Health sync

Get the app. Sync your watch, play the Daily Brief.

Install VitaLonga Sync, allow Apple Health or Health Connect, then scan the QR on Tracker with your phone camera. The Daily Brief keeps playing with the screen locked. File import stays as a fallback. Educational numbers only — not medical advice.

Open Tracker Create a member record

Longevity education

Stay curious about aging well — without pretending to be your clinician.

Read today's research headlines, run honest calculators, keep a private record, and assemble an educational supplement protocol. Not a clinic.

Latest news Open calculators Build your protocol

Today's news

Newest story: 7 Nov 2026

News archive →

Progress in Rehabilitation Medicine · 7 Nov 2026 · Research

In 86 adults with severe motor and intellectual disabilities, lumbar spine bone density did not distinguish who had a long-bone fracture

Progress in Rehabilitation Medicine published a retrospective cohort on 7 November 2026. Tetsuhiro Hagino and colleagues reviewed 86 adults with severe motor and intellectual disabilities who had a lumbar spine DXA scan in 2023 or 2024. People under 18 at the first scan were excluded, as were fractures only outside the extremity long bones. Twenty-three people were in the fracture group and 63 were not. Fracture history ran from April 2015 to March 2025. Mean lumbar density was 0.486 versus 0.551 g/cm2 (P=0.067). Mean Z-scores were low in both groups, -2.93 versus -3.15 (P=0.451). Of the 23 people with a fracture, 20 had already broken a bone before the first scan and 3 broke one afterward. In a logistic model, each extra year of age lined up with higher odds of being in the fracture group (odds ratio 1.057, 95 percent CI 1.017 to 1.099). Lumbar density did not. The authors say a lumbar reading alone may not sort fracture status in this group. The abstract does not give a sex split. This is a chart review of scans already on file. DOI 10.2490/prm.20260063. Not medical advice.

Read at Progress in Rehabilitation Medicine →Our summary ♡ Save

study

European Heart Journal Open · 6 Nov 2026 · Supplements / medicine

In 43 adults who finished a six-month trial, a multi-ingredient powder lined up with wider arm-artery flow and lower systolic pressure

European Heart Journal Open published a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, DOI 10.1093/ehjopen/oeag157. Lifespan.io covered it on 6 November 2026. Charles Piercy, Christian Heiss, and colleagues at the University of Surrey assigned 61 generally healthy nonsmoking adults to a once-daily multi-ingredient powder or a matching placebo for six months (33 versus 28). Forty-three finished the primary analysis (24 versus 19). The powder is sold as NOVOS Core. Lifespan.io reports that NOVOS supplied the product and the placebo and helped fund the study. At six months, flow-mediated dilation rose 2.6 percentage points on the powder and fell 0.1 on placebo, an adjusted difference of +2.9 points (95 percent CI 2.1 to 3.8). One hour after the first dose the adjusted difference was +3.9 points (95 percent CI 2.7 to 5.1). Pulse-wave velocity differed by -1.18 m/s at six months (95 percent CI -2.00 to -0.36). Systolic pressure differed by -6.1 mmHg (95 percent CI -10.9 to -1.3). Lipids did not differ. Estimated 10-year risk (SCORE2 or SCORE2-OP) differed by -0.45 points (95 percent CI -0.86 to -0.03), mostly from the pressure change. The trial registration on the preprint record is NCT06145087. Lifespan.io also reports that the control group was older at enrollment, about 60 versus 53. Nearly a third of people did not finish. The study was not built to count heart attacks or strokes. Flow-mediated dilation is a vessel measurement, not a clinical outcome. This is not a reason to buy the powder. DOI 10.1093/ehjopen/oeag157. Not medical advice. Not a treatment for heart disease.

Read at European Heart Journal Open →Our summary ♡ Save

study
longevity

ScienceDaily · 6 Nov 2026 · Research

In 5,772 adults, calcium scans and usual risk scores had the same observed rate of major heart events, and the scan arm was not shown to be noninferior

ScienceDaily published this account on 6 November 2026 from a Hot Line presentation at ESC Congress 2026. Joseph B. Muhlestein and colleagues at Intermountain ran the CorCal Outcomes trial. They enrolled 5,772 adults with no known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, no diabetes, and no prior statin. Mean age was 64, and 51 percent were women. People were randomized 1 to 1. One arm used the pooled cohort equations. The other used a coronary artery calcium scan. Patients and clinicians were told the study recommendation. The choice to start a statin stayed with them. Over a mean of 4.2 years, 2.7 percent of each group had a major event (death from any cause, heart attack, stroke, or a procedure to open an artery). The hazard ratio was 0.99 (95 percent CI 0.71 to 1.38). A noninferiority test was reported at p=0.045, and the investigators still say they did not show the scan strategy was noninferior, because fewer events occurred than planned. Risk-score guidance recommended a statin more than three times as often. Among people advised to take one, 62 percent in the scan arm and 23 percent in the risk-score arm kept taking it. The account does not explain that gap. This is a conference report of a decision trial, not proof that a calcium scan can replace usual risk scoring. Statin choices stay with a clinician. Not medical advice.

Read at ScienceDaily →Our summary ♡ Save