The Doctor's Edit on Your Longevity Drawer. I Read the Trials.

The gym and the drip clinic were both on the top floor of the hotel, just about ten steps from each other.

After your run, while you’re still catching your breath, you could step through a glass door and be in a chair with an IV in your arm before your heart rate even drops. On one side, people put in the slow, steady effort that really keeps you healthy. On the other, someone built a business on the idea that you could skip all that. Just a bag of vitamins, forty minutes, and you leave feeling younger.

I stood in the hallway between the two doors longer than I planned. There was no doctor’s name on the glass and no hours listed. Just a logo and a price list. I was traveling for work and felt tired, and I remember thinking how odd it was that this was now a hotel amenity, somewhere between the sauna and the minibar.

Some time ago, I wrote about similar clinics opening in Berlin and thought the whole trend was just another fad that would fade away. The IV bars, the rapamycin talk at dinner, the NAD+ everyone mentioned. I thought the craze had ended.

But last Sunday, a 27-year-old woman went into a clinic in the Bronx for an NAD+ infusion. She never walked out.

She lost consciousness just minutes after the IV began and was pronounced dead later that afternoon [1]. As I write this, no one knows exactly what caused her death. It could have been the molecule, the dose, the method, or something else entirely. The person who gave her the IV told police he wasn’t licensed to practice medicine in New York.

I read the news on my phone and thought about it for a while. It wasn’t the science that surprised me, but I had let myself believe we were past this. We’re not.

There’s a simple reason these things are so popular. We want something that promises big results, feels certain, comes quickly, and doesn’t take much effort. A drip offers all of that at once. Be younger today, without the training, the sleep, or the years of work. Real health doesn’t offer shortcuts, because what really works is slow, takes effort, and rarely feels certain.

The drip sounds great when someone is selling it. But the problems show up in real studies. So I spent the last week looking at actual human research on these molecules. The results are tough to read.

The test that keeps saying no

Let’s start with the drug that has the best story: rapamycin. In mice, it works. When given to genetically varied mice, it makes them live longer. This is one of the most repeated results in the field [2]. That part is real.

But when it comes to people, the story changes. The biggest and longest trial of low-dose rapamycin in healthy adults, called PEARL, lasted 48 weeks. It was mostly a safety study, and for safety it looked fine. But for what people actually want, it came up empty: the visceral fat it was supposed to reduce didn’t change, and the epigenetic aging clock didn’t move [3]. There were a couple of small positive signs in a subgroup of women, on lean mass and pain. None of this tells you if rapamycin helps people live longer. No human trial has ever been set up to answer that, because you can’t just run a 40-year study. That answer is still far away. Right now, people are treating a guess as if it’s proof.

This is the pattern for almost everything in the drawer. Most of these are mouse studies. There’s a strict, independent check they have to pass: the Interventions Testing Program. It’s a government-run test that tries the same compound in genetically diverse mice across three labs at once, so one lucky lab can’t fake a win.

A lot of promising results don’t survive this test. Acarbose, a diabetes drug, extends life in that test, but mostly in males (22% longer median life in males, 5% in females) [4]. In the one large human trial that mattered, with 6,522 people who had heart disease and prediabetes, it did nothing for cardiac events [5]. Fisetin, the supplement sold to clear your “zombie cells,” did not extend lifespan in the mouse test, and in a completed knee-arthritis trial it did no better than placebo on pain, function, or cartilage [6][7]. Alpha-ketoglutarate, the main ingredient in the supplement Rejuvant, failed the same mouse test in 2026 [8].

Taurine is the clearest example. In 2023, a paper in Science said taurine drops as we age and that giving more to mice made them live about 10% longer. The internet ran with it [9]. Two years later, a bigger study followed people and animals over time and found taurine doesn’t consistently fall with age. The main claim, that taurine drops with age, didn’t hold up [10]. That’s how science works. The problem starts when someone sells the first result before the second even comes out.

Chasing a number

Supplements play a subtler game. They change a number in your blood and make you think that number means you’re healthier.

NAD+ is the main attraction. NMN and nicotinamide riboside, the two top sellers, really do raise NAD+ in your blood. For nicotinamide riboside, one careful study measured a jump of 40 to 60% [11]. That’s true, and that’s where the marketing ends. When researchers checked if anything you actually care about improved, the answer was still no. The one positive NMN trial looked at 25 prediabetic women. It improved insulin sensitivity in muscle and a few related signaling measures, but nothing you would notice in your life, and it started with the two groups unevenly matched [12]. When eight NMN trials were combined, about 342 people, there was no benefit to blood sugar, insulin, HbA1c, or cholesterol [13]. The best nicotinamide riboside trials found the same flat results on the things that matter [14]. You’re paying to raise a number that no human trial has linked to a longer or better life.

Resveratrol, the old red-wine molecule, is even worse. The whole idea was that it switches on a longevity enzyme called SIRT1. The famous result came from a test that was set up in a way that produced misleading activation. Later work found resveratrol can nudge SIRT1 only for certain substrates, far more narrowly than the original story claimed [15]. When researchers followed older adults for years, those with more resveratrol in their bodies were no less likely to die or get heart disease or cancer [16].

Then there’s alpha-ketoglutarate, sold with the boldest claim of all: “8 years younger.” That number comes from a single report on 42 people who had already bought the product, with no comparison group, measured on a special aging clock from a lab connected to the company [17]. Even the authors say a real trial is needed. It’s basically a testimonial with a p-value.

Who paid for the study

Once you start reading these papers, you notice the same names keep showing up in two places: in the study, and at the company selling the product the study is about.

The PEARL rapamycin trial was run by staff from a telehealth company that prescribes rapamycin. All seven authors were employees and shareholders, though to be fair, most of the funding came from crowdfunding [3]. The two main trials behind Urolithin A, sold as Mitopure, were funded by the company selling it, and both missed their main muscle targets. The strength number on the label came from a secondary result the trial wasn’t mainly designed to prove [18]. The best trial of spermidine, a full year in older adults with memory complaints, found nothing [19].

Even the rules can’t keep up. In 2022, the FDA ruled that NMN could not be sold as a supplement, because it had first been studied as a drug. In 2025 it reversed course and made it legal again [20]. The bottle in your cabinet comes from a regulator that changed its position inside three years.

At the far, unregulated end of all this is a clinic on a top floor, or on a Bronx side street, with a bag on a pole and no one qualified to use it. Most of the time, the gap between the science and the sales pitch is just about money. Once in a while, like in the Bronx last week, it ends with someone dead and no one able to say why.

The one you can keep

I didn’t write all this to say everything is fake. One thing in the drawer actually belongs there. Creatine, the cheap powder from the gym, has real evidence in people.

When combined with lifting, in people over 50, creatine adds a small amount of muscle and a bit of strength [21]. It may also help the aging brain: across trials, it gives a modest boost to memory, small on average and drawn mostly from a couple of small studies in older adults, with almost nothing in the young [22]. If someone takes a big single dose after a sleepless night, it measurably protects their thinking for a few hours [23].

The brain effect mostly shows up when you’re already low, older, or sleep-deprived, and usually at doses much higher than the 3 to 5 grams people actually take. When a creatine company asked European regulators if they could claim the powder sharpens thinking, the regulators looked at all the evidence and said no [24]. The newer headlines about “creatine helps you live longer” are based on surveys of what people eat, not real trials. The study’s author has a commercial tie to creatine, an advisory-board seat, and related patents, and the effect almost disappears when you account for the obvious [25]. So use creatine to help your training, and if you’re older, maybe your memory. But not to add years.

Look at where creatine’s benefits come from. The muscle gain only happens if you lift. The brain benefit mostly shows up when you’re older or short on sleep. Both point back to the same basics: sleep and training.

The clearest sign that this whole category has it backward is metformin. It’s a good, affordable diabetes drug and a popular choice for longevity. But two separate randomized trials found that in older adults, metformin reduces the muscle you gain from resistance training [26] and lessens the improvement in insulin sensitivity that exercise usually brings [27]. The so-called longevity pill actually interferes with exercise, one of the few things that genuinely extends healthy life. For a healthy person without diabetes, it works against the very thing that keeps you alive longer.

A fair question is that most of these are cheap and safe, so why not hedge your bets? I think a pill you believe in quietly tells you that you’ve taken care of your longevity, and that belief can keep a busy person out of the gym. And the hedge isn’t always free. You just saw what metformin does to the training that actually works.

This is the Capacity pillar of the Upward ARC, the framework I write about here. It’s about the limit on what your body and mind can still do in 20 years. You can’t buy a higher limit while sitting in a chair. You raise it slowly, with habits that build up over time, and most of them are free.

Try this today

Before you take any supplement, ask yourself three questions. Is there a human trial, not just a mouse study? Who paid for that trial? And is the result just a marker, or a real outcome on something that actually matters, like living longer or getting sick less? Most of the options in the drawer fail the first question.

Put your money and effort where the evidence is strongest: into your muscles. A study of 147,374 adults followed for up to 30 years found that 90 to 120 minutes a week of strength training was linked to about a 13% lower chance of dying, with no extra benefit above two hours, and bigger drops in death from heart and neurological disease [28]. That’s an association, not a trial. It’s the same kind of evidence I’ve questioned throughout this piece. But here, every layer agrees: the mechanism, the trials on strength and function, and the population data all point the same way. With the supplements, each layer comes back empty or biased. Exercise is the real medicine. It costs nothing and comes with the side effect of a body that works.

If you want one supplement that’s earned its place, take creatine, 3 to 5 grams a day, alongside your training, not instead of it. That’s the honest way to use it.

And if a number on your body is really worrying you, talk to a doctor who has nothing to sell you, not a clinic that profits from saying yes.

The two doors

Those two doors are still there, ten steps apart on that hotel floor. The gym and the drip clinic.

Everything on the drip side is designed to fit the sales formula: fast, certain, easy, and dressed up as science. Almost none of it holds up when you look at the actual studies. Everything on the gym side doesn’t fit that formula because it’s slow, hard, and quiet. But it’s the only side with real evidence behind it.

A woman is dead, and no one can yet say why. What fills these clinics isn’t a strange or foolish wish. It’s the same one we all have: wanting the good outcome without the long, boring cost. The real work, if you know how or have someone to help, is to notice when a promise sounds too perfect and ask who’s selling it.

One honest question before you go: What’s the one thing in your own longevity drawer that you’ve never actually checked the evidence on? Reply and tell me. I read every message.

I still walk into hotel gyms. I’ve never once walked into the clinic next door.

Stay healthy.

Andre

PS: If you know a friend about to spend real money on a drip or a shelf of these bottles, send this to them first. Be kind about it. That’s how this newsletter grows, and it’s the only way I want it to.

PPS: Wednesdays are now a thing too. The Next Move is a two-minute mid-week short I started this month: one finding, what it means for you, and one action. It runs alongside these Sunday pieces, not instead of them.

PPPS: If a friend sent you this, you can get The Upward ARC here: https://www.andreheeg.com

---

References

[1] Kriegstein, B. (2026, July 21). NYPD says unlicensed Bronx doc admitted “I made a very big mistake” after woman died. Gothamist. https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-says-unlicensed-bronx-doc-admitted-i-made-a-very-big-mistake-after-woman-died

[2] Harrison, D. E., Strong, R., Sharp, Z. D., Nelson, J. F., Astle, C. M., Flurkey, K., Nadon, N. L., Wilkinson, J. E., Frenkel, K., Carter, C. S., Pahor, M., Javors, M. A., Fernandez, E., & Miller, R. A. (2009). Rapamycin fed late in life extends lifespan in genetically heterogeneous mice. Nature, 460(7253), 392-395. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08221

[3] Moel, M., Harinath, G., Lee, V., Nyquist, A., Morgan, S. L., Isman, A., & Zalzala, S. (2025). Influence of rapamycin on safety and healthspan metrics after one year: PEARL trial results. Aging, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.206235

[4] Harrison, D. E., Strong, R., Allison, D. B., Ames, B. N., Astle, C. M., Atamna, H., Fernandez, E., Flurkey, K., Javors, M. A., Nadon, N. L., Nelson, J. F., Pletcher, S., Simpkins, J. W., Smith, D., Wilkinson, J. E., & Miller, R. A. (2014). Acarbose, 17-α-estradiol, and nordihydroguaiaretic acid extend mouse lifespan preferentially in males. Aging Cell, 13(2), 273-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.12170

[5] Holman, R. R., Coleman, R. L., Chan, J. C. N., Chiasson, J.-L., Feng, H., Ge, J., Gerstein, H. C., Gray, R., Huo, Y., Lang, Z., McMurray, J. J., Rydén, L., Schröder, S., Sun, Y., Theodorakis, M. J., Tendera, M., Tucker, L., Tuomilehto, J., Wei, Y., … Hu, D. (2017). Effects of acarbose on cardiovascular and diabetes outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease and impaired glucose tolerance (ACE): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 5(11), 877-886. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30309-1 (Note: trial funded by Bayer, the drug’s maker; acarbose reduced new-onset diabetes by ~18% but had no effect on the cardiovascular primary endpoint.)

[6] Harrison, D. E., Strong, R., Reifsnyder, P., Rosenthal, N., Korstanje, R., Fernandez, E., Flurkey, K., Ginsburg, B. C., Murrell, M. D., Javors, M. A., Lopez-Cruzan, M., Nelson, J. F., Willcox, B. J., Allsopp, R., Watumull, D. M., Watumull, D. G., Cortopassi, G., Kirkland, J. L., Tchkonia, T., … Miller, R. A. (2024). Astaxanthin and meclizine extend lifespan in UM-HET3 male mice; fisetin, SG1002 (hydrogen sulfide donor), dimethyl fumarate, mycophenolic acid, and 4-phenylbutyrate do not significantly affect lifespan in either sex at the doses and schedules used. GeroScience, 46(1), 795-816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-023-01011-0

[7] Tashman, et al. (2025). Results from a randomized clinical trial evaluating the senolytic fisetin for treating knee osteoarthritis [Conference abstract]. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 33(Suppl.). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2025.02.667 [PIN: conference abstract, not a full article; primarily a safety trial with efficacy as a secondary outcome; confirm full author list]

[8] Korstanje, R., Strong, R., Salmon, A. B., Bogue, M. A., Curran, S. P., Diaz, V., Fernandez, E., Ginsburg, B., Han, M., Harrison, D. E., Kaczorowski, C., Kaeberlein, M., Kennedy, B. K., Kumar, N., LaCroix-Fralish, M., Leiser, S. F., Nelson, J. F., Polymenis, M., Reifsnyder, P. C., … Miller, R. A. (2026). Astaxanthin, meclizine, mitoglitazone, pioglitazone, alpha-ketoglutarate, mifepristone, methotrexate, and atorvastatin-telmisartan do not increase lifespan in UM-HET3 mice. GeroScience, 48(3), 3821-3830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-026-02201-2 (The ITP tested alpha-ketoglutarate; the AKG in the supplement Rejuvant is the calcium salt. The salt form of the tested compound was not verified from the accessible abstract.)

[9] Singh, P., Gollapalli, K., Mangiola, S., Schranner, D., Yusuf, M. A., Chamoli, M., … Yadav, V. K. (2023). Taurine deficiency as a driver of aging. Science, 380(6649), eabn9257. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn9257

[10] Fernandez, M. E., Bernier, M., Price, N. L., Camandola, S., Aon, M. A., Vaughan, K., Mattison, J. A., Preston, J. D., Jones, D. P., Tanaka, T., Tian, Q., González-Freire, M., Ferrucci, L., & de Cabo, R. (2025). Is taurine an aging biomarker? Science, 388(6751), eadl2116. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adl2116

[11] Martens, C. R., Denman, B. A., Mazzo, M. R., Armstrong, M. L., Reisdorph, N., McQueen, M. B., Chonchol, M., & Seals, D. R. (2018). Chronic nicotinamide riboside supplementation is well-tolerated and elevates NAD+ in healthy middle-aged and older adults. Nature Communications, 9, 1286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03421-7 (Tests nicotinamide riboside, not NMN; the ~40-60% NAD+ rise in the text is scoped to NR accordingly.)

[12] Yoshino, M., Yoshino, J., Kayser, B. D., Patti, G. J., Franczyk, M. P., Mills, K. F., Sindelar, M., Pietka, T., Patterson, B. W., Imai, S., & Klein, S. (2021). Nicotinamide mononucleotide increases muscle insulin sensitivity in prediabetic women. Science, 372(6547), 1224-1229. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe9985

[13] Chen, F., Zhou, D., Kong, A. P.-S., Yim, N. T., Dai, S., Chen, Y. N., & Hui, L. L. (2024). Effects of nicotinamide mononucleotide on glucose and lipid metabolism in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Current Diabetes Reports, 25(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-024-01557-z

[14] Dollerup, O. L., Christensen, B., Svart, M., Schmidt, M. S., Sulek, K., Ringgaard, S., Stødkilde-Jørgensen, H., Møller, N., Brenner, C., Treebak, J. T., & Jessen, N. (2018). A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial of nicotinamide riboside in obese men: Safety, insulin-sensitivity, and lipid-mobilizing effects. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 108(2), 343-353. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqy132

[15] Pacholec, M., Bleasdale, J. E., Chrunyk, B., Cunningham, D., Flynn, D., Garofalo, R. S., Griffith, D., Griffor, M., Loulakis, P., Pabst, B., Qiu, X., Stockman, B., Thanabal, V., Varghese, A., Ward, J., Withka, J., & Ahn, K. (2010). SRT1720, SRT2183, SRT1460, and resveratrol are not direct activators of SIRT1. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 285(11), 8340-8351. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.088682 (Later work, e.g. Hubbard et al., 2013, Science, found substrate-dependent direct activation; the text is worded to reflect that the broad-activation story was overstated, not that no activation occurs.)

[16] Semba, R. D., Ferrucci, L., Bartali, B., Urpí-Sardà, M., Zamora-Ros, R., Sun, K., Cherubini, A., Bandinelli, S., & Andres-Lacueva, C. (2014). Resveratrol levels and all-cause mortality in older community-dwelling adults. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(7), 1077-1084. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1582

[17] Demidenko, O., Barardo, D., Budovskii, V., Finnemore, R., Palmer, F. R., III, Kennedy, B. K., & Budovskaya, Y. V. (2021). Rejuvant, a potential life-extending compound formulation with alpha-ketoglutarate and vitamins, conferred an average 8 year reduction in biological aging, after an average of 7 months of use, in the TruAge DNA methylation test. Aging, 13(24), 24485-24499. https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.203736 (Biological age read on the TruMe/TruAge methylation clock, from a lab with a service agreement to the product company.)

[18] Liu, S., D’Amico, D., Shankland, E., Bhayana, S., Garcia, J. M., Aebischer, P., Rinsch, C., Singh, A., & Marcinek, D. J. (2022). Effect of urolithin A supplementation on muscle endurance and mitochondrial health in older adults: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 5(1), e2144279. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.44279 (with Singh, A., et al. (2022), ATLAS trial, Cell Reports Medicine — peak-power primary endpoint not met; positive strength/endurance results were prespecified secondary endpoints; funded by Amazentis, with author employees/shareholders/patent holders.)

[19] Schwarz, C., Benson, G. S., Antonenko, D., Horn, N., Köbe, T., Klimecki, O., Sommer, W., Wirth, M., & Flöel, A. (2022). Effects of spermidine supplementation on cognition and biomarkers in older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SmartAge): A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 5(5), e2213875. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.13875

[20] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2022, November). Responses to new dietary ingredient notifications for β-nicotinamide mononucleotide (NDIN 1247, SyncoZymes; NDIN 1259, Inner Mongolia Kingdomway): NMN excluded from the dietary-supplement definition under FD&C Act § 201(ff)(3)(B), the drug-preclusion provision. Regulations.gov docket FDA-2022-S-0023. https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FDA-2022-S-0023. Reversed by FDA determination letters dated September 29, 2025 (D. Prater), concluding NMN is not excluded; reported in Daniells, S. (2025, September 30), FDA declares NMN lawful in dietary supplements, NutraIngredients-USA, https://www.nutraingredients.com/Article/2025/09/30/fda-declares-nmn-lawful-in-dietary-supplements/. A legal-classification decision, not a ruling on safety or effectiveness.

[21] Liu, S., Huang, N., Wu, W., OuYang, X., Luo, Y., Zhong, Y., Wang, M., & Xiao, L. (2025). The impact of creatine supplementation associated with resistance training on muscular strength and lean tissue mass in the aged: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 22, Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-025-00392-9

[22] Prokopidis, K., Giannos, P., Triantafyllidis, K. K., Kechagias, K. S., Forbes, S. C., & Candow, D. G. (2023). Effects of creatine supplementation on memory in healthy individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutrition Reviews, 81(4), 416-427. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuac064 (Older-adult memory benefit rests on a small subgroup, ~57 participants across 2 studies, with high heterogeneity.)

[23] Gordji-Nejad, A., Matusch, A., Kleedörfer, S., Jayeshkumar Patel, H., Drzezga, A., Elmenhorst, D., Binkofski, F., & Bauer, A. (2024). Single dose creatine improves cognitive performance and induces changes in cerebral high energy phosphates during sleep deprivation. Scientific Reports, 14, 4937. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-54249-9 (Single 0.35 g/kg dose, roughly 25-35 g, well above the usual 3-5 g maintenance dose.)

[24] EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA); Turck, D., Bohn, T., et al. (2024). Creatine and improvement in cognitive function: Evaluation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA Journal, 22(12), e9100. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.9100 (EU Commission refusal, 2026)

[25] Ostojic, S. M. (2025). Dietary creatine intake and all-cause mortality among U.S. adults: A linked mortality analysis from the NHANES study. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 50, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2025-0001 (Single-author paper. Observational dietary-intake association, not a supplementation trial; author disclosed an AlzChem creatine advisory-board seat and creatine-related patents; no study sponsor/funder reported.)

[26] Walton, R. G., Dungan, C. M., Long, D. E., Tuggle, S. C., Kosmac, K., Peck, B. D., Bush, H. M., Villasante Tezanos, A. G., McGwin, G., Windham, S. T., Ovalle, F., Bamman, M. M., Kern, P. A., & Peterson, C. A. (2019). Metformin blunts muscle hypertrophy in response to progressive resistance exercise training in older adults: The MASTERS trial. Aging Cell, 18(6), e13039. https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.13039 (NIH-funded.)

[27] Konopka, A. R., Laurin, J. L., Schoenberg, H. M., Reid, J. J., Castor, W. M., Wolff, C. A., Musci, R. V., Safairad, O. D., Linden, M. A., Biela, L. M., Bailey, S. M., Hamilton, K. L., & Miller, B. F. (2019). Metformin inhibits mitochondrial adaptations to aerobic exercise training in older adults. Aging Cell, 18(1), e12880. https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.12880 (Cited for the significant blunting of exercise-induced insulin sensitivity, p=0.02; the VO2max reduction in the same trial was a non-significant trend, p=0.08, and is not claimed in the text. Supported in part by Dairy Management, Inc. and Dexcom, Inc., not government funding.)

[28] Zhang, Y., Lee, D. H., Rezende, L. F. M., Ma, Y., & Giovannucci, E. (2026). Long-term resistance training with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: Assessing dose-response and joint associations with aerobic physical activity. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 60(12), 874-883. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2025-110503 (Harvard T.H. Chan cohort, 147,374 adults, up to 30 years; 90-119 min/week resistance training associated with ~13% lower all-cause mortality, HR ~0.87, plateau ~120 min, with larger reductions in cardiovascular and neurological mortality. Observational association.)