A Longevity Supplement Just Passed a Real Human Trial: What the NOVOS STAMINA Results Show — and What They Don't

What the Trial Actually Did

STAMINA (Effects of a Supplement to Target Ageing Mechanisms on Vascular Function) was a single-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial — the standard design for a credible human study. It enrolled 61 apparently healthy, non-smoking adults aged 40 and older: 33 took NOVOS Core and 28 took a placebo matched for look and taste. Each participant took one 15-gram serving a day for six months. People with unstable cardiovascular disease, heart rhythm disorders, or active cancer were excluded.

The trial is registered as NCT06145087 and was investigator-initiated, meaning the university researchers ran it. NOVOS provided the supplement and the matching placebo plus an unrestricted contribution toward research costs, but, according to the announcement, had no role in the study design, data collection, primary interpretation of the data, or the decision to publish, and the University of Surrey researchers retained control of the study data. That separation matters: company-funded research is common, but company-controlled research is a different thing.

One detail raised the bar further. The volunteers were healthy, and their vascular measures already sat within normal ranges at the start. Improvements are harder to show in people who are already in the normal range, because there is less room to move — which makes a measurable change more interesting, not less.

The Three Results

After six months, the NOVOS Core group improved compared with placebo on all three of the trial's vascular endpoints:

• Blood vessel function. Flow-mediated dilation (FMD) — the trial's primary endpoint and an established measure of how well arteries widen as blood flow increases — rose by 47% from baseline in the NOVOS Core group. The adjusted improvement versus placebo was 2.9 percentage points, a magnitude considered clinically meaningful in published vascular research. Strikingly, blood vessel function improved within an hour of the first serving, sitting an adjusted 3.9 percentage points above placebo at that point, and the gains held: the six-month measurements were taken in a fasted state, roughly 24 hours after each participant's last serving.
• Arterial flexibility. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), the standard measure of arterial stiffness and a marker of vascular aging, fell with NOVOS Core and rose with placebo — an adjusted between-group difference of 1.18 metres per second. Pulse wave velocity typically rises by about 1.0 metre per second per decade across adulthood, so a difference of this size is commonly associated in the literature with multi-year differences in vascular aging.
• Blood pressure. Systolic blood pressure fell further with NOVOS Core than with placebo over six months, an adjusted difference of 6.1 mmHg. Participants' average blood pressure was within the normal range at the start, and systolic pressure typically rises with age as arteries stiffen — in this trial, it moved in the healthier direction instead.

Cholesterol and other blood lipids stayed the same, suggesting the changes were not explained by lipid lowering. Participants who started with the weakest blood vessel function and the highest blood pressure tended to improve the most. Independent coverage of the study also notes that estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk decreased modestly, largely reflecting the blood pressure difference.

Lead investigator Professor Christian Heiss, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at the University of Surrey, put it this way: "Our hypothesis in this study was whether a multi-component supplement addresses many biological and biochemical processes related to vascular aging and has an effect on measures of vascular health. We found favourable changes in endothelial function, arterial stiffness and systolic blood pressure after six months. These findings are encouraging, and supplements can be a part of a healthy lifestyle."

Why Blood Vessels Are the Right First Test

NOVOS Core combines 12 ingredients in one daily drink mix, each selected, according to the company, for evidence that it acts on several of the 12 biological hallmarks of aging. Testing that kind of multi-ingredient formula on blood vessels first makes scientific sense: the cardiovascular system supplies every cell and organ in the body, it is one of the first systems to show signs of aging, and cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death worldwide.

That is the central idea of geroscience — the field studying whether slowing the biology of aging itself can delay many age-related conditions at once, rather than treating each one separately. Blood vessels are a good early readout for that idea because they show aging years before symptoms appear, and their condition affects every organ they supply. Three independent vascular measures moving in the same direction is, as the researchers frame it, early human evidence consistent with that hypothesis.

Most longevity products never reach this stage at all. A peer-reviewed, placebo-controlled human trial — even a small one — puts a product in a different category from formulas supported only by ingredient-level studies or animal data.

What This Does Not Prove

This is exactly the kind of study that gets flattened into a headline like "longevity supplement reverses aging." Here is what STAMINA does not show:

• It does not show fewer heart attacks, strokes, or deaths. The trial measured vascular markers — how arteries function, how stiff they are, and blood pressure — not clinical outcomes. These markers are associated with cardiovascular risk, but they are not the same as preventing disease. Independent coverage of the study is explicit on this point: the study was not designed to assess clinical outcomes.
• It does not prove the formula slows aging itself. Improved vascular markers are consistent with the geroscience hypothesis, but they do not prove a change in biological age or lifespan. Follow-up research in other systems — the company says it is evaluating studies of muscle function, brain and cognition, and skin — would be needed to test the broader claim.
• It is a small, single-centre, six-month trial. Sixty-one participants at one centre is a solid start, not a final answer. Larger, longer, multi-centre trials in more diverse populations are what would turn an encouraging signal into a settled finding. The published paper itself describes the findings as preliminary.
• It does not apply to everyone. The participants were healthy, non-smoking adults aged 40 and older, without unstable cardiovascular disease, heart rhythm disorders, or active cancer. Nothing in this trial speaks to people outside that group, or to anyone taking blood pressure or heart medication — a group for whom any supplement that affects blood pressure deserves a clinician's input first.
• It does not make the supplement a substitute for the basics. The trial tested a supplement added to people's existing lives, not a replacement for exercise, sleep, not smoking, or blood pressure care. No pill result changes that hierarchy.

In short: this is a real, peer-reviewed human signal in the right direction, from a small trial, on surrogate markers, over six months. That is worth reporting — and worth keeping in proportion.

Practical Takeaways for the Longevity-Minded

If you follow longevity research, STAMINA is useful as a yardstick: when a company claims its formula supports healthy aging, ask whether it has a published, placebo-controlled human trial behind that claim, and whether the trial measured something meaningful. Most cannot answer yes. It is also a reminder of where vascular health actually comes from. The measures in this trial — artery function, stiffness, and blood pressure — respond to the unglamorous fundamentals: regular movement, good sleep, not smoking, and keeping blood pressure in a healthy range, with a clinician involved when it is not.

These systems also talk to each other — see our guide on what HRV is and how to improve it.

And if you are considering any supplement that affects blood pressure or vascular function, especially if you take medication or have a heart condition, talk to a qualified healthcare professional first. A trial result is information, not a personal recommendation.

FAQ

The Bottom Line

Longevity science has a credibility problem: big claims, thin human evidence. STAMINA is a step in the opposite direction — a small, well-designed, peer-reviewed human trial in which a multi-ingredient longevity formula improved three measures of vascular health in healthy adults. The effect sizes are meaningful, the design is sound, and the caveats are real: surrogate markers, not outcomes; 61 people, not thousands; six months, not years.

Watch for the larger, longer follow-up trials. If they confirm these results, this will look like an early landmark for the field. If they do not, this will be a reminder of why one trial, however encouraging, is never the whole story.