The case for high-end longevity interventions, peptides, cold plunges, high-tech wearables, has a unit-economics problem. Dr. Annu Navani, chief medical officer at Le Reve Wellness in San Jose, California, and founder of the World Institute of Regenerative Medicine, says the biggest myth in her field is that expensive biohacks will allow people to live for a "very, very long period of time." The habits that actually move health span, she argues, cost almost nothing.
Navani, who leads advanced regenerative and longevity medicine programs at Le Reve Wellness, puts the realistic ceiling at 120 to 130 years. Living beyond that, she told Fox News Digital, "would be a false promise." That framing reorients the goal entirely. The aim, in her words, is "adding life to those years, not so much years to life."
What the evidence points to
On sleep, the read-through from the research is concrete. Studies Navani cites link at least seven hours per night to optimal performance and a longer health lifespan. The CDC's guidance for adults aligns with that number, though individual needs vary. She recommends eating three to four hours before bed, cutting out stimulating activity like laptop use, and building in meditation, gratitude, or journaling before sleep.
Resistance training is her highest-conviction habit for people in their 50s and beyond. Studies, she said, show it builds bone health and supports musculoskeletal blood flow. Muscle strength connects to cardiovascular and neurovascular health, and that compounding is where the long-term value accumulates. For older adults or those with existing health conditions, lower-intensity or supervised strength work can serve the same purpose, according to other experts.
The biomarker she watches most closely is VO2 max, which measures the maximum amount of oxygen the body can use during intense exercise. Navani called it "a really important key biomarker" that multiple studies have linked positively to a longer lifespan.
The counterargument
The counterargument the longevity industry would raise is that the science is working. Navani herself concedes the point: "I do feel we have extended the human lifespan to some extent." The open question is whether the marginal return on expensive interventions exceeds what consistent, low-cost habits already deliver. She does not claim biohacks contribute nothing. Her position is that the foundation comes first, and the foundation is free.
On balance, the line to watch is adoption, not the next intervention. Navani sees patients beginning this work at 55 and 60. Her read is that the starting point matters far less than starting. "If you didn't start in your 20s," she said, "the best time to start is today."