Four areas, chosen because they are where the gap between the marketing and the evidence is widest. Supplements, from the ones with real human trials behind them to the ones that are mechanism stories with a price tag — see the overview of the supplements actually worth your money. Peptides, oral and topical, including collagen peptides and copper peptides. Diagnostics and the numbers people now buy, from epigenetic clocks to blood markers. And the unglamorous levers with the deepest evidence: protein, aerobic fitness, sleep and sun protection.
Every article starts at the primary source. That means the trial or the meta-analysis itself, located on PubMed or through its DOI, not a press release, not a summary of a summary. Citations are numbered in the text and listed at the end with a link, so any claim can be checked in two clicks. If a reference cannot be located and verified, the claim does not go in.
Human evidence outranks animal evidence, and pooled evidence outranks single trials. Where only mouse or cell data exists, the article says so in the sentence that makes the claim rather than in a footnote. Sample sizes, study lengths and doses are given as numbers, because “studies show” is not a finding.
Who paid for a study is treated as part of the result. A large share of supplement research is funded by the companies that sell the supplement, and that is disclosed in the article along with what it probably does to the effect size. The same applies in reverse: a positive industry-funded randomized trial is still a randomized trial, and is not dismissed for its funding alone.
Articles carry an update date, and substantive corrections are made in place rather than quietly. If something here is wrong or out of date, the fastest way to fix it is to write in with the source — that is read and acted on. The full version of these rules lives in the editorial policy.
No invented credentials. Anti-Aging Daily is a small independent publication, not a clinic and not a journal: there is no medical board behind it, and articles are not signed off by a physician before publication. You will not see a “medically reviewed” badge on this site, because it would not be true. What you get instead is every health claim tied to a source you can open yourself, and plain language about how strong that source is.
Nothing here is medical advice, and none of it is personalised to you. Supplements interact with medication, and the dosing in a trial is not automatically the dosing for your body — that conversation belongs with a clinician who knows your history. See the medical disclaimer for the long version.