The short version
- Pooling 661,137 adults and 116,686 deaths, going from no leisure-time activity to less than the recommended 7.5 MET-hours per week was associated with 20% lower mortality, rising to 39% at three to five times the recommendation with no harm at ten times.
- A meta-analysis of 16 cohort studies found muscle-strengthening activity independently associated with 10 to 17% lower risk of all-cause mortality, with maximum benefit at roughly 30 to 60 minutes per week.
- Across 27 cohort samples covering 1,382,999 people, short sleep carried a relative risk of death of 1.12 and long sleep 1.30, both from self-reported observational data where illness can drive the association.
- Protein supplementation during resistance training added 2.49kg of one-rep-max strength and 0.30kg of fat-free mass across 49 studies, with no further gains in fat-free mass above roughly 1.62g of protein per kilogram of body weight per day.
- No supplement in the LUVO catalogue has human mortality data behind it, and NAD precursors, the ones with the most human pharmacology, reliably raise blood NAD without producing consistent functional change.
We sell supplements, and this is the article where we tell you what order to buy things in. The order is not flattering to us, and we would rather publish it than have you work it out later and wonder what else we left out.
Rank interventions by the size of the human evidence behind them and the amount of it that comes from people rather than mice, and the ranking is stable no matter how you weight it. Three things sit at the top. None of them is sold in a bottle.
One: move, in both directions
Arem and colleagues pooled six cohorts — 661,137 adults, 116,686 deaths, median 14.2 years of follow-up — and mapped the dose-response between leisure-time activity and dying.
Against people doing none, those doing less than the recommended 7.5 MET-hours per week already had 20% lower mortality. One to two times the recommendation: 31% lower. Two to three times: 37%. The curve flattened at three to five times the minimum, at 39% lower, and there was no harm at ten times or more.
Read where the curve is steepest. The largest single gain is the step from nothing to something, and it is available to a person who currently does nothing for the price of a pair of shoes.
Strength work is a separate axis, not a substitute. A meta-analysis of 16 cohort studies found muscle-strengthening activity independently associated with 10 to 17% lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes — with maximum risk reduction at roughly 30 to 60 minutes per week. That is two short sessions. Combining strengthening with aerobic activity beat either alone.
Between those two lie the two most trainable markers in this whole category. Cardiorespiratory fitness carries the largest hazard ratios anyone has measured for a modifiable factor, and sarcopenia determines whether you stay independent when you are old. Both are free.
Two: sleep, with an honest asterisk
Cappuccio and colleagues pooled 27 cohort samples covering 1,382,999 participants and 112,566 deaths. Short sleep carried a relative risk of death of 1.12, long sleep 1.30.
Now the asterisk, because the number is smaller than it looks and the long-sleep result is genuinely odd. This is observational and self-reported. Illness causes both short sleep and long sleep, so a chunk of that association is disease reading backwards. Nobody thinks lying in bed for ten hours is killing people; something that makes you need ten hours might be.
So take sleep seriously without taking the hazard ratio literally. The case for it rests less on this meta-analysis than on what sleep loss does to everything else on your list — training quality, appetite regulation, glucose handling, whether you go at all.
And note what is not being recommended here: a sleep supplement. Fixing your schedule, your light exposure and your bedroom is the intervention. We sell sleep products and they are for the residual, not the cause.
Three: eat enough protein, then stop
Morton and colleagues pooled 49 studies with 1,863 participants on protein supplementation during resistance training. Supplementation significantly increased one-rep-max strength by 2.49kg and fat-free mass by 0.30kg over training alone.
Two details do the real work. The benefit was smaller with increasing age and larger in already-trained people. And protein intake beyond roughly 1.62g per kilogram of body weight per day produced no further gains in fat-free mass.
That is a ceiling, published in the sports nutrition literature, on the thing the sports nutrition industry sells most of. Food counts toward the total. If you already hit 1.6g/kg from meals, a powder is convenience.
Now the part where we sell you something
Suppose all three are genuinely handled — you train aerobically and with weights, you sleep adequately, you eat enough protein — and you still have a monthly budget. What is worth spending it on?
Not most of the longevity aisle, on the evidence we have looked at across this cluster. Taurine's human premise failed replication twice. Spermidine's best trial came back flat over twelve months. Senolytics cannot be bought in the form that was studied. Fish oil moves the omega-3 index but has not moved outcomes in unselected people. Biological age tests are too noisy to referee any of it.
The NAD precursors we sell are the ones with the most human pharmacology behind them, and we want to be precise about what that means. They reliably raise blood NAD, which is genuinely more than most ingredients in this category can claim. What they have not done is produce consistent functional change in humans — a 2025 meta-analysis of twelve NMN studies found most clinically relevant outcomes no different from control, and its authors wrote that an exaggeration of the benefits may exist in the field.
So: buy them if you find the biology interesting and the money is genuinely spare, with expectations set at the level of a marker moving rather than a life extending. That is the whole pitch. If it sounds thin, that is because it is an accurate description of the evidence, and we would rather lose the sale than round it up.
What we would actually tell you
If you have $100 a month for staying capable, we would spend it roughly like this. Gym or class membership first, because adherence is the only thing that makes training happen. A hand dynamometer and a set of scales once, so you have numbers to argue with. Enough protein in the shopping basket. A blood panel through your doctor once a year, which will catch more than any supplement will fix.
Whatever is left over is the supplement budget, and it should be the smallest line, chosen for a specific reason with a specific window to judge it in.
That ordering costs us money on the first three lines and earns us something on the fourth. We think publishing it is the only version of this article worth reading.
Good questions
What is the single best thing I can do to live longer?
Move, if you currently do not. The steepest part of the curve in a pooled analysis of 661,137 adults was the step from no leisure-time activity to a modest amount, worth 20% lower mortality before you even reach the guideline. Nothing sold in a bottle has an effect of that size with that much human data behind it.
How much exercise is enough for longevity?
Benefit kept accruing to about three to five times the 7.5 MET-hour weekly guideline, at 39% lower mortality, but the difference between meeting the guideline and tripling it was modest. Separately, roughly 30 to 60 minutes a week of strength work gave the maximum associated risk reduction. Two short lifting sessions and regular walking covers most of it.
Are longevity supplements a waste of money?
Most of them, on current evidence, if you buy them expecting extra years. We sell NAD precursors and their honest claim is that they raise a blood marker reliably while human functional outcomes have mostly not followed. That is a reason to be interested, not certain. Buy them from money left over after the three habits, not instead of them.
How much protein do I actually need?
Around 1.6g per kilogram of body weight per day is where the muscle benefit stops in the pooled trial data, and food counts toward that. Above that, protein supplementation produced no further gains in fat-free mass across 49 studies. If your meals already get you there, a powder is convenience rather than nutrition.
Should I take a sleep supplement instead of fixing my sleep?
No, and we sell sleep products, so treat that as a disclosure. Schedule, light exposure and bedroom environment are the intervention; a supplement is for the residual after those are handled. If you are waking repeatedly, snoring heavily or exhausted despite adequate hours, that is a conversation with a doctor rather than a purchase.
What if I can only afford one thing?
Buy whatever makes the training actually happen — a membership, a class, shoes, a coach. Adherence is the variable that decides whether any of this works, and it is the one supplements cannot help with. A capsule bought instead of the training is the most expensive item in this entire article.
Sources
- Arem H, Moore SC, Patel A, et al. Leisure time physical activity and mortality: a detailed pooled analysis of the dose-response relationship. JAMA Intern Med, 2015. View study
- Momma H, Kawakami R, Honda T, Sawada SS. Muscle-strengthening activities are associated with lower risk and mortality in major non-communicable diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Br J Sports Med, 2022. View study
- Cappuccio FP, D'Elia L, Strazzullo P, Miller MA. Sleep duration and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Sleep, 2010. View study
- Morton RW, Murphy KT, McKellar SR, et al. A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults. Br J Sports Med, 2018. View study
- Zhang J, Poon ET, Wong SH. Efficacy of oral nicotinamide mononucleotide supplementation on glucose and lipid metabolism for adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 2025. View study
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
