Choose from 60+ interventions across supplements, exercise, nutrition, sleep, and lab testing. Every item is graded A–Rx on human clinical evidence. Build your personal protocol, see what the evidence supports, and share it.
The most common longevity stack mistake is starting with exotic, expensive interventions before establishing the foundational ones. A well-designed stack has a logical hierarchy — from the highest-evidence, lowest-risk foundations to the more speculative interventions layered on top.
Before considering any Grade B or C supplement, the lifestyle interventions with Grade A evidence should be in place. Zone 2 cardio (150–180 min/week), resistance training (2–3x/week), 7–9 hours of quality sleep, and a diet built around whole foods with adequate protein (1.6–2.2g/kg bodyweight) represent the highest-leverage longevity interventions available — and they're free. The 2025 Shailendra meta-analysis of 2.1 million person-years found that combining resistance training and aerobic exercise reduced all-cause mortality by 28%. No supplement has evidence of that magnitude.
On the supplement side, the Grade A foundations are the compounds addressing near-universal deficiencies: Omega-3s (most Western diets are deficient in EPA/DHA), Magnesium (48% of Americans below recommended intake), and Vitamin D3 (75–80% of adults are suboptimal by longevity standards). These are inexpensive, safe at recommended doses, and backed by some of the strongest human evidence in the supplement literature.
Once the foundation is established, Grade B compounds are worth considering based on individual health context. Taurine gained significant credibility from the Singh et al. Science 2023 paper identifying taurine deficiency as a conserved feature of aging, followed by a 2025 human RCT showing measurable biological age improvements at 3g/day. Creatine monohydrate has 30+ years of safety data and multiple RCTs demonstrating muscle preservation and cognitive benefits — arguably the most cost-effective longevity supplement per dollar of evidence. NMN and NR reliably raise blood NAD+ in humans; whether that translates to clinical longevity outcomes remains to be demonstrated, but the mechanistic case is strong and the safety profile is good.
Sauna use deserves mention here: the Finnish cohort data (Laukkanen et al., JAMA Intern Med 2015) showed 4–7 sauna sessions per week associated with 40% lower cardiovascular mortality. While this is observational data, the biological plausibility is strong (heat stress mimics aspects of exercise adaptation) and the evidence volume is significant. It belongs in any serious longevity stack.
Rapamycin, metformin, GLP-1 agonists, and acarbose have the most compelling longevity mechanistic profiles of any interventions in this database — and all require physician oversight. This is not bureaucratic caution; it reflects genuine safety considerations. Rapamycin's immunosuppressive effects at continuous dosing are real and potentially dangerous. Metformin depletes B12 in 6.3% of users per the TAME interim data, requiring monitoring. GLP-1 agonists are among the most transformative cardiovascular drugs of the past decade but carry a small pancreatitis risk and require proper dose titration.
The TAME trial interim results (Barzilai et al., JAMA Netw Open 2025) showed a 17% reduction in new chronic disease in non-diabetic older adults — the most significant longevity clinical trial result in years. If you are over 60 and interested in metformin, discuss it with your physician: the evidence now supports that conversation in a way it didn't five years ago. For rapamycin, pulsed weekly dosing (the Blagosklonny protocol) is the current hypothesis for capturing longevity benefits while limiting immunosuppression, but this remains unproven in human RCTs.
Grade A (Strong Evidence): Multiple randomized controlled trials in humans with consistent effects on aging-related or longevity-related outcomes. Mechanism well-established. These interventions are the foundation of any evidence-based longevity protocol.
Grade B (Promising Evidence): At least one quality RCT or consistent cohort data in humans. Plausible mechanism. More research ongoing. Worth including at appropriate doses with realistic expectations.
Grade C (Preliminary): Strong animal or mechanistic data, but limited or mixed human trial evidence. Interesting but not confirmed. Include only if you understand the evidence gap and are comfortable with uncertainty.
Grade Rx (Prescription Required): Compounds or interventions requiring physician oversight due to side effects, interactions, or regulatory status. The stack builder notes these — we strongly recommend not adding Rx items without active physician supervision.
Evidence scores are calculated based on the weighted sum of your stack's items: Grade A items contribute 12 points, Grade B items contribute 8 points, Grade C items contribute 4 points, and Rx items contribute 6 points (reflecting both evidence and risk). The score is normalized to 100 and reflects the overall evidence quality of your stack — not an absolute measure of benefit.
This tool is for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. No intervention should be started or stopped without consulting a qualified physician, particularly any Rx-grade items.
When major longevity trials publish, we update the evidence grades. Subscribe to stay current.