The protocol · 5 live pillars

One standard, applied to everything that moves the number

The compounds index was the first pillar because it was the one nobody was doing honestly. It was never meant to be the whole thing. What actually decides how the second half of your life goes is a short list: what you eat, how much protein is in it, whether you train, when you eat, and what you take. All 5 of those pillars are now open, and this page is what each one covers.

Nothing gets a section here until it can be held to the same rule as the rest: state what was measured, in how many people, by whom, and say plainly where the answer is that nobody has checked. Anything not built yet would say so on this page rather than existing as an empty link.

Plate 31

Five pillars

Live protocol map

Live pillars

Named

Compounds, fasting, diet, training, supplements. Each one shows whether it is live yet.

The pillars

Compounds

open now453 profiles

What has actually been run in people, and what did it find?

Peptides and longevity compounds, each with the mechanism, the human trials with their participant counts and numbers, the legal status by country, and the citations. No grades and no rankings.

Open

Fasting

open now14 protocols, 12 biology pages

Which fasting model, and what does it actually reach?

Every model from a twelve hour overnight gap to supervised multi-day, with the human trials that tested it, what happens hour by hour, and the biology explained properly. Including where the popular numbers came from and whether they survive checking.

Open

Protein and diet

open now9 measured protein intakes

How much protein, from what, and does timing matter?

The question underneath most of the others. Protein targets and where the numbers come from, the leucine threshold and how it shifts with age, meal distribution, and what the trials that controlled calories actually showed.

Open

What it covers

Protein requirement by bodyweight, training status and age, with the trials behind each figure
The leucine threshold, and the anabolic resistance of ageing
Whether meal distribution changes 24 hour net protein balance
Protein quality, DIAAS and PDCAAS, and what those scores do and do not tell you
Plant versus animal protein, measured rather than argued
The diet comparisons people actually run, on matched calories

Training and muscle

open now7 measured results

What builds and keeps muscle, and what does the evidence support?

Muscle is the tissue most tightly linked to how the second half of life goes. This covers what is established about building and keeping it, separated from what is convention repeated until it sounded like evidence.

Open

What it covers

Volume, intensity and frequency, and the dose-response data behind each
Training to failure, and what the trials comparing it actually found
Resistance training in older adults, and the sarcopenia literature
Cardiovascular fitness and VO2 max as mortality predictors
Training while fasted or in a deficit, and the lean mass evidence
Recovery, sleep and the measurable effect on performance

Supplements

open now13 measured results

Does it do anything in a person, or only in a dish?

The category with the widest gap between what is claimed and what has been measured. Same standard as the compounds index: the human trials with their numbers, the endpoints that were missed as well as met, and who paid for the study.

Open

What it covers

Creatine, the most studied supplement there is, and what it does beyond strength
Vitamin D, omega 3, magnesium, and the large trials that changed the picture
NAD precursors, NMN and NR, and what the human trials measured
Urolithin A, spermidine and the other autophagy and mitophagy compounds with real trials
Where a supplement's evidence is a single sponsored trial, said plainly
Third party testing, label accuracy and what is actually in the bottle

The standard, so you can hold us to it

What happened in people comes first, with how many people and the actual numbers. Work done in mice or in cells in a dish is labelled by what it was done in. It sits in a separate place on the page and is never mixed into the same paragraph.

Studies that failed on their main goal are reported as failing, in the same breath as whatever they did find. Who paid for a study is shown. Where two research groups truly disagree, both are described and neither is declared the winner, because that is what the record shows.

Every compound carries one word for how much has been tested in people, and the count behind it sits next to the word. It is a count, not a score. It says how many finished studies there are and how many people were given it. It says nothing about whether the thing works. Compounds are not ranked against one another and no option is declared best, because that depends on facts about you a web page does not have. And no seller has a say in any of it, which is what makes the rest of it possible.