What we can support — and what we cannot

Our scientific standpoint

On the Medicine page stand four convictions: continuity rather than episode, the person before the machine, community as medicine, no modular kit. What is conviction there becomes a footnote here — with sources, endpoints and openly stated limits.

Three principles carry everything that follows:

First: evidence before promise. We draw a clean line between what guidelines and robust studies support, and what sounds plausible but has not yet been demonstrated. We do not hide this line — we put it on display.

Second: context before single value. We read trajectories and interactions, not isolated numbers. Not every marker that can be optimised needs to be optimised.

Third: the load-bearing ground first. The best-supported factors of a long, healthy life are unspectacular: movement, nutrition, sleep, recovery, an environment close to nature — and connection. Every further measure is embedded in them. Our medicine reinforces this ground; it never replaces it.

Our starting point is the whole person — body, mind and social life. We do not treat this claim as a slogan but underpin each of its parts with evidence, with the same sources and limits as for any laboratory value. That connection and an environment close to nature also belong to the foundation is therefore not a creed but the state of the research — we show it further below. The World Health Organization has defined health since 1948 as a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease — three dimensions, set down bindingly in its constitution. A fourth, existential dimension — meaning and purpose — was proposed in 1998 but never adopted; the preamble still knows three. In its quality-of-life instrument (WHOQOL) the WHO has nonetheless included meaning and personal belief as a measurable facet.

From this follows a clear stance: we are prepared to say no. To procedures without sustainable evidence, to diagnostics without consequence, to promises no one can keep.

The evidence model

On the "Medicine" page you have already seen the three tiers. Here we fill them in — with the procedures, the guidelines and the limits that stand behind each tier. The model forces us to say, for every measurement and every application, how well supported it is before we offer it.

Validated. Scientifically secured and guideline-backed. Here lies our foundation. These procedures have been tested in large studies and are recommended by professional societies. They form the high-frequency basis of our accompaniment, because their course says more than a single measurement point.

Indicated. Proven procedures, used in a targeted way — only when a finding warrants it, and via specialised partners. More diagnostics is not more health. Imaging, cardiology and dermatology belong here: powerful when indicated; superfluous or even harmful when without occasion.

Promising. New procedures that we observe and offer — but flag clearly as what they are: not yet sufficiently demonstrated. Among them are markers of biological age and a part of the regenerative procedures. We conceal neither their appeal nor their limits.

Two further categories are just as important: what we forgo — and what we deliberately hold outside this model, because it is experiential knowledge and not proof. Both sections follow below, and both belong to the discipline. A model that showed only the supported would conceal where its own limits lie.

What we measure — and what it supports

The following procedures form our validated foundation. For each we state what it supports, which professional society backs it, which hard endpoint it predicts — and where its limit lies.

Cardiorespiratory fitness (VO₂max)

Endurance capacity is one of the strongest known predictors of all-cause mortality — stronger than many classical risk factors. In a study of over 122,000 people, low fitness was associated with a roughly fivefold higher mortality risk than very high fitness (adjusted hazard ratio about 5.0); in the same analysis this association weighed more heavily than smoking, diabetes or coronary heart disease. Since 2016 the American Heart Association has recommended treating cardiorespiratory fitness as a clinical vital sign.

EndpointAll-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

LimitThese are observational data — they show a strong association but prove no pure cause and effect. And a VO₂max value estimated by a watch is not the same as a cardiopulmonary exercise test measured in the laboratory; we treat estimates as a trend, not as a gold standard.

Bone density and body composition (DEXA)

The DEXA measurement is the reference standard for diagnosing osteoporosis. The World Health Organization and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry define the thresholds (T-score ≤ −2.5). The fracture-risk model FRAX combines bone density with clinical risk factors. The same measurement captures body composition — muscle and visceral fat proportions —, a recognised measure, for example in the sarcopenia algorithm of the European consensus group EWGSOP2.

EndpointFragility fracture (hip, vertebra, forearm); for body composition, associations with falls, frailty and cardiometabolic risk.

What we addThe majority of fractures occur in people whose T-score lies above the osteoporosis threshold — which is why we never measure bone density alone, but always in the context of the risk factors. For body composition in healthy, younger people there is no guideline that recommends it as routine screening; we use it as a measure of trajectory, not as a verdict.

Cardiometabolic blood panel (ApoB, Lp(a), HbA1c, hs-CRP)

Not all blood values are equally well supported, and we do not treat them as such. ApoB counts the number of atherogenic particles directly and is recommended by the guidelines of the European professional societies (ESC/EAS) for risk assessment — particularly where classical LDL cholesterol underestimates the risk. Lp(a) is largely genetically determined and stable for life; the updated guidelines now recommend measuring it at least once in every adult, in order to identify the roughly 20 per cent of people with an elevated, inherited value. Its causal connection with heart attack and aortic valve stenosis is well supported. HbA1c is the established marker for diabetes and prediabetes. hs-CRP is a recognised risk modifier — but, and we say so, not a causal factor, rather an indicator.

EndpointAtherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; diabetes and its consequences.

LimitFor Lp(a) there is at present no approved medication that, by lowering the value, has been shown to prevent events — the measurement sharpens the risk assessment, it opens no miracle treatment. The first large outcome study on this — Lp(a)HORIZON with the agent pelacarsen — is announced for 2026; we will update this statement as soon as it is available. Fasting insulin and derived indices such as HOMA-IR we use, where sensible, as a complementary observation — they are not part of the diagnostic guideline criteria and should be interpreted with corresponding restraint.

Glucose course (continuous glucose monitoring)

In people with diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring is clearly guideline-backed; the international consensus defines validated target ranges ("Time in Range"). In metabolically healthy people we use it deliberately with restraint and clearly framed: as a tool to make individual responses to nutrition and movement visible — not as a demonstrated path to a longer life.

Endpoint (in diabetes)Metabolic control, avoidance of hypoglycaemia.

LimitFor metabolically healthy people robust outcome studies are lacking; a rise in glucose after eating is normal physiology, not a finding. We use the measurement in a targeted and time-limited way and guard against pathologising normal fluctuations.

Heart rate variability (HRV)

Heart rate variability is a validated, non-invasive indicator of autonomic (parasympathetic) cardiac control. In a training and recovery context, its course can reflect strain and regeneration. We use it as what it is: a trend tool for the attentive person.

EndpointPrognostically relevant in clinical groups; in healthy people operational (recovery management), not prognostic.

LimitAbsolute HRV values are not comparable between people — only one's own course counts. A single measurement is nearly meaningless; sleep, alcohol, stress and daily form shift it strongly. The "readiness" scores of devices are manufacturer-specific composite values and not independently validated.

Sleep

The reference standard for sleep diagnostics is laboratory polysomnography, scored according to the rules of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Wearable devices reliably detect the shift between sleep and wakefulness and are well suited to tracking sleep duration and trajectories.

Sleep is here not only an object of measurement but one of the few levers of the load-bearing ground for which interventional, not merely observational, evidence exists. A meta-analysis of 65 randomised controlled trials with around 8,600 people showed that measures which improve sleep quality also improve mental health — with a medium effect on depressive symptoms and anxiety and a dose-response relationship: the more clearly sleep improved, the more clearly mental wellbeing improved. Because these are controlled interventions, this finding supports a direction of effect — better sleep contributes to better mental health —, and not merely an association. This is the rare case on this page where we may speak of more than a correlation.

EndpointDepressive symptoms, anxiety, general mental wellbeing.

LimitThe studies are heterogeneous, and sleep quality was often captured by questionnaire; the effect is medium, no panacea. For diagnosing sleep disorders, wearable devices do not replace the laboratory — they classify light, deep and REM sleep only moderately well, their "deep sleep" and "REM" figures are estimates, not measurements of brain activity. We use them for observing habits and trajectories, not for precise sleep-stage statements.

Movement, strength and muscle mass

That movement carries health is among the best-supported statements in medicine. Within movement, strength — muscle mass and muscular force — is the part that was long underestimated and is today most clearly associated with a longer life. Grip strength, simple and inexpensive to measure, predicts all-cause mortality independently of blood pressure: in the international PURE study, every decrease of five kilograms was accompanied by a sixteen per cent higher mortality risk. Strength training itself — not only existing strength — is, in a meta-analysis, associated with lower all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality.

EndpointAll-cause mortality; also cardiovascular and cancer mortality, as well as fall and fracture risk in old age.

LimitPart of the data is observational, and grip strength also reflects general health, not only its cause. The dose-response runs flat: around 30 to 60 minutes of strength training a week already brings the greater part of the benefit, more adds little. For us it is about strength as a foundation, not about maximisation.

Air quality (particulate matter)

The air a person breathes over years belongs to the underestimated foundations of their health. Particulate matter (PM2.5), according to the Global Burden of Disease, is among the leading avoidable mortality risks worldwide; air pollution overall was the second-largest risk factor for premature death in 2021. The World Health Organization tightened its guideline values markedly in 2021. Clean air is therefore not a comfort but part of the load-bearing ground — and one of the few factors that an environment can actually shape.

EndpointAll-cause mortality; ischaemic heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease and lung cancer, type 2 diabetes.

LimitThis evidence stems overwhelmingly from large observational and modelling studies at population level; it cannot quantify the effect for an individual person over a single year. We understand air quality as a location and environmental factor, not as a treatment — and call it "clean air", not "fresh air", because the supported lever is the pollutant load, not the feeling of fresh air.

Contact with nature and stress physiology (biophilia)

The load-bearing ground also includes, well supported, the environment in which a person lives — the quiet, the green, an old stand of trees. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 143 studies found that a higher degree of time spent in natural, green surroundings is associated with measurably more favourable stress and circulatory values: with lower salivary cortisol levels, a lower heart rate and a lower diastolic blood pressure, as well as a lower risk of type 2 diabetes and a lower all-cause mortality. This is the scientific line behind what an old stand of trees and a quiet park can do for a person.

EndpointPhysiological stress markers (cortisol, heart rate, blood pressure); at population level all-cause mortality and type 2 diabetes.

LimitThis evidence is overwhelmingly observational, and the pooled studies are heterogeneous and of varying quality. We therefore say "associated with", not "demonstrably lowers". Closeness to nature is a plausible, well-documented contribution to the load-bearing ground — no prescribable remedy and no substitute for treatment.

Connection, meaning and mental health

The procedures named so far measure the body. Yet the most robust evidence for a long, healthy life concerns something no watch captures: the social and inner life of the person. We deliberately place this dimension here in the validated part — not because we measure it with a device, but because its evidence base is in no way inferior to that of many laboratory values, and in part surpasses them. This is the scientific foundation of what we call "community as medicine" on the Medicine page.

Social connection and life expectancy. The strength of a person's social relationships predicts their probability of survival about as strongly as established risk factors. A meta-analysis of 148 studies with around 309,000 people found, for people with strong social relationships, a roughly 50 per cent higher probability of survival (odds ratio 1.5). A second meta-analysis by the same research group, encompassing more than 3.4 million people, found for social isolation, loneliness and living alone a 29, 26 and 32 per cent increased mortality risk. The US Surgeon General summarised these findings in an official Advisory in 2023 and, in his — deliberately striking — phrasing, compared the mortality risk of social isolation with that of up to 15 cigarettes a day.

EndpointAll-cause mortality; also an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke and dementia.

LimitThese too are predominantly observational data — they show a strong, much-replicated association but prove no pure cause and effect. The cigarette comparison is a vivid translation, not a measured value; we carry it as an image, not as a number. What can be derived from it is sober and strong at once: connection is among the best-supported components of health.

Meaning and purpose. The experience of meaning, too, is measurably linked with life expectancy. A meta-analysis of ten prospective studies with around 136,000 people found, for a pronounced sense of purpose, a lower risk of dying during the observation period (relative risk about 0.83 — that is, a roughly one-sixth lower mortality risk) as well as fewer cardiovascular events. A large US cohort study of people over 50 confirmed the association with all-cause mortality.

EndpointAll-cause mortality, cardiovascular events.

LimitMeaning cannot be prescribed, and the association is observational. We do not claim that a purpose in life "extends life" — we say that people with a sense of meaning died less often over the observation period, and that this is among the reasons we take community, contribution and belonging seriously.

Mental health. The WHO counts the psychological dimension as an equal part of health. Psychological strain and physical illness reinforce one another, and a person's inner state is among the strongest influences on experienced quality of life. That this state can be moved in an interventional way is supported — among other routes via sleep: when sleep quality improves in controlled studies, inner wellbeing improves too. We therefore treat mental health not as an add-on but as part of the load-bearing ground — preventive, in a discreet setting, long before strain becomes a clinical finding.

LimitPrevention is not therapy. Where an illness requiring treatment is present, it belongs in specialist medical and psychotherapeutic hands; our contribution is the early, the accompanying one — not the substitute for a treatment.

Meditation and stress reduction. Structured programmes for mindfulness and stress reduction — best known among them Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) — are the best-studied form of mental self-regulation. A meta-analysis commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found, for mindfulness meditation programmes, a small to moderate but robust improvement in anxiety, depressive mood and pain.

EndpointPsychological experience of stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms.

LimitThe effects are real but moderate — meditation is a tool, not a remedy. For many further-reaching promises (on attention, mood in general or physical health, for instance) the evidence in the same analysis was insufficient. We offer meditation as a well-supported, low-risk practice — and do not overstate its benefit.

The spiritual dimension. What gives a person footing, meaning and inner orientation is also drawing closer scientific attention. A systematic review in JAMA (Balboni et al. 2022) appraised hundreds of studies and recommended that the spiritual dimension be considered part of comprehensive care — this evidence arose chiefly in the context of serious illness. We carry over only what is foundational and preventive: what gives footing and meaning belongs to health. It cannot be prescribed, and we claim no curative effect — we understand this dimension functionally and person-centred, and make room for it, voluntarily and without creed.

What we observe — and flag clearly

The following procedures we offer or observe with interest. But we flag them clearly as promising and not yet sufficiently demonstrated. Here we name the criticism of the procedures themselves — often from the researchers who developed them.

Biological age (epigenetic clocks and other ageing markers)

Epigenetic clocks estimate a "biological age" from the methylation pattern of DNA. They are a genuine scientific achievement — and a powerful tool for research on large groups. For the decision about an individual person they are not yet.

We say this so plainly because the researchers themselves say so — and in the year 2026 more plainly than ever. The technical and biological measurement uncertainty alone can mean that one and the same person receives, on a single day, a "biological age" differing by around two years; a single test can thereby feign an apparent "rejuvenation" that is pure noise. Eric Verdin, head of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging, put it this way in 2025: none of these clocks is "ready for prime time — neither for clinical trials nor for individual use"; as long as there is no standard recognised by science and authorities, "we are all flying blind". The Biomarkers of Aging Consortium, which systematically advances the validation of these procedures, holds in its own work that this validation has not yet been reached.

One important development belongs here: in early 2026 the first study in humans of a form of epigenetic reprogramming was cleared by the authorities; the first patient was treated on 9 June 2026. This is a genuine milestone — but an early-phase safety study (Phase 1), locally limited to the eye and certain diseases of the optic nerve. It is no proof that the ageing of the whole person can be measured or reversed. Whoever promises the opposite goes beyond the evidence.

How we handle itWe carry biological age, where wished, as an embedded trajectory value within our own protocol — as an observed trend over time, not as a verdict on your body on a single day. We promise no "seven years younger" figure. As the science matures, our framing matures with it.

Regenerative procedures (evidence-informed, no healing promise)

A range of procedures is offered under the word "regeneration" — sauna, red light, intermittent hypoxia-hyperoxia, cold chamber, hyperbaric oxygen therapy. We deliberately speak here of evidence-informed regeneration and never of healing. The evidence base differs strongly between the procedures, and we name it for each one individually — from "best supported" to "early research stage".

Sauna / heat has the strongest signal among these procedures. Large Finnish long-term observational studies show a clear dose-response relationship between regular sauna use and lower cardiovascular mortality. With the qualification, however, that this evidence is observational — healthier or wealthier people may go to the sauna more often —, and controlled studies of intermediate markers show, apart from a slight reduction in blood pressure, scarcely any effects. We therefore phrase it as "associated with lower cardiovascular mortality", not as "proven to extend life".

Red light (photobiomodulation) has the most solid foundation among the technical procedures — for narrowly defined applications such as wound healing and skin regeneration there are controlled studies. An umbrella review from 2025 shows, however, that only about one-sixth of the examined effects reach a moderate certainty; for systemic promises about longevity or immunity the evidence is lacking, and the dosage is not standardised.

Intermittent hypoxia-hyperoxia (IHHT) shows encouraging short-term signals in small studies in certain patient groups, yet the evidence is overall of low certainty and short-term. Whole-body cold therapy has, in the authoritative systematic review (Cochrane), shown insufficient evidence for the usual recovery promises; more recent comparisons confirm that it is not superior to cheaper cold applications and that neither is clearly superior to sham treatments. We offer it, where at all, as an experience, not as a treatment. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is approved for around 14 clearly defined medical indications and is well established there. Its application against ageing rests to this day almost exclusively on work by a single, commercially linked research group: a small study without a control group on telomere length and cellular ageing (35 people, 2020) and a small controlled study on the cognitive performance of older people (63 people, 2020). Both signals are encouraging and both are preliminary — single-centre, small and so far not independently replicated. This is an early research stage, not a proven treatment against ageing. In addition: the therapy has real contraindications and belongs under medical indication, not in a wellness automatism.

How we handle itWe use these procedures only where the benefit is plausible and the risk is low, and we name the state of evidence for each one individually. With us, regeneration is a contribution to the load-bearing ground — not a promise of a longer life.

Outlook: what artificial intelligence will change — and what it will not

What we forgo — and why

What a practice leaves out often says more about its stance than what it offers. Our omissions are deliberate.

No infusions without a medical reason. We do not sell vitamin infusions without a demonstrated deficiency. Controlled studies show no advantage over a sham preparation; the infusion bypasses the body's natural regulation and carries — if rarely — real risks from infection to overload. Whoever has a genuine deficiency should have it medically clarified and treated, not via a wellness infusion.

No whole-body imaging without occasion. We do not recommend a whole-body scan in symptom-free people without a risk profile — in line with the position of the radiological professional societies. Such examinations frequently produce incidental findings that lead to further, in the end mostly superfluous, investigation, with real psychological and physical strain. We use imaging in a targeted way, when a finding warrants it, via neutral partners.

No language of "detoxification" or "energy medicine". Terms such as "detox" or "bioresonance" describe no demonstrated mechanism. Where we use fasting, sauna or nutrition, we explain the actual process and the actual state of the research — not a picture of "flushing out toxins".

No promise of a younger age at the push of a button. No procedure marketed today is demonstrably able to slow, stop or reverse human ageing. We do not claim it. What we create are the conditions under which health grows over years.

Library & updating

We maintain this section dated and versioned. We name the guidelines and studies we rely on, and we note when our framing changes — because the evidence changes.

When a procedure rises from "promising" to "validated", you will read it here first. And when a hoped-for procedure does not prove itself, you will read that here too.

Reference list

Status and upkeep

Back to the distilled front: Medicine — substance rather than promise.