The longevity supplement market is worth $50 billion. The incentive to sell is enormous. Evidence Based Longevity was built on a single premise: if you can't cite the trial, you can't make the claim.
Every product, device, and testing protocol on this site cleared a published human clinical trial threshold before it appears. Here is exactly how that works.
No product reaches this site by sponsoring a conference, running ads, or paying a placement fee. Every product goes through the same five-step evaluation, in order. Failure at any step is a disqualifier.
We search PubMed for all human clinical trials on the active ingredient, filtered for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and peer-reviewed meta-analyses. Animal data and in-vitro studies are noted but never used as the primary evidence basis for a recommendation.
Human Evidence FirstWe compare the product's actual label dose against the effective dose range used in the published trials. Products that underdose — a common industry practice — are penalized in their evidence rating regardless of the ingredient's underlying merit. A real dose in a real trial, or it doesn't count.
Label dose vs. trial doseMolecular form determines whether you absorb anything at all. Magnesium oxide vs. glycinate. Ubiquinone vs. ubiquinol. NMN vs. NR. Liposomal vs. standard. We evaluate which form was used in the trials that showed efficacy — and whether the product in front of us matches that form.
Bioavailability scoredWhat's on the label must match what's in the bottle. We require COA availability from ISO-accredited labs for Tier A–B listings. Independent certification (NSF, USP, Informed Sport, IFOS) elevates a product's rating. Claims of purity without verification are treated as unverified.
NSF · USP · IFOS · COAWe check whether the trials supporting a product were funded by its manufacturer, conducted by researchers with financial ties to the brand, or published in pay-to-play journals. Industry-funded studies are weighted less heavily. Independent replication in separate research groups is required for a Tier A rating. Affiliate commission relationships are disclosed on every product page — but commissions are never a factor in tier assignment. The evidence gates are passed first, always.
Independent replication required for Tier AEvery supplement in our database is assigned one of four evidence tiers based on the quality and volume of published human clinical research. Tier assignment reflects the evidence — not the popularity, price, or marketing spend of the product.
Multiple high-quality RCTs and systematic meta-analyses in humans. Effect sizes replicated across independent research groups. Decades of safety data. These are the compounds that have earned the scientific consensus — not because a brand paid for it, but because the evidence accumulated across decades of independent research and survived the scrutiny of systematic reviews.
Multiple human RCTs with consistent results across independent groups. Mechanistic pathways well-established and biologically plausible. Some limitations in trial scale, duration, or population size. The evidence is compelling and actionable — these are serious compounds, not trend supplements. Gaps exist but are acknowledged explicitly.
Human trials exist but are limited in scale, number, or reproducibility. Promising preclinical and mechanistic data support biological plausibility. Listed with explicit evidence caveats — the compound is scientifically credible but the clinical evidence base is not yet sufficient to recommend without qualification. Worth watching as trials accumulate.
Preliminary human data or strong mechanistic rationale without robust clinical trials. The biology is real but the clinical proof is not yet there. Listed only when the safety profile is established and the mechanistic case is sufficiently strong. Always accompanied by explicit caveats and a disclosure of the evidence gap.
Products built on pseudoscience, quantum energy claims, undisclosed mechanisms, or marketing narratives with no peer-reviewed human trial data are not listed — regardless of how popular they are, who endorses them, or how prominent their conference sponsorship. This is a non-negotiable filter.
Evidence hierarchy modeled on systematic-review standards. No affiliation with Cochrane is implied.
The Cochrane Review is the gold standard for medical evidence — an independent international non-profit that produces systematic reviews pooling data from hundreds of randomized controlled trials, filtering out industry-funded bias, small sample sizes, and statistical noise. When a treatment earns a favorable Cochrane conclusion, it has survived the most rigorous scrutiny in medicine. This site applies the same hierarchical framework: RCTs and meta-analyses drive ratings; anecdote, influencer endorsement, and marketing copy do not.
Devices present a different evaluation challenge than supplements. FDA clearance, clinical trial design, and mechanism complexity all factor differently. We apply a modified tier system that accounts for the regulatory and clinical realities of the device category.
A key distinction: individual modality evidence (e.g., photobiomodulation) vs. product-specific evidence (e.g., this specific device at this specific dose). We flag which type of evidence is driving the rating on every device card.
Tier placement may vary by health goal, dose, population, and outcome. A product rated Tier A for one indication may carry less evidence for another. Always review the specific trial data cited on each product page.
FDA-cleared for the indicated use, supported by multiple independent RCTs, and modality-level evidence is substantial. Device operates at clinically validated parameters.
Modality is well-supported in peer-reviewed literature. Product-specific RCTs may be limited but parameters match published clinical protocols. Mechanism is biologically established.
Mechanism is plausible and modality has some pilot data. Product-specific clinical evidence is limited or preliminary. Listed with explicit caveats and a clear statement of what is and is not yet proven.
The longevity industry has a specific set of incentive problems that corrupt most sites in this space. We address each of them explicitly.
Brands do not pay to appear on this site. There is no sponsored content, no advertorial, no "featured partner" tier that gets you listed above competitors. The evidence threshold is the only entry criteria.
Affiliate commission relationships are disclosed on every product page. But a higher commission never moves a product up the tier ladder. The rankings reflect evidence strength, period.
If a compound goes viral on social media but lacks published human trial data, it does not appear here. Popularity is not evidence. Conference sponsorship is not evidence. Influencer adoption is not evidence.
We never extrapolate from animal data to human outcomes without stating that explicitly. When a study is industry-funded, we say so. When the evidence is limited, we say so. The caveats are not buried in fine print.
A product rated Tier C today may earn Tier B when a new independent RCT publishes. A product rated Tier A may be downgraded if a large meta-analysis contradicts earlier findings. Ratings are reviewed when new significant trials are published.
Evidence-based does not mean personalized. What a population-level RCT shows may not apply to your individual physiology, medications, or health conditions. Every recommendation on this site includes a "discuss with your physician" standard — especially for pharmaceutical-grade compounds, devices, and peptides.
The Founder of Evidence Based Longevity has no financial stake in any supplement manufacturer, device company, or testing laboratory featured on this site. Recommendations are made from a position of clinical experience and independent research review — not commercial interest.
Ratings are informed by five decades of nutrition and clinical health practice — not just a literature search. That experience shapes which signals matter, which study designs are trustworthy, and which industry narratives deserve skepticism.
After decades working in nutrition and clinical health — and watching the longevity supplement market flood with claims that no trial has ever tested in humans — I wanted one place that applied a single standard: if you can't cite the trial, you can't make the claim.
Every tool on this site was built to answer a question I kept hearing from people trying to make smart decisions about their health: What does the evidence actually say, at the dose that was actually studied?
Not a marketing page. A research translation platform. No subscription required — because the information should be accessible, not paywalled.
The people who most need reliable longevity information are often the most at risk of being misled. High-net-worth individuals are targeted by premium-priced products with sophisticated marketing and no clinical backing. Busy professionals don't have time to read the primary literature. And most "evidence-based" wellness sites use that phrase as a marketing headline, not an actual standard.
The goal of this site is simple: create the resource that a serious, skeptical physician — with decades of nutrition and longevity and no financial conflicts — would hand to a patient who asked "what actually works?"
Evidence Based Longevity applies the same standard this site was built on: if there is no peer-reviewed human trial, the claim does not get made.
"The restraint is the brand signal. If we tell you something works, it works. If we tell you the evidence is limited, we mean it. That's the only promise this site makes — and it's the only one that matters."
Examine.com is the most rigorous independent supplement database in existence. Where our grades diverge from theirs, we explain why. Where we align, that alignment reflects convergent evidence appraisal across two independent methodologies.
EBL grades longevity-specific endpoints (mortality, healthspan, cardiovascular events, biological age). Examine grades effectiveness at the stated primary endpoint. The same supplement can have different grades because we are measuring different things — not because one assessment is wrong.
| Supplement | EBL Tier | Examine Grade | Why they differ (or align) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Omega-3 (EPA/DHA) | A | A | Full alignment. REDUCE-IT cardiovascular outcomes data meets both standards for Tier A / Grade A. Hard human endpoint. |
| Creatine Monohydrate | A | A | Full alignment. 500+ RCTs. Muscle preservation and cognition under stress are both well-replicated in humans. |
| Magnesium | A | A | Full alignment. 34-RCT meta-analysis on BP reduction. Widespread deficiency in Western adults strengthens the case for repletion. |
| Vitamin D3 | A | B | EBL grades higher. VITAL trial showed 25% reduction in cancer mortality at 2,000 IU — a hard endpoint. Examine grades B reflecting mixed results across all endpoints. EBL weights cancer mortality specifically. |
| CoQ10 (Ubiquinol) | B | B | Full alignment. Q-SYMBIO trial (heart failure) is compelling but applies to a specific clinical population — does not extrapolate to general longevity. |
| Berberine | B | B | Full alignment. Biomarker RCT data is strong (HbA1c, LDL-C). No hard outcome trial yet. B is the correct tier for this evidence profile. |
| NMN | B | C | EBL grades higher. Yoshino 2021 (Science) showed +25% muscle insulin sensitivity in humans. EBL weights this specific human mechanistic RCT. Examine's C reflects limited replicated outcome data — a defensible position. |
| Ashwagandha | B | B | Full alignment. Cortisol and stress-biomarker RCTs are consistent. VO₂ max data adds longevity relevance. No mortality endpoint. |
| Resveratrol | C | C | Full alignment. Poor human bioavailability is the fundamental problem. Mouse lifespan data is compelling; human translation has not followed. C is generous. |
| Quercetin | C | C | Full alignment. Senolytic mechanism is plausible; human clinical data is early-stage and underpowered. Promising, not proven. |
| Fisetin | C | D | EBL grades higher. Mayo Clinic human pilot on senescent cell clearance justifies C over D. Examine's D reflects lack of replicated outcome data — a defensible position for a more conservative standard. |
| Curcumin | C | B | Examine grades higher. Examine rates biomarker outcomes (inflammation, joint pain) where curcumin has decent RCT data. EBL grades C because bioavailability problems persist and there is no hard longevity endpoint data. |