How to decode “reverse your age” ads that outrun the science

Key takeaways

• After critics warned that the label invited misuse, the WHO replaced “old age” in its new disease classification, which took effect in 2022, with “ageing associated decline in intrinsic capacity.”
• The TAME trial, designed to test whether the diabetes drug metformin delays age-related disease in about 3,000 adults aged 65 to 79, still hadn’t launched as of October 2026.
• In 2018, the FTC charged that a company selling a three-month supply of a “telomerase activator” for as much as $2,000 lacked evidence for its claims to reverse aging.
• The best recent human signal is small: in a Swiss analysis, a daily omega-3 supplement slowed epigenetic aging clocks by about three to four months over three years.
• Before you buy, ask what a product has been shown to change in people, such as disease, strength or memory, not just what test score it moves.

A three-month supply of TA-65MD could cost up to $2,000². The company behind it said an ingredient switched on telomerase, an enzyme that can lengthen telomeres, the protective caps on the ends of chromosomes².

The ads promised more than biology lessons. According to the Federal Trade Commission, they claimed the capsules would reverse aging, repair DNA damage, restore aging immune systems, build bone and lower cancer risk¹.

In February 2018, the FTC charged that the company didn’t have the science to back those claims, and that its talk of scientific proof was false¹². Under the settlement, future claims about reversing aging would need human clinical testing².

The pitch hasn’t gone away. It has new words: biological age, epigenetic clocks, cellular rejuvenation, longevity protocols. They sell supplements, clinic memberships and skin creams.

Yet neither the WHO’s disease classification nor the FDA treats aging itself as a condition to cure³⁵. This guide covers what the words mean, what regulators allow, which big studies are testing aging in people, and how to judge a claim before you pay.

Is aging a disease? The WHO tried a code, then backed away

Death certificates, insurance claims and payment decisions rely on the International Classification of Diseases, the WHO’s global coding system⁴. Its 11th edition took effect on January 1, 2022⁴.

A draft had placed “old age” under a code for symptoms and signs not classified elsewhere. It replaced “senility,” a label that had gained a negative ring³⁴. A separate add-on code marked conditions as “ageing-related,” defined as caused by pathological processes. Part of the aim was to put more focus on the biology of aging in global health policy⁴.

Critics pushed back hard. In a 2022 commentary in The Lancet Healthy Longevity, aging experts Kiran Rabheru, Julie Byles and Alexandre Kalache argued that an “old age” code based on years alone could compromise the safety and quality of care⁴. They noted the WHO’s own 2021 finding that one in two people worldwide hold ageist views⁴.

After a campaign led largely by civil-society groups and a meeting with the ICD-11 committee in October 2021, the WHO removed the “old age” label⁴. The category is now called “ageing associated decline in intrinsic capacity,” meaning a loss of the physical and mental reserves a person relies on³⁴. In the add-on code, “pathological” became “biological”⁴.

The WHO says plainly that the ICD does not classify old age as a disease. The category exists to help coders read vague statements on death certificates³.

The FDA question, and the trial built to answer it

In the U.S., a drug is approved to treat a specific condition, called its indication. Aging isn’t one⁵. The American Federation for Aging Research (AFAR), a nonprofit, says it hopes the FDA will someday accept aging as an indication⁵⁶.

Its plan is TAME, short for Targeting Aging with Metformin. It’s designed as six-year trials at 14 research institutions, with more than 3,000 people aged 65 to 79⁵. The question is whether metformin, a low-cost diabetes drug used for more than 60 years, delays heart disease, cancer and dementia⁵.

As of October 2026, AFAR’s site still described the trial as raising money to launch⁵. A September 2026 report in Medical News Today said it would proceed only if funding is secured⁶. Using metformin for longevity today is off-label, meaning for a use the FDA hasn’t approved⁶.

What regulators have said about anti-aging claims

Three cases show where the lines fall.

The FTC and the telomere pill. Beyond the science claims, the FTC charged that TA Sciences paid $89,900 for a TV segment presented as independent programming¹². People in its ads appeared to be ordinary users, but they had received free product worth as much as $4,000¹². Its settlement order bars such claims without solid science and requires it to disclose ties to endorsers¹.

The FDA and the “gene-boosting” cream. Under federal law, a product meant to change the body’s structure or function is a drug, even when it’s sold as a cosmetic⁷. In September 2012, the FDA warned Lancôme, a unit of L’Oréal, about website claims that a cream “boosts the activity of genes” and that its products stimulate cell regeneration⁷. The agency said those claims made the creams drugs⁷.

The UK and the “reversing ageing” clinic. Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) polices ads there. In 2023, it ruled against a clinic in Rugby, England, whose magazine ad promised “Reversing Ageing, Extending Lifespan” with hyperbaric oxygen and other treatments⁹. The clinic said it meant biological age, as measured by epigenetic clocks, and pointed to six studies.

The ASA found that the studies didn’t adequately show its treatments could turn back aging, and judged the ad misleading⁹. The clinic said it had asked for an independent review⁹.

The UK ad code that the ASA enforces sets a useful bar. As the ASA applied it in a 2013 ruling, ads may mention reducing the superficial signs of aging only if they can prove it, and broad promises of “rejuvenation” are generally unacceptable⁸. For a serum that claimed to rejuvenate cells, the ASA faulted the seller for offering no trials on people⁸.

The young-plasma infusions sold for aging are covered in our guide to longevity clinics.

The vocabulary, decoded

These are the words you’ll see most. Later articles in this series go deeper into each.

• Biological age: a test’s estimate of how old your body seems, compared with your calendar age. Different tests can disagree, as our article on biological age tests explains.
• Epigenetic age: an estimate based on DNA methylation, chemical tags on DNA that shift with age¹³. There’s no accepted gold standard for measuring biological age, says geriatrician Heike Bischoff-Ferrari of the University of Zurich¹³.
• Hallmarks of aging: a scientific map of 12 processes linked to aging, described below¹².
• Senolytic: a drug or compound meant to clear senescent cells, which have stopped dividing but linger. Cellular senescence is one of the 12 hallmarks¹².
• NAD+: a molecule cells use to make energy. Pills and IV drips sold to raise it are covered in our longevity-clinics guide and in a later article on longevity supplements.
• Longevity protocol: a bundled routine of supplements, tests, drugs or treatments, sometimes sold by subscription. A protocol’s track record is only as good as the evidence for each piece in it.
• Clinically proven: a promise that controlled human studies back the product. The FTC’s order bars TA Sciences from claiming its products are clinically proven to reverse aging¹.

What scientists are testing, and how they’ll judge success

A research map, not a shopping list

In 2023, Carlos López-Otín, Maria Blasco, Linda Partridge, Manuel Serrano and Guido Kroemer laid out a framework called the hallmarks of aging in the journal Cell¹². It lists 12 hallmarks of aging. They include genomic instability, telomere attrition, epigenetic alterations, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, chronic inflammation and dysbiosis, an imbalance in the gut’s microbes¹².

To count, a hallmark must meet three tests. It must show up with age, worsening it in experiments must speed aging, and treating it should in principle slow, halt or reverse aging¹². The hallmarks are also linked to each other¹².

That third test explains why marketers love the list. But a hallmark is a target for research, not proof that a product hits it. A label that says “targets the hallmarks of aging” is borrowing the map, not proving it reached the destination. A later article on cellular aging covers the hallmarks in depth.

XPRIZE Healthspan: function is the finish line

The biggest public test of aging treatments is XPRIZE Healthspan, a $101 million, seven-year competition¹⁰. Teams must restore muscle, thinking and immune function in adults 50 and older by the equivalent of at least 10 years, with a stretch goal of 20, within a year or less of treatment¹⁰¹¹.

The field has narrowed fast. From 765 qualified teams, 100 were named semifinalists, and each had until April 13, 2026, to finish an eight-week trial in 20 people¹¹. As of February 2026, the final 200-person trials were set to start at the end of 2026 and run nearly three years¹¹.

In August 2026, XPRIZE named 20 finalists and gave 10 of them $1 million each¹⁰. The grand prize, up to $81 million, isn’t scheduled to be awarded until 2030¹⁰.

Notice what counts as winning: stronger muscles, sharper thinking, better immune function. A lower biological-age score alone won’t win the prize.

Some teams lean on habits. Arizona State University’s semifinalist team pairs food choices and supplements with daily oxygen-chamber sessions and adaptive strength training¹¹. Mount Sinai’s team, one of the August 2026 award winners, is testing lifestyle and drug approaches meant to improve immune function¹⁰.

The strongest recent human signal is small

DO-HEALTH, a three-year trial of 2,157 older adults, tested vitamin D (2,000 IU a day), omega-3 fats (1 gram a day) and a 30-minute home strength routine three times a week¹³. In 2025, researchers reported a follow-up analysis of 777 Swiss participants over 70 in Nature Aging¹³¹⁴.

Omega-3 alone slowed three of four epigenetic clocks. The difference was about 2.9 to 3.8 months over three years, or roughly one month per year by our math¹⁴. All three treatments together had an added benefit on one clock¹⁴. The authors called the omega-3 effect small¹⁴.

This analysis wasn’t the trial’s main question. The researchers ran it afterward, which makes it a lead to confirm, not a final answer¹⁴. The company whose omega-3 and vitamin D ingredients were used in the trial now promotes the result in its own marketing, with far less caution than the authors used¹⁵.

The two-year calorie-cutting trial known as CALERIE is covered in our article on biological age tests.

The anti-aging claim decoder

This tool is ours. Match the phrase on the label or website to a row, then ask the seller for the evidence in the fourth column.

Claim phrase	What it implies	Evidence that would back it	What exists now	Rating
“Reverses aging” or “age backward”	Your body becomes younger in health and function	Randomized human trials showing less disease, disability or death	TAME hasn’t launched, and XPRIZE Healthspan won’t name a winner until 2030510	Not enough evidence
“Lowers your biological age”	A test number drops, and that means better health	A reliable test, plus proof the drop changes health	Omega-3 moved clocks three to four months over three years14; no gold-standard test13	Promising but early
“Telomerase activator” or “lengthens telomeres”	Restoring chromosome caps slows aging	Human trials tying the change to health outcomes	FTC found one seller lacked evidence for its anti-aging claims12	Not enough evidence
“Boosts genes” or “cellular rejuvenation” on a cream	It changes how skin cells work	If true, approval as a drug	FDA said such claims made Lancôme creams drugs7	Not enough evidence for a cosmetic
“Reduces the signs of aging”	Skin looks smoother	Human trials of that product	UK rules allow it only with proof, ideally from people8	Not enough evidence unless the seller shows a human trial
“Hyperbaric oxygen reverses aging”	Oxygen sessions turn back your biological clock	Controlled human trials with health outcomes	The ASA found a clinic’s six studies fell short9	Not enough evidence
“Healthspan support” or “longevity formula”	It adds healthy years	Long trials measuring strength, thinking and disease	XPRIZE asks for 10 years of restored function, and its finals haven’t been run1011	Not enough evidence

Skepticism that runs in every direction

Natural-health readers often lead the way in questioning drug-company research. The same standard fits here. The supplement supplier that promotes the DO-HEALTH result¹⁵ has as much stake in the story as any drug maker has in its trials.

The research also respects what this community values. Aging experts argued that aging itself is not a disease process⁴. And teams in a $101 million contest are building entries around food, exercise and other lifestyle approaches¹⁰¹¹.

That’s an encouraging sign for prevention. It’s also a reason to doubt anyone who says a pill, cream or drip can stand in for those habits.

When to talk to a clinician, and how to report a claim

Before you try a prescription drug for aging. Talk with your own clinician, not only the clinic selling it. Physician David Cutler told Medical News Today in 2026 that it isn’t advisable for healthy people to take metformin for longevity⁶.

When a problem is blamed on “old age.” Ask what else could explain it. The Lancet commentary warned that age-based labels can lead clinicians to overlook prevention, treatment and support⁴.

To report a misleading ad. In the U.S., file a report with the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov². In the UK, one complaint to the ASA started the 2023 clinic ruling⁹.

Questions readers ask

The bottom line

“Reverse your age” is a promise that, in the cases regulators have examined, sellers couldn’t back with human evidence. The WHO stepped back from calling old age a diagnosis, aging isn’t an approved drug target, and the biggest tests of anti-aging treatments are still waiting to launch or underway.

The real signals so far are modest and point back toward habits. Judge any claim by what it does for people’s strength, thinking and health, ask for the human trial, and keep your clinician in the loop before trying any drug sold to slow aging.

Related reading

• Americans spend about 12 years in poor health, which makes healthspan the number to watch
• Biological age tests can disagree with themselves by years
• How to sort longevity clinics that mix proven care with pricey experiments
• Fake reviews became illegal in 2024, yet reviews still mislead you
• Why supplement labels say ‘supports’ and never say ‘cures’

Sources

1. Federal Trade Commission. “New York-Based Supplement Seller Barred From Making False and Unsupported Health Claims.” FTC press release, 2018. ftc.gov
2. Fair L. “The Younger Games? FTC challenges anti-aging claims as unsubstantiated.” FTC Business Blog, 2018. ftc.gov
3. World Health Organization. “Frequently asked questions: Old age.” WHO Classifications, accessed October 2026. who.int
4. Rabheru K, Byles JE, Kalache A. “How ‘old age’ was withdrawn as a diagnosis from ICD-11.” The Lancet Healthy Longevity, 2022 (copy hosted by UConn Center on Aging). health.uconn.edu
5. American Federation for Aging Research. “The TAME Trial.” AFAR, accessed October 2026. afar.org
6. Sakay YN. “The TAME trial: Can a common diabetes drug extend human life span?” Medical News Today, 2026. medicalnewstoday.com
7. Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society. “Cosmetic company L’Oréal hit by warning letter for drug claims.” Regulatory Focus, 2012. raps.org
8. Advertising Standards Authority. “ASA Ruling on Go Groopie Ltd.” ASA, 2013. asa.org.uk
9. Aesthetics Journal. “ASA rules against ‘reversing ageing’ clinic advertising.” Aesthetics Journal, 2023. aestheticsjournal.com
10. Mount Sinai Health System. “Mount Sinai Advances as Milestone 2 Awardee in XPRIZE Healthspan, a $101 Million Global Competition Focused on Extending Healthy Aging.” News release, August 11, 2026. mountsinai.org
11. Arizona State University. “Making healthy aging possible.” ASU News, February 13, 2026. news.asu.edu
12. López-Otín C, Blasco MA, Partridge L, Serrano M, Kroemer G. “Hallmarks of aging: An expanding universe.” Cell, 2023 (UCL Discovery record). discovery.ucl.ac.uk
13. University of Zurich. “Omega-3, vitamin D and exercise slow biological aging” (news release on the DO-HEALTH analysis), via ScienceDaily, 2025. sciencedaily.com
14. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Gängler S, Wieczorek M, et al. “Individual and additive effects of vitamin D, omega-3 and exercise on DNA methylation clocks of biological aging in older adults from the DO-HEALTH trial.” Nature Aging, 2025 (abstract via Food and Behaviour Research). pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
15. dsm-firmenich. “What the DO-HEALTH trial reveals about aging better and health expectancy.” Company article, 2026 (cited to show the company’s marketing). dsm-firmenich.com