What to Ignore
The longevity products whose marketing has outrun the evidence.
Problem
The longevity market is mostly advertising dressed as medicine. A product is not wrong because it is marketed — but most of what is marketed is either weakly supported, absurdly priced for what it actually is, or years ahead of the human outcome data that would justify it. Podcasters make money off the stack. Clinics make money off the subscription. You make money off none of it. Which products specifically stay off your shelf?
Solution
These are the ones I have stopped paying for.
| Product | Cost/yr | Evidence | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMN / NR NAD precursors | $300–$1,800 | C | Encouraging mechanism. Weak human outcome data. Wait. |
| Resveratrol (high dose) | $120–$500 | C | Bioavailability and dose issues at humanly achievable levels. |
| Anti-aging peptides BPC-157 etc. | $500–$5,000 | C | Far ahead of the evidence. Regulatory risk on top of science risk. |
| Proprietary longevity blends | $500–$3,000 | C | Generic components at a markup. The brand is the tax. |
| IV NAD drips | $200–$600/session | C | Low evidence for cost. Dose-delivery theatre. |
| "Biological age" tests consumer tier | $200–$500/yr | B− | Noisy at the spot value. Track trends only; no single reading is trustworthy. |
| CGM, year-round for non-diabetics | $1,800 | C | Useful as a 2–4 week behavioral tool. Not a year-round intervention. |
| Whole genome sequencing consumer tier | $300–$1,500 | C | Error-prone at 30×. Exome wins. See § 2.1. |
| Executive physical | $5,000+ | B | Marginal value over a $200–$500 focused panel is tiny. You're paying for the lobby. |
| "Premium" 200-marker panels | $800–$2,000 | B | Most extra markers don't change what you do. Focus the panel. |
| Red-light therapy panels (at home) | $500–$2,000 one-time | C | Real but modest effects on a few things. Not a longevity lever. |
| Cryotherapy chambers | $50–$100/session | C | Cold exposure is fine. The chamber is a tax on it. Cold shower works. |
Discussion
A few of these will age into legitimacy. NMN and NR might earn their place if longer human outcome trials land cleanly. Rapamycin may do the same depending on TAME-like trials — though even today it belongs with a physician, not on a supplement shelf. The rule I use: something moves off this list and onto my personal stack only when there is human outcome data. Not mechanism. Not mice. Not a compelling paragraph on a podcaster's Substack.
Biological-age tests deserve a separate note. They are not useless. They are useful as a trend across multiple readings taken on the same service, the same collection day-of-week, ideally the same time-of-day. Any single reading is too noisy to act on. My own 10-year drop was corroborated across multiple readings before I was comfortable quoting it. If anyone tells you their reading moved three years in a month, they have an expensive random-number generator and a marketing team behind it.
The last rule of this chapter: the market is extremely good at selling confidence about longevity and extremely bad at producing it. When someone hands you an $1,800 bottle, ask which blood marker it moves and ask to see the trial. If the answer is long and leans on the word "mechanism," you already have your answer.
See Also
- § 3.1 · The Universal Four — what stays on the shelf
- § 3.4 · Prescription Considerations — where real outcome data does exist