Longevity Supplement Tier List.
Tap a supplement, then tap a tier. Rank at least 5 to submit. See the community aggregate when you're done.
What are the best longevity supplements?+
The cleanest evidence is for creatine monohydrate, omega-3 EPA/DHA, vitamin D (if deficient), and magnesium glycinate for sleep + cramping. These are cheap, decades of safety data, and consistent meta-analyses. Tier-B / experimental items (NMN, rapamycin, fisetin, spermidine) have mechanistic and animal data but human outcome data is still maturing.
Is NMN actually worth taking?+
NMN does raise blood NAD+ in humans (Yoshino 2021) — that part is replicated. What's not yet shown is that the NAD+ rise translates to longer healthspan or specific outcome benefits in healthy adults. It's a defensible bet on the underlying biology being causal; it's not the same evidence tier as creatine or omega-3.
Should I take rapamycin for longevity?+
This is off-label and physician-supervised. Attia uses it weekly at ~6 mg in selected patients; Bryan Johnson includes it in Blueprint. Mouse evidence is strong (consistently extends lifespan ~10–25% across strains). Human RCTs (PEARL trial) are ongoing. Don't source from grey markets; if you're seriously considering it, work with a longevity-trained physician.
Is creatine safe for older adults and women?+
Yes — the ISSN position stand (Kreider 2017) covers safety across age and sex. 3–5 g/day is well-tolerated. Recent meta-analyses also show cognitive benefits (memory, processing speed) particularly under sleep deprivation or in older adults.
Does ranking supplements as a tier list have any scientific value?+
The tier list is community sentiment — it tells you what people actually take and how confident they feel about each item, not what the evidence shows. Use it as a hype/popularity barometer. For evidence-graded per-supplement summaries, Examine.com is the closest thing to a public source-of-truth.
Why does the same supplement sometimes appear in different tiers?+
Different submitters value different outcomes. Someone optimizing for sleep ranks magnesium S; someone optimizing for strength ranks creatine S. The community aggregate uses the most common tier for each item (the mode), which smooths these goal-driven differences but doesn't erase them.
What an evidence-weighted tier list would look like
Tier-S on evidence (multiple RCTs, large effect sizes, decades of safety data): creatine, omega-3 EPA/DHA, vitamin D in the deficient, magnesium glycinate for sleep + cramping. These are cheap, mechanistically clear, and have public meta-analyses.
Tier-A on evidence but narrower use case: vitamin K2 with vitamin D (calcium routing), B12 in vegans / over-60s, taurine (mouse longevity, human RCTs in progress), glycine + NAC (GlyNAC) for older adults' redox status.
Tier-B/C: NMN, NR, spermidine, fisetin, urolithin A — promising mechanistic and animal data, human outcome data still maturing. Most of the longevity-influencer marketing concentrates here.
Tier-D / re-examine: high-dose antioxidants (blunt training adaptation), generic 'multivitamins' (no mortality signal), greens powders (low marginal value vs eating actual vegetables).
Where to trust the community vote
The tier list is community sentiment, not a meta-analysis. It's useful as a popularity / hype barometer — what people actually take vs what gets the most podcast airtime — and as a fast read on what's worth investigating further. If you want the evidence-graded version per supplement, Examine.com is the closest thing to a public source-of-truth, and the FoundMyFitness supplement pages cover the longevity slice in depth.
See how you compare.
Get the weekly research drop — what the audience actually does, plus the protocols I'm testing on myself. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.