The wellness landscape is in constant flux, thanks to a growing interest in longevity. From wearables that monitor your pulse and sleep schedule to tests that can track your liver’s epigenetic age, the health technology and wellness industries offer countless new advancements.

But why the sudden interest in longevity science? How are vitality brands evolving commercially and what is the science behind fitness and wellness devices such as Oura or Whoop? And how are athletes integrating them into daily life to enhance careers and prolong performance?

These are exactly the issues speakers tackled at “The Business of Longevity: Science, Performance, and the Market,” part of Columbia Business School’s Healthcare Spotlight Series organized by the School’s Healthcare and Pharmaceutical Management Program. Professor Efrem Kamen moderated a panel with Allison Brager, an assistant professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point; Christopher Mason, WorldQuant Professor of Genomics and Computational Biomedicine at Weill Cornell Medicine; and Jordan Weiss, an assistant professor at NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

Tom Gormely, a sports physical therapist and founder of CORTX, moderated a second panel with Brager; Dr. Niko Mihić, chief medical advisor for Real Madrid; two-time Olympian Kassidy Cook; MLB pitcher Tyler Wells; Sheffield United footballer Femi Seriki; Kevin Acklin, former president of business operations for the Pittsburgh Penguins; and Vernon Brown, president of V. Brown & Company.

Kamen also moderated a final panel on the business of longevity with Michael Campbell of TD Securities, Helmy Eltoukhy of Guardant Health, Stephen Evans of Silver Lake, Ilana Neftin of Stelo by Dexcom, and Matthijs Schellekens of Meta.

Through the analysis of clinical studies, recent market trends, and personal accounts from professional athletes themselves, the event offered a glimpse into how the wellness industry is exploring longevity today.

Know what you are investing in

In a digital age where influencers promote all kinds of wellness products and lifestyles, the spread of longevity culture across media creates greater market clutter. However, what spreads online is not always safe, reliable, or trustworthy. Without clinical data proving that certain dietary supplements, technologies, or drugs actually work, investing in them can be useless, or worse, unsafe.

Gormely emphasizes that “making sure that our filter is really small of what gets through and what eventually we pass on to patients, on to ourselves, or on to something that’s investable” is the first step people must take before entering the vitality market. Especially in the athletic field where sustained performance is at the forefront of attention, it is crucial to approach the market with a critical eye and understand what is truly being offered. 

And sometimes the solution isn’t even on the market. Sometimes it’s as simple as sleep or exercise. Brager states, “We have all this neurotechnology out there that is meant to expand life, but at the end of the day, a large part of these supplements are acting through foundational biological mechanisms, and one of those mechanisms is sleep.” According to Brager, these natural components of daily life can at times be far more effective than the latest technologies or supplements. 

Altering the ‘natural course of time’

In 2016, experts in the field of lifespan and optimal health science claimed they could predict how old you are based on DNA. Now, researchers are exploring whether manipulating specific gene states could extend life expectancy. Aging, Mason says, is part of “the natural course of time, as people have written about for 2,500 years in Greek tragedies, but it’s changed now.” 

Epigenetic age estimates how old a person’s cells are based on chemical markers on their DNA. Some athletes now use epigenetic tests to monitor recovery and gauge the effects of intense training. Gene-editing tools, meanwhile, are growing more precise. Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, for example, developed Casgevy, the first approved CRISPR-based therapy, which treats sickle cell disease and beta thalassemia.

While the process is tedious and expensive, Mason is hopeful that the development of gene-altering tools will only become more efficient. To eventually breach the maximum limit for human lifespan, according to Mason, scientists must devote more attention to “find[ing] these subtle mutations, these molecular insults, and fixing them, targeting them, and doing it for human cells and microbial cells.” Through organized models and increased distribution, Mason adds, scientists are making these processes more cost-effective.

Keep what works, cut what doesn’t

While many athletes find diagnostic technologies and vitality-enhancing supplements incredibly useful, others may find that reliance on such products can lead to more pressure.

Wearables can help create a sense of consistency and control on the playing field, but these devices have made by far the most significant difference in recovery time. Mihić says, “My challenge with the players is not so much the training, it’s how much recovery time I can get them. So being able to measure … their rest, measure their inflammatory factors is what makes a difference to … how well I can prepare an individual, and by consequence, our team to play.” By tracking metrics such as strain, stress, sleep, and more, athletes can target exactly what is needed for recovery.

On the flip side, the data can be hard to tune out. Wells cautions athletes against leaning on it too heavily: “The worst thing that we can do as an athlete is the paralysis by analysis situation where you’re thinking that these are going to tell you exactly how you feel.” He continues, “If every single day that I had a bad Whoop score, a bad Oura score … it [would] ruin every bit of mental competitiveness that I have.”

For athletes, the pressure to perform is already mentally taxing as well as physically exhausting. The value of these tools, then, depends on how they’re used: as one input that informs training and recovery, not a daily verdict on how an athlete feels or what they can do.

Ultimately, the player should always be considered first. “It’s always all about the player. It’s always about the individual athlete,” says Mihić.