TODAY'S AJENDA #99

We’ve got thousands of new friends joining us this week, so a big, warm welcome! If you’re an OG, thank you for being part of this community. Your support truly means the world to me.
A quick reminder: you can catch up on past issues, share this newsletter with a friend, and even join our insiders list, Off Duty. Links are at the bottom of this email. Now, let’s get into it. We’ve got a lot to cover!

I’m going to say the quiet part out loud: I think the way we use the word longevity right now is mostly BS.

Not because living longer isn’t a good thing. Of course it is. But the way that longevity is marketed to women over 50 has drifted far from reality and very close to fantasy. And fantasy is expensive, exhausting, and not especially helpful.

Here’s the core problem. 

Much of the longevity conversation asks women to do uncomfortable, restrictive, expensive or time-consuming things today for a hypothetical payoff 40 or 50 years from now. Now, that framing might work if you’re 28 and optimizing a spreadsheet version of your future. It lands very differently when you’re 50 and over, juggling work, family, sleep disruption, joint stiffness, and a body that already feels different than it used to.

Most women I talk to aren’t asking, “How do I live to 110?”
They are asking,
“How do I feel better this year?”
“How do I wake up with energy?”
“How do I move without pain?”
“How do I think clearly and enjoy my life now?”

Longevity culture often skips right over that.

It’s also become a magnet for marketing hype. Supplements, stacks, gadgets, biohacks, peptide protocols that sound scientific but rest on very thin evidence.  There’s a lot of talk about pathways, molecules, and mechanisms, and far less honesty about what’s actually been proven in real humans over meaningful periods of time. Much of what gets labeled “longevity science” is either extrapolated from animal models, short-term surrogate markers, or observational data that can’t tell us what actually causes what.

That doesn’t mean the science is useless. (I find it interesting and potentially exciting, but I also often find it ‘not ready for primetime.’)  It means it’s being oversold. I also have a huge issue with health influencers who speak in absolutes. Science is almost never an absolute. It is nuanced, dynamically evolving, and ultimately may be slightly different for you than it is for a ‘study population.’ 

And here’s the other thing we don’t say enough: longevity without quality is not a win. Living longer while feeling weaker, foggier, more medicated, more restricted, and less joyful is not some gold medal outcome. It’s just more years.

This is why I prefer the terms "health span" or "vitality.”