What the evidence says, and how sure we are.
Healthspan is a field with a great deal of advice and rather less agreement. This section is how we tell the two apart: what we have written ourselves, what we make of other people's research, and what we point you to elsewhere, each kept separate, and every claim carrying the same plain statement of how strong the evidence behind it is.
Five phrases, and only these five
Every claim discussed here carries one of these labels, with the kind of study it rests on stated alongside it. We do not use adjectives instead. If a label changes, the page says when and why.
- Strong and consistent
- Several good studies, in people, pointing the same way, with an effect large enough to matter to a person rather than a spreadsheet.
- Promising but early
- Real signal, but from small studies, short follow-up, animal work or a single trial that has not yet been repeated.
- Mixed
- Good studies disagree, or the effect appears in some groups and not others. Honest answer: it depends, and we say on what.
- Insufficient
- Too little research in people to say either way. Not the same as evidence of no effect; it means nobody has properly looked yet.
- Not something we offer
- We have looked, and either the evidence is against it or the risk is not justified by what it might do. We say which.
Study types, as we name them: Randomized trial · Cohort study · Systematic review · Animal or laboratory study · Expert opinion.
What is here
Five things. The first is ours. The next three are our reading of other people's work, and the last is other people's work itself.
Insights
What we have written ourselves, each piece with its author, its clinical reviewer and its date.
OpenEvidence briefs
One-page readings of the strongest reviews on a question, under fixed headings, ending in a bottom line.
OpenIn the headlines
One health claim from the news each month, and what the research actually says about it.
OpenQuestions we are asked
The questions that come up most, answered plainly, with how strong the evidence behind each answer is.
OpenThe wider library
Reading and organizations we trust, from outside Monarch.
Open
Research we love
Where our positions come from. Each page sets out what the body published, then, separately and labelled as ours, what it changes here. We have no affiliation with any of them.
The Lancet on dementia risk
The Lancet Commission on dementia prevention, intervention and care
Fourteen risks, and which of them you can change.
The World Health Organization on healthy ageing
World Health Organization
Five capacities, and why function is the measure.
Stanford's New Map of Life
Stanford Center on Longevity
Ten principles for a hundred-year life.
Harvard on telling evidence from hype
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Five questions to ask of any health claim.
Cochrane's plain-language rule
Cochrane
Why our briefs always say where evidence is weak.
McMaster's rated evidence, for Canadians
McMaster University, Optimal Aging Portal
Canada's evidence portal for ageing well.
The six pillars of lifestyle medicine
American College of Lifestyle Medicine
The six things the evidence keeps returning to.
Fifty thousand Canadians, followed for twenty years
Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
What the national ageing study is finding.
The twelve hallmarks of ageing
López-Otín and colleagues, published in Cell
The cell biology under the longevity claims.
The frailty network's five actions
Canadian Frailty Network
Five things that hold off frailty, from AVOID.






