Our bias: measurable human outcomes first.
Mechanistic plausibility is helpful, but it doesn’t substitute for reliable human evidence.
When we assess a claim (“X improves sleep” / “Y lowers LDL‑C”), we try to map it to:
We prioritize evidence in roughly this order:
For formal frameworks that describe evidence levels and certainty, see the Oxford Centre for Evidence‑Based Medicine levels and the GRADE approach.[1][2]
Many pages include an evidence badge (e.g., “Promising”, “Validated”). It’s a simplified summary that combines:
Important: a high evidence signal does not mean “safe for everyone” or “appropriate for self-experimentation.” Safety depends on dose, context, and the person.
Biohacking content becomes outdated quickly due to:
When you see “What’s new” updates, they’re logged here: Biohacking: What’s New.
We treat biological age tests as tools with limitations, not definitive measures. When we reference clocks, we prefer methods with published validation and clear endpoints (e.g., pace-of-aging vs mortality prediction). Examples include DunedinPACE and GrimAge.[3][4]
Oxford Centre for Evidence‑Based Medicine (OCEBM). The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence ↩︎
Schünemann HJ, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, eds. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(5):461–462. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21185693/ ↩︎
Elliott ML, Caspi A, Houts RM, et al. A DNA methylation biomarker of the pace of aging. eLife. 2022. https://elifesciences.org/articles/73420 ↩︎
Lu AT, Quach A, Wilson JG, et al. DNA methylation GrimAge strongly predicts lifespan and healthspan. Aging (Albany NY). 2019;11(2):303–327. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30669119/ ↩︎