In short
This programme is built on what has actually been tested, which means some of what is sold as anti ageing is not part of it.
| Has randomised evidence | Blood pressure treatment, lipid lowering, smoking cessation, physical activity, treating the conditions you actually have |
| Has none | Growth hormone for healthy adults, compounded hormone mixtures, most supplements, IV infusions, biological age tests |
The uncomfortable finding: general health checks improved cholesterol and blood pressure in trials but did not reduce mortality. What you do with the results is the whole of the benefit.
Treatment Overview
Why is this page sceptical?
Because the field has a specific pattern: strong claims, weak evidence, and a business model that depends on repeat purchase. Being clear about which is which is the most useful thing a doctor can do here.
Drugs are regulated and have to be tested. Vitamins, minerals, supplements and behavioural programmes are not, and are therefore rarely tested in randomised trials at all.
What has real evidence behind it?
- Physical activity. Regular exercise cut mortality by 27 per cent, vigorous by 32, both by 50 per cent in a cohort of 252,925 adults aged 50 to 71
- Stopping smoking. Counselling raised quit rates by over half across 49 trials, and adding medication raised them further
- Lipid and blood pressure treatment. Both established by randomised trials, with the intensity matched to your calculated risk
- Treating the conditions you have. In diabetes, multifactorial risk factor treatment halved cardiovascular events and death over 13 years and added a median 7.9 years of life at 21 years
What does not have evidence?
| Growth hormone for healthy adults | Not offered. No evidence base for anti ageing use, and real risks |
| Compounded hormone mixtures | Not offered. When tested, potency ranged from 67.5 to 268 per cent of the label |
| Routine testosterone in women | Not recommended. No proven benefit for bone, mood, memory or energy |
| Supplements without a deficiency | Correct a real deficiency, yes. Supplement in its absence, no |
| Biological age tests | Not standardised, and acting on the number has not been shown to help |
The finding that should be uncomfortable
In a meta analysis of 14 randomised trials and over 180,000 people, general health checks did not reduce total, cardiovascular or cancer mortality. An earlier meta analysis of six trials found the same for mortality.
They did improve blood pressure, cholesterol and BMI, particularly in higher risk people. So the value is entirely in what gets acted on, which is why this programme is built around decisions rather than around testing.
What is the alternative to a longevity package?
Two or three specific changes with numbers attached, a calculated risk band that determines whether medication is warranted, and screening limited to what has evidence for someone your age.
That is less impressive to look at and considerably more likely to work.
Who Is a Good Candidate?
- You want the evidence separated from the marketing before spending anything
- You are already on a longevity or anti ageing protocol and want it reviewed honestly
- You are in your 30s to 50s and want the modifiable risks addressed while they still compound
- You would rather be told that something is not worth doing than sold it
- You are looking for growth hormone, unlicensed peptides, stem cell or IV anti ageing infusions, which are not prescribed here
- You want doses steered by saliva hormone testing or a biological age score
- An active symptom, which needs investigating on its own terms first
What Happens During the Consultation
-
1
An audit of what you are already doing
Supplements, hormones, protocols and their cost. Each one is placed in one of three groups: keep, stop, or no evidence either way and your choice.
-
2
Calculated risk rather than a wellness score
Blood pressure, lipids, glucose, kidney function and weight through a validated calculator, plus lifetime risk between 30 and 59 where the 10 year figure is low or borderline.
-
3
Only the tests that clear the bar
Each proposed test is checked for whether the condition causes real harm in someone like you, whether finding it early helps, and whether the test performs well enough.
-
4
Two or three changes, with numbers
The interventions with the largest expected effect for you, quantified rather than described, and a review interval that matches your risk.
Program Structure & Follow-Up
How is the programme structured?
Around decisions and intervals, not around a package of repeat testing.
The first three months
- Any medication started is reviewed early for tolerance and effect
- Activity is built from where you actually are, since the largest gain is moving from inactive to active
- Anything stopped is checked for withdrawal effects, particularly hormones
The intervals after that
| Cardiovascular risk | Every three to five years if low, yearly at borderline or above |
| General review | Every three years under 50, yearly from 50 |
| Calcium score | Not repeated to monitor treatment. If it was zero, a repeat in three to seven years is reasonable only if it would change something |
Why not more often?
Because there is no evidence base for an optimal check up frequency, and shorter intervals mainly produce more borderline results that need chasing. Frequency is not a proxy for care.
Benefits, Limits & Safety
What can this programme honestly promise?
That the things you do have evidence behind them, that the money goes to interventions with measurable effects, and that you will be told when something is not worth doing.
What it cannot promise is a slowing of ageing itself, because no available intervention has been shown to do that in humans.
Where the real gains are
Compression of morbidity: greater activity in midlife is associated with fewer chronic conditions in the last five years of life. Framingham data put the life expectancy gain at 50 at 1.3 years for moderate and 3.7 years for high activity in men, and 1.5 and 3.5 years in women.
Those are large numbers by the standards of anything else on offer, and they come from something free.
The harms that get ignored
- False positives from unnecessary tests, each leading to further investigation with its own risks
- Overdiagnosis: treating disease that would never have caused harm. Autopsy studies found prostate cancer in 30 per cent of men in their 50s and 83 per cent in their 70s
- Compounded hormones with unreliable dosing, and inadequate endometrial protection in women
- Cost and time spent on interventions that displace the ones that work
What about extreme exercise?
Benefit is dose dependent up to about three to five times the recommended minimum, then flattens and may slightly reverse. Elite athletes show more atrial fibrillation. More is not indefinitely better.
What is worth doing
Activity, smoking cessation, blood pressure and lipid treatment, and treating the conditions you actually have. All established by randomised evidence.
How the programme runs
Intervals matched to risk rather than sold as a subscription. Cardiovascular risk every three to five years if low, yearly if not.
What is refused
Growth hormone for healthy adults, unlicensed peptides, IV anti ageing infusions, compounded hormones, saliva hormone dosing and biological age tests.
Cost & Program Investment
Consultations and tests are quoted individually before anything is ordered. There is no membership, no tier and no annual package, partly because there is no evidence that more frequent testing improves outcomes. Part of the value of the first appointment is usually a reduction in what you are spending elsewhere, since protocols and supplements without evidence are identified and stopped.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. There is no evidence base for its use in healthy adults for this purpose, and there are real risks. It is not offered regardless of what has been prescribed elsewhere.
Not if you have a deficiency, which is worth finding and correcting. Beyond that, supplements are rarely tested in randomised trials at all, so the confident claims made for them do not rest on the same evidence as medicines.
Because they were tested. In 14 randomised trials covering over 180,000 people, general health checks did not reduce mortality, though they did improve cholesterol and blood pressure. The benefit is in acting on findings.
Not offered. Correcting a documented deficiency has a route, and it is usually oral. Routine infusions for wellness have no evidence behind them.
Hormone therapy is prescribed for specific indications, such as menopausal symptoms or confirmed deficiency, with proper monitoring. It is not prescribed as an anti ageing measure, and compounded mixtures are not prescribed at all.
Usually less than you are spending now. The interventions with the strongest evidence are activity, not smoking, and treating blood pressure and lipids where your risk band warrants it.
Several things are being studied, and some may turn out to work. Until a randomised trial shows a benefit on outcomes that matter, they are not prescribed here, and you will be told when that changes.
Evidence
Where this information comes from
Every figure on this page is taken from the sources below. All of them are free to read, so you can check them yourself.
This page is general medical information and does not replace a personal consultation. Trial results are averages across large groups, not a prediction for any one person.