YEARS

Growth Lead

Business Development & Operations

NOVA SBE Data, Operations & Technology Knowledge Center

Visiting Thesis Researcher

Venture Capital Investment Analyst

OneClimate

Founder’s Associate, Business Intelligence

wattx

Deep Tech Venture Development

Deloitte

Turnaround, Restructuring & Transaction Advisory

Econum Unternehmensberatung GmbH

Management Consulting

UROMED Kurt Drews KG

Cross-departmental

I'm Niko. I write, build, and think about longevity.

I focus on what moves the industry forward: prevention that works, diagnostics that matter, and systems that connect behavior, biology, and tech. I track the signals — funding, science, startups, policies — and cut through the noise so others don’t have to.

My background blends data, strategy, and health. I’m not a doctor, and I’m not pretending to be. But I work with people across science, medicine, and tech to translate what’s emerging into what’s actionable.

The goal? To help longevity evolve from hype to infrastructure — and make it usable for more people, not just the elite few.

🧠 Weekly insights without the BS: nikohems.substack.com
🔍 More at: www.nikohems.de

I listened to 10 longevity experts. 9 gave different answers. That’s a problem.

The question was simple: "What's the most important thing people should do for longevity?"

The answers?
• Biogerontologist → "Target cellular senescence"
• Biohacker influencer → “Take 80 supplements a day and you’ll live to 180.”
• IV clinic owner → “One IV infusion per month will keep you young.”
• Red light therapy guru → “Stand naked in front of a red light panel for 20 minutes daily.”
• Cryonics advocate → “Don’t worry about health now, just freeze your body when you die.”
• Biotech founder → "Track your biomarkers religiously"
• Nutritionist → "Go plant-based"
• Another nutritionist → "Eat more protein, especially meat"
• Geneticist → "Know your risk factors"

No consensus. Each expert stayed in their lane. Result: confusion.

Why can't experts agree? Three core issues:

1. We don't even agree what "aging" is
Some define it biologically → cellular damage, epigenetic drift
Others clinically → disease onset, functional decline
Without a shared definition, how can we have shared solutions?

2. Everyone's looking through their own lens
Ask a hammer, everything's a nail. Each expert sees longevity through their specialty, often missing the bigger picture.

3. Evidence is a mess
Caloric restriction? Decades of animal data, limited human trials.
Rapamycin? Works in mice, untested at scale in humans.
NMN/Resveratrol? Mechanistically interesting, clinically disappointing.

The nutrition wars are the worst offender.

Vegan advocates cite Blue Zones and epidemiology.
Carnivore proponents point to ancestral health and biomarkers.
Both cherry-pick studies. Both ignore confounders. Both claim superiority.

Why? Because health information is fragmented:
• Self-reported data → people lie about food
• Lifestyle confounding → vegans exercise more, carnivores often come from SAD diets
• Commercial incentives → whether it’s supplement brands, influencers, or film producers, financial interests shape the narrative

This chaos has consequences:

Consumers get lost → They follow whoever shouts loudest or promises most
Snake oil thrives → Bold claims fill the vacuum of uncertainty  
Trust erodes → When experts can't agree, why believe any of them?

The tragic irony? While experts argue about optimization protocols, we often ignore what we DO know works:

Move your body. Don't smoke. Sleep enough. Manage stress. Connect with others. Eat real food (whatever version works for you).

Until we admit the uncertainty, until we acknowledge the limits of our knowledge, until we stop pretending we have all the answers → the confusion will only grow.

And people looking for clarity? They'll keep getting noise.

♻️ Repost if you believe honesty about uncertainty beats false confidence.

Follow Niko Hems for more on cutting through the longevity confusion.

Niko Hems

On a mission to extend your healthy lifespan | Growth @ YEARS | Nova SBE, UC Berkeley & Studienstiftung Alum | Favikon #2 Aging & Longevity Voice Germany

Same person walks into 10 "longevity" clinics. Gets 10 wildly different treatment plans.

This is what happens there:

Clinic A → "Your NAD+ is depleted. €2,000 IV protocol, twice weekly"
Clinic B → "NAD+ IVs? Waste of money. You need peptide therapy"
Clinic C → "Your methylation pathways need optimization"

Same blood work. Same health history. Completely different conclusions.

The hormone clinic sees hormone problems. The IV clinic sees nutrient deficiencies and the peptide specialist has a peptide specific to every of your problems.

One clinic's "essential intervention" is another's "dangerous fad."

Clinic D insists → "Metformin for longevity, proven science"
Clinic E warns → "Metformin blocks exercise benefits, avoid it"
Clinic F shrugs → "Try berberine instead, it's natural"

Also there is testing chaos:
⟶ Full genome sequencing ("essential") vs "genetic testing is premature"
⟶ Quarterly biomarker panels vs annual basics
⟶ Biological age tests that vary by 20 years between companies

What this circus reveals:

We're in the Wild West era of longevity medicine. No standardized protocols. No consensus on basics. Each clinic operating from their own playbook.

Many interventions haven't been properly studied for longevity. We're running population-wide experiments with paying customers as guinea pigs.

This isn't really about good vs bad clinics. Even well-intentioned practitioners disagree on fundamentals because the science isn't settled yet.

The responsible clinics acknowledge this uncertainty. They track outcomes, adjust protocols, admit what they don't know.

The others? They sell certainty that doesn't exist.

It's your money, your health and your choice.

But at least know what game you're playing.

♻️ Repost if you think the longevity industry needs more consensus, less chaos.

Follow Niko Hems for honest takes on navigating the longevity landscape.

Biological age tests are becoming the wellness world's new crystal ball.

One test says you're 19. Another says 45. Same person, same day - just different algorithms playing with numbers.

Each company picks their favorite biomarkers from hundreds available. Some love telomeres. Others swear by methylation patterns. Nobody agrees on what actually matters.

People are spending €500 per test, checking quarterly, and stressing when their age "jumps" overnight.

Meanwhile, actual aging researchers have at least 10 different ways to measure biological age - and none consistently predict how long or how well you'll live.

Want to know actually good predictors of healthy aging? 

• Getting up from a chair easily without your arms
• Balancing on one foot
• Walking speed
• Grip strength

All free. All proven. No algorithms needed.

I'm not saying these tests are worthless - they can track certain health markers. But treating them as your "true biological age" is like checking your horoscope for medical advice.

Your biological age changes based on which company's test you buy.

Your actual health? That's shaped by your daily habits.

♻️ Share if you think health tracking should be simpler.

Follow Niko Hems for more friendly reality checks on wellness trends.

The wellness industry's favorite manipulation tactic: "Studies show..."

That supplement with "40 studies backing it"? 38 were in petri dishes. 2 were in mice. Zero in humans.

The hierarchy of evidence exists for a reason, but supplement companies bank on you not knowing it:

• Petri dish studies → "mechanistically interesting" (translation: we may have generated an hypothesis for further testing)
• Mouse studies → "promising preclinical data" (interesting but often not replicable in humans)
• Small human trials → "preliminary evidence" (10 people, no controls, industry-funded is not showing much)
• Large RCTs → actual evidence (but these rarely happen for supplements → Too expensive)

"Mechanistically interesting" is the wellness world's favorite weasel phrase. It sounds scientific but it means nothing clinically.

Your cells do millions of things in petri dishes they'd never do in your body. Vitamin C kills cancer cells in a dish. So does bleach. Neither cures cancer.

My 3-question filter for spotting cherry-picked science:

1. Were the studies done in humans?
If they lead with cell or animal studies, that's your red flag. Human physiology is complex. What works in isolation rarely translates.

2. What's the quality of evidence?
Meta-analysis of RCTs > single RCT > observational studies > case reports > petri dishes. Most supplement "research"? Bottom tier.

3. Who funded it and what are they selling?
Industry-funded studies find positive results way more often. When the company selling the supplement also funded the only "supporting" study... you know.

Real science is boring. But boring doesn't sell bottles.

So they weaponize the word "studies" – knowing most people won't check if those studies involved actual humans, had proper controls, or showed meaningful clinical outcomes.

Your health deserves better than petri dish promises.

♻️ Repost if you think "studies show" should mean actual human evidence.

Follow Niko Hems for more on spotting wellness manipulation tactics.

You’ve been lied to about statins, seed oils, and EMFs.

It’s not always the substance that harms you. It’s your brain.

Introducing: Nocebo. It's placebo's evil twin. Expect harm → experience harm. Your brain literally creates the symptoms you fear.

To be crystal clear: Real medical issues exist. Real toxins exist. Real side effects exist. But nocebo amplifies everything.

The evidence on this is pretty interesting:

Statins tell the story perfectly. When trials are blinded, muscle pain rates are similar on statin and placebo. When patients know they're on a statin, reports jump. Same drug. Different expectations. Real pain.

Brain scans show why → Expecting harm activates stress pathways. Cortisol spikes. Inflammation increases. You feel genuinely sick from nothing but expectation.

In some trials, nocebo accounts for up to half of reported side effects. Some people stop life-saving medications because of symptoms their brain created.

The wellness space sadly weaponizes this:

"Seed oils are toxic!" → Feel sick after restaurant meals
"EMFs are killing you!" → Headaches near WiFi

Fear-mongering content gets engagement. But it's literally making people sick.

The more you read about "hidden toxins," the more symptoms you develop. The more symptoms you report online, the more others expect them. It's a nocebo epidemic.

Your body is incredibly suggestible. Every scare story programs your nervous system to create those exact symptoms.

Next time you feel sick after trying something new, ask yourself: 

Is it the substance, or the story you've been told about it?

Understanding the difference could transform your health.

♻️ Repost if you believe we need to talk about nocebo as much as we talk about toxins.

Follow Niko Hems for more on the psychology of health and longevity.

"Preventing a heart attack doesn’t make money"

This isn't a lie. It's the uncomfortable truth about our broken system.

I've spent years analyzing healthcare economics. The numbers are damning:

• Prevented heart attack → €100 in check-up fees
• Treated heart attack → €10,000+ in procedures, meds, follow-ups

Prevention DOES work.
It just doesn't pay.

And that's exactly the problem.

Our entire system is architected to profit from disease:

Pharma companies: Need sick patients buying medications for life. Healthy people don't generate recurring revenue.

Hospitals: Built their business models around expensive intervention units. Empty cardiac wards mean bankruptcy.

Insurance: Collects premiums either way. Why push for changes that require upfront investment? Also no money to plan for ROI which you'll only see years later. 

Politicians: Face voters every 4 years. Prevention payoffs take decades.

The evidence for prevention is overwhelming though:
• Lifestyle changes cut diabetes risk by >50%
• Mediterranean diets reduce heart disease by approx. 30%
• Basic interventions add healthy years to life

But evidence doesn't pay quarterly dividends.

I've watched countless startups try to "fix" this with apps and trackers. They fail because they're fighting both human nature AND a system designed to reward the opposite of what they're selling.

The few succeeding stopped trying to reform the system and built around it:
→ Direct-to-consumer prevention clinics
→ Subscription models that capture value differently
→ Corporate wellness programs with immediate ROI metrics

The brutal reality: We have a "healthcare" system that's actually a "disease management" system.

And it's working exactly as designed.

Real change won't come from hoping hospitals suddenly prefer empty beds or pharma companies celebrate fewer customers.

It'll come from building parallel systems where the incentives finally align with keeping people healthy.

♻️ Share if you think it's insane that our healthcare system profits more from treating disease than preventing it.

Follow Niko Hems for more uncomfortable truths about health system economics.

Health trackers are killing your (mental) health.

I recently explored this topic for t3n Magazin after my own wake-up call.

My Apple Watch once flagged my "low" heart rate during sleep - 40 bpm. As a tall runner, I knew this was actually a sign of fitness, not danger. But that initial alert? It got my attention.

This made me realize: We've created incredibly powerful tools, but sometimes forget they need context.

The challenge with modern wellness tech:
• Step goals that don't adapt to your life
• Sleep scores that create performance pressure
• Stress alerts that... create more stress

Research shows some sleep trackers can actually disturb sleep - people worry so much about their scores, they struggle to relax.

Here's the thing: The founders creating these products are often optimization enthusiasts themselves. They love data, thrive on metrics, chase personal records. That passion drives innovation!

But not everyone wants to gamify their health. Sometimes we just want gentle support.

The good news? The industry is evolving. More companies are recognizing that:
• Rest days matter as much as active ones
• Mental health needs different metrics than physical fitness
• One size doesn't fit all wellness journeys

What works for me now:
• Using trackers as tools, not judges
• Checking data weekly, not hourly
• Celebrating trends over daily scores
• Remembering that "optimal" is personal

The future of health tech is about smarter, more compassionate design that meets people where they are.

Because true wellness isn't a score to maximize. It's finding what helps YOU thrive.

♻️ Share if you believe health tech should reduce stress, not create it.

Follow Niko Hems for more balanced perspectives on digital wellness.

Only 12% of people orient their lifestyle around healthy aging.

New Boston Consulting Group (BCG) study just dropped the numbers. And they're worse than I thought.

We all say we want to age well. Stay active into our 80s. Be at our grandchild's wedding. Keep our minds sharp.

But here's what BCG found:

67% of us are stuck in the bottom three rungs of their "Longevity Engagement Ladder":
- Dismissers (zero interest)
- Curious (intrigued but frozen)
- Experimenters (trying random stuff)

Only 33% made it to:
- Personalized Optimizers (tailored approach)
- Holistic Pioneers (fully integrated)

The gap? We obsess over the "how" – eat better, sleep more, exercise daily. It feels like endless chores.

We ignore the "why": Your personal motivation that actually drives change.

Meanwhile, one study showed that choosing healthier habits could add up to 24 extra years.

Twenty-four years. From basics we already know.

But knowing isn't doing.

What actually moves people up the ladder? Personalization.

Not another generic wellness app. Not more influencer protocols.

Real personalization that connects your unique "why" with a sustainable "how."

AI tools are starting to crack this – blending data, behavior science, and human coaching. But tech alone won't fix our fragmented systems:
- Siloed medical records
- Limited preventive care
- Workforce strains

We need everyone involved: individuals taking ownership, tech making it personal, health systems supporting prevention, policy creating incentives.

Because waiting until you're sick to care about health? That's the most expensive choice you'll ever make.

Both financially and in years lost.

Which rung are you on?

♻️ Repost if you believe personalized prevention beats generic wellness advice.

Follow Niko Hems for more on making longevity actionable, not aspirational.

p.s. shoutout to Simon for sending me the study

Why are humans so susceptible to extremism and bullshit?

Evolution wired us to survive, not think critically. And the wellness industry knows exactly which buttons to push.

Our pattern-seeking brains once kept us alive → better to mistake a shadow for a predator than ignore a real threat. Today? That same wiring makes us easy marks.

Our biases betray us pretty much everyday:
• Confirmation bias → We screenshot the one study supporting our routine, ignore the 99 that don't
• Authority bias → Lab coat = instant credibility, even for snake oil
• Availability heuristic → One dramatic testimonial > thousand data points

Fear and hope get weaponized:
"Your telomeres are shortening!"
"This protocol reversed my biological age!"
"Only 3 bottles left!"

Real science speaks in probabilities: "might reduce risk by 15% in certain populations." But who wants uncertainty when someone promises to "unlock your longevity genes"?

Then, we default to what feels right:
• Charismatic influencer > cautious researcher
• Simple hack > lifestyle change
• Testimonial > meta-analysis

Add social proof (10,000 buyers can't be wrong!) and instant gratification (why exercise for months when this pill works in days?) → perfect storm.

The problem? The cognitive biases that protected us for millennia now make us vulnerable to anyone selling certainty.

Your defense? Recognize the patterns. When someone promises simple answers to complex problems, when urgency overrides evidence, when emotion drowns data → that's your ancient wiring being used against you.

Evolution gave us these biases. We don't have to let them control our decisions.

♻️ Repost if you believe understanding our biases is the first step to better decisions.

Follow Niko Hems for more on navigating the BS in wellness and longevity.

The longevity space has a transparency challenge.

Most creators share their wins: improved VO2 max, optimized bloodwork, better sleep. Success stories inspire us - and that's great!

But what about the experiments that didn't work?

The NAD+ protocol that tanked energy. The €500/month routine that changed nothing or the trending diet that crashed their hormones?

These stories vanish. Because "optimization expert" brands don't include failure.

At the same time, followers waste months chasing someone else's biology.

There is good news though: More creators are starting to share their full journey:

"This popular protocol didn't work for me"
"I was wrong about this supplement"
"My markers actually got worse on X"

Not as shame - as valuable data that helps everyone learn faster. Because what works for one person often fails for another. 

They simply have different genetics, different contexts or different lives.

The creators who share both successes AND setbacks? They're the ones actually advancing the field. They understand that real optimization comes from learning together.

Your "failed" experiment might save someone else months of frustration and hundreds of euros.

That's the future we're building (At least I hope so): Less perfection, more progress.

♻️ Share if you appreciate creators who share both successes AND setbacks.

Follow Niko Hems for balanced perspectives on health optimization.

"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

One of the most important phrases in science — and one of the most misused in wellness.

On the positive side, yes:

Not everything has been studied. Research funding flows to profitable drugs, not prevention (mostly). 

Sometimes it's reasonable to experiment under guidance, track results, and adjust.

But watch the shadow side unfold:

That same phrase becomes the wellness industry's favorite loophole.

"We can't prove it doesn't work" justifies €500 protocols, untested interventions, and "biohacks" with zero accountability.

Scientific humility gets weaponized into marketing hype.

I've seen both sides. The researcher frustrated by how slowly evidence accumulates. The consumer confused by claims hiding behind this principle.

The real challenge is balance:

Stay curious about what hasn't been studied yet. But don't let curiosity become gullibility.

Apply critical thinking especially when evidence is absent. Track real outcomes, not just feelings.

Know the difference between responsible experimentation and exploitation.

Because absence of evidence creates responsibility, not permission.

The pioneers document everything. They measure. They share failures alongside successes. They build evidence where none exists.

The charlatans just point to the gap.

Your health deserves better than being someone's uncontrolled experiment.

♻️ Repost if you believe scientific principles shouldn't be marketing tools.

Follow Niko Hems for more on navigating the space between skepticism and possibility.

Next Tuesday you’ll find me at AgeTechX Berlin - the only place where mitochondria get more attention than influencers ;)

Come say hi if you’re around!

After Berkeley, I hit rock bottom. My body had completely shut down.

YEARS scan showed my VO2 peak at 32. For context, that's what you'd expect from someone who never exercises.

But I'd always been active. Constantly doing sports.

The problem? My "broken" nervous system from panic disorder made exercise impossible. My body couldn't handle any stress.

My HOMA Index was also telling - close to insulin sensitivity issues. Metabolically, I wasn't in a good place either.

This is my starting point.

Not where I wanted to be. But where I am.

The numbers don't lie:
- VO2 peak: 32 (should be 45+ for my age)
- HOMA Index: borderline metabolic dysfunction
- Nervous system: completely dysregulated
- Exercise tolerance: basically zero

I'm sharing this because real health transformation starts with brutal honesty about where you're at.

Not where you think you should be.
Not where you used to be.
Where you actually are.

Over the next weeks, I'll show you the progress as part of our team internal YEARS Health Challenge. Step by step. Test by test.

Because recovery from rock bottom is possible. But it starts with accepting the baseline.

Even when that baseline hurts to look at.

♻️ Repost if you believe in sharing the real starting points, not just the success stories.

Follow Niko Hems for the journey from rock bottom to recovery.

Tired of hearing the same cherry-picked LDL arguments on LinkedIn?

I commented on a post where someone claimed LDL isn't causal. They leaned on "large fluffy LDL is harmless" and "statins only work through inflammation."

These are misleading claims.

LDL and especially ApoB is CAUSALLY linked to cardiovascular disease, shown consistently across clinical trials, genetics, and meta-analyses. It's not just a marker -> lowering it reduces risk, no matter how you do it.

Inflammation, Lp(a), glucose, blood pressure, and lifestyle also matter. It's not either/or — it's "both/and."

Let's bust the myths:

Myth 1: ApoB is just a headcount, big fluffy LDL is harmless
Evidence shows risk follows ApoB particle number. Size adds little once ApoB is accounted for.

Myth 2: The "real" culprits are Lp(a) and small dense LDL
Lp(a) is (very) important, yes. But ApoB still captures risk. Small dense LDL adds little beyond particle number.

Myth 3: Statins only help via anti-inflammatory effects
Wrong. Event reduction tracks LDL/ApoB lowering across statins, ezetimibe, PCSK9s — even when inflammation markers don't change.

Side effects? They exist, but nocebo plays a role as well. Rare serious harms vs. large population-level benefits.

The deeper problem:

People cherry-pick studies that fit their narrative. They use "biological plausibility" as if it's proof. They ignore the full weight of evidence — RCTs, Mendelian randomization, meta-analyses.

I'm not blindly defending statins or guidelines:

Statins can deplete CoQ10. GLP-1 + statin study raised some concerns. Guidelines aren't perfect (nutrition pyramid example).

But ignoring strong causal evidence just because you don't like the conclusion? That's BS.

Challenge everything — yes please. But don't cherry-pick. Look at all the data, weigh it rationally, and then make your conclusions.

Prevention is bigger than LDL, but pretending LDL doesn't matter is just misinformation.

Quick disclaimer: I'm definitely not a medical doctor, and I normally don't talk about medical content directly. But this time I feel like I need to say something. I do have a good stats background and I can read studies.

♻️ Repost if you believe evidence should guide health decisions, not cherry-picked narratives.

Follow Niko Hems for more on cutting through health misinformation.

Taplio

Niko Hems's Linkedin Analytics

's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Want to drive more opportunities from LinkedIn?

Taplio

.css-1jgreyo{background-image:linear-gradient(284deg, rgba(39,43,72,1) 0%, rgba(33,47,183,1) 100%);color:transparent;-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;}Niko Hems's Linkedin Analytics

's Best Posts .css-qqfgvy{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);}(last 30 days)

Want to drive more opportunities from LinkedIn?

Niko Hems's Linkedin Analytics

's Best Posts (last 30 days)