This page presents the outcomes of the Methuselah Protocol™ as they stand in the verified patient register: 129 consecutive patients, 440+ biomarkers and functional measures per patient, and approximately 143 patient-years of follow-up. Every figure carries its scope, and the caveats are stated in full.
Every patient enrolled in the Methuselah Protocol enters the register: 74 women and 55 men, ages 27 to 90 or older, with a mean age of 54.9. Each is tracked across 440+ biomarkers and functional measures spanning clinical chemistry, body composition, and functional performance.
The analysis is pre-specified. Patients meeting an objective adherence threshold of 80% protocol compliance form the primary group of 118. The 11 patients below that threshold are analyzed separately rather than dropped, and that separation turns out to be the most instructive comparison in the dataset. All 129 patients appear in a sensitivity analysis covering approximately 143 patient-years of follow-up.
At most recent measurement, every one of the 118 adherent patients was biologically younger than their chronological age, by 9.9 years on average. Women averaged an 11.1-year advantage; men, 8.4.
The 11 patients who did not meet the adherence threshold averaged 3.7 years, with 63.6% biologically younger. Same clinic, same method, same register: a 6.2-year gap separates patients who worked the protocol from those who did not. Including everyone enrolled, 96.9% of patients were biologically younger, with a 9.4-year average advantage.
Adherence is pre-specified as 80% protocol compliance, measured objectively. Definitions and limitations in the fine print.
A cross-sectional advantage can partly reflect who chooses to enroll. So the analysis also asks a harder question: do patients become biologically younger over time on the protocol? Among the 98 adherent patients with serial measurements, biological age regressed from baseline by a mean of 1.5 years.
The distribution matters more than any single case. The analysis deliberately de-emphasizes the largest changes seen over short two-measurement intervals, where noise and regression toward the mean contribute, and anchors instead on sustained, multi-visit responders.
The most reasonable objection to any biological age finding is measurement error: a single estimator can wobble. The answer is convergence. When biological age improves alongside independent gains in insulin sensitivity, kidney function, inflammation, and body fat in the same patient, noise stops being a plausible explanation, because random noise is unlikely to move several separate measures in the same favorable direction at once, even allowing for the overlap among them described below.
Among the 98 adherent patients with serial data, 49 improved across at least three of the five tracked systems simultaneously, and 14 across at least four. This convergence, not any single number, is the analytic backbone of the study. The systems are not fully independent: PhenoAge itself incorporates glucose, creatinine, C-reactive protein, and red cell distribution width, so agreement among them is convergent evidence rather than proof of independence.
regressed against their own baseline, a mean of 1.5 years, among the 98 adherent patients with serial data. Measured from the same blood chemistry drawn at every visit.
improved among patients insulin-resistant at baseline (HOMA-IR of 2.0 or higher), with a mean HOMA-IR reduction of 39%.
improved among patients with reduced kidney function at baseline, a mean eGFR increase of roughly 15%, against the expected age-related decline.
of patients with serial data improved red cell distribution width, a routine marker tied to all-cause mortality risk.
lost weight (mean roughly 15 lb) and 63% reduced body fat (mean roughly 11 lb), among adherent patients for whom weight loss was a goal.
Across approximately 143 patient-years of follow-up, none were recorded. Longevity medicine is sometimes assumed to trade safety for ambition. The register says otherwise.
Ours are stated in full, because they will be asked in peer review and they should be answered here first.
Biological age is calculated at each visit as the mean of two values: the Levine Phenotypic Age, a validated algorithm that combines nine routine clinical chemistry markers with chronological age, and an estimated DNA-methylation-equivalent age derived from the same panel. Biological age delta is biological age minus chronological age; a negative delta means biologically younger.
Stated plainly: the two values are algebraic transformations of the same bloodwork, not independent assays. No DNA-methylation testing was performed, and the analysis makes no cross-method validity claim between them. All deltas are read from stored per-visit register values rather than recomputed downstream.
Adherence is pre-specified as 80% protocol compliance, measured objectively. The primary analysis is per-protocol: the 118 adherent patients. The 11 non-adherent patients are analyzed separately, and all 129 appear in a sensitivity analysis.
Adherence was not randomly assigned, so the adherence gradient may partly reflect unmeasured differences between engaged and non-engaged patients. It remains the most defensible comparison the dataset offers, because it holds the clinic, the method, and the register constant.
This is an observational, single-arm, retrospective analysis without a control group. It describes associations and cannot establish causality. The population is self-selected and private-pay, which inflates the cross-sectional advantage and limits generalizability; the within-patient and convergence analyses are foregrounded for exactly that reason.
The biological age estimator carries measurement error on the order of several years, follow-up intervals varied across patients, and the largest short-interval changes are treated with corresponding caution. As a partial check on selection, patients who began at or above their chronological age were examined separately; although few in number, all became biologically younger.
The full analysis is written up as a manuscript, Biological Age Advantage and Multi-System Improvement in Adults Receiving a Structured Multi-Modal Longevity Protocol: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Analysis, prepared for peer-reviewed submission. An independent institutional review board has reviewed the study and determined it exempt.
Every figure on this page traces to the verified patient register, current to May 2026, with its scope attached. Request the full analysis.
Care is delivered in person in Tysons Corner, Virginia, welcoming patients from anywhere in the world, with telemedicine available across 15 licensed states and Washington DC.
Everything for a smooth day at Everest Health, in one place. Or have us arrange all of it. The visit guide, as a page →