Longevity and Health Span Tips

By Jonathan A. Jarman, MD

When evaluating optimal protein sources for muscle synthesis and recovery, two of the most effective options originate from a familiar source: milk. Both whey and casein proteins are classified as complete proteins, containing all nine essential amino acids required for human health. They are also highly bioavailable, making them exceptionally efficient for supporting muscle repair, hypertrophy, and overall recovery.

A widely accepted guideline for individuals engaged in resistance training or seeking to maintain lean muscle mass is the consumption of approximately 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight per day, if you are fit and under 25% body fat. An overweight individual (body fat >25%)  should use this amount for lean body weight with resistance training. Supplementation with whey and casein can significantly facilitate meeting this target in a practical and sustainable manner.

Whey protein is rapidly digested and absorbed, making it a preferred option immediately post-exercise when the goal is to initiate muscle protein synthesis. Of particular importance, whey is rich in leucine, Isoleucine and valine, branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) that serve as a key trigger for the anabolic (muscle building) signaling pathway known as mTOR. There is no need to add a BCAA supplement if using whey powder. Whey protein is the gold standard for stimulating muscle protein synthesis.

However, emerging evidence suggests that even distribution of protein intake—approximately every 6 to 8 hours—may be more important than the timing of a single post-workout dose. Thus, while whey remains a strong choice after resistance training, its broader value lies in supporting consistent protein availability throughout the day.

Our research, on our patients, shows that participants who follow this daily protein intake and do NOT focus on after resistance training protein drinks maintain high levels of amino acids in their blood continuously, which supports the emerging evidence of taking in protein every 6-8 hours vs the traditional post workout protein drink.

For individuals with lactose intolerance, whey isolate offers a viable alternative. This form is processed to remove the majority of lactose, resulting in a product that is easier to digest and typically well tolerated. It is important to ensure that the label specifically states "isolate" to obtain these benefits.

In contrast to whey, casein protein is digested slowly, resulting in a prolonged release of amino acids into the bloodstream. This characteristic makes casein particularly well-suited for consumption prior to sleep, supporting overnight muscle recovery and reducing muscle protein breakdown.

Casein is also an effective option for midday supplementation, especially when longer-lasting satiety is desired. While it is comparatively lower in BCAAs than whey, its sustained release profile complements whey’s rapid absorption, making it an excellent addition to a comprehensive protein strategy.

Both proteins may be consumed independently or combined to provide dual-phase amino acid delivery—fast and slow—which can be particularly beneficial in individuals aiming for optimal anabolic support across varied time intervals.

For practical guidance, I have created a simple, downloadable reference chart that outlines the differences between whey and casein, along with their ideal timing and use cases. This resource is available via the link below the chart.

Sustained intellectual engagement contributes to neuroplasticity and may delay cognitive decline. Recommended activities include reading, writing, strategic gameplay, and the acquisition of new skills. Mental stimulation is a key pillar of healthy aging.

Social integration plays a profound role in mental, emotional, and physical well-being. Individuals with strong social ties exhibit lower rates of depression, dementia, and all-cause mortality. Isolation is a significant risk factor and should be actively mitigated through community involvement and regular interpersonal interaction. The long running Harvard Study of Adult Development, started in 1938, concluded in the 2023 book The Good Life: Lessons from the World’s Longest Scientific Study of Happiness, by Robert Waldinger, MD and Marc Schulz, PhD: 

• The quality of close relationships (with partners, friends, and community) is more predictive of long-term health and happiness than wealth, IQ, or fame.
• Loneliness and poor social connections were as harmful as smoking or alcoholism in terms of long-term health impact.
• Strong relationships protect the brain and reduce the risk of memory decline.

While genetics contribute to individual health trajectories, they do not determine outcomes with certainty. Most chronic conditions associated with aging are significantly modifiable through behavioral and environmental interventions. Nevertheless, understanding one’s genetic risk can inform appropriate screening and early intervention.

Sleep is foundational to human health. A consistent duration of 7 to 8 hours per night is associated with improved immune function, hormonal balance, metabolic regulation, and cognitive performance. Chronic sleep deprivation has been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and neurodegeneration.

Consistent use of a broad-spectrum sunscreen with SPF 30 or higher protects against approximately 97% of UVB radiation. This simple intervention significantly reduces the risk of skin cancer—the most commonly diagnosed cancer globally—and helps prevent premature aging of the skin.

The 10  principles outlined above constitute a robust, evidence-based framework for extending both life span and health span.

While nutritional strategies, protein intake, and the use of supplements may further refine and personalize longevity interventions, they should be considered adjunctive to these foundational measures. Far too often, individuals pursue pharmacologic or supplemental solutions while neglecting the core behavioral determinants of long-term health.

A few targeted supplements may be helpful in achieving these goals, but indiscriminate supplementation offers limited value and often substantial cost without proven benefit. Similarly, medications for hypertension, dyslipidemia, or type 2 diabetes are appropriate when clinically indicated, but they do not substitute for metabolic health achieved through weight loss, physical activity, and dietary regulation.

Indeed, for many individuals, simply reducing total and visceral fat to optimal levels can normalize blood pressure, glucose, and lipid markers. Some studies suggest that reducing body fat to approximately 20% may yield additional benefits through reduced systemic inflammation.

Ultimately, medication should be viewed as a tool — not a replacement — for lifestyle interventions that address the underlying causes of metabolic dysfunction.

At present, there are no pharmacologic agents conclusively proven to extend human lifespan.

While there is significant interest in various compounds, no drug can currently be recommended for longevity purposes based on robust human data.

The TAME study (Targeting Aging with Metformin) is an ongoing clinical trial designed to assess whether metformin, a medication widely used to manage type 2 diabetes, may have protective effects related to aging. Results from this study are anticipated to clarify metformin’s potential role in extending health span or delaying age-related diseases.

Rapamycin, an mTOR inhibitor, has demonstrated longevity benefits in animal models. However, these results have not yet been replicated or validated in human studies. At this stage, its use for life extension remains theoretical and unproven in clinical settings.

Although further developments are expected in the field of longevity pharmacology, no existing drug can be endorsed as a safe or effective agent for increasing human lifespan at this time.

A detailed analysis of nutrition, vitamins, and supplements as they relate to aging and longevity will be provided in an upcoming publication titled:

“Can We Live to 125?”

This article is scheduled for release in approximately one month and will explore both evidence-based strategies and emerging hypotheses in the field of extended lifespan.

By Jonathan A. Jarman, MD

Do You Need to Take Vitamins? The Answer: It Depends.

Approximately 1 in 3 Americans takes a multivitamin or multiple vitamin supplements daily. 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the use of multiple dietary supplements increases with age. Among adults aged 60 and older, roughly 50% report taking more than one dietary supplement regularly.

In the United States, the vitamin and mineral retail market is projected to generate $3.06 billion in revenue by 2025. Globally, this market is estimated to reach $61.8 billion, underscoring the widespread reliance on supplementation.

Before addressing whether supplementation is necessary, it's helpful to understand the basic categories of vitamins.There are two primary types: water-soluble and fat-soluble vitamins. 

This distinction is important because the body processes them differently.

         ·  Water-soluble vitamins—which   include vitamin C and the eight B vitamins—are not  stored in significant amounts in the body. Excess quantities are typically excreted in the urine.

         ·  Fat-soluble vitamins—vitamins A, D, E, and K—can accumulate in body tissues. Excessive intake may lead to toxicity, making these supplements riskier when consumed in high doses.

It’s also worth noting that the body can synthesize certain vitamins to a limited extent. These include vitamins D, K, B3 (niacin) and B7 (biotin).

While vitamin supplementation can be beneficial in some cases, it is not without risks. Whether or not one should take vitamins depends on diet, health condition and specific nutrient needs - all measurable via blood levels.

Summary Table of Vitamins the Body Can and Cannot Produce:

What Is the Evidence Supporting Vitamin Supplementation for Americans?

One of the most comprehensive studies on multivitamin use is the Physicians' Health Study II (PHS II), a large-scale, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial initiated in 1997 and concluded in 2011. Conducted by researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, the study involved 14,641 male physicians over the age of 50 who were administered a daily multivitamin (Centrum Silver) and followed for an average of 11.2 years.

While the PHS II is considered a well-designed and robust study, it has notable limitations. The study population was composed primarily of healthy, white, male physicians—a group that does not fully represent the diversity of the U.S. population. As a result, the generalizability of its findings to populations of different ages than the study cohort, women, individuals of other races or ethnicities and those with poor diets or chronic health conditions is limited.

Despite these constraints, the broader consensus remains: most Americans who consume a balanced diet are likely obtaining sufficient vitamins and minerals from food sources alone, and routine supplementation may offer little to no additional benefit. However, this does not mean that no one benefits from taking a multivitamin—individual needs and circumstances vary.

In 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—an independent, volunteer panel of national experts in disease prevention—published an Evidence Report analyzing 84 studies encompassing roughly 700,000 participants of both sexes. The task force found little to no evidence that vitamin and mineral supplements prevent early mortality, cancer, or cardiovascular disease—the leading causes of death in the United States. But the analysis only looked at disease prevention and not health optimization - an important distinction.

It is important to recognize the scope and perspective of the USPSTF. As a public health body, its recommendations are designed to inform care at the population level, often with a focus on cost-effectiveness. In short, they are not looking at the patient as an individual.

For instance, the same panel recommends against PSA (prostate-specific antigen) testing for prostate cancer screening in men over age 70. This guidance has been controversial; notably, President Biden’s prostate cancer was not diagnosed at an earlier stage because his physicians followed this recommendation.

In my view, such decisions—especially when it comes to individualized screening—are best made collaboratively by the patient and their physician, rather than being governed solely by national guidelines for groups with cost in mind.

What About Individuals with Inadequate Diets?

Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), conducted between 2003 and 2006 and reviewed by the CDC, indicate that although overall vitamin deficiency rates are relatively low in the U.S., certain demographic groups are disproportionately affected. These include individuals with limited access to nutritious food, certain racial and ethnic minorities, and people with specific health conditions.

In such cases, supplementation may be not only beneficial but necessary. Ultimately, the decision to take vitamin or mineral supplements should be informed by individual health status, dietary intake, and in some cases, medical testing—ideally under the guidance of a physician.

These deficient groups are:

Summary Table of Vitamin Deficiencies and Groups

Should You Take Vitamins? A Personalized Approach Beyond Population Guidelines

Thus far, the discussion has focused on population-level data regarding vitamin use. However, the decision to supplement should ultimately be individualized—based on the adequacy of one’s diet and, more precisely, one’s actual nutrient status as determined through laboratory testing.

Older Adults and Nutrient Deficiencies

Several studies suggest that older adults in the United States may particularly benefit from vitamin and mineral supplementation. This is due to age-related physiological changes that affect nutrient absorption, as well as dietary patterns that may lack essential micronutrients.

Common Nutrient Deficiencies in Older Adults

Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted between 2003 and 2006. reveal substantial micronutrient inadequacies among U.S. adults aged 60 and older:

• Vitamin D: 95% have intakes below the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR)
• Vitamin E: 84% fall below the EAR
• Vitamin A: 45% have inadequate intake
• Vitamin C: 46% fall below the EAR
• Zinc: 15% have insufficient intake

These deficiencies can negatively impact immune function, bone integrity and cognitive performance. However, it is important to note that NHANES data reflect dietary intake, not measured vitamin levels, which introduces limitations in interpreting the prevalence and severity of true deficiencies.

I think it is very important to know that most vitamin and mineral testing recommendations from government and public health agencies (like the USPSTF, CDC, and IOM/NASEM) are focused primarily on avoiding disease and toxicity, not health optimization. 

Evidence from Supplementation Studies

A 2012 study published in The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging titled “Vitamin Status in Elderly People in Relation to the Use of Nutritional Supplements” examined adults aged 70 to 90 and found:

• The status of vitamins A, C, and E was generally adequate.
• However, 88% had inadequate levels of vitamins D, K, and B6.
• Up to 10% were deficient in B1, B2, B12, and folate.
• Regular use of supplements significantly improved vitamin status.

The prevalence of poor nutritional status or malnutrition risk in older adults (>65 years) has been estimated to range between 4% and 25%. While supplementation can be beneficial, excessive intake of nutrients like iron and zinc—especially among older men—may lead to toxicity, highlighting the need for guided, evidence-based use.

Cognitive Health and Supplementation

Emerging research has linked certain nutrients to cognitive preservation and healthy aging:

• One study found that daily multivitamin use may help slow age-related cognitive decline.
• Another reported that vitamin D supplementation may protect telomere length, a marker of biological aging.

Given these findings, supplementation may be warranted for older adults in specific contexts:

• Vitamin D: Often needed due to reduced cutaneous synthesis with age.
• Vitamin B12: Absorption decreases with age; deficiency is linked to cognitive impairment.
• Calcium: Essential for bone health; may be needed if dietary intake is low.
• Magnesium and Zinc: Commonly deficient and crucial for many physiological processes.

Testing: Don’t Guess—Assess

To make informed decisions about supplementation, measuring your vitamin and mineral levels is key. Testing through a CLIA-certified laboratory, such as LabCorp, using advanced methods like LC-MS/MS (liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry), provides the most accurate results.

Most Commonly Tested Vitamins and Minerals