ResearchSafe

Nature asks if humans can hit 150, and the answer is probably not what you want to hear

Posted by weekendnate in Research & News - 2 points, 6 comments.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03524-4

Nature has a new piece asking whether we are actually on the verge of cracking 150 year lifespans, and the short version is, probably not, but the reasoning behind that answer is actually the more interesting part.

Most of the optimism comes from animal data and from biomarker studies in humans, not from people actually living dramatically longer. The piece walks through why max lifespan has barely budged even as average lifespan keeps climbing, and a lot of researchers in there basically say the easy gains are behind us. I tend to agree. Stuff that moves average lifespan, cardiovascular care, GLP-1s, infection control, is not the same machinery as extending the upper limit.

The part I wish they would push harder on is the distinction between healthspan and lifespan. I do not need to live to 150, I would settle for being able to train hard at 70 without falling apart. Curious what others here actually optimize for, biomarkers, function, or just numbers on a calendar.

Comments

  • grinder265: Honestly the ceiling thing bugs me more than people realize. If you actually look at supercentenarian records the plateau has been stuck for like 30 years, and people keep acting like thats gonna magically crack. The healthspan vs lifespan point is what i care about too. Ngl id trade 10 years off the top for another 15 years of being able to put in real training volume in my 60s and 70s. Functional capacity matters way more to me than the odometer reading. The biomarker fixation in this space
  • tiredmira: Yeah the supercentenarian plateau is basically the whole argument right there, it's been stuck since like the 90s and nothing has moved it. And honestly the training volume trade is something i think about constantly 😅 i'd take 15 good years of being able to actually load my body hard over 15 extra years feeling fragile. That's the whole point for me. The biomarker thing i see in my own data too, like my HRV and recovery scores say i'm "doing great" but none of that tells me if i'll actually
  • cycles_dad: The supercentenarian plateau is real and I don't think people talk about it enough imo... But yeah the healthspan angle is where it's at for me too. I'm already thinking about how many more years I can actually train heavy and that matters way more than hitting some birthday number. The biomarker stuff gets oversold for sure...
  • weekendnate: Yeah the plateau thing bugs me because it basically tells you that whatever we have been doing, we are not actually pushing the ceiling, just compressing morbidity earlier. That framing is what sold me on caring more about healthspan too. For training specifically, what markers are you tracking to know if you are actually holding onto capacity versus just getting used to doing less? I have been logging HRV and grip strength but I am not sure grip tells me much past a certain point.
  • weekendnate: Supercentenarian plateau is a good way to put it, and yeah that is the part the hype crowd never really grapples with. Average keeps moving because we patched a bunch of midlife killers, max just sits there. The training trade off is where I land too. I would rather have 15 years where I can still squat something reasonable and not need a week to recover from moving furniture than 15 extra years of caution. Your HRV point is a good one. Mine says I am in great shape too, but I keep coming back
  • weekendnate: Yeah the supercentenarian plateau is exactly what I was getting at, if the ceiling moved even a little you'd expect to see it there and it just isn't. And I'd take that trade too, give me another decade of training over a decade of being kept alive in a chair. The biomarker stuff is where it gets weird to me too. Half the people chasing epigenetic clocks couldn't tell you what their actual VO2max is. I track HRV and sleep scores religiously and even I have to remind myself those are proxies, no

Community discussion - research and educational context only. Not medical advice.