How we measure
Say you want to know whether creatine is worth it as you get older. A supplement site says yes, and sells it to you. A health column reports on one new study and says nothing about the ten that came before. Ask a chatbot and you get one answer today and a different one next week, with no way to check what it rests on.
LongevityWatch follows longevity research daily and puts what matters into plain language. Every answer to a question rests on scientific research, with the studies attached.
And when the evidence on a subject moves, the answer moves with it. That is the difference: not an answer from one moment, but an answer that is kept up.
The process
LongevityWatch tracks which hypes and questions are alive around longevity and finds the evidence-based answers to them. Visitors can also submit a question of their own.
For each question the studies are gathered. Only peer-reviewed research counts; press releases, news reports and blogs drop out.
Two things are settled separately: which way the evidence points, and how far the research has come. Twelve mice is not three large human studies. A verdict always rests on human research; animal and lab work may come along as background but never decide it.
Every statement has to trace back to at least one of the studies found. What is not in them does not go in, even if it is probably true. The study numbers sit under the answer.
The editors read the answer, correct where needed, and are responsible for what stands.
Every answer is periodically held against the literature again, starting with the one that has gone longest without assessment. Answers on limited evidence come round more often than answers on strong evidence, because there a single new study can still tip the picture. If the re-test turns up new evidence, the grade, the verdict and the text are updated.
522 of the 909 answers were re-tested in the past 30 days.
An example
For the question whether creatine strains your kidneys, the search returned seven human studies, including a systematic review with meta-analysis. In healthy people taking the usual three to five grams per day, those studies find no kidney damage. A caveat applies to anyone with existing kidney disease or on medication that burdens the kidneys.
Direction of the evidence: reassuring. How far the research has come: multiple human studies, summarised in a meta-analysis. Outcome: strong evidence, verdict no, with a named exception.
Articles
Alongside the answers, reports on new research appear daily. Such an article covers one study and follows established journals and specialist science media, always linking to the study behind it. An answer looks at all the research on a question together. That is why only answers state how strong the evidence is.
Following what is alive
LongevityWatch continuously follows what is happening around longevity: what people search for, what they ask on public forums, and which claims circulate in influential health podcasts and videos. We automatically investigate which claims and hypes hold up and which do not.
We only follow at topic level: no usernames or profiles are stored or used. And it solely determines which questions get researched, never the conclusion. A claim with a million views counts as zero evidence; the conclusion comes from the studies.
The evidence grade
Four levels. The grade says how firmly the evidence stands, not how large the effect is.
Several good human studies point the same way, usually summarised in a meta-analysis. New research is unlikely to reverse the picture.
There is usable human research, but limited in size, design or consistency. The direction is clear, the size of the effect is not.
There are indications, from small or one-off studies. Enough to mention, too little to build on.
There is too little human research to say anything useful. That is a valid outcome, not a shortcoming.
The verdict
Alongside the grade, every question gets a verdict: yes, no or uncertain.
Uncertain means the studies contradict each other, or there are too few of them to pick a side. 39% of the answers stand at uncertain.
Solution-minded, not wait-and-see
LongevityWatch looks for solutions. Reject everything that has not yet passed every stage of research and you miss too many hopeful, potentially good developments. Promising research is therefore called promising here, with how far along it is; immature is not the same as rejected. And where the answer is no or uncertain, LongevityWatch points, where possible, to what does work for the same goal.
What LongevityWatch does not do
No diagnosis, no treatment advice and no personal recommendations. No supplements are sold, no affiliate links are used and no sponsored content is published.
The limits of this method
Searching, weighing and writing are automated, following a fixed protocol, after which the editors review the result. There is no panel of specialists behind it. That means the same yardstick applies to every answer, which by hand would not hold up, and it does not replace a doctor judging your situation.
The method has not been reviewed externally. LongevityWatch is looking for researchers and clinicians willing to assess the protocol.
Reporting errors
Spotted a mistake, a missed study or a verdict that does not hold? Email info@longevitywatch.nl. It gets corrected and the change is recorded.
Naming us as your source
If you use one of our answers, name LongevityWatch as the source, with the evidence grade and the check date so your reader can see how fresh the verdict is:
LongevityWatch, [the question], evidence: [grade], last checked [date], [url].