🛰 New Issue Monthly
Monthly Research Digest

Research Radar
What's actually moving the needle.

The longevity field produces hundreds of studies per month. Most don't matter. We read them so you don't have to — and tell you honestly what each finding means, what the methodology allows us to conclude, and whether you should change anything about your approach.

📅 Latest: April 2025
🔬 12 studies reviewed this issue
📚 47 total studies reviewed
✍️ By Derek Giordano, IQ Healthspan
Browse Issues
Impact Signal 🟢 High ImpactChanges what we recommend
🔵 ModerateStrengthens or refines current guidance
🟡 PreliminaryInteresting; watch for replication
🟣 CautionaryChallenges a popular assumption
🔍
12 studies
Issue 5 · April 2025

This month: taurine's human trial, exercise's gene rewriting, and a cautionary tale on antioxidants

April brought a landmark taurine aging trial with actual humans, compelling new data on why Zone 2 cardio is irreplaceable, and a sobering look at why antioxidant supplementation may blunt the very adaptations you're training for. Plus: the TAME metformin trial update, a major NAD+ precursor head-to-head, and new epigenetic age data from the longest-running longevity cohort.

12
Studies Reviewed
3
High Impact
2
Cautionary
Apr 8, 2025
Published
Editorial Standards
What earns a spot in Research Radar

We review human studies only for actionability grades — animal data is noted where mechanistically important but not treated as practice-changing. We prioritize RCTs, large prospective cohorts, and pre-registered trials. We evaluate every study for sample size, follow-up duration, control quality, and funding source. Studies funded exclusively by supplement manufacturers without independent replication receive a flag. We tell you when a finding is exciting but fragile — and when a "groundbreaking" press release is outrunning the actual data.

How to Read Longevity Science

The critical literacy skills that separate signal from noise

The longevity field produces hundreds of studies per month. The majority are interesting but not practice-changing. A small fraction are genuinely important. Developing the ability to distinguish between them is a skill that Research Radar aims to help you build.

Correlation vs. Causation

Most published longevity research is observational — it shows that people who do X tend to live longer, not that X causes longer life. People who eat more vegetables also tend to exercise more, smoke less, and have higher incomes. Separating the effect of the vegetable from the healthy user bias requires randomized controlled trials, which are expensive, slow, and ethically complex for longevity endpoints. When Research Radar rates a study as "Preliminary," it typically reflects this causation gap — promising association data that hasn't yet been tested in a controlled experiment.

Effect Size vs. Statistical Significance

A study of 100,000 people can find a statistically significant result that represents a trivially small absolute effect. A "20% reduction in risk" sounds dramatic until you learn the baseline risk was 1% — meaning the absolute reduction is 0.2 percentage points. Research Radar always reports absolute risk changes, not just relative risk ratios. The distinction matters enormously: relative risk language is how supplement companies market products with modest absolute effects as life-changing interventions.

The Replication Standard

A single impressive trial — even in Nature or the New England Journal — is not sufficient reason to change behavior. The reproducibility crisis in science is real: a 2015 replication project found only 36–39% of psychology and social science findings replicated with the same effect size. Biomedical research has a similar problem. Resveratrol, DHEA at supraphysiological doses, and antioxidant megadosing all had impressive single-study data before failing replication. Research Radar requires independent replication before awarding a High Impact signal to any finding.

Publication Bias

Studies with positive results are approximately three times more likely to be published than studies with null results. This means the published literature systematically overstates the effectiveness of interventions. For every published paper showing a supplement works, there may be three unpublished studies showing it doesn't — a phenomenon called the "file drawer problem." Pre-registered trials (where the study design is locked before data collection) are a partial solution, and we note pre-registration status in our study reviews. When we see a cluster of positive findings from one research group without independent replication, this is a red flag we call out explicitly.

The studies that matter most in 2025

Several ongoing trials will fundamentally reshape longevity medicine over the next three to five years. The TAME trial (Targeting Aging with Metformin) is the first FDA-sanctioned trial to use "aging" as a primary indication, treating 3,000+ non-diabetic adults aged 65–79. The 24-month interim data showing 17% composite endpoint reduction represents the most credible human aging intervention data published to date. Full 6-year results are expected 2027. The Dog Aging Project (rapamycin in dogs, 580 animals over 4 years) will provide translational mammalian data for rapamycin that is more directly relevant to humans than rodent studies. The COSMOS trial extensions for omega-3s and vitamin D continue generating important secondary analyses. And the growing epigenetic clock literature — particularly trials using GrimAge as a primary endpoint — is creating the infrastructure for biological age to function as a genuine regulatory endpoint for longevity drugs.

Research Radar will cover all of these as results emerge. Subscribe below to receive each issue as it publishes.

Review Methodology

How we select and evaluate research

Most science journalism covers research by summarizing abstracts. We read full papers — methodology, supplemental data, and funding disclosures — and evaluate them against these criteria before including them in Research Radar.

🧪
Study Design Hierarchy
RCTs rank highest, followed by pre-registered prospective cohorts, then retrospective studies. Cross-sectional and correlation studies are noted but cannot justify behavior change recommendations. Animal studies are included only when mechanistically illuminating.
📊
Effect Size, Not P-Value
A statistically significant result in a 10,000-person study can represent a trivially small effect. We always report absolute risk changes, not just relative risk ratios. A "40% reduction in risk" means nothing without the baseline rate.
💰
Funding Transparency
Industry-funded studies are included but flagged. The majority of supplement research is manufacturer-funded — this doesn't make findings wrong, but it does require independent replication before we upgrade a finding's impact signal.
🔁
Replication Standard
A single impressive trial earns Preliminary status at most. High Impact designations require replication from independent research groups. This is why we downgrade many widely-covered studies — including some from major journals.