A practical map of where longevity claims sit today: frontier risk, commercial claims, serious-but-unproven drugs, measurement claims and clinic services.
Peptides, gene therapy and senolytics where internet demand is ahead of human evidence.
No strong human evidence shows that BPC-157 heals tendon or ligament injuries. Most support is animal, cell or mechanism-based, and internet recovery claims should not be treated as proven clinical benefit.
TB-500 injury-recovery claims are not supported by strong human clinical evidence. The claim often relies on extrapolation from thymosin beta-4 biology and should be treated as unproven.
Prescription-drug candidates with real biology but unresolved human aging endpoints.
Rapamycin has unusually strong aging-biology interest, but it is not proven to slow human aging or extend lifespan in healthy adults. Off-label longevity use remains a medical decision, not a protocol from an article.
Metformin is an important diabetes drug and longevity candidate, but it is not proven to extend lifespan in healthy non-diabetic adults.
NAD and senolytic supplement claims where biomarkers, marketing and outcomes are often blurred.
NMN may affect NAD-related biomarkers in some studies, but that does not prove it slows human aging. The stronger claim needs clinical outcomes, not only a molecule-level signal.
There is no simple evidence-based winner between NR and NMN for longevity. Comparisons depend on dose form, endpoints, product quality and whether the outcome is a biomarker or a health result.
Biological-age and biomarker claims where a number is often overinterpreted.
Paid services that package plausible biology into stronger consumer outcomes.
NAD IV anti-aging claims are not supported by strong evidence. Infusion marketing often uses cellular language that does not prove meaningful aging outcomes.