or misleading statements in connection with the sale of goods.

California’s response to my questions: In response to my questions, the Medical Board of California opened an inquiry into Hyman’s practices. “Your message has been forwarded to the Central Complaint Unit for review,” a spokeswoman for the board wrote in an email reply. (The Board accepts complaints via any medium, including email, mail, telephone, website form, or in person.)

California’s Department of Justice, similarly, indicated that it regarded my list of specific questions about Hyman’s promotion of fatty15 as a complaint to be investigated.

become a paying subscriber

Ohio

Ohio law uniquely allows its medical board to discipline physicians for violating the AMA’s own ethics code, incorporated into state law under ORC §4731.22(B)(18). AMA Opinion 9.6.4 expressly defines “selling” health-related products to include “endorsing a product that the patient may order or purchase elsewhere that results in remuneration for the physician” — and requires full disclosure of the financial arrangement with the manufacturer. Ohio also separately bars false or misleading advertising under ORC §4731.22(B)(5), which the statute defines to include any statement that misleads “because of a failure to disclose material facts” or that creates “false or unjustified expectations of favorable results.”

Ohio’s response to my questions: In response to my questions, the Medical Board of Ohio also indicated that it had opened an inquiry into Hyman’s practices. “If the board is made aware of allegations, it has a legal responsibility to follow its formal investigatory process,” a board spokeswoman said in an email.

Anyone can file a complaint to Ohio’s medical board. There is no statute of limitations.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts law includes the most specific rules in the country governing physicians selling outside products. The state’s Board of Registration in Medicine (BORIM) Policy 05-01 "Sale of Goods from Physicians' Offices," prohibits physicians from selling products "in a manner that has the potential to exploit patients, including but not limited to exclusive distributorships or personal branding." The policy also bars physicians from using "their office or their professional relationship with patients to promote any business venture." The policy explicitly cites and quotes AMA Code of Ethics Section 8.063—now renumbered Opinion 9.6.4—the same AMA opinion Ohio incorporates into its disciplinary statute. A separate anti-kickback statute, M.G.L. c. 175H, makes it unlawful to receive compensation as an inducement for recommending goods, although its applicability to consumer-paid supplements is limited because the statute is tied to goods reimbursable by health insurers.

Massachusetts’s response to my questions: It appears as if Massachusetts may have also have opened its own inquiry into Hyman, to determine if it should pursue a full investigation. After one spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Public Health dismissed my specific questions about Hyman’s promotion of fatty15 as “hypotheticals,” a second spokeswoman said in a follow-up email that the state board “cannot make a determination based on a complaint alone”—which indicates that the agency regarded my questions as a complaint that would receive “a preliminary screening” to determine whether it will pursue an investigation.

If the board does uncover what it considers a violation, deciding if Hyman deserves punishment would likely take months of bureaucracy.4

Texas

Texas law regulates physician advertising under 22 TAC §164.3, which deems an advertisement false or misleading if it fails to disclose that it is a paid-for presentation, or contains a testimonial without required disclaimers as to the credentials of the person giving it.

Texas’s response to my questions: The Texas Medical Board told me that “the board does consider newsletters, websites, flyers, etc. to constitute advertising.” That means Hyman's emails and website are subject to Texas's prohibition on undisclosed paid-for presentations. The board’s spokesman, Spencer Miller-Payne, said the board does not regard my specific questions about Dr. Hyman, or media reporting generally, as a complaint it would investigate. Complaints must be submitted formally online or by mail.

“If a complaint was received regarding a licensee’s advertising in violation of board rules,” Miller-Payne wrote, “we would follow our standard process, which may include informal resolution, dismissal, or formal disciplinary action.”

Anyone can file a complaint to the Texas Medical Board.

become a paying subscriber

The BLUF (bottom line up front): Research into the biology of long-living older adults reveals unique differences in so-called super agers and centenarians vs other people, and suggests what we can do to help us live longer, too.

Read more

The billion-dollar longevity industry has become the Las Vegas of clinical science: a faux oasis that cares about only one thing—taking your money. To do that, Vegas built casinos; longevity marketers just lie.

Longevity lit…

Read more

This article was updated on Feb. 10 to include Diamandis’s attempt to visit Epstein’s New Mexico ranch in 2008 and his 2014 interactions with Epstein at a TED conference, according to documents that…

Read more

Substack has many problems these days. One of them that should concern us all is the increasing number of medical doctors — and those who call themselves doctors — who publish health and wellness content …

Read more

Read more

What’s in this post:

• The fundamental market advantage of supplement sellers over buyers.

• Thesis: The NAD+ debate: is there proof it works in people?

• What are sirtuins and NAD+? A plain-English overview.

• The two scientists generating the NAD+ hype cycle: how they did it.

• Hitting the resveratrol jackpot, and how resveratrol paved the way for NAD+.

• Profitable consequences: When research PhDs exaggerate their own science.

  ---

There’s a reason you’ve been hearing more about NAD+ shots and supplements lately without feeling like you actually understand what NAD+ is, what it does, how it works, whether it’s worth trying or even why it has become, among celebrities and the so-called “worried well,” such a thing now.

become a paying subscriber

That lack of scientific clarity, I argue below, is partly by design.

When it comes to longevity supplements, ambiguity favors the PhDs selling them for a profit more than the consumers buying them on a prayer.

This post has a simple thesis: NAD+ may eventually be clinically proven to help people age slower and better, but so far there’s zero proof. That lack of evidence hasn’t prevented it from becoming a popular longevity supplement — especially among those on the Hollywood/Instagram axis. At the core of this massive uptick in NAD+ interest are two scientists, at Harvard and MIT, who for years have flooded the zone with research that, coincidentally or not, gave them a clinical basis to sell online sirtuin/NAD+ pills to consumers who may, or may not, receive a benefit.

But first, in case you missed it:

To keep this post as concise as possible, I’ll stay at a non-clinical level of detail to illustrate how talented but ambitious scientists intent on cashing in on their work can use prestigious medical research publications to foster a misleading narrative that provides those scientists lucrative business opportunities.

This isn’t a rare occurrence. In a longevity industry worth an estimated $5.6 trillion1, it’s become a trend.

TREND: A scientist at a prominent lab publishes research suggesting a promising new way to slow or reverse aging. He (they’re almost all men) joins with MBA types to sell an online supplement derived from that research, though the data on humans is inconclusive at best. Other researchers eventually dispute his public claims, but it’s too little, too late! The scientist and his partners, aided by social media influencers, have already developed their unproven product into a lucrative side hustle in the trillion-dollar longevity marketplace.

In plain English: What are sirtuins and NAD+?

Sirtuins are proteins in your cells that act like maintenance workers. They help repair DNA damage and keeping your cellular machinery running smoothly as you age. There are seven different sirtuins in humans (SIRT1 through SIRT7). They also help regulate everything from brain, immune and circadian function to fat metabolism and blood sugar. To function, however, sirtuins need NAD+, a molecule that is present in every cell of your body and is essential for life. (NAD stands for nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide.)

NAD exists in two forms that function as a pair:

• NAD+ (the oxidized form) has a positive charge, ready to accept electrons

• NADH (a reduced form, where H is hydrogen) is neutral, carrying electrons

These two forms work together in your cells. NAD+ picks up electrons (and hydrogen) during the breakdown of food, becoming NADH, which delivers those electrons to your mitochondria to generate energy and then turns back into NAD+. This cycle occurs constantly, in every cell, thousands of times per second, to keep you alive.

---

If you find this article helpful, please subscribe or make a one-time donation.

---

Will NAD+ therapies be proven to offer positive health impacts on humans? Time will tell. Thus far, there has been no clinical consensus that it does2; some reputable scientists are cautiously optimistic, while others are not. Studies continue to publish on both sides of that clinicial aisle.

become a paying subscriber

We may find out sooner rather than later, however. The day before this post published on AGING with STRENGTH, the journal Nature Aging printed a new NAD+ paper with 28 authors — including two mentioned in this post.3

The graphic below, from that study, provides a helpful overview of NAD+ functions in cells, mice and humans, with references to correlated studies.

(As you read further, keep the above study in mind, because it illustrates a central point about the growing number of conflicts of interest in clinical research that I mention below.)

Sirtuins, discovered in the 1970s, have been in the scientific literature for decades. They became famous in the late 1990s when research first suggested that activating them in yeast could mimic the life-extending effects of calorie restriction — eating less while staying healthy — which had been shown to help various organisms (but not humans, really) live longer.

Here’s the critical twist:

NAD+ may precipitously decline with age4, thereby inhibiting the ability of sirtuins, which rely on NAD+, to help keep cells healthy, well and, just maybe, young.5

NAD+ and the scientist-led hype cycle

But, what if, instead of just losing our NAD+ supply as we age, people could keep topping it off with further supplements and injections, to give our sirtuins all the juice they need to continue repairing and rejuvenating our cells?

Or, in the PT Barnum-like parlance of David Sinclair, a serial dissembler and controversial6 Harvard geneticist who has falsely claimed to have reversed aging in dogs7; suggested a pill may soon reverse aging in humans; and regularly exaggerates his research:

What if human manipulation of NAD+ could slow aging?

In fact, in 2016, Sinclair published a paper on sirtuin/NAD+ with that exact, provocative, and, it turns out, unsupported title: “Slowing ageing (sic) by design: the rise of NAD⁺ and sirtuin-activating compounds.”8 I say unsupported because the

Read more

Below is Part 2 of my wide-ranging interview of Eric Topol, a cardiologist and one of the top 10 most cited researchers in medicine, about the biggest takeaways from his best-selling new book, “Super Agers: An Evidence-based Approach to Longevity.”

Read Part 1 of our Q&A session, which took place in…

Read more

Eric Topol is a cardiologist and one of the top 10 most cited researchers in medicine. I sat down with him for an in-depth interview last month to discuss the biggest takeaways from his best-selling book, “Super Agers: An Evidence-based Approach to Longevity,” which quickly became a New York Times bestseller.

I’ve distilled our 70-minute conversation, which took place in Dr. Topol’s office at Scripps Research Translational Institute, which he founded, in La Jolla, Calif., into the Q&A below.

This is Part 1; I’ll publish the second and final part of the interview next week. Dr. Topol called our conversation “exhaustive” — a compliment, considering most media interviews he’s done have only skimmed the surface of his book’s scientific strategies for achieving a healthy and vigorous life free of physical, emotional and cognitive diseases — aka, aging with strength. There’s a lot to learn from Dr. Topol, below.

become a paid subscriber

(This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.)

Paul von Zielbauer, AGING with STRENGTH: Dr. Topol, you’ve written a few bestsellers, but until now none specifically about aging. Why did you write “Super Agers”?

Eric Topol: Each of the books I had done previously were trying to look at, “What's the next big thing in medicine?” “Super Agers” is about forecasting for each person to prevent the Big Three diseases of our species: cancer, cardiovascular disease and neurodegeneration.

The book's intent was to lay out that, while there's all this stuff going on to reverse aging, and that may be great someday, it's going to have risks.

On the other hand, there's this great promise that no one is really working on, using the science of aging to understand each person's aging process. There's all these biomarkers. I did the book primarily to anticipate where aging [science] has yield and excitement.

The other big reason was my longstanding interest in health span, healthy aging and the "Wellderly" — the people in their late 80s who have never had a chronic illness.

And then finally…we have these companies that are selling longevity, we have anti-aging supplements that don't do anything, we have Bryan Johnson and all these quacks. So we need the real truth out there, the facts. And I said, “Well, I can try to project where we can go and get the story straight.”

It's been really terribly predatory out there.

Share

AGING with STRENGTH: You are appropriately aggressive at calling out the longevity charlatans and chiselers out there — Andrew Huberman, David Sinclair, Peter Diamandis, you mentioned Bryan Johnson.

Eric Topol: Peter Attia is on that list, too.

Paul: David Sinclair, a notorious longevity chiseler, has claimed that aging is a disease that can be reversed. Do you believe that aging is a disease?

Eric Topol: That's a really great question. Aging is a normal process, so it's hard to call it a disease. (We used to say obesity wasn't a disease, and now that we have a treatment for it, we say it's a disease.)

The question is, Is it the root of the three major diseases? Are most of the cancers and the cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases an outgrowth of aging? They're dependent on the aging process. So I don't think aging itself is a disease, but because of the way it affects our immune system — the buzzword on that is immunosenescence — and the way it increases our propensity for inflammation, "inflammaging" — those two interrelated processes of aging — [aging] basically invites diseases. It sets up for disease. So per se, no, but indirectly, yes.

AGING with STRENGTH: You get to that at the end of your book, where you say immune function is one of the mainstays of remaining healthy deep into old age.

Eric Topol: We did that study, the "Wellderly" study, of 1,400 people age 80 years and older who had never been sick. No medications. Yet their families mostly did not have that pattern. Lea Rosenberry was 98. Her parents died in their 50s and 60s. Her brothers died in their 60s, and yet she's 98 and perfectly healthy. That was the pattern we saw in the “Wellderly” study.

So what is the explanation for that, if it's not in their DNA? My bet is it was these people's immune system, which is unlike most of us as we get older, where we lose our fine tuning, the integrity [of our immune function], so it’s more vulnerable and it allows cancer cells to get going and spread, or it's untoward inflammation in our brain, in our body, in our arteries that sets up the other two diseases.

Share

So it's the immune system. I keep saying to myself that old thing about the economy: “It's the immune system, stupid!” Because it really is. And only now are we seeing the beginnings of our ability to assay comprehensively a person's immune system.

We should be having immune system testing as we get older, because it is the reason why aging can hurt us.

We don't have a test for it in the clinic. We have a stupid test, which is in your complete blood count, the ratio of your white blood cell neutrophils to your lymphocytes. It's basically worthless. That's the only thing we have today that tells us anything about a person's immune system.

We have this emerging thing called organ clocks, which I'm very excited about. There's also an immune system clock. But that's just [measuring] proteins and it may not be a very accurate window to the cellular component — the antibodies and the interferons.

The immune system is so complex and it [represents] the big hole in the story of extending health span. We have to be able to test people starting at age 50, 60, 70, especially the older they get. Because we have ways to control it. We can dial it up and down. We just don't know who needs to control what.

AGING with STRENGTH: Along with creating a robust immune system later in life, how should people over 50 think about keeping their organs young? And which ones should they focus on?

Eric Topol: First, you’ve got to find out where the vulnerability is, which organ, and then you can get all over it. Let's say it is the immune system, and you have a family history of cancer but you don't know what type of cancer. You do a polygenic risk score.

We have that for every common cancer.

Everyone should have a polygenic risk score for the major cancers. I mean, it's inexcusable, for example, that we have an American president [Joe Biden] who goes all these years, and then all of a sudden has Gleason 8 prostate cancer, which almost invariably would have shown up [on a polygenic risk score test] that he was at high risk — and it was never done.

We do screenings based on age. It may not be just age. It may be, “What do you know about your family?” You get some genetic assessment, whether it's whole genome sequencing or polygenic risk score, then you start to look at the protein layer and particular biomarkers. And if you do have a high risk for cancer, and your immune system is down, but there's no evidence of cancer from, say, a multi-cancer early detection test, a blood test, then you could just keep an eye on this immune system and rev it up.

We just saw how if you just give shingles vaccine to people, it reduces the incidence of dementia and Alzheimer's by 20, 25 percent. If that was a medicine, that would be huge. It basically just revved up the immune system so that their ability to deal with the amyloid and tau proteins and these misfolded proteins in their brain. It just gave them a better defense.

become a paid subscriber

AGING with STRENGTH: Your book documents the big pillars of maximizing health span: Exercise, muscular strength maintenance, sleep, balance, nutrition, community and environmental factors, which the book calls “Lifestyle +.” How else should people think about maximum longevity?

Eric Topol: When you talk about nutrition, you’ve got to [consider] alcohol and salt and sugar. And then social interaction and being in nature. I was surprised at the body of evidence on these things. I didn't expect it. The environment, being in nature. And then along with that are the adverse things in our environment to try to minimize, whether that's [poor] air quality in your home or workplace or it’s plastics. And within nutrition, [limiting] ultra-processed foods and the forever chemicals.

The ultra-processed food story is pretty striking. And then these new categories, like you're bringing up, the social engagement, the beauty of the impact of being out in nature, for mental health.

AGING with STRENGTH: Longevity science can quickly get esoteric and technical, discussing ApoB, metformin, rapamycin, GLP-1s, polygenic risk scores, genomic sequencing, DEXA scans, SGLT-2 inhibitors. How should non-scientists figure out what they need to understand in order to maximize health span?

Eric Topol: On the one hand, it would be great if everybody adopted all the things we know about “Lifestyle +.” If everyone endeavored to do all that, we'd be way ahead in prevention. As outlined in the book, 80 percent to 90 percent of heart disease is preventable; 50 percent or so of cancers and neurodegeneration are preventable with what we know today. But most people don't do all these [preventative] things. So one of the [book’s] missions was, “Let's go with everything that's out there that we know to prevent.”

The problem is when you tell people to do all these things, most people don't do them.

So you don't just tell them, because it doesn't work. I mean, you try. As a doctor-patient relationship, I try. And some people will make a lot of big changes. But what I've learned, and what studies bear out, is that you can particularize the plan for a patient's risk — for example, heart disease — and that's what you go after. And that’s why you check these extra lipid tests like LP(a) and ApoB. And get you off red meat as much as possible and get you on an anti-inflammatory diet. For that person, you have a plan that uses a lot of that lifestyle [factors] but it’s much more directed.

Each person has a different strategy. For the people with cardiovascular, we're going to get the LDL down, whatever it takes, to very low levels. We're going to get LP(a) down. We're going for broke to prevent that disease.

For cancer, we're going to go into this early detection. We're going to get it at the microscopic level. We're going to keep your immune system high integrity so you don't even get microscopic cancer, because we've learned it's all about the immune system, why people get metastatic cancer.

Share

And then for Alzheimer's, [there is] a biomarker called p-tau217. We've got the polygenic risk score for Alzheimer's. We've got the ApoE4 allele. So, for you, today, I could say, you have a high risk or don't have a high risk, and I can say when. I never could say that before. Before, I could say only, "We're going to do a polygenic risk score, and it says you are high risk for Alzheimer's. But we don't know if that's when you're 102 or when you're 62.”

Now we can say it's at 87, plus or minus two years, when you will have mild cognitive impairment. And then another few years before you develop full-blown Alzheimer's. So we are so much better positioned now with AI. And none of this could happen without the AI.

Because you're taking all these data points, billions for each person — everything in the electronic [health] record, unstructured text, all their lab values, where we say, “Oh, it’s normal, no issues,” but the AI sees the trend among normal lab values. AI sees in the image things that humans will never see. And you have all this assembled and then you say, “This is what we're going to work on for this person.” We have this lifestyle plan and, oh, by the way, the GLP-1 drugs, like Ozempic? That could be a big winner for preventing Alzheimer's.

AGING with STRENGTH: GLP-1s — glucagon-like peptides — seem to be an emergent class of wonder drugs. Ozempic is the one that gets most of the attention in the longevity conversation, but what should my readers understand about how GLP-1s may impact their health spans?

Eric Topol: Glucagon-like peptide is one of the gut hormones that we're mimicking with injectable peptides. GLP-1 is just one of the three hormones that are now into therapeutics, or at least a third receptor is. There's glucagon and there's GIP, which is the gastric inhibitory peptide, and then there's 15 more. The dual receptor, which is tirzepatide, has been shown to be much more powerful than Ozempic for weight loss.

But then there's another 15 more peptides that people don't even know about that are coming. But with just GLP-1, that one peptide, if you're obese, you lose weight but before you lose one pound, the inflammation in your body and your brain comes down. I mean, it's striking.

Now we know that the principal action of these drugs, or a big driver, is markedly reduced inflammation.

Some of these newer peptides that are going to be the next-gen, they are incredibly well at penetrating the brain, [via] the vagus nerve. So they'll have even more anti-inflammatory effect in the brain than we've seen with Ozempic.

So this is very exciting. When I say this is a miracle drug class, I'm not just talking about that first one, GLP-1, which took 20 years to figure it out, but about…

Leave a comment

Read more

In this Fun Friday short post, four brief explorations of thoughts that came to mind while doing the dishes this week.

1 | Longevity chiselers and anti-aging charlatans

When I launched AGING with STRENGTH almost nine months ago, it didn’t take the YouTube algorithm very long to feed me a steady diet of Andrew Huberman videos discussing the notion that aging is a disease that can “halted.” By casually infusing his plain English explanations with just enough scientific jargon, Huberman, a Stanford neuroscientist, often asserts unproven theories as fact. He also has a financial stake in products and services he recommends, though he doesn’t often disclose them.

Huberman appears to be what I call a longevity chiseler:

lon·​gev·​i·​ty chis·​el·​er, n. someone who intentionally promotes unproven anti-aging claims or misrepresents facts for financial gain, often unacknowledged.

Huberman is chummy with another longevity chiseler, David Sinclair, a Harvard geneticist who once claimed, falsely, that he and his colleagues had figured out how to reverse aging in dogs. Together, they exemplify the art of scientific misinformation.

The market for preventive wellness, supplements, diagnostics and related healthspan-extending interventions is expected to surpass $8.5 trillion by 2030. With that much money in play, expect a growing number of longevity chiselers and anti-aging charlatans to pop up on your YouTube feed, too.

Share

2 | A European vacation with my mom and daughter

Next week will be a big one for me: I’m taking my 82-year-old mom and 9-year-old daughter to Austria, Switzerland and Bavaria, for an three-generation, train-based European vacation.

This will be the first and likely the last time we three travel together, so I’m looking forward to this experience, and especially the privilege of watching mom and daughter have their own European travel experience, together and individually.

I’m betting many of you have done something similar with parent and child together on a vacation or extended outing, so I’m asking for advice: What do I need to know that I’m not anticipating? Any helpful thoughts welcome.

Leave a comment

3 | Becoming a “super ager,” Part 2: don’t sleep too much

Last week, I mentioned I’d interviewed Dr. Eric Topol, one of the world’s leading medical researchers and author of “Super Agers.” Here’s another interesting finding from the book: regularly getting more than 7-8 hours of sleep a night is associated with a 12-percent greater risk of cardiovascular disease.

If you have a few hours to spare, here’s the research behind that statistic.

I’ll write a full post about my 70-minute interview with Dr. Topol. After I return from Europe, most likely.

4 | Two upcoming podcasts you’ll want to watch or hear

In the next two weeks, I’ll also publish edited versions of video conversations with two people who have a lot to say about different aspects of aging with strength, with some surprise moments:

Read more

GLP-1, Metformin and rapamycin: three names that keep cropping up in the modern longevity conversation. Below is a brief but detailed breakdown of each of these three…things (they’re not “drugs” and I’m not sure there’s a single word that accurately comprises all three). Here’s a bulleted introduction to each thing, and below I get into what they do, th…

Read more

On Monday, Harvard’s School of Public Health announced new research that reveals — are you sitting down? — that healthy eating in midlife is linked to healthy aging.

Yes. Several media sites ran with this mind-blowing news while failing, in a stark example of how rote health journalism is nowadays, to notice the disturbingly unhealthy aging revelations …

Read more

A few days ago, I spoke with Dr. Michael Snyder, a prominent Stanford geneticist and the senior author of a blockbuster-esque study that the Stanford press team and several major media organizations said, incorrectly, showed that all people age more rapidly around ages 44 and 60. I revi…

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Inside Longevity™ explores the news, data, people, companies and investors populating the longevity and anti-aging industries, and their interconnections.

Subscribe now

I recently came across a study in the journal Aging that showed how a strict but achievable two-month dietary and lifestyle regimen lowered the biological ages of its participants by an average of 4.6 years. Other studies have shown similar findings, but what made this study different is that its subjects were all healthy women 46 to 65 years old.

Also notable is that the study’s dietary requirements to reverse biological aging were not draconian, not vegan and not even vegetarian. More on the specifics below.

What is biological age and why does it matter?

Biological age refers to how old your cells are and can differ significantly from your chronological age, which is simply how many years you’ve lived. Having a lower biological age means your body is aging slower than someone of your chronological age. You’ll often hear this referred to as “reversing the aging process,” because many studies have shown how diet and lifestyle changes over the course of several weeks can reverse your aging clock by several years. A lower biological age has a huge positive impact on your ability to avoid chronic physical and cognitive disease1, some form of which now afflicts a majority of American adults.

You don’t need to be vegan, vegetarian or a biohacker to slow aging

That’s why this 2023 study, led by Dr. Kara Fitzgerald (read about my subsequent interview with her in this follow-up post), struck me as a longevity treasure map for women and men who want the undeniable benefits of maintaining a younger biological self but who also want to live and eat like a relatively normal human, and not like a self-obsessed biohacker with $1,000 worth of supplements in the cupboard and an 18-year-old blood boy on speed dial.

To the contrary, the daily regimen that Dr. Fitzgerald’s study required its participants to complete seemed achievable by many everyday people, in terms of required time and expense — though it does mean eating a lot of certain kinds of vegetables, eating liver (or liver supplement) and taking two other supplements and exercising daily.

The daily regimen that reversed biological age in 2 months

(See the full program below). Each day, you’ll need to eat lots and lots of dark leafy greens (sadly, the Spring Mix I usually buy doesn’t count).

Read more