Anti-Aging Daily is an independent publication about longevity, written for people who want to know what the research actually supports before they spend money on it. It exists because most content in this field is either marketing in disguise or a mouse study dressed up as a breakthrough, and because the gap between those two things and the real evidence is now wide enough to be expensive.
Who writes it
The site is written by Valeria Popova, bioengineer. Every article is built from the primary studies behind longevity supplements, peptides and diagnostics and turned into a practical, source-linked guide. There is no medical board behind this site and no physician signs off articles before publication, so you will not find a “medically reviewed” badge anywhere on it. What you get instead is every health claim tied to a source you can open and check yourself.
What we cover
Four areas, picked because that is where the marketing runs furthest ahead of the data. Supplements, separating the handful with real human trials from the many sold on mechanism alone. Peptides, oral and topical, from collagen peptides to copper peptides. Diagnostics and the numbers people now buy, including epigenetic clocks, blood markers and our own free tools such as the protein calculator and the biological age calculator. And the unglamorous levers with the deepest evidence behind them: protein, strength, aerobic fitness, sleep and sun protection.
How we research
Every article starts at the primary source: the trial or meta-analysis itself, located on PubMed or through its DOI. References are numbered in the text and listed at the end with a link, so a claim can be checked in two clicks. Human evidence outranks animal evidence, and pooled evidence outranks a single trial. Where only mouse or cell data exists, the article says so in the same sentence that makes the claim. Doses, sample sizes and study lengths are given as numbers, because “studies show” is not a finding.
Sources and funding
We cite peer-reviewed research and official health authorities, and we treat who paid for a study as part of the result. A large share of supplement research is funded by companies selling the supplement, which is consistently associated with more favorable conclusions; where that applies, the article says so and says what it probably does to the effect size. It works in both directions: an industry-funded randomized controlled trial is still a randomized controlled trial and is not dismissed on funding alone. Our editorial recommendations are not for sale. If an article ever contains an affiliate link or sponsored content, it will be labelled as such, and it will not change our reading of the evidence. The full rules are in the editorial policy.
Corrections
Science moves and we get things wrong. Substantive corrections are made in the article itself and the update date is changed, rather than being quietly edited away. If you find an error, an outdated reference or a study we should have cited, send it to us with the source and it will be read. That is the fastest way to improve a page here.
What this site does not do
No cures, no protocols, no promises about lifespan. Very few interventions have ever been shown to make healthy people live longer, and we say that plainly rather than selling around it. Nothing here is medical advice or personalised to you: supplements interact with medication, and a trial dose is not automatically your dose. That conversation belongs with a clinician who knows your history — see the medical disclaimer. For anything else, including corrections and press, the contact page is the way in.