Health Library / Hormones
This content is for education only and is not medical advice. I'm a fitness coach, not a physician. Talk to your doctor before starting any medication, hormone, supplement, or new exercise program, especially if you have a medical condition or take prescriptions.
There's a short list of prescription drugs that the longevity world has adopted off-label, and if you spend any time in this space you'll hear all of them. Here's what they are, what the research shows, and why people are taking them anyway.
I'm going to be straight about the interesting parts, because the science here is legitimately good. I'm also going to tell you where it stops.
An old, cheap diabetes drug taken by millions for decades, which means we understand its safety profile about as well as any drug's.
Why anyone thought of it for aging: early analyses suggested people with diabetes taking metformin sometimes did better on long-term outcomes than you'd predict. That's an eyebrow-raiser. It's also hard to interpret, because the people prescribed one drug differ from those prescribed another in ways no statistical adjustment fully fixes.
The trial that would settle it is TAME — Targeting Aging with Metformin — designed to test whether it delays age-related disease in people without diabetes. It's been discussed for years and has struggled for funding, largely because the drug is off-patent and cheap, so no company stands to profit from the answer. That's a real structural problem in this field and worth knowing about.
The finding that matters most to you, and which rarely makes the podcast: a trial in older adults doing resistance training found the metformin group gained less muscle than the placebo group. Same training, worse result. The proposed mechanism is that metformin dampens some of the same cellular signalling that exercise uses to drive adaptation.
Sit with that in context. You're 60, training specifically to hold onto muscle, and you add a drug hoping to slow aging — and it partially cancels the intervention with the best evidence behind it. One trial isn't the final word. But if you're weighing this, it belongs in the conversation, and most people advocating metformin don't mention it.
Side effects are real: GI problems are common, and long-term use depletes B12 enough that it warrants monitoring.
Scientifically the most interesting thing on this list.
It inhibits mTOR, a cellular pathway that senses nutrients and governs growth. Suppress it and lifespan extends in every model organism tested — yeast, worms, flies, mice, including mice started late in life. It came through the Interventions Testing Program, a rigorous multi-site mouse protocol designed to weed out results that don't replicate, and it's one of the few compounds that survived. As lifespan science goes, that's about as solid as it gets.
It's also an immunosuppressant — that's its approved use, preventing organ rejection and treating certain cancers. The longevity argument is that intermittent dosing separates the benefit from the immune suppression. That's biologically plausible and it is not established in humans.
The Dog Aging Project is running a proper controlled trial in companion dogs — real animals, real households, real lifespans. I think that's genuinely valuable work and I'm watching it. Dogs still aren't people.
Notice the tension with everything else in this library: mTOR is the pathway your body uses to build muscle. Protein and resistance training work partly by switching it on. A drug that suppresses it pulls the other way. How that shakes out in a 55-year-old trying to stay strong is an open question nobody has answered.
You'll see this one turning up — a blue dye, over a century old, sold in dropper bottles and increasingly visible in the biohacking world for energy and cognition.
What it genuinely is: an FDA-approved drug for methemoglobinemia, a specific blood disorder. That's a real, narrow, approved use. It also has a history in malaria treatment and it stains everything it touches, including you.
Why the longevity crowd likes it: at low concentrations it can act as an electron carrier in mitochondria, potentially supporting energy production, and there's preliminary work on brain metabolism and cognition.
What to know: the human evidence for the cognitive and energy claims is preliminary. And there's a specific interaction that matters — methylene blue has serotonergic activity and can contribute to serotonin syndrome in people taking antidepressants, which is a genuine medical emergency rather than a theoretical concern. Given how many people over 45 are on an SSRI, that's the one thing I'd want everyone to know before they order a bottle. Also, aquarium-grade and pharmaceutical-grade are not the same product.
Acarbose — a diabetes drug that blunts carbohydrate absorption; extended lifespan in the mouse testing program, particularly in males.
17-alpha-estradiol — also extended male mouse lifespan, and essentially unstudied for this in humans. Low-dose lithium, senolytics like dasatinib and quercetin aimed at clearing senescent cells — early human trials exist and are small.
Senolytics are the one I'd watch. The idea — periodically clearing worn-out cells that accumulate and drive inflammation — is elegant, the animal work is encouraging, and human trials are underway. It's also early.
I want to represent this fairly rather than strawman it.
The argument goes: the mechanisms are well characterized, several of these drugs have long safety records in other populations, the trials that would prove the longevity case take decades and may never be funded, and I'm 55 now. Waiting for certainty means missing the window.
That's not stupid. It's a calculated bet under uncertainty, and the people making it are often well informed and open about what they don't know.
What I'd want anyone making that bet to hold onto: the safety record comes from a different population taking it for a different reason, and the metformin-and-training finding is a concrete example of a cost nobody was looking for until somebody checked. "Low downside" is a claim about a drug taken for decades by people it wasn't studied in.
These are prescription drugs with real side effects, and the research that would justify healthy people taking them for longevity is still in progress. Not nearly done. In progress.
I'm not going to tell you that because a biohacker takes it, you should consider it. That's not evidence — that's a person with a podcast and a hypothesis.
If you're genuinely interested, the conversation is with a physician who knows your history and is willing to say plainly that they're operating ahead of the data. Some will. That's a real and legitimate way to do this, and it's very different from ordering something off a website.
Meanwhile the intervention with sixty years of human evidence behind it is still sitting in the garage, and it still works.
Last updated September 30, 2026