Loading…
For adults over 50
The longevity protocols worth considering after fifty — read against the published evidence, graded for how strong that evidence is, with every source shown.
Evidence-based longevity is the practice of choosing which health protocols to follow by the weight of the published research behind each one — not the confidence of whoever is selling it. After fifty, both the stakes and the noise rise: more spent, more claimed, and less appetite for trial and error. Temple Protocol rates longevity protocols against that evidence, grades how strong it is, and shows every source — so the choices you make with your physician rest on what the research supports rather than on enthusiasm.
What a rating gives you
Every protocol we rate carries two readings and nothing you have to take on faith.
A provenance reading — whether a claim rests on randomized trials, long-running cohorts, mechanistic work, or little more than testimonial. The origin of a finding is half of what it is worth.
A strength reading in coarse, unranked bands — deliberately blunt, because the literature rarely supports a finer verdict than it can carry.
Every rating links the literature behind it, so you can read the proof yourself rather than take ours. Where the evidence is thin or conflicted, we name it.
Why it reads differently after fifty
The influencer feed is built for the young and the certain — a new compound each week, sold with confidence by people who profit from your belief. After fifty the calculus changes. The money is real, the claims are louder, and the years you would spend testing them are the ones you are trying to protect.
This is written for adults who have taken the body seriously long enough to have tried the noise and tired of it — who would rather have a sourced, conditional reading of a protocol than a confident one. It asks for patience, and returns something quieter than a promise: the sense that what you are doing is considered, not gambled.
How we weigh the evidence
Our reading borrows the standard of evidence-based medicine, not the tempo of the feed. Each rating weighs consistency and replication, effect size, directness, and the independence of the source — the considerations behind established appraisal frameworks such as the GRADE working group and the CEBM levels of evidence. Where the research is strong, we say so plainly; where it is thin or conflicted, we say that too. The full method is on how we rate, and the citation standard on evidence.
Common questions
Or be there as the rated library opens — join the waitlist. We will write to you when there is something worth saying.