#310 - Can We Measure Aging Well Enough to Treat It? | Dr. Nir Barzilai & Mike Haney
LEVELS – A Whole New LevelShow Notes
Aging science has gotten much better at describing who appears to be aging faster or slower. What medicine still lacks is a reliable feedback loop: a way to tell whether something we do is actually changing the biology that drives age-related disease. Dr. Nir Barzilai argues that solving that measurement problem could turn geroscience from an interesting field of research into something doctors can actually use: measure where you are, intervene, measure again, and learn what works.
Free course: Improve your metabolic health Get our free email course on how glucose, nutrition, exercise, sleep, and measurement can help you build habits that support better energy and long-term health: https://levels.link/wnl
What We Cover: What centenarians reveal about living longer and spending less time sick Why changing one hallmark of aging can affect several others How TAME was designed to test metformin as an anti-aging drug and to convince the FDA to treat aging itself as an endpoint—and why it failed to get off the ground Why metformin, SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and some osteoporosis drugs are being studied as potential gerotherapeutics, or anti-aging drugs How FAST is searching existing clinical trials for biomarkers that change when an intervention affects aging biology Whether aging needs continuous monitoring or can be meaningfully tracked a few times a year
🎙️ About the Guest: Dr. Nir Barzilai is the Ingeborg and Ira Leon Rennert Chair in Aging Research and a professor of medicine and genetics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, where he directs the Institute for Geroscience.
📍What Dr. Nil Barzilai & Mike Haney discussed: 05:10 - Aging is a condition, not just a label 05:59 - Why aging is what drives disease 08:19 - Should we call aging a disease? 10:20 - Why the species may have a ceiling around 115 14:34 - Why changing one hallmark of aging changes the others 23:08 - Metformin was anti-aging before it was a diabetes drug 31:55 - Centenarians live longer and spend less time sick 40:12 - How TAME tried to make aging an FDA endpoint 48:17 - Metformin, SGLT2s, GLP-1s, and osteoporosis drugs as gerotherapeutics 52:26 - FAST: finding biomarkers that actually change with treatment 56:49 - Whether aging needs continuous monitoring, or a few checks a year 1:01:16 - Where behavior still fits once we have anti-aging drugs
🔗 Helpful Links: Hallmarks of Aging: An Expanding Universe (Cell, 2023) Paper Compression of Morbidity Is Observed Across Cohorts with Exceptional Longevity (JAGS, 2016) Paper Metformin as a Tool to Target Aging (Cell Metabolism, 2016) Paper Geroscience-Guided Repurposing of FDA-Approved Drugs to Target Aging (Aging Cell, 2022) Paper Biomarkers of Aging for the Identification and Evaluation of Longevity Interventions (Cell, 2023) Paper FAST: Finding Aging Biomarkers by Searching Existing Trials FAST Initiative ARPA-H PROSPR / FAST award ARPA-H FAST project
Watch the conversation: https://youtu.be/HbeGjwCw6vk Find us on YouTube: https://youtube.com/levelshealth?sub_confirmation=1
📲 Connect: Connect with Dr. Nil Barzilai on X: https://x.com/NirBarzilaiMD
👋 Who we are: Levels helps you understand your metabolic health with personalized data, expert guidance, and tools that connect your daily choices to measurable changes in your body. Our goal is to help you make better decisions about food, exercise, sleep, and long-term health.
Look for new shows every month on A Whole New Level, where we have in-depth conversations with thought leaders about metabolic health.
More from LEVELS – A Whole New Level
Heart disease is the leading cause of death, but it’s also one of the most preventable. Decades of research have established a strong causal role for LDL and other ApoB-containing particles in atherosclerosis, and we now have multiple proven ways to lower them. The harder question is how to turn that evidence into a decision for an individual person. Mike Haney talks with Johns Hopkins cardiologist Dr. Seth Martin, a co-author of the new 2026 dyslipidemia guidelines, about what the latest evidence says we should actually measure and act on. The throughline is pragmatic: lower exposure to atherogenic particles earlier and for longer, use additional tests when they can change a decision, and distinguish interesting new measurements from ones that have actually been shown to improve outcomes.
Most of NextLevel starts with a measurement problem: we can see more biology than ever, but we still have to figure out what to do with it. Bioelectronic medicine flips that sequence. We already know how to send electrical signals into the nervous system to change biology, including an FDA-approved vagus nerve treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, even though we still can’t map or read most of the individual nerve fibers carrying those signals.
Most health decisions happen before the science is settled. A study points one way, another points somewhere else, experts disagree about what matters, and even strong population-level evidence may not tell you what will happen to you.
Most medical imaging happens after a symptom, injury, or abnormal test gives a clinician a reason to look. But what changes if imaging becomes a more routine measurement, creating a record of the body before something goes wrong? In this episode of Next Level, Mike Haney talks with Dr. Daniel Durand, chief medical officer at Prenuvo, about whole-body MRI as a test case for a broader shift from episodic medicine toward longitudinal health data. Whole-body MRI is controversial, and Durand is clearly an advocate. The conversation takes the skepticism seriously, then asks a larger question: as measurement gets cheaper, more frequent, and increasingly visible to patients themselves, how should medicine decide what is worth knowing?
Alcohol has spent the last 40 years bouncing between two health narratives: a little is good for your heart, or any amount is dangerous. The science doesn’t really support either slogan. Dr. Tim Naimi has spent decades studying the health effects of alcohol and, just as importantly, why the research is so difficult to interpret. His read of the evidence is less dramatic but more useful: there’s no good reason to start drinking for your health, very low intake may carry little measurable added risk, and risk rises as consumption does. Understanding why earlier studies made moderate drinking look protective helps explain a lot of the whiplashing headlines.