Bryan Johnson
Blueprint
Peter Attia
Outlive Framework
Andrew Huberman
Supplement Stack
David Sinclair
NAD+ Protocol
| Intervention | Blueprint | Attia | Huberman | Sinclair | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exercise | |||||
| Zone 2 cardio | ✓ | ✓ (primary) | ✓ | — | High |
| Strength training | ✓ | ✓ (primary) | ✓ | — | High |
| VO₂max focus | ✓ | ✓ (central thesis) | — | — | High |
| Flexibility/mobility | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | Moderate |
| Diet & Fasting | |||||
| Caloric restriction | ✓ (~1,977 cal) | Careful (not dogmatic) | — | ✓ (advocates) | High |
| Plant-heavy diet | ✓ (near-vegan) | Moderate (flexible) | — | — | High |
| EVOO heavy use | ✓ | ✓ | — | — | High |
| Time-restricted eating | — | Cautious | ✓ | ✓ | Moderate |
| Supplements & Compounds | |||||
| Rapamycin | ✓ | Interested, cautious | — | — | High (animal) |
| Metformin | ✓ | Sometimes (varies) | — | ✓ | High |
| NMN / NR | ✓ | Skeptical | ✓ (NMN) | ✓ (central) | Moderate |
| Resveratrol | — | — | ✓ | ✓ (central) | Weak |
| Omega-3 (EPA/DHA) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | High |
| Vitamin D3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | High |
| Creatine | ✓ | — | ✓ | — | High |
| Ashwagandha | ✓ | — | ✓ | — | Moderate |
| AG1 / greens powder | — | — | ✓ (sponsor) | — | Weak |
| Sleep & Recovery | |||||
| Strict sleep schedule | ✓ (8:30pm) | ✓ | ✓ (primary) | — | High |
| Cool sleeping temp | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | High |
| Morning light exposure | — | — | ✓ (primary) | — | Moderate |
| Advanced / Speculative | |||||
| Biomarker tracking | ✓ (100+ markers) | ✓ (extensive) | Some | Some | High |
| Blood plasma exchange | ✓ | — | — | — | Weak |
| Red light therapy | ✓ | — | ✓ | — | Mixed |
The foundation is the same. Every serious longevity framework converges on exercise, sleep, and basic nutritional quality. The disagreements are at the edges — supplements, fasting protocols, and speculative interventions. If you took only the interventions where all four agree, you'd already have a strong evidence-based protocol.
Attia is the most evidence-conservative. His framework emphasizes the interventions with the deepest human outcome data (exercise, sleep, metabolic health) and is notably cautious about supplements without strong RCT evidence. If evidence-grade matters most to you, Attia's framework scores highest because it takes fewer speculative swings.
Blueprint is the most comprehensive. Johnson tests more interventions, measures more biomarkers, and publishes more data than anyone else. The tradeoff is that comprehensive means speculative edges (plasma exchange, collagen) drag the average evidence score down. But the measurement system itself is valuable — it makes Blueprint adaptive in a way the others aren't.
Huberman is neuroscience-first, longevity-second. His stack is optimized for cognitive performance, stress resilience, and sleep — with longevity as a secondary benefit. Many of his supplement recommendations have moderate evidence for their stated purpose (focus, cortisol, sleep quality) but weaker evidence for lifespan extension specifically.
Sinclair's protocol has the weakest human longevity evidence. The NMN + resveratrol core has strong mechanistic rationale and impressive animal data, but the human outcome evidence is thinner than the other three frameworks. Sinclair's commercial relationships with the supplement industry also create conflict-of-interest concerns that the others largely avoid.
The real insight: No single protocol "wins." The smartest approach is to build from the shared foundation (exercise, sleep, diet quality, key supplements with strong evidence) and then make deliberate, evidence-graded choices about what speculative layers to add. That's exactly what the audit tool is built to help with.