Great Age Reboot

The Great Age Reboot is the concept developed by leading longevity practitioner, Michael Roizen, M.D. (Dr. Mike), Emeritus Chief Wellness Officer at the Cleveland Clinic and best-selling author.

Roizen believes that sometime in the next 10 years, you are going to be able to—because of the exponential advances in 14 areas of aging mechanism research—reboot yourself, so that if 60 is now the new 40, 90 will be the new 40.

In his new book The Great Age Reboot: Cracking the Longevity Code for a Younger Tomorrow (published by National Geographic), Dr. Mike and his co-authors—Peter Linneman, Ph.D. and Albert Ratner—predict that 90 will be the new 40 in the next decade.

They have an app to advise you on how to live longer and healthier. It is an expensive app. The Reboot Your Age app cost $34.95 per month or $299.95 annually. They have a ten day free trial.

Nextbigfuture notes that if the scientific breakthroughs happen then the health advice in the Reboot Your Age app would be relatively meaningless for you being able to avail yourself of the medical advances. Just as taking vitamin D before the COVID vaccines were developed did not impact the speed or effectiveness of those vaccines.

The healthy diet and lifestyle promoted by the app can be followed in far more cost effective or free ways.

In developing the app, the Great Age Reboot team analyzed thousands of scientific papers to help create the content, which includes short videos and articles, brain games and other activities. Each user’s experience is customized to that person, and the app even includes a feature where physicians can monitor the progress of their patients. The goal of the program is to enable you to stay younger and stay on top of discoveries in the longevity field while not being misled.

“What we’re doing is building on Mike’s life mission,” Bridges told Newsweek “It’s not about extending your life so you have 30 more years in the nursing home. It’s about giving you 30 more years in your prime so you can do whatever it is that you love, whatever it is that fuels you.”

The app focuses on improving habits in several major areas of life that research has shown are key to longevity, such as stress management, diet, physical activity, sleep and brain health.

I interviewed Aubrey de Grey who is not involved in the Great Age Reboot. Roizen has more aggressive assertions about the timeline for comprehensive aging damage reversal. Aubrey de Grey has been saying for decades that aging damage reversal and significant aging reversal developments can and will be developed.

11 thoughts on “Great Age Reboot”

  1. I appreciate that they make the point that healthy lifespan will be increased, but it still doesn’t say whether unhealthy lifespan will also be increased proportionally, or decreased as a result.

    • When you are in the “unhealthy span” of life, you have a high rate of death. Because it’s unhealthy.
      Not being silly here, the death rate for seriously elderly is very high, because of all the different issues that add up to being unhealthy.
      As such, you can’t be unhealthy, weak and frail for very long. Because you’ll die from one of those weaknesses.

  2. “Just as taking vitamin D before the COVID vaccines were developed did not impact the speed or effectiveness of those vaccines.”

    What is “the speed of a vaccine”?

    The effectiveness of these vaccine is like the potion of Rejuvenation in D&D (10 years younger, 1% (cumulative) it will reverse the effects of all previous potions); just, in this case, is three months and 9 pages of possible side effects for a 99.x% of survival

  3. Kinda what I’ve been banking on.

    Obviously, I’d really like to believe he is correct. And yes, the amount of brain power and money being thrown at this (and AI) is enough that I expect some lines of inquiry are going to find success, and sooner rather than later.

    Main questions being, how soon, and how much money will it take? George Church seems to be hinting that his first treatment, already in human trials, will require an annual or semi-annual vaccination and extend human life span by, perhaps, 30 years. It certainly sounds affordable–yet there will be people who don’t bother to get them and almost certainly a fair number antivaxxers, incomprehensible as that might seem.

    Deadweights on society? Probably not. Advances in automation will likely make this a moot point. It’s been my experience that most people, regardless of how wealthy they are, work at something. True playboys are relatively rare. The difference being that the very wealthy can choose what they work at, how long they work at it, how hard they work at it, where they work at it, and don’t have to endure foolish bosses who misuse them, overuse them, or underuse them.

    Personally, I would like to take a few years retirement, then go back to school and start a second career in a field entirely of my own choosing, where I can work as much or as little at it as I choose, as well as when and where. And, of course, don’t have to put up with nuthin’ I don’t choose to.

    • I see two treatments that appear to be advancing far enough to be widely available in the next 5-10 years.

      First, Gregory Fahy’s thymus regeneration protocol. It actually does seem to accomplish body-wide aging reversal, and none of the components particularly have to be expensive. The biggest obstacle to this one is that human growth hormone is currently a controlled substance, to prevent it from being used for “doping”. And the treatment requires some moderately expensive testing, and needs to be maintained for a year or two. But I think, at scale, it shouldn’t be any more expensive than insulin maintenance for diabetics, and you probably wouldn’t need to be on it for more than a couple of years each decade.

      The other is senolytics. It really looks like killing off senescent cells reverses a lot of the medical effects of aging, if you can pull it off. This one looks to be more periodic.

      If we can just use those at scale, it really should buy enough time for people like me to hang on until more comprehensive answers are available.

      • Of the 7 damage categories described by SENS, senolytics address most directly the accumulation of senescent cells, but may also at least partially address intracellular aggregates and mitochondrial mutations. I expect these latter two are likely a bigger issue in senescent cells than elsewhere, and may indeed be linked to cell senescence.

        Senolytics may also assist against cancer, another of the 7 categories, so it’s a 4 for 1 approach, that’s likely to improve as new drugs are developed.

        OTOH, it exacerbates cell loss, so may actually be dangerous for people with degenerative diseases such as sarcopenia.

        There is some progress with stem cells, but it doesn’t seem likely to become widely available soon. In the shorter term, I have some hope for genetic approaches, which are progressing quite rapidly. It may be possible to reprogram some small fraction of cells in-vivo back to a partially-differentiated stem-cell-like state, to allow tissues to regenerate. This may increase risk of cancer again, but there is progress in that field as well.

        This would then leave mostly the extracellular and structural issues, plus incremental improvements in the above therapies.

      • The real trick will be convincing staid, conservative MDs to prescribe anti-agining treatments for their patients. Even with human studies showing safety and some test measures of benefit, I’ll bet most Docs will take a “wait and see” attitude for at least 3-5 years, for actual clear ‘health outcomes’. As will insurance companies, despite the fact that they might reduce their expenses.

        Sure, it may be possible to go around the medical profession (gray market, shopping in a less controlled country) – or shop for a doctor who’ll do it – but the majority of people aren’t going to feel comfortable doing that, especially if they ask their Doc and they seem ‘down’ on the idea.

        That may not worry the majority on this site – but that’s 3-5 more years of people aging out and dying unnecessarily early – and that’s before it can start trickling down the the less affluent.

    • “It’s been my experience that most people, regardless of how wealthy they are, work at something. True playboys are relatively rare. The difference being that the very wealthy can choose what they work at, how long they work at it, how hard they work at it, where they work at it, and don’t have to endure foolish bosses who misuse them, overuse them, or underuse them.”

      Interesting point; if you are a competent boss/teacher/etc. you will have no problem getting people to work for/with you. If you aren’t; you will justifiably find yourself professionally (& personally) shunned by most. As people live longer and longer and a larger segment of the population (through say their 401K’s) will reach the point of not having to take crap off of fewer and fewer people.

  4. I certainly hope these predictions turn out to be true. I’m going on 64, and aging is NOT fun, even though I’m in decent health for my age.

    • Getting old is not fun , but for the time being it is the only way to have a long live 🙂

      I will get the rejuvenation treatments…. Or die waiting 😀

    • I hear you. I’m hoping too… but I get a nagging feeling a lot of these predictions are wishful thinking of middle aged men. Anything with human biology and medicine takes decades…. I just don’t think we are going to get there in time.

Comments are closed.