One of the most exciting thing happening in the aging/longevity field that too few people discuss is that the aggregate pipeline of the entire sector has hit the exciting point where things are trickling thru to FDA approval & many more are on the way. My talk recently posted.

Wouldn't it be just as reasonable to call fasting mimicking (diet) instead intermittent calorie restriction?. In analogy with IF as acronym, it could be ICR instead of FMD.

First cuffless is what some are reporting, but I probably shouldn't have said that as I know better. Biobeat & LiveMetric have cuffless products FDA approved already. The problem is they aren't available to consumers, only hospitals & clinics. Maybe this will them to open up.

One of many news pieces covering this:.

This is big: Aktiia (now renamed Hilo) gets FDA clearance for first (in US) cuffless continuous blood pressure (BP) monitoring. Product rollout expected in 2026. I'm excited for this. I've been waiting for it for some time. I think it's even more important than CGM.

PS As I've pointed out in prior threads, # investments or companies isn't a great way to rank investors. Certainly doesn't speak to quality of screening or likelihood of good returns. Does show commitment when focused on a single sector I guess.

I'm curious what the other 74 companies in GV's portfolio are that got it the 81 count in the posted table. I haven't even heard of some of the investors on their list. I don't see them at longevity confs. (Admittedly I've not been to the Longevity Investors Conf in Gstaad.).

@HealthspanCap released a 2025 list of their top 46 "LongBio" companies:. Investors with the higher # of these 46 companies in their portfolios that I know of are:.me: 15.Healthspan Capital itself: 12.VitaDao: 10. (GV had 1.).

@BowTiedBiotech generated this top dealmakers in longevity therapeutics ranking for 2018-2023:

lists ~400 companies based on the criteria on the site's about page (w/ notes as needed in each company's row). The investorsXcompanies table has all investors I know of w/ publicly disclosed portfolios & where >=10% of the portfolio is longevity cos.

I question the counts on this new top longevity investors list. Always frustrating when source data & longevity company criteria unclear. Alternative (& transparent) data can be found at Based on that I get the counts pictured. Elaboration below.

One concrete question is, is it worth adding a tiny version of a company logo to a new column at ? It would take time that could be spent adding actually useful info to some companies waiting to be added to the list.

PS I also dislike when the image is used without also including the text name since then simple string search for the name (eg find-in-page, or possibly search engines search) won't find it. Eg this is true on Healthspan Captial's portfolio page.

These don't seem to be canonical, or they change more frequently than company names themselves, so that different lists sometimes have different images for the same company. Eg Longevity Tech Fund and Healthspan Captial have these diff images for 2 shared portfolio companies.

Company logos in lists instead of just text names: Like or dislike?. Many investors list their portfolio as logo images. Some other company lists (eg LongevityList's DB) include logo pics too. Do people just copy these from company website or other material (eg pitch decks)?.

Or I'd like to see a big discussion between some of the 40% skeptics vs some founders, execs, & staff (6000+) in the 400+ companies that think they have enough understanding already to bring gerocience paradigm embodying tx to market, & the investors who've backed them w/ $20B.

Interesting results. I'm surprised ~40% think the field is stuck pending new fundamentally deeper understanding of aging. We dug into many details in this thread & some followup at.I look forward to discussing this live sometime w/ some of the 40%.

Typo: six-sigma not sig-sigma (obviously).

@jpsenescence Regardless of when lifespan effects begin to be detectable, repair of any type of damage should embody the geroscience paradigm so help mitigate multiple diverse age-related diseases, thus providing a route to approval & monetization in humans. But we need 10x+ more $ go faster.

@jpsenescence Aubrey thinks we're already at the point where we can see this in mice. I'm more skeptical. May still be too early. But I support the RMR studies since.- he might be right.- the framework is good.- they're the only game in town for testing combo therapies so will give good data.

@jpsenescence Eventually, repairing more damage types should increase lifespan more. This will likely be in stark contrast to adding more metabolism tweaks showing diminishing returns.