In short
Overview
A longevity clinic can mean two quite different things. One is preventive medicine with a better name. The other is a subscription to tests that have never been shown to help.
Direct Answer
The defensible version is cardiovascular risk assessment, age appropriate cancer screening, and the handful of behaviours with randomised evidence behind them.
The rest, growth hormone for healthy adults, biological age panels, whole body scans and infusions, has no evidence of benefit and some evidence of harm.
The uncomfortable finding that separates the two: general health checks did not reduce mortality in a meta analysis of 14 randomised trials covering over 180,000 people.
Who This Applies To
- People in their 30s to 50s who have never had cardiovascular risk formally calculated. Risk assessment should start at 20 and calculators from 30
- People with a family history of early heart disease, high cholesterol or diabetes
- People already on a longevity protocol who want it audited honestly
Option Comparison / Decision Criteria
No evidence base for this purpose, and real risks
Not standardised, and acting on the number has not been shown to help
Not a recommended screen. They find a great deal that was never going to matter
In 6621 adults, 62 per cent of positive signals were false, procedures followed in 30 per cent of those, and no study shows they reduce deaths
Rarely tested in randomised trials at all
Why an In-Person Physician Review Matters
Three questions any test should pass Does this condition cause real harm, often enough in someone like you?
Would finding it early lead to a better outcome than finding it later? Is the test good enough not to cause more trouble than it prevents? Most of what fills a longevity package fails at least one. Why bad screening looks convincing Lead time bias. Finding disease earlier lengthens survival from diagnosis automatically, even if the date of death does not move Length time bias. Screening preferentially catches slow growing tumours, so screen detected disease looks better behaved Adherence bias. People who turn up for things do better anyway. In one trial, people taking at least 75 per cent of their dummy pills had half the mortality of those taking fewer What separates real evidence from these illusions is a lower death rate in a randomised comparison, not longer survival in a screened group. The commercial problem A clinic that earns from testing has a structural reason to test. The medical answer is frequently to do less, and being told which tests are not worth doing is usually the most valuable part of the appointment.
Frequently Asked Questions
The parts with evidence are: cardiovascular risk assessment, cancer screening, activity, smoking cessation and treating the conditions you have. The parts sold as anti ageing, growth hormone, infusions and biological age scores, are not.
It is not a recommended screening test. It produces incidental findings that then have to be excluded, each with its own risk, and there is no evidence it reduces deaths.
Not automatically. In 14 randomised trials covering over 180,000 people, general health checks did not reduce total, cardiovascular or cancer mortality, though they improved blood pressure, cholesterol and BMI. The value is in acting on findings.
There is no evidence it improves outcomes for a healthy adult. For predicting coronary events, a calcium score outperformed polygenic risk scores in two large population studies.
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.