The Two Longevity Camps That Don't Talk
And what can they learn from each other?
I find it interesting that there are two camps of the longevity space, and they hardly interact.
First is the Consumer Camp. This camp includes wearables like Oura and Whoop; digital clinics like Function and Superpower; brick-and-mortar clinics like Next Health and Biograph; and supplement companies like Thorne and Blueprint. All of these Consumer companies are selling longevity today.
Then there’s the Biotech Camp. Unlike the Consumer camp companies which feel ubiquitous, you hear shockingly little about the Biotech Camp companies. These Biotech companies are essentially research labs trying to develop anti-aging pharmaceuticals. But they have multi-year timelines before they’ll bring a drug to market. All of these Biotech companies all trying to sell longevity in the future.
Within this Biotech camp, the most funded companies are working on something called epigenetic reprogramming. In simple terms, they’re trying to reset a cell’s gene expression (basically a cell’s “software”) to return the cell to a younger, more functional state. Companies are racing to turn this science into drugs that can rejuvenate tissues, reverse disease, and potentially expand human lifespan by decades.
The irony is the Consumer camp has driven almost all of the cultural conversation around the longevity space, but the Biotech camp has quietly raised the bulk of VC funding. Take the three epigenetic reprogramming labs that have been funded by billionaires:
NewLimit, co-founded by Brian Armstrong, has raised $250 million to date
Retro Biosciences has raised over $1 billion, including $180 million from Sam Altman
Altos Labs raised $3 billion out of the gates, including a chunk from Jeff Bezos, making it the most-funded VC biotech company ever.
NewLimit chronicles their progress on Substack. In their March update, their CEO Jacob Kimmel said they identified multiple ways to make old liver cells behave like younger ones – and they advanced their first drug candidate toward large-scale manufacturing. Jacob also recently went on a podcast and discussed how if NewLimit can concoct an anti-aging drug for one organ, maybe they could figure it out for the whole body. That could push life expectancies by years or decades – way more than Whoop, Function or any other Consumer longevity company could justify today.
Interestingly, both the Consumer camp and the Biotech camp share the goal of advancing human longevity. But they have diametrically different approaches.
The Consumer founders are brilliant marketers. The Biotech founders are brilliant scientists. The Consumer companies promote their fundraises. The Biotech companies mostly move in stealth. The Consumer camp would argue they’re driving real health outcomes today. The Biotech camp would argue they’re going to drive much larger health outcomes in the future. The two camps have different founder circles, different conferences, and different X timelines.
My question is: What can the Consumer camps and Biotech camps learn from one another?
Let’s start with what the Consumer camp can learn from the Biotech camp.
Historically, the dominant heuristic in health & wellness has been “no pain, no gain.” Want to be skinny? Eat well. Want big biceps? Hit the gym.
In the last couple years, that heuristic has started to break. GLP-1s introduced the idea that a miracle drug could help you lose weight with much less work than before. GLP-1s offered big gains, little pain. Peptides – and the 14 compounds the FDA is expected to reclassify – could very much reinforce that idea. Human nature will always take the easy route to the same outcome if it’s available. If one of these epigenetic reprogramming labs pioneers a miracle drug that has broad anti-aging effects, and only requires a pill or small injection, I guarantee people will take it.
In comparison, so much of the modern consumer longevity stack takes a ton of work. The supreme biohacker might monitor their Function bloods, Prenuvo MRIs, Oura sleep score – and buy Thorne supplements, Blueprint meal kits, and Restore Hyperwellness IVs. But all that is an exhausting amount of work, and the average consumer won’t do it.
If the Consumer camp can take one lesson from the Biotech camp, it’s this north star: How do you make products that drive real health outcomes, and don’t feel like work?
Now let’s consider what the Biotech camp can learn from the Consumer camp.
For the next decade-plus, the Biotech camp will have their hands full with developing epigenetic reprogramming techniques and grinding through preclinical and clinical trials, all in the hopes of turning their discoveries into FDA-approved drugs.
But if they succeed – if a company like NewLimit develops a drug that slows aging – the challenge won’t be scientific anymore, it’ll be behavioral. You can’t just develop an effective drug. You have to convince customers to trust and take it. That’s where the Consumer camp comes in. Brand, PR and distribution will all be critical to help turn an abstract “anti-aging” drug into a mainstream consumer product.
GLP-1s are a great case study. We’ve seen a tidal wave of consumer marketing. Take Ro. Every time I step on the New York subway, I see Serena Williams jabbing herself with a Ro needle. Or take Medvi, the two-person startup that (reportedly) drove $400M in compounded GLP-1 sales all via social media micro-influencers. Both Ro and Medvi companies figured out how to turn a novel drug into a mass-market consumer product. If the Biotech camp does bring anti-aging drugs to market, they’ll have a lot to learn from the Consumer camp about marketing and distribution.
I really believe we’re in the early innings of the longevity movement, for both camps. I believe in the Consumer camp because humans will always have willingness to spend on their most important asset, their health. And I believe in the Biotech camp because humans will always take easy health outcomes if they come without a cost. Today the two camps are progressing in siloes. But as the longevity space grows, I think we’ll see the convergence of the two camp’s founders, companies and investors.