Episode

Episode Brief·YouTube

The Anti-Aging Supplement Scam (New Evidence)

Brad Stanfield

Watch on YouTube Add to chat My bookmarks ← All sources

TL;DR

The four things you'd lose by not watching

4 items

TL;DR

The four things you'd lose by not watching

4 items

The US National Institute on Aging's Interventions Testing Program (ITP) has run multi-site lifespan studies in mice for 20 years, and the vast majority of over-the-counter anti-aging supplements (resveratrol, NR, fisetin, fish oil) have failed to extend lifespan.

In 2023, astaxanthin showed a 12% lifespan increase in male mice at 4,000 ppm, but a 2024 follow-up at a lower dose showed no benefit and shortened lifespan in females.

Calcium alpha-ketoglutarate (AKG), sold as Rejuvant for $80/month with an 8-year biological age reduction claim, failed in two ITP trials; the supporting human study lacked a placebo group and used an epigenetic clock with a ±4-year error.

Brad Stanfield personally does not take astaxanthin and states that exercise, not supplements, is the best evidence-based anti-aging strategy.

Protocols

Concrete recipes — what, when, how much, and why

2 items

Be skeptical of anti-aging supplement marketing

WhatWhen evaluating a longevity supplement, check if it has been tested by the ITP and whether the results have been replicated across multiple independent sites and doses.

WhenBefore buying any supplement that claims to extend lifespan or reduce biological age.

For whomAnyone considering anti-aging supplements.

WhyThe history of longevity research is littered with single positive mouse studies that fueled supplement hype but failed to replicate in rigorous multi-site trials (the ITP). Even a widely reported result, like astaxanthin's 12% lifespan extension, was not confirmed at a lower dose and showed harm in females.

CaveatsThe ITP only tests in mice; negative results in mice do not guarantee ineffectiveness in humans, but positive results in the ITP are extremely rare. Also, some supplements may have benefits unrelated to lifespan extension (e.g., skin effects).

The ITP uses three independent labs with genetically diverse mice, centrally prepared food, and identical protocols to reduce false positives. Since 2004, it has tested compounds like resveratrol, NR, fisetin, fish oil, and more—most have shown no lifespan benefit. The pattern of hype follows a predictable cycle: a single mouse study sparks excitement, companies launch products, and later ITP replication fails, but the products remain on sale. The resveratrol case is emblematic: a Nature paper led to a $720 million acquisition by GSK, but the mechanism was later traced to a lab artifact, a clinical trial was halted over kidney damage, and the subsidiary was shut down. Yet resveratrol supplements are still sold. This protocol encourages consumers to wait for ITP replication before trusting any anti-aging supplement claim.

Mechanism

The ITP's multi-site design controls for lab-specific environmental variables and genetic homogeneity that can produce chance findings. By requiring consistent results across Jackson Lab, Michigan, and Texas, it ensures that a lifespan effect is robust and not an artifact of a single facility or mouse strain.

Personal experience

Brad Stanfield applies this skepticism himself: 'I'd encourage you to be incredibly skeptical of any company trying to sell you a longevity or anti-aging supplement.'

The pattern is always the same. We have promising mouse studies, press releases, product launches, years of sales, and then quietly follow-up data comes in, but by then nobody's paying attention.

Also said

“So, one trial isn't enough and the literature is full of results that have turned out to be unrepeatable.”— Emphasizes the need for replication.

“If a compound fails, the ITP publishes that failure. Now, this might sound obvious, but unfortunately, in the supplement world, negative results tend to disappear because obviously, they're not good for supplement sales.”— Highlights the publication bias that the ITP corrects.

Do not take astaxanthin for longevity

WhatBased on current limited and conflicting evidence, Brad Stanfield personally does not take astaxanthin as an anti-aging supplement.

WhenUntil robust, replicated evidence of lifespan extension emerges from human RCTs or further ITP confirmation at effective doses without harm.

For whomPersonal protocol (Brad Stanfield).

WhyThe 2023 ITP result used a very high dose (4,000 ppm), not replicated at a lower dose, and female mice actually had shortened lifespans. Human trials exist only for skin-related endpoints, not lifespan, and those trials are small with unclear risk of bias.

CaveatsAstaxanthin may still have benefits for skin health at ~6 mg/day in humans, but the evidence is preliminary and not sufficient for Stanfield to take it.

Astaxanthin is a carotenoid antioxidant available over the counter for about $12/month. After the 2023 ITP result, supplement companies heavily marketed it. The 2024 follow-up found no lifespan benefit at 880 ppm in males or females, and a lifespan decrease in females. This sex-specific harm and dose-sensitivity make it a risky bet without further clarity. Stanfield mentions some human RCTs showing improved skin hydration and elasticity, but those trials have limitations (small sample sizes, unclear bias). Because the longevity claim is not supported by reliable human data and the ITP replication was negative at a realistic dose, he opts not to take it.

Mechanism

Astaxanthin is a potent antioxidant, but the mechanism by which the high dose extended lifespan in male mice is unclear; the lack of effect at lower doses suggests a narrow therapeutic window or a non-linear relationship. The observed harm in females could stem from pro-oxidant effects at certain doses or interference with estrogen-related pathways, though none is proven.

Personal experience

Stanfield states, 'Because of those limitations, I personally don't take it.'

In females astaxanthin was actually associated with a shorter lifespan. So, at a dose that's 4/5 lower, it didn't just fail to help, in females it may have caused harm.

Also said

“There is some early evidence from randomized human trials that astaxanthin at around 6 mg per day may improve skin hydration and elasticity, but the existing trials are small with unclear risks of bias.”— Acknowledges potential non-longevity benefits while justifying his avoidance.

What's new

Personal practice updates, fresh positions, predictions

2 items

astaxanthin-replication-failure

The 2024 ITP study found no lifespan extension from a lower dose of astaxanthin, and females on astaxanthin actually lived shorter lives.

Why this matters: This nullifies the excitement from the 2023 12% lifespan extension result, showing that the effect is dose-dependent and possibly harmful in females.

Background

In late 2023, the ITP reported a 12% median lifespan extension in male mice given 4,000 ppm astaxanthin starting at 12 months. This was the biggest result for an over-the-counter supplement in 14 years.

The 2024 ITP cohort tested astaxanthin again but at 880 ppm (4/5 lower dose) and started at 11 months or 16 months. No lifespan extension was observed in either sex. Alarmingly, female mice on astaxanthin showed a statistically significant shortening of lifespan. This underscores the ITP's value: a single positive result means little until replicated across sites and doses. The supplement industry had quickly marketed astaxanthin based on the 2023 data, with brands like AX3 claiming potential human lifespan gains of 9 years. The replication failure reveals the danger of acting on early, non-replicated findings.

Personal experience

Brad Stanfield states, 'Because of those limitations, I personally don't take it.'

In females astaxanthin was actually associated with a shorter lifespan.

Also said

“So, at a dose that's 4/5 lower, it didn't just fail to help, in females it may have caused harm.”— Quantifies the dose difference and highlights sex-specific harm.

“Astaxanthin at lower doses, nothing. In females, it actually shortened lifespan.”— Direct summary of the new finding.

akg-failure-and-marketing-deception

Calcium alpha-ketoglutarate (AKG) failed to extend lifespan in two separate ITP cohorts, contradicting earlier mouse studies and a heavily marketed human 'biological age' reduction claim.

Why this matters: Despite two ITP failures, Rejuvant still sells for $80/month based on a flawed, non-placebo-controlled human study with a ±4-year error margin.

Background

A 2020 Buck Institute study showed 17% lifespan extension and reduced frailty in mice. David Sinclair promoted AKG. Ponce de Leon Health launched Rejuvant, touting an 8-year biological age reduction based on a 42-person study without placebo.

The ITP tested AKG starting at 7 months (the new cohort) and also in a previous cohort starting at 18 months—the latter closer to the Buck Institute's protocol. In both cases, no lifespan extension was observed. The human study used the TrueAge epigenetic clock, which measures only nine CpG sites and has a median absolute error of ±4 years, meaning the claimed 8-year improvement is only twice the instrument's error margin. With no placebo group, the result cannot be attributed to the supplement. Brad Stanfield highlights this as 'marketing material dressed up as science' and warns of the broader pattern: promising mouse data, press releases, product launches, and then negative follow-up data that gets ignored.

This is not rigorous evidence. This is marketing material dressed up as science.

Also said

“The TrueAge measurement tool itself had an error margin of four years, and the claimed improvement was eight years. So, when your measuring instrument wobbles by half the size of the result that you're claiming, that is a serious problem.”— Explains the statistical absurdity of the claim.

“AKG was started at 7 months of age, but there was no effect. This is actually the second time that the ITP has tested AKG, and again no effect was seen.”— Confirms the double failure.

Recommendations

Products, supplements, and tools mentioned in the episode

1 item

Watch Brad Stanfield's video on exercise and aging

Practice

After debunking supplements, Stanfield directs viewers to his next video which covers the impact of exercise on aging and how much is needed.

Throughout the video, Stanfield emphasizes that the best evidence for combating aging is not a pill but lifestyle. He segues into a call to action: 'So, make sure to check out this next video here to discover how much recent studies reveal the impacts of exercise on aging and how much we actually need to do to see results.' He positions this as the evidence-based alternative to supplements.

vs alternatives

In contrast to costly and unproven supplements, exercise is free, has a massive evidence base, and targets multiple aging hallmarks.

So, make sure to check out this next video here to discover how much recent studies reveal the impacts of exercise on aging and how much we actually need to do to see results.

Find Watch

Notable quotes

Lines worth pulling out — contrarian, specific, or perfectly phrased

6 items

The nightmare scenario has always been lifespan extension without reduction in disability.

Captures the core challenge in longevity research, quoted by Brad from Gordon Lithgow to emphasize why AKG's frailty reduction was exciting initially.

This is not rigorous evidence. This is marketing material dressed up as science.

Brad's blunt assessment of the Rejuvant study, characteristic of his skeptical stance.

The pattern is always the same. We have promising mouse studies, press releases, product launches, years of sales, and then quietly follow-up data comes in, but by then nobody's paying attention.

Succinctly describes the hype-cycle that traps consumers.

Resveratrol the most debunked longevity intervention of all time.

Striking statement from Matt Kaeberlein, quoted by Brad, illustrating the magnitude of the resveratrol failure despite its commercial success.

The ITP had finally proven that its design worked. The three-site model could find real results and filter out false ones.

Highlights the value of the ITP's rigorous design in a field full of noise.

So, at a dose that's 4/5 lower, it didn't just fail to help, in females it may have caused harm.

Specific quantification of the risk of lower-dose astaxanthin.

Sign in to share feedback

Tell us if this brief hit the mark or missed it — feedback feeds back into the next iteration of the prompt.

Topics covered

interventions-testing-programrapamycinastaxanthincalcium-alpha-ketoglutarateresveratrolnicotinamide-ribosidefisetinepigenetic-clockslongevity-scamsexercise-agingplacebo-controlbiological-ageitpanti-aging-supplementsak-g

Free account

Make this library yours

Reading is free for everyone. A free account adds the personal layer: save protocols, follow experts, and see how the other experts weigh in on this same topic.

Create a free account Sign in

Educational summary of the cited expert source — not medical advice. Open the source recording linked above and consult a qualified physician before acting on any protocol.