Evidence-first longevity reporting

Longevity science, with the uncertainty left in.

sixty-six source-reviewed stories explain what human studies, early trials, biomarkers and laboratory research can—and cannot—tell us about healthier aging.

Browse all stories

Health & function · composite endpoints

ASPREE’s broader healthspan composite stayed near the null

Read the analysis
Portrait of Lois Rune

Named human authorship

Reported by Lois Rune

Meet the author responsible for MoreYears.news sourcing, evidence boundaries, and published articles.

About Lois and the editorial process

Latest stories

The newest findings—and what they mean for healthy aging.

Each story names the studied population, outcome, limits, safety context and sources—without turning a promising signal into a longevity promise.

Why primary, secondary and subgroup trial results carry different weight

A result makes sense only beside the question fixed before the data, the people actually analyzed and the uncertainty around the estimate.

Methods guidance with bounded examples from two human randomized trialsRead the explainer

A 24-week NMN trial raised blood NAD—not hearing or physical function

In selected healthy Japanese adults age 65 or older, high-dose NMN produced a large biochemical change. The registered hearing outcome and measured physical function did not improve.

Human biomarkers and function · small 24-week randomized trialRead the analysis

Why “frailty” can mean different things in different studies

Physical features, accumulated deficits and performance tasks measure different inputs. Learn what a changed frailty score can and cannot establish.

Human measurement methods · historical observational validation, with consensus and molecular contextRead the explainer
Editorial diagram separating the pectin pilot’s null inflammatory result from secondary physical and psychological signals and an exploratory microbiome finding.

A four-week pectin pilot found signals—not proof of frailty benefit

In 31 older adults with frailty or pre-frailty, low-methoxy pectin did not change the inflammatory outcomes the paper defined as primary. Secondary and exploratory signals remain preliminary.

Human frailty/pre-frailty · small randomized four-week nutrition pilotRead the story
Editorial diagram comparing two energy-balanced protein diets with a near-zero difference in fasting blood-cell autophagic flux.

Cutting protein did not raise blood-cell autophagy in one trial

A four-week crossover trial found no detectable average increase in fasting immune-cell autophagic flux. It did not test other tissues, older adults, healthspan or lifespan.

Human blood-cell autophagic flux · small randomized crossover nutrition trialRead the story
Editorial diagram showing different randomized studies and multidimensional measures flowing into a qualitative synthesis with no pooled effect.

A review found healthspan signals—and no common effect

Fifteen randomized studies measured intrinsic capacity, quality of life or other multidimensional scores. Their results could be described study by study—not combined into extra healthy years or a treatment ranking.

Human multidimensional function and well-being · systematic review of randomized trialsRead the story
View all 66 published stories

Explore by topic

What could help you stay healthier for longer?

Plain-language categories organize the reporting. They do not rate an intervention or imply that every topic has equally mature evidence.

New to MoreYears?

Choose your fastest route into longevity science.

Choose an introduction or intervention path—or begin with heart health, cognition, or staying strong and independent. Every step explains why it follows.

Learn

Spot the difference between a promising signal and a proven benefit.

Short guides explain evidence maturity, clinical trials and biomarkers. Editorial standards and the development record remain available in the trust links below.

The weekly evidence note

Five longevity findings worth understanding

A concise weekly email about what changed, what the evidence can support, and which claims deserve more skepticism.