Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Nakoa Israel Po's avatar

This is a good yard stick for separating companies using the aging/longevity labels for hype from the rest, but I'm interested in going a little further into the topic that came up at the article's end.

I see two pragmatic approaches to solving real aging dominating translational attempts right now: working in naturally aged large mammals with shorter lifespans than humans and working on functional endpoints associated with aging (e.g sarcopenia and metabolic disease as mentioned above). The later seems much more fundable, as it has the potential to solve pain points older patients will pay for. An intervention that takes what we're seeing with GLP-1s further and treats 'poly-degeneration' would be incredibly valuable, and it might even extend patient lives on aggregate by protecting against death caused by disfunction.

The problem is that we have no idea if these approaches will actually extend maximum lifespan past the 120ish mark. Interventions in aged animals which extend the maximum lifespan of their species seem like a much better approach to this, but are harder to fund since they're often not cleanly associated with a single end-point.

What are your thoughts on how we get around this? Is health span going to be the longevity industry's first real product, unlocking a flood of money into the space which can go to fund actual life extension? Will companies working on giving everyone the ability to live to the maximum human lifespan tell their story through the longevity frame despite not extending it yet? Or does working to restore function lost to aging have the potential to extend maximum lifespan through compounding/emergent effects across the entire body?

Expand full comment

No posts