AFEGA Research Group

Science · Experience · Revision

Knowledge —
open to revision.

Examine the evidence. Take experience seriously. Remain open to new insights.

The AFEGA Research Group sees science as the best available method for gaining reliable knowledge — not as an infallible authority. We distinguish scientific evidence, our own assessment and individual experience. We openly acknowledge uncertainty, contradictory findings and gaps in knowledge.

Our scientific approach Explore the substances

The best available knowledge

Shaped by method

Always open to revision

Our scientific approach

Make confident judgements — without pretending certainty.

Science does not deliver final truths. It is a method-based process through which we can examine observations, compare explanations and identify errors.

Scientific findings reflect the best knowledge available at a given time.

New data, better methods or a change in scientific interpretation may require earlier assessments to be confirmed, refined, qualified or corrected. That is why we never consider an assessment in isolation from its specific context.

What matters is not simply whether a study reports a positive result. Among other things, we examine the study design, population, substance or product form, dose, duration, comparison group, endpoints and methodological limitations. Mechanistic and clinical evidence remain distinct: a biologically convincing mechanism is not yet evidence of a health benefit in humans.

For us, scientific integrity means drawing conclusions as clearly as the data allow — and being equally clear about the limits of what they can tell us.
01

Scientific evidence

What was actually studied?

Data, methods, the conditions studied, limitations and counterevidence form the scientific starting point.

02

AFEGA’s assessment

What conclusion is justified?

We weigh the evidence and make clear which assessment we draw from it — and which we do not.

03

Individual experience

What does a person notice in themselves?

Personal observations matter for assessing tolerability and forming a judgement, but they are not general evidence of efficacy.

These levels are related, but not interchangeable. Studies cannot fully predict individual responses. Conversely, an individual experience cannot show whether an effect is general, causal or reliably reproducible.

Substances in focus

What has been passed down. What the science supports.

We are gradually introducing every substance offered in the AFEGA Anti-Aging-Shop. The history of use, experiential knowledge and scientific findings are presented side by side — clearly distinguished, with the value of each form of knowledge placed in context.

We do not confuse openness with evidence — or a lack of evidence with a lack of value.
01

Traditional knowledge

Where does the idea come from?

We document the history of use, naturopathic and complementary-medicine concepts, explanations passed down over time, documented experiences and scientific minority positions.

The origin and status of each statement remain visible.
02

Scientific knowledge

What can be supported today?

We assess mechanistic, preclinical and clinical findings separately. We explain the strength of the evidence, counterevidence, open questions, safety considerations and the status of the most recent scientific review.

Plausibility is not yet evidence of efficacy.

This section is under development

A growing library of the substances we offer

The shared structure is already in place. Individual profiles are made available once their content has been scientifically reviewed and prepared for public presentation.

NAD⁺ in preparation
NMN in preparation
NMNH in preparation
NR in preparation
Resveratrol Read the profile → Coenzyme Q10 Read the profile →
Spermidine in preparation
Betaine / TMG in preparation
NAC & GlyNAC in preparation
Fisetin in preparation
Urolithin A in preparation
Quercetin in preparation
PQQ Read the profile → Acetyl-DL-leucine Read the profile →

We do not decide on our customers’ behalf which perspective they may find convincing. Our task is to present different positions honestly, make their origins traceable and distinguish them clearly from the current state of scientific evidence. Where safety or the law sets limits, we make those limits clear.

Lifespan, HALE and the morbidity gap

Living longer is not enough.

Between 1990 and 2023, global life expectancy increased more rapidly than Healthy Life Expectancy (HALE), according to a GBD analysis. The modelled difference — the morbidity gap — widened globally from 8,8 to 10,7 years.

Life expectancy

64,6 73,8
Years · 1990 to 2023

Healthy Life Expectancy

55,9 63,1
HALE in years · 1990 to 2023

Morbidity gap

8,8 10,7
+1,9 years · +21,9 per cent

What do these 10,7 years mean?

The morbidity gap is the difference between statistically expected total lifespan and years in full health. For 2023, the calculation is: 73,8 years of life expectancy minus 63,1 years of HALE equals a morbidity gap of 10,7 years.

This does not necessarily mean 10,7 continuous years of illness for an individual. It is a modelled population average for time lived with health limitations.

The key insight: we have gained more years of life — but healthy years have not kept pace.

Our mission

Consider health, function and lived time together.

For the AFEGA Research Group, longevity means more than additional years of life. We are interested in the biological, psychological and social conditions that allow people to preserve function, independence, mental flexibility and agency for as long as possible — and in how additional years can be made personally meaningful.

Population measures, scientific findings, biological measurements and individual experiences are carefully distinguished.

AFEGA’s own presentation based on Hay et al. (2026), Global Burden of Disease Study 2023. The figures are modelled global population estimates, not predictions for individuals.

Open the primary publication ↗

Background article in preparation

Lifespan, healthspan and the morbidity gap

People around the world are living longer. But are healthy years increasing at the same pace? We explain what the morbidity gap actually measures, what it cannot tell us about an individual and why healthy ageing involves more than the absence of disease.

AFEGA Scientific Knowledge System

Three levels of evidence. One clear language.

The AFEGA Scientific Knowledge System is the scientific knowledge base of the AFEGA Research Group. The classification describes the strength of the scientific evidence — not the intensity of our hopes.

01

Well supported by scientific evidence

Robust and generally consistent evidence

The statement is supported by sound scientific findings. The populations and conditions studied, and the limitations, remain visible here too.

02

Biologically plausible

Sound mechanistic grounds; clinical relevance remains open

Mechanistic or preclinical findings can support a hypothesis. They are not yet evidence of a health benefit in humans.

03

Experimental or insufficiently supported

Interesting signals, no robust conclusion

Early approaches, small studies or contradictory findings remain questions for research — not promises.

Our areas of work

Think scientifically. Act responsibly in practice.

01

Scientific education

We turn research into understandable guidance — clearly distinguishing data, assessment and open questions.

Explore → 02

Product development

We combine scientific hypotheses with knowledge of raw materials, formulation development and traceable quality assessment.

Explore → 03

Research

We document our own projects even when their results do not confirm our original expectations.

Explore → 04

Psychology

We ask how people can shape additional years psychologically, mentally and existentially.

Explore →

Development & quality

Quality is a traceable chain — not a label.

  1. 01

    Scientific questionWhat is plausible — and what is supported by clinical evidence?

  2. 02

    Raw material & formulationIdentity, purity, dose and technological requirements.

  3. 03

    Manufacturing & fillingSpecialist partners and clearly defined responsibilities.

  4. 04

    Analysis & informationSupporting evidence and a factual account of what it can actually establish.

Responsibility throughout the chain

From scientific judgement to product information.

For us, products are not isolated commodities. Scientific assessment, product-specific evidence and whether information may be published under the applicable regulations remain separate matters for review.

Evidence remains product-specific

An analysis of a raw material is not automatically an analysis of the finished product. Statements apply only within the scope actually examined.

Safety remains context-dependent

“Well tolerated” refers to the population, dose and duration studied — not automatically to every person and every use.

Interests remain visible

Commercial product interests and scientific assessment are not conflated.

Projects & studies

Research also means revising expectations.

We do not document our own projects only when the results match our original expectations.

Exploratory human study · completed

epiAge
26 fully evaluable cases

No average effect of NMN on biological age, as measured by the epiAge test available at the time, could be detected in the overall dataset.

Open project documentation

The NMN-epiAge study

The study could not provide a robust answer to its research question. The available data do not establish a rejuvenating or age-slowing effect of NMN.

01

ResultNo detectable average effect in the available overall dataset.

02

LimitationsThe small number of cases and pandemic-related disruptions substantially limit interpretation.

03

Lessons learnedStudy design, data collection and transparent communication are themselves part of the process of gaining knowledge.

Read the detailed project documentation →
AFEGA Research Group

Knowledge in conversation

AFEGA on YouTube

Science you can see and hear.

Our YouTube channel complements the Research Group’s written work with accessible explanatory videos on the biology of ageing, critical discussions of dietary supplements and product quality, and more in-depth conversations.

Some connections become clear through the spoken word in a different way from a written scientific account. We therefore also use videos to explore background, personal perspectives and questions that go beyond individual substances or studies.

Biology of ageing Supplements & quality Conversations & perspectives

Psychology of a long life

Additional years are an opportunity — not a ready-made answer.

The statistical morbidity gap describes modelled years lived with health limitations, averaged across a population. It does not tell us how an individual experiences that time, which abilities are preserved or whether their life feels fulfilled and meaningful.

Illness, disability and a need for support do not automatically make a life bad or less valuable. The psychology of a long life therefore focuses on development, identity, adaptability, relationships, transitions and meaning.

“It is not only about adding more years to life — but more growth to those years.”
01

Development

How can curiosity, the ability to learn and inner flexibility be sustained?

02

Identity

What sustains us over time — and what may change?

03

Transitions

How can we find our way through farewells, ruptures and new beginnings?

04

Meaning & finitude

What gives additional years of life meaning and direction?

Our origins

It did not begin with the AFEGA Anti-Aging-Shop.It began with a study.

The AFEGA Anti-Aging-Shop , which we operate, grew out of a specific research question: could longer-term NMN use be reflected in the epiAge test available at the time?

01
The planned study

NMN and two epiAge tests per participant were so expensive at the time that we could not provide them entirely free of charge to a larger sample.

02
The funding idea

This led to the idea of offering NMN ourselves. Customers of the newly established shop would also be able to take part in the study at substantially reduced cost.

03
From a funding route to practical implementation

The shop thus became a way of funding research and product development. In 2020 alone, its revenue enabled more than 60.000 Euro to be made available for this purpose. Today, it is also a place for practical product development and sales.

Visit the AFEGA Anti-Aging-Shop →

About the AFEGA Research Group

Privately funded. Interdisciplinary. Independent in judgement.

The AFEGA Research Group brings together scientific education, its own research projects, product development and the psychology of a long life. The focus is not institutional self-presentation, but a fair assessment of what is known, what is plausible and what remains open.

01

Working across disciplinesBiology, medicine, pharmacy, physics, psychology, mathematics and statistical analysis complement one another.

02

Protecting confidentialityThe professional network remains confidential as a matter of principle. Responsibility and collective expertise are made publicly visible.

03

Reviewing assessmentsRelevant new evidence prompts a fresh scientific review and, where necessary, a revised assessment.

04

Separating science and commercial interestsThe Research Group assesses evidence; the shop develops and sells products. These roles are kept transparently distinct.

Contact: arg@afega.eu →

Frequently asked questions

Science and personal experience

Two ways of gaining knowledge, with different strengths — and no reason to set them against each other.

01 Should I trust scientific studies or my own experience?

This is not an either-or question. Scientific studies and personal experiences answer different questions.

Studies help us assess whether an effect has been observed under controlled conditions, how robust a finding is, how large a potential benefit may be and which risks are known. They provide probabilistic statements about the groups studied, but cannot fully predict every response of an individual.

Your own observations are particularly important when it comes to your personal tolerability and perceived changes. Such an experience can matter for your individual decision. It does not, however, automatically prove that the change was caused by a particular preparation or would occur in the same way in other people.

It therefore makes sense to combine both levels: use scientific findings to assess efficacy, plausibility and safety in general — and observe carefully how you respond yourself. Where there are adverse reactions, safety signals, contraindications or potential interactions, a positive personal experience does not replace professional assessment.

02 Why can scientific assessments change?

Scientific knowledge is shaped by method and open to revision. New data, better measurement methods, larger studies or a change in scientific interpretation can confirm, refine, qualify or correct earlier assessments. A reasoned reassessment is not a failure of science, but part of how it works.

03 How does AFEGA handle conflicting studies?

We do not simply count studies. We weigh them according to study design, population, dose, duration, endpoints, methodological limitations and applicability. Positive, negative and contradictory findings are not smoothed over. We state which explanation is best supported by the available knowledge — and where a robust conclusion is not yet possible.

04 Are personal accounts scientifically worthless?

No. Personal accounts can provide important indications of individual tolerability, adverse reactions or subjectively perceived changes. They are not, however, scientific evidence of efficacy, because expectation effects, natural fluctuations, changes made at the same time and other influences are not controlled.

Our scientific guiding principle

Examine the evidence.
Take experience seriously.
Remain open to new insights.
Start a conversation with us →