This week at the ARDD aging conference at Harvard, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly did something they had never done before: they presented actual longevity data on GLP-1 drugs. Not marketing claims, not investor slides, but early research on whether these medications affect the biology of aging. Both companies were heavily caveated, and so am I. But the data is worth talking about, because your patients are going to ask you about it.
What Novo showed
Novo’s research lead presented work suggesting semaglutide “may” support healthier aging. The headline number: modeling based on the SELECT cardiovascular trial, applied to a UK real-world cohort of about 19,000 semaglutide users, projected a gain of roughly 1.9 remaining life years, across every age group, with the largest gains at younger treatment ages.
The more interesting part was the biology. Across cardiovascular outcome trials, semaglutide users showed lower proteomic biological age estimates, and the effect showed up fast, within 13 to 20 weeks, and was sustained or even enhanced over 150 weeks. The proteomic signatures pointed to improvements in vitality and locomotion, which is another way of saying people kept moving better.
Separately, a 2026 paper in Nature Communications found semaglutide slowed epigenetic aging in a randomized trial: reduced risk of all-cause mortality associated aging in about a third of participants as measured by the PCGrimAge clock, and longer telomeres in nearly half, and those participants also tended to walk faster. The researchers were careful to say this is a signal, not proof of reversed aging.
What it does not mean
It does not mean these drugs are proven longevity therapies. The life-year numbers are modeled, not observed. The aging data is early, much of it unpublished, and both companies stressed how preliminary it is. We also have a fresh reminder that GLP-1 enthusiasm has limits: Novo’s own Alzheimer’s trials of semaglutide, in 3,800 participants, came back flat, and neurologists are now saying an Alzheimer’s-specific trial would be hard to justify.
The takeaway for anyone focused on aging well
The GLP-1 story is becoming a longevity story, and as a physician working in age management, I find that genuinely encouraging. But here is what counts in the clinic: the drugs look like they amplify what a healthy lifestyle already does. The trials that show the best function gains are the ones paired with movement, protein, and sleep. No medication replaces resistance training, cardio fitness, and the basics of metabolic health, and nothing in this new data changes that.
If you are on a GLP-1, or considering one, the conversation with your doctor should now include more than weight. It should include muscle, function, and how you are actually aging. That is the part I care about most.
longevity.technology coverage of the ARDD 2026 presentations