Rapamycin
Rapamycin (sirolimus) inhibits mTORC1, a nutrient-sensing pathway tied to autophagy, senescence signaling, immune aging, and lifespan in animals. The animal evidence is unusually strong: Harrison 2009 and Miller 2014 showed lifespan extension in the NIA Interventions Testing Program. Human longevity evidence is still early. Moel 2025 found one year of weekly low-dose rapamycin was relatively safe in healthy aging adults, but the primary visceral-fat endpoint was not meaningfully improved.
Rapamycin scored 5.2 / 10 (⚖️ Neutral) on the BioHarmony scale as a Substance → Pharmaceutical / Drug.
What It Is
Rapamycin, also called sirolimus, is a prescription mTOR inhibitor. mTOR is one of the body's main nutrient-sensing switches. When food, amino acids, insulin, and growth signals are abundant, mTOR tells cells to grow and build. When mTORC1 is inhibited, cells shift toward repair programs such as autophagy, the cleanup process that recycles damaged cellular parts.
That's why rapamycin gets so much longevity attention. In mice, the signal is hard to ignore. The NIA Interventions Testing Program found that rapamycin fed late in life extended lifespan in genetically heterogeneous mice in Harrison 2009, and follow-up work in Miller 2014 showed dose and sex dependence. Intermittent and transient mouse studies, including Arriola Apelo 2016 and Bitto 2016, are the reason many longevity physicians prefer pulsed weekly dosing rather than daily transplant-style exposure.
But the human story is much less settled. Mannick 2014 and Mannick 2018 found immune benefits in older adults using rapalogs, not generic weekly rapamycin. Kraig 2018 was useful feasibility work, but small. The most important correction is PEARL: the trial should be cited as Moel 2025, replacing the older v0.x attribution. PEARL supports relative 48-week safety in healthy/normative-aging adults, but the primary visceral-fat endpoint was not meaningfully improved.
In practice, rapamycin is an advanced off-label pharmaceutical protocol. The upside is unusually interesting for adults 50+ with age-related immune decline or deep geroscience interest. The downside is that the safety model still depends on prescriber oversight, blood work, drug-interaction awareness, and a clear willingness to stop if lipids, glucose, mouth ulcers, infection pattern, or wound-healing risk moves the wrong way.
Terminology
For clinical context, see the FDA Rapamune label and the healthy-adult evidence review by Hands 2025.
- Rapamycin / sirolimus: Same active drug. Rapamycin is the common geroscience name; sirolimus is the generic drug name.
- Rapamune: Brand-name sirolimus originally approved for transplant immunosuppression.
- mTOR: mechanistic Target of Rapamycin. A nutrient-sensing kinase that regulates growth, repair, and metabolism.
- mTORC1 / mTORC2: Two mTOR-containing complexes. mTORC1 is the main longevity target; chronic mTORC2 disruption is tied to metabolic and immune side effects.
- Autophagy: Cellular recycling and cleanup. Rapamycin can increase autophagy by inhibiting mTORC1.
- SASP: Senescence-Associated Secretory Phenotype. Inflammatory signals released by senescent cells.
- ITP: NIA Interventions Testing Program. Multi-site mouse longevity testing platform behind the strongest rapamycin lifespan data.
- PEARL: Periodic Evaluation of Aging with Rapamycin for Longevity. The healthy-adult 48-week rapamycin trial published as Moel 2025.
- TRIAD: Test of Rapamycin in Aging Dogs, part of Dog Aging Project rapamycin research.
- CYP3A4 / CYP3A5: Liver enzymes that metabolize rapamycin. They explain why grapefruit, azole antifungals, macrolide antibiotics, and some antivirals can change exposure.
- CBC: Complete Blood Count. Used to monitor white blood cells, anemia, and platelet changes.
- LDL: Low-Density Lipoprotein cholesterol. Can rise in some rapamycin users.
- Trough level: Lowest blood concentration between doses. Optional for longevity protocols, but useful when metabolism or dose response is uncertain.
- Aphthous stomatitis: Mouth ulcers. The most common practical side effect in longevity communities.
- Rapalog: Rapamycin-like drug, such as everolimus/RAD001. Rapalog findings do not automatically prove generic rapamycin outcomes.
- WADA: World Anti-Doping Agency. The audit did not find rapamycin explicitly listed on the 2026 Prohibited List, but tested athletes still need product-specific clearance.
Dosing & Protocols
Dosing information is summarized from published research and community reports. This is not a prescribing guide. Consult a healthcare provider before starting any protocol.
View 1 route and 7 protocols
Routes & Forms
| Route | Form | Clinical Range | Community Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| oral | Tablet or capsule (sirolimus brand/generic or compounded rapamycin) | Transplant/LAM dosing is disease-specific and physician-managed; not a longevity template | 3-8 mg once weekly; some protocols use 10 mg weekly or biweekly only with monitoring |
Protocols
Community longevity starter Anecdotal
- Dose
- 3 mg
- Frequency
- Once weekly
- Duration
- Indefinite only with prescriber oversight and blood work
Conservative entry point for adults 50+. Avoid grapefruit and strong CYP3A4 inhibitors around dose day unless a prescriber adjusts dosing.
Community longevity standard Anecdotal
- Dose
- 6 mg
- Frequency
- Once weekly
- Duration
- Indefinite with quarterly monitoring once stable
Common longevity-community target. Not validated as an optimal human healthspan dose.
Higher weekly protocol Anecdotal
- Dose
- 8 mg
- Frequency
- Once weekly
- Duration
- Indefinite only if tolerated and monitored
Upper common community range. Reasonable only when mouth ulcers, lipids, glucose, white blood cell counts, and infection history stay clean.
PEARL-style low-dose weekly Clinical
- Dose
- 5 mg or 10 mg compounded weekly
- Frequency
- Once weekly
- Duration
- 48 weeks
[Moel 2025](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40188830/) found similar adverse and serious adverse event reporting across groups, no meaningful primary visceral-adiposity improvement, and female subgroup signals for lean tissue mass and pain.
Cyclical longevity variant Anecdotal
- Dose
- 6 mg weekly for 8-12 weeks, then 2-4 week break
- Frequency
- Cycled
- Duration
- Indefinite cycling only with monitoring
Attempt to reduce chronic exposure while preserving hit-and-run geroscience logic suggested by transient mouse data such as [Bitto 2016](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27549339/).
Pre-surgery hold Clinical
- Dose
- 0 mg
- Frequency
- Hold before and after surgery
- Duration
- Typically 1-2 weeks before and 1-2 weeks after elective procedures, individualized by prescriber
mTOR inhibition can impair wound healing. Do not self-manage around surgery.
Transplant dosing reference Clinical
- Dose
- Disease-specific daily dosing
- Frequency
- Daily
- Duration
- Long-term under specialist care
Not a longevity protocol. Daily transplant exposure carries a different risk profile, including boxed-warning immunosuppression concerns.
Use-Case Specific Dosing
| Use Case | Dose | Notes |
|---|---|---|
How this score is calculated →
Upside contribution: 3.16
| Dimension | Weight | Score | Visual | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy | 25% | 3.1 | 0.775 | |
| Breadth of Benefits | 15% | 3.6 | 0.540 | |
| Evidence Quality | 25% | 3.0 | 0.750 | |
| Speed of Onset | 10% | 2.2 | 0.220 | |
| Durability | 10% | 3.6 | 0.360 | |
| Bioindividuality Upside | 15% | 3.4 | 0.510 | |
| Total | 3.155 |
Upside Rationale
Rapamycin has its best upside when the user matches Rapamycin to the evidence-backed lane instead of treating it as a broad wellness shortcut. The upside is unusually strong animal longevity evidence plus a coherent mTORC1 mechanism. Rapamycin affects autophagy, immune aging, senescence signaling, and nutrient sensing. That makes the upside serious, but the strongest data still comes from animals and rapalog immune trials rather than healthy-human lifespan endpoints. The most useful anchors are Harrison 2009 and Mannick 2018, because they explain both the signal and the boundary around that signal. For readers, the so-what is simple: Rapamycin is worth considering when the expected benefit can be observed in a concrete marker, symptom, lab, or performance measure. Rapamycin is weaker when the goal is vague optimization with no baseline and no follow-up.
Efficacy (3.2/5.0). Rapamycin's efficacy case is strong in animals and incomplete in humans. The best preclinical evidence is the NIA ITP: Harrison 2009 found lifespan extension when rapamycin started late in life, and Miller 2014 showed dose and sex dependence. Bitto 2016 and Arriola Apelo 2016 make intermittent exposure more interesting. Human efficacy is not comparable yet. Mannick 2018 supports immune effects in older adults, but used TORC1-inhibiting rapalogs. Moel 2025 supports relative one-year safety, while the primary visceral-adiposity endpoint was not meaningfully improved. So efficacy stays at 3.2: promising, not proven.
Breadth of benefits (3.8/5.0). The mechanism touches many aging-relevant systems: autophagy, mitophagy, senescence-associated inflammation, immune aging, metabolic signaling, cancer biology, and tissue repair. That breadth is real, and it explains why rapamycin shows up across longevity, immune function, cellular senescence, autophagy, cardiovascular aging, and skin-aging conversations. But breadth in mechanisms and animal models is not the same as breadth of proven human outcomes. Hands 2025 is the right corrective: human healthy-aging benefit remains unestablished.
Evidence quality (2.8/5.0). The ITP mouse evidence is excellent by preclinical standards. Multi-site replication matters. The human evidence is much thinner: Kraig 2018 was small, Mannick's work used rapalogs and industry-linked trials, and PEARL had AgelessRx involvement plus a missed primary endpoint. Mannick 2021 also tempers immune-translation enthusiasm because larger rapalog development did not turn into a clean healthy-aging win. There is no Cochrane, USPSTF, NICE, FDA, or major preventive-medicine authority endorsement for healthy-aging rapamycin. Evidence quality stays below the score its animal data would earn alone.
Speed of onset (2.2/5.0). You may see mouth ulcers, lipid shifts, or dose-day fatigue quickly, but the benefits people actually want are slow and hard to feel. Immune markers can move in weeks, as suggested by Mannick 2014 and Mannick 2018. Body composition, pain, and self-report metrics in Moel 2025 were measured over months. Longevity itself has no near-term feedback signal. This is a major practical weakness: you can monitor safety more easily than efficacy.
Durability (3.8/5.0). Durability is rapamycin's most interesting upside dimension. Transient treatment in Bitto 2016 produced persistent mouse lifespan and healthspan effects. Juricic 2022 also supports the idea that brief exposure can create longer-lasting geroprotective effects in model systems. Mannick's older-adult immune work suggested effects that persisted beyond the dosing window. If this translates to humans, rapamycin could become a periodic intervention rather than a daily lifetime drug. That remains an informed hypothesis, not a settled clinical protocol.
Bioindividuality (3.2/5.0). Response likely depends on age, sex, baseline immune aging, metabolic status, CYP3A genetics, drug interactions, diet, training schedule, and dose. The mouse data show sex effects, with female-biased responses in some studies. Human PEARL subgroup signals also leaned female for some outcomes, but subgroup findings need confirmation. CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 metabolism can make the same dose behave differently across users. This is not a copy-paste supplement protocol. It needs individual monitoring.
Downside contribution: 2.91 (safety risks weighted extra)
| Dimension | Weight | Score | Visual | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety Risk | 30% | 3.0 | 0.900 | |
| Side Effect Profile | 15% | 2.7 | 0.405 | |
| Financial Cost | 5% | 2.5 | 0.125 | |
| Time/Effort Burden | 5% | 1.8 | 0.090 | |
| Opportunity Cost | 5% | 1.8 | 0.090 | |
| Dependency / Withdrawal | 15% | 1.2 | 0.180 | |
| Reversibility | 25% | 1.5 | 0.375 | |
| Total | 2.165 | |||
| Harm subtotal × 1.4 | 2.604 | |||
| Opportunity subtotal × 1.0 | 0.305 | |||
| Combined downside | 2.909 | |||
| Baseline offset (constant) | −1.340 | |||
| Effective downside penalty | 1.569 |
Downside Rationale
Rapamycin's main downside is not one isolated risk; it is the mismatch between marketing certainty and the actual evidence base. The downside is also serious: mouth ulcers, lipid shifts, insulin resistance, infection concerns, wound-healing issues, fertility concerns, and drug interactions. Dosing cadence changes the risk profile, so casual unsupervised use is a poor match. Moel 2025 is the anchor that keeps the safety discussion honest, while Harrison 2009 helps define where the benefits are strongest. The practical move is to treat Rapamycin as a targeted experiment, not a default habit. That means checking contraindications, product quality, dose, medication conflicts, and the opportunity cost of skipping better-supported basics before assigning Rapamycin a permanent role.
Safety risk (2.8/5.0). Rapamycin is a real drug with real warnings. Transplant and disease-context sirolimus labeling includes immunosuppression, infection, malignancy, wound-healing, lipid, and lung-related risks. Weekly longevity dosing appears meaningfully different from daily transplant dosing, and Moel 2025 is reassuring over 48 weeks. Still, healthy adults do not have long-term controlled safety data across decades. Disease-context reviews such as Wang 2025 and Cavazos 2024 cannot be generalized to healthy-aging use. The score stays elevated because the intervention is pharmacological, systemic, and monitoring-dependent.
Side effect profile (2.5/5.0). The common practical side effect is mouth ulcers. Other issues include gastrointestinal symptoms, acne or skin changes, dose-day fatigue, lipid elevation, glucose changes, and infection-timing concerns. Lamming 2012 explains why chronic exposure and mTORC2 disruption matter for insulin resistance. Weekly dosing is designed to reduce this problem, not make it impossible. Most side effects are manageable with dose changes or stopping, but they are not trivial for a healthy person taking a drug for an unproven longevity endpoint.
Financial cost (2.5/5.0). Generic or compounded rapamycin is not extremely expensive, but proper use is not just a pill cost. A realistic budget includes the prescription pathway, follow-up visits, CBC, lipids, glucose or HbA1c, liver and kidney markers, and sometimes rapamycin trough levels. The total monthly equivalent often lands around the cost of a serious supplement stack. The difference is that this one needs medical supervision.
Time / effort burden (1.5/5.0). The dosing burden is low: one weekly dose in most longevity protocols. The real effort is screening, prescriber access, quarterly labs, interaction checks, surgery holds, side-effect tracking, and interpreting blood work. Once established, the routine is simple. Getting it established properly is the friction.
Opportunity cost (1.5/5.0). Rapamycin does not crowd out the foundations: exercise, protein adequacy, sleep, Zone 2 cardio, resistance training, sauna, light exposure, and metabolic health. But it can complicate training adaptation, surgery timing, and infection management. The bigger opportunity cost is psychological: people can over-focus on a high-status geroscience drug before they have nailed the basics that already improve healthspan.
Dependency / withdrawal (1.2/5.0). Rapamycin has no classic dependency or withdrawal pattern. Stop it and exposure falls over days. Any benefits are expected to fade or stabilize depending on what changed in physiology, not because of addiction or receptor craving. The score is slightly above minimum because stopping during an infection, before surgery, or after abnormal labs may need medical timing rather than casual discontinuation.
Reversibility (1.3/5.0). Most low-dose side effects should reverse after discontinuation: mouth ulcers heal, lipid and glucose changes can normalize, and immune modulation fades as the drug clears. The remaining concern is context-dependent harm during a vulnerable window, such as impaired wound healing around surgery or infection during peak exposure. That is why rapamycin is reversible but not casual.
Verdict
Rapamycin is a 5.5/10 fit for medically supervised longevity experimenters who understand mTOR tradeoffs and can monitor labs, not a casual supplement or proven human lifespan drug. The cleanest evidence anchors are Harrison 2009, which showed lifespan extension in genetically heterogeneous mice, and Mannick 2018, which supports immune-aging translation with low-dose TORC1 inhibition. Moel 2025 adds useful context: found relative safety in a one-year human trial but no clear primary visceral-fat win. The practical gap is the same one that shows up across the report: mechanism and early outcomes are more convincing than broad real-world certainty. In practice, Rapamycin belongs after the basics, works best when the target is specific, and deserves tracking around benefits, side effects, interactions, and cost before it becomes a standing protocol.
✅ Best for: Adults 50+ with measurable age-related immune decline, strong curiosity about geroscience, and access to a prescriber who understands off-label sirolimus. Best fit is someone willing to run baseline and quarterly labs, track side effects, avoid CYP3A4 mistakes, hold before surgery, and treat benefits as uncertain. It is also reasonable for people following the TRIAD, PEARL, and ITP literature closely who understand the difference between animal lifespan evidence and human longevity proof. Harrison 2009, Miller 2014, Mannick 2018, and Moel 2025 justify interest, especially in older users, but they do not justify casual self-prescribing.
❌ Avoid if: You are under 40, immunocompromised, pregnant, trying to conceive without physician clearance, breastfeeding, dealing with active infection, preparing for surgery, unwilling to do blood work, or taking strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers without prescriber guidance. Avoid if you have a history of interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis, uncontrolled diabetes, severe dyslipidemia, impaired wound healing, or recurrent infections. Also avoid if you want evidence-backed certainty. Hands 2025 is blunt: healthy-adult anti-aging benefit is not established, and no major preventive-medicine authority endorses rapamycin for longevity.
Use Case Breakdown
The overall BioHarmony score reflects the intervention's primary evidence profile. These subratings are independent assessments per use case.
Longevity / Lifespan: 8.0/10
Score: 8.0/10Rapamycin longevity earns 8.0/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits longevity when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Healthspan: 7.5/10
Score: 7.5/10Rapamycin healthspan earns 7.5/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits healthspan when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Autophagy: 8.5/10
Score: 8.5/10Rapamycin autophagy earns 8.5/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits autophagy when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Immune Function: 7.0/10
Score: 7.0/10Rapamycin immune function earns 7.0/10 because Mannick 2018 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits immune function when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Cellular Senescence: 7.8/10
Score: 7.8/10Rapamycin cellular senescence earns 7.8/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits cellular senescence when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Anti-Inflammatory: 6.8/10
Score: 6.8/10Rapamycin anti inflammatory earns 6.8/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits anti inflammatory when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Skin / Beauty: 6.3/10
Score: 6.3/10Rapamycin skin beauty earns 6.3/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits skin beauty when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Mitochondrial: 6.5/10
Score: 6.5/10Rapamycin mitochondrial earns 6.5/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits mitochondrial when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Neuroprotection: 6.5/10
Score: 6.5/10Rapamycin neuroprotection earns 6.5/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits neuroprotection when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Cardiovascular: 6.5/10
Score: 6.5/10Rapamycin cardiovascular earns 6.5/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits cardiovascular when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Cognition / Focus: 6.0/10
Score: 6.0/10Rapamycin cognition focus earns 6.0/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits cognition focus when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Telomere / DNA Repair: 6.0/10
Score: 6.0/10Rapamycin telomere dna earns 6.0/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits telomere dna when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Memory: 5.8/10
Score: 5.8/10Rapamycin memory earns 5.8/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits memory when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Body Composition / Fat Loss: 5.8/10
Score: 5.8/10Rapamycin body composition earns 5.8/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits body composition when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Recovery / Repair: 5.5/10
Score: 5.5/10Rapamycin recovery repair earns 5.5/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits recovery repair when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Sleep Quality: 5.5/10
Score: 5.5/10Rapamycin sleep quality earns 5.5/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits sleep quality when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Methylation Support: 5.5/10
Score: 5.5/10Rapamycin methylation earns 5.5/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits methylation when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Blood Sugar / Glycemic Control: 5.0/10
Score: 5.0/10Rapamycin blood sugar earns 5.0/10 because Lamming 2012 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits blood sugar when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Energy / Fatigue: 5.0/10
Score: 5.0/10Rapamycin energy earns 5.0/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits energy when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
Mood / Emotional Regulation: 5.0/10
Score: 5.0/10Rapamycin mood earns 5.0/10 because Harrison 2009 anchors the most relevant signal. Rapamycin fits mood when mTORC1 modulation, autophagy, immune aging, or senescence biology is the actual target. The score stays bounded because human longevity endpoints remain early and adverse effects depend heavily on dose, cadence, and baseline risk. In practice, Rapamycin is most defensible when someone tracks lipids, glucose, CBC, mouth ulcers, infection frequency, training recovery, sleep, and clinician-reviewed goals instead of relying on a vague before-and-after feeling. Rapamycin is less convincing when the basics are ignored or when the use case needs fast, proven clinical treatment. That makes this a supervised longevity experiment with clear stop rules.
| Use Case | Score | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| ⚖️ Gut Health / Microbiome | 4.9 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for human gut-health benefit; animal autophagy and intestinal-barrier mechanisms are plausible, but GI adverse effects are a practical downside. |
| ⚖️ Geriatric / Aging Population | 4.9 | Older adults are the most plausible healthy-aging group, but benefits remain surrogate-based and risks rise with comorbidity and polypharmacy. |
| ⚖️ Bone / Joint Health | 4.8 | PEARL suggested small bone or pain signals in subgroups, but primary benefit is not established and wound-healing concerns matter. |
| ○ Respiratory | 4.7 | Rapalog immune trials suggest fewer respiratory infections in some older-adult settings, but RTB101 phase 3 and pneumonitis labeling limit confidence. |
| ○ Lymphatic / Drainage | 4.7 | Disease-context sirolimus evidence in lymphatic and vascular anomalies supports mechanistic relevance, but this does not translate to healthy lymphatic optimization. |
| ○ Neuroplasticity | 4.7 | Mechanistic mTOR and autophagy links are plausible, but human neurological effects were not significant in the systematic review. |
| ○ Antioxidant / Oxidative Stress | 4.7 | Mechanistic stress-resistance biology overlaps with redox pathways, but rapamycin is not an antioxidant intervention in human evidence. |
| ○ Chronic Pain Management | 4.7 | PEARL female pain improvement is interesting, but chronic-pain scoring should remain low-to-moderate until replicated. |
| ○ Stress / Resilience | 4.6 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for stress resilience; PEARL self-report signals are hypothesis-generating and not enough for a higher score. |
| ○ Strength / Power | 4.5 | Potential mild interference with hypertrophy and training adaptation; no strong human strength-performance benefit. |
| ○ Metabolic Health | 4.4 | Mixed evidence: PEARL biomarkers were mostly neutral, while chronic exposure and labeling keep glucose and lipid risk high. |
| ○ Hair / Nail Health | 4.4 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for hair or nail benefit; use mainly as an adverse-change watch item rather than a target. |
| ○ Anxiety | 4.4 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for anxiety treatment; off-label surveys and PEARL well-being signals are uncontrolled or secondary. |
| ○ Sleep Architecture (Deep/REM) | 4.4 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for sleep architecture; any sleep tracking should be safety and response monitoring only. |
| ○ Reaction Time / Coordination | 4.4 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for reaction-time benefit. |
| ○ Acute Pain Relief | 4.4 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for acute pain; PEARL pain signals were subgroup and not an analgesia trial. |
| ○ Circadian Rhythm / Chronobiology | 4.4 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for circadian-rhythm benefit, though dose timing may affect sleep and recovery monitoring. |
| ○ HRV / Vagal Tone / Autonomic Balance | 4.4 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for HRV or vagal-tone improvement; track as a response marker only. |
| ○ Hearing / Auditory | 4.3 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for hearing or auditory protection in humans. |
| ○ Depression | 4.3 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for depression benefit, and no clinical mood-disorder program supports scoring beyond weak exploratory interest. |
| ○ Flow State / Peak Mental Performance | 4.3 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for flow-state benefit; mechanism does not justify a performance claim. |
| ○ Creativity / Divergent Thinking | 4.3 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for creativity benefit and no direct clinical or observational support. |
| ○ Flexibility / Mobility | 4.3 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for mobility enhancement; RAPA-EX-01 did not improve functional exercise gains. |
| ○ Stem Cell Support | 4.3 | mTOR biology is relevant to stem-cell function, but human benefit is not established and growth suppression can be context-dependent. |
| ○ Cold / Heat Tolerance / Hormesis | 4.3 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for cold or heat tolerance in humans. |
| ○ Electromagnetic / Frequency Therapy | 4.3 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for EMF or frequency resilience; no credible rapamycin data supports this use case. |
| ○ Social Bonding / Empathy | 4.3 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for social-bonding benefit. |
| ○ Spiritual / Consciousness Expansion | 4.3 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for spiritual or consciousness effects. |
| ○ Eye / Vision Health | 4.2 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for human vision benefit outside disease-specific research, with no practical healthy-user signal. |
| ○ Endurance / Cardio | 4.2 | RAPA-EX-01 weakens exercise-adaptation claims, while a small 2025 older-men cardiovascular pilot is too early for strong scoring. |
| ○ Liver / Detoxification | 4.1 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for liver detoxification; hepatic enzymes are monitoring targets because of metabolism and safety, not expected benefit. |
| ○ Nerve Regeneration | 4.1 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for nerve regeneration in healthy users or clinical neuropathy contexts. |
| ○ VO2 Max | 4.1 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for VO2 max improvement; exercise-stacking evidence currently argues against an upside assumption. |
| ○ Traumatic Brain Injury | 4.1 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for traumatic brain injury recovery in humans, despite broad neuroinflammation and autophagy hypotheses. |
| ○ Hormonal / Endocrine | 4.0 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for broad hormonal optimization; endocrine benefit was not significant in the human systematic review and reproductive warnings raise downside. |
| ○ Kidney Function | 4.0 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for healthy kidney optimization; transplant history proves use in renal medicine but not kidney-function enhancement in healthy users. |
| ○ Dental / Oral Health | 3.9 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for dental benefit; mouth ulcers and oral-health adverse monitoring are more relevant than upside. |
| ○ Heavy Metal / Toxin Burden | 3.9 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for heavy-metal detoxification and no credible mechanism supports a detox claim. |
| ○ Libido / Sexual Health | 3.8 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for libido benefit and reproductive-axis warnings argue for caution. |
| ○ Injury Recovery | 3.6 | INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE for injury recovery and downside is high because mTOR inhibition can impair tissue repair. |
| ○ Muscle Growth / Hypertrophy | 3.5 | mTOR inhibition works against muscle protein synthesis signaling; users commonly avoid dose day near hard resistance training. |
| ○ Pediatric Use | 3.2 | Pediatric disease use exists in specific specialist contexts, but healthy pediatric optimization is unsupported and inappropriate. |
How This Score Could Change
BioHarmony scores are living assessments. New research, regulatory changes, or personal context can shift the score up or down. These are the most likely scenarios that would change this intervention's rating.
| Scenario | Dimensions changed | New score |
|---|---|---|
| Large human RCT with n>500 confirms healthspan extension in adults 50+ | Evidence 2.8 to 3.8; Efficacy 3.2 to 4.0 | 6.6 / 10 💪 Strong recommend |
| Serious pneumonitis case is confirmed at standard weekly longevity dosing | Safety 2.8 to 4.0 | 5.1 / 10 ⚖️ Neutral |
| Dog Aging Project TRIAD shows significant healthspan extension in companion dogs | Evidence 2.8 to 3.3; Efficacy 3.2 to 3.5 | 6.3 / 10 👍 Worth trying |
| Long-term controlled data over 5+ years confirms lipid or glucose harm in healthy adults | Safety 2.8 to 3.5; Side effects 2.5 to 3.5 | 5.1 / 10 ⚖️ Neutral |
| Independent group replicates Mannick-style immune findings with generic weekly rapamycin | Evidence 2.8 to 3.5 | 6.2 / 10 👍 Worth trying |
| PEARL extension or comparable trial confirms durable visceral-fat, pain, and healthspan benefit | Evidence 2.8 to 3.5; Efficacy 3.2 to 3.6; Breadth 3.8 to 4.2 | 6.6 / 10 💪 Strong recommend |
Key Evidence Sources
- Harrison DE et al. 2009 - Rapamycin fed late in life extends lifespan in genetically heterogeneous mice, Nature. NIA Interventions Testing Program anchor; rapamycin started late in life extended median and maximal lifespan in male and female genetically heterogeneous mice
- Miller RA et al. 2014 - Rapamycin-mediated lifespan increase in mice is dose and sex dependent and metabolically distinct from dietary restriction, Aging Cell. ITP follow-up; dose and sex dependence, with metabolic profile distinct from dietary restriction
- Arriola Apelo SI et al. 2016 - Intermittent Administration of Rapamycin Extends the Life Span of Female C57BL/6J Mice, Journals of Gerontology Series A. Intermittent rapamycin in aged female mice extended lifespan and did not impair glucose or insulin tolerance in the tested regimen
- Bitto A et al. 2016 - Transient rapamycin treatment can increase lifespan and healthspan in middle-aged mice, eLife. Three months of treatment in middle-aged mice produced persistent lifespan and healthspan effects
- Lamming DW et al. 2012 - Rapamycin-induced insulin resistance is mediated by mTORC2 loss and uncoupled from longevity, Science. Key metabolic-safety mechanism; chronic mTORC2 disruption linked to insulin resistance
- Mannick JB et al. 2014 - mTOR inhibition improves immune function in the elderly, Science Translational Medicine. Everolimus/RAD001 improved influenza-vaccine response in older adults; not generic rapamycin and not a lifespan endpoint
- Mannick JB et al. 2018 - TORC1 inhibition enhances immune function and reduces infections in the elderly, Science Translational Medicine. Phase 2a RCT in 264 older adults; low-dose TORC1 inhibition reduced reported infections and improved antiviral/vaccine-related markers
- Mannick JB et al. 2021 - Targeting the biology of ageing with mTOR inhibitors to improve immune function in older adults: phase 2b and phase 3 randomised trials, Lancet Healthy Longevity. Larger RTB101/rapalog program; useful tempering evidence for immune-aging translation
- Kraig E et al. 2018 - A randomized control trial to establish the feasibility and safety of rapamycin treatment in an older human cohort, Experimental Gerontology. Small older-adult rapamycin feasibility/safety trial with immunological, physical-performance, and cognitive endpoints
- Moel M et al. 2025 - Influence of rapamycin on safety and healthspan metrics after one year: PEARL trial results, Aging. 48-week decentralized double-blind RCT; relative safety signal, primary visceral-adiposity endpoint not meaningfully improved, female subgroup lean tissue and pain signals
- Hands JM et al. 2025 - What is the clinical evidence to support off-label rapamycin therapy in healthy adults?, Aging. Clinical-evidence review concluding human data do not yet establish rapamycin/rapalogs as proven healthy-adult anti-aging therapies
- Blagosklonny MV 2019 - Rapamycin for longevity: opinion article, Aging. Pro-rapamycin rationale/opinion; useful for context, weak as clinical efficacy evidence
- Creevy KE et al. 2022 - An open science study of ageing in companion dogs, Nature. Dog Aging Project infrastructure paper; supports companion-dog aging-research context, not completed rapamycin efficacy
- Juricic P et al. 2022 - Long-lasting geroprotection from brief rapamycin treatment in early adulthood by persistently increased intestinal autophagy, Nature Aging. Brief rapamycin produced durable geroprotective effects in Drosophila and maintained some gut-barrier/Paneth-cell measures in mice after withdrawal
- Wang Y et al. 2025 - Effectiveness and safety of sirolimus in the treatment of venous malformations: a meta-analysis of prospective studies, Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders. Disease-context sirolimus meta-analysis; mild-to-moderate reversible adverse effects and no grade 3-5 severe adverse events in short-/medium-term included evidence
- Cavazos M et al. 2024 - Sirolimus for vascular anomalies in the first year of life: a systematic review, Journal of Perinatology. Disease-context infant vascular-anomaly review; not healthy-aging evidence
- FDA 2005 - Rapamune sirolimus prescribing information. FDA prescribing information for sirolimus (Rapamune); replaces older accessdata URL.
- WADA - 2026 Prohibited List. Audit did not identify rapamycin/sirolimus as explicitly listed; athletes still need product-specific clearance
- Coleman et al. 2025 - Targeting Rapamycin to Induce Aging Deceleration (TRIAD) trial design. Design and baseline data for the TRIAD rapamycin geroscience trial.
- Stanfield et al. 2026 - RAPA-EX-01 weekly sirolimus plus exercise in older adults. Weekly 6 mg sirolimus did not improve a 13-week home exercise program in sedentary adults aged 65 to 85 and may have attenuated gains.
- Harinath et al. 2025 - Compounded rapamycin bioavailability versus commercial sirolimus. Pharmacokinetic study showing compounded rapamycin produced much lower blood exposure per milligram than commercial sirolimus.
- Lee et al. 2024 - Systematic review of rapamycin in adults. Systematic review found possible immune, cardiovascular, and skin-system effects but no significant muscular, endocrine, or neurological effects.
- Roark et al. 2025 - Long-term healthy-human rapamycin evidence review. Review concluding no long-term healthy-human RCT yet shows lower mortality or durable clinical healthspan extension.
- Gkioni et al. 2025 - Geroscience and rapamycin synthesis. Geroscience evidence synthesis covering rapamycin and aging biology.
- Jiang et al. 2025 - Sex as a major determinant of pro-longevity drug efficacy. Review highlighting sex-dependent differences in rapamycin efficacy across geroscience trials.
- Sahni et al. 2025 - Geroscience translational evidence. Translational geroscience analysis covering rapamycin biology.
- DailyMed 2026 - Rapamune sirolimus prescribing information. Current US labeling for sirolimus including immunosuppression, infection, malignancy, wound-healing, lipid, and drug-interaction warnings.
- Kahan BD et al 2000 - The development of sirolimus: The University of Texas-Houston experience.. Auto-resolved via strict PubMed lookup (author+year+topic match)
Holistic Evidence Profile
Evidence on this intervention is summarized across three complementary streams: contemporary clinical research, pre-RCT-era pharmacology and observational use, and the traditional medical systems that documented it first. Convergence across streams signals higher confidence; divergence is surfaced honestly.
Modern Clinical Research
Confidence: Medium
Citations: Harrison 2009, Miller 2014, Bitto 2016, Lamming 2012, Mannick 2018, Kraig 2018, Moel 2025, Harinath 2025, Lee 2024, Stanfield 2026, Coleman 2025, Roark 2025
Pre-RCT-Era Pharmacology and Use
Confidence: Medium
Citations: Vezina 1975, Sehgal 1975, Groth 1999, Kahan 2000, MacDonald 2001, FDA 2005, DailyMed 2026
Traditional Medicine Systems
Confidence: Low
Holistic Evidence for Rapamycin
The evidence lenses converge on one narrow conclusion: rapamycin is a powerful mTOR-targeting pharmaceutical with real geroscience potential, not a proven human longevity therapy. Modern animal data are strong, replicated, and mechanistically coherent. Human trials show immune and safety signals but have not shown lifespan extension or broad healthspan efficacy in healthy adults. Historical evidence supports the drug's seriousness and long clinical use, while the traditional lens offers no direct support. Honest synthesis: rapamycin belongs in the advanced, physician-supervised longevity toolbox for selected older adults, not in casual self-experimentation or broad anti-aging recommendations.
What to Track If You Try This
These are the data points that matter most while running a 30-day Experiment with this intervention.
How to read this section
- Pre
- Test or score before starting the protocol. Anchors a baseline.
- During
- Track while running the protocol so you can see if anything is changing.
- Post
- Re-test after a full cycle to confirm the change held.
- Up
- The marker should rise. For most positive outcomes, that is a good sign.
- Down
- The marker should fall. For most positive outcomes, that is a good sign.
- Stable
- The marker should hold steady. Big swings in either direction are a yellow flag.
- Watch
- Direction depends on dose, timing, and your baseline. Pay close attention to the trend.
- N/A
- No expected direction. The entry is there to anchor a baseline reading.
- Primary
- The Pulse dimension most likely to shift. Track this first.
- Secondary
- Also relevant, but a smaller or less consistent shift. Track if Primary is unclear.
Bloodwork to Order
Open These Markers In Your Dashboard
- hs-CRP Baseline (pre-protocol)
- Fasting Glucose During | Expected Watch
- HbA1c During | Expected Watch
- LDL C During | Expected Up
- Triglycerides During | Expected Up
- ALT During | Expected Stable
- AST During | Expected Stable
- Platelets During | Expected Down
- Absolute Lymphocytes During | Expected Watch
- WBC During | Expected Watch
- Absolute Neutrophils During | Expected Watch
- Blood Pressure During | Expected Watch
- ApoB During | Expected Watch
- Creatine Kinase During | Expected Watch
- Urine Albumin Creatinine Ratio Baseline (pre-protocol) During | Expected Watch
Pulse Dimensions to Watch
- Body During | Expected Watch | Primary
- Energy During | Expected Watch | Secondary
- Sleep During | Expected Watch | Tertiary
Subjective Signals (Daily Voice Card)
- Mouth Sores Scale 1-5 | During | Expected Watch
- Infection Frequency Scale 1-5 | During | Expected Watch
- Wound Healing Scale 1-5 | During | Expected Watch
- Exercise Adaptation Scale 1-5 | During | Expected Watch
- Oral Ulcers Scale 1-5 | During | Expected Watch
- Delayed Healing Scale 1-5 | During | Expected Watch
- Dose-Day Fatigue Scale 1-5 | During | Expected Watch
Red Flags: Stop and Consult
- Mouth ulcers that impair eating
- Fever or recurrent infection
- Poor wound healing
- New cough or shortness of breath
- Planned surgery or dental procedure
- Pregnancy, trying to conceive, or breastfeeding
- New severe lipid or glucose worsening
- Pneumonia or opportunistic infection
Other interventions for Longevity
See all ratings →📊 How BioHarmony scoring works
BioHarmony translates a weighted expected-value calculation into a reader-facing 0–10 score. Tier bands: Skip 0–3.6, Caution 3.7–4.7, Neutral 4.8–5.7, Worth Trying 5.8–6.9, Strong Recommend 7.0–7.9, Top-tier 8.0+.
Harm-type downsides (safety risk, side effects, reversibility, dependency) carry a 1.4× precautionary multiplier. Harm weighs more than benefit. Opportunity-type downsides (financial cost, time/effort, opportunity cost) are subtracted at face value.
Use case subratings are independent assessments of how well the intervention addresses specific health goals. They are not components of the overall score. Each subrating reflects the scorer's judgment based on use-case-specific evidence, safety, and effect sizes.
Every dimension is evaluated on a 1–5 scale, and the baseline (1) is subtracted before weighting. A perfect intervention with zero downsides contributes zero penalty rather than a residual floor, so top-tier scores are actually reachable.
EV = Upside − Downside
EV = 2.155 − 1.569 = 0.586
Formula v0.5 maps EV = 0 to score 5.0. Above neutral, 1 EV point equals 1 score point. Below neutral, 1 EV point equals about 0.71 score points, so EV = −7 reaches 0.0 while EV = +5 reaches 10.0. Both sides use the full 5-point half-scale.
Score = 5 + (0.586 / 5) × 5 = 5.6 / 10
