Preface

Proteostasis loss is one of the recognised hallmarks of ageing: the progressive, age-related decline in the cell’s protein quality-control network (chaperones, the ubiquitin–proteasome system, autophagy–lysosome pathway, and organelle-specific unfolded protein responses), leading to accumulation of misfolded and aggregated proteins.[1][2][3] This summary addresses how to assess and, where justified, intervene on this hallmark in a longevity clinic. The central, honest caveat up front: no intervention has been shown in humans to reverse “proteostasis loss” as such or to extend human lifespan through this mechanism; all pharmacological options below are off-label or experimental, and the human evidence rests almost entirely on surrogate/biomarker endpoints rather than hard clinical outcomes.[4]

1. Scope

– Covered: biological rationale for proteostasis decline in ageing; the human evidence base for interventions plausibly acting (in part) through proteostasis/autophagy/mitophagy — caloric restriction (CALERIE), urolithin A, spermidine, low-dose intermittent rapamycin/sirolimus, NAD⁺ precursors, and structured exercise; patient selection, baseline work-up, dosing, monitoring, contraindications, and practical scenarios.

– Framing: all content is adjunctive to conventional primary/secondary care, never a substitute for it. Interventions are presented with explicit off-label/experimental flags and GRADE-style certainty.

– Not covered: disease-specific management of established proteinopathies (Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, transthyretin amyloidosis), which are secondary-care conditions with their own guidelines; gene/RNA therapies and stem-cell approaches (preclinical only); direct pharmacological “proteasome activators” (no licensed human agents).[5][6]

2. Background and pathophysiology

– Core concept: proteostasis is maintained by a network coordinating protein synthesis, folding, conformational maintenance, and degradation. Its two main degradative arms — the ubiquitin–proteasome system and the autophagy–lysosome pathway — plus molecular chaperones (HSP70, HSP90, small HSPs) and organelle stress responses (ER unfolded protein response, mitochondrial UPR/mitophagy) keep the proteome soluble and functional.[1][7][2]

– Age-related decline: chaperone capacity, proteasome activity, and autophagy all fall with age, favouring accumulation of insoluble/aggregated proteins, particularly in post-mitotic cells such as neurons and myocytes. This underlies the strong age-dependence of neurodegenerative proteinopathies.[1][2][3][7]

– Robust human mechanistic evidence: proteome stability correlates with longevity across species (e.g. naked mole-rat), and centenarians retain comparatively better proteostatic function. In humans, hundreds of proteins become insoluble with age; proteome-wide failure appears to accompany, and may accelerate, ageing. This is associative human/comparative-biology evidence — it establishes relevance, not that modulating proteostasis in an individual patient alters their trajectory.[2][3]

– Preclinical only (clearly separated — not a basis for clinical recommendation): whole-body Atg5 overexpression extends murine lifespan ~20%; proteasome/autophagy-gene overexpression extends lifespan in yeast, C. elegans and Drosophila; the geroprotective effect of spermidine is abolished by deletion of autophagy genes (Atg7, bec-1). These are mechanistically informative but do not translate to human clinical benefit.[2][6][8][9]

3. Evidence base and grading

The human evidence targeting proteostasis is dominated by short trials with surrogate endpoints (autophagy/mitophagy transcripts, inflammatory markers, epigenetic pace-of-aging, muscle endurance). Hard endpoints (mortality, incident dementia, disability) are essentially untested. GRADE-style certainty is given per outcome; the recurring limitations are indirectness (biomarker rather than clinical outcomes; disease cohorts rather than healthy ageing) and imprecision (small n, short duration).

Intervention (mechanism relevant to proteostasis)	Best human outcome studied	GRADE certainty	Strength of recommendation	Key limitations	Ref
Caloric restriction ~12% (CALERIE-2 RCT, n=218, 2 yr)	Slower pace of aging (DunedinPACE 2–3%); improved cardiometabolic markers	Moderate for surrogate; Very low for lifespan	Conditional (offer as lifestyle where appropriate)	Primary DNAm-clock outcomes null; benefit reverses with weight regain; no hard endpoints	[10], [11], [12], [13]
Structured exercise (autophagy/proteasome/chaperone activation)	Function, mortality (broad literature)	Moderate–High for function/mortality (general); Low for proteostasis-specific link	Strong (general health); mechanism = plausibility	Proteostasis mediation not directly demonstrated in humans	[2], [14]
Urolithin A 500–1000 mg/day (mitophagy)	Muscle endurance ↑, ATP/6-min walk not significant; ↓CRP/acylcarnitines	Low–Moderate (surrogate/secondary endpoints)	Conditional / only in research for hard outcomes	Primary endpoints negative in RCT; short duration	[15], [16], [17]
Spermidine (autophagy induction)	Memory in subjective cognitive decline	Moderate that it is INEFFECTIVE at doses tested (12-mo RCT null)	Recommend against for cognition (as tested); only in research otherwise	Pilot positive but definitive SmartAge RCT null	[9], [18], [19]
Low-dose/weekly rapamycin/sirolimus (mTORC1 inhibition → autophagy)	Immune function, lean mass, safety signals	Low	Only in research	No longevity/healthspan RCT; adverse effects; dosing unknown	[4], [20], [21], [22]
NAD⁺ precursors (NR) — engages proteasomal/lysosomal transcription	Brain NAD⁺ ↑, mild clinical signal in PD; safety	Low (phase I, disease-specific)	Only in research	Tiny phase I trials; PD not healthy ageing; no efficacy trial	[23], [24]

CALERIE illustrates the biomarker-vs-outcome gap: it slowed DunedinPACE but did not move PhenoAge or GrimAge clocks (its pre-specified outcomes), and no clinical longevity endpoint was assessed.[11][12]

The following figure from the CALERIE DNA-methylation analysis shows the divergence between the null clock findings and the modest DunedinPACE effect:

Figure 2 Change from baseline to 12- and 24-month follow-up in DNAm measures of aging in the AL and CR groups in the CALERIE Trial. The figure shows CALERIE Trial treatment effects on three DNAm measures of aging, the PC PhenoAge clock, the PC GrimAge clock and DunedinPACE. Values for the AL control group (n = 69 participants) are graphed in blue. Values for the CR treatment group (n = 128 participants) are graphed in red. For the PhenoAge and GrimAge DNAm clocks, values are denominated in ‘years’ of DNAm age. For the clocks, expected change under the null hypothesis is 1 yr at 12-month follow-up and 2 yr at 24-month follow-up. For the DunedinPACE measure, values are denominated in pace-of-aging units scaled to be interpretable as percentage difference in the rate of aging relative to the reference norm of 1 yr of biological decline per calendar year. For DunedinPACE, expected change under the null hypothesis is zero. The left column of the figure shows box plots of the observed values of the measures at baseline and 12- and 24-month follow-ups. The boxes show the interquartile range; the whiskers show 1.5× the interquartile range; the center line shows the median; individual participant data are plotted as dots and connected with lines. For the PC PhenoAge and PC GrimAge DNAm clocks, the box plots show similar patterns of increase in both AL and CR groups. For DunedinPACE, the box plot shows stability in the AL group and decrease in the CR group. The right column of the figure shows mean values of change from baseline and 95% CIs estimated from mixed models at the 12- and 24-month follow-ups for the AL and CR groups. There is no confidence interval estimated for baseline because change from baseline is exactly zero at this timepoint. For the PC PhenoAge and PC GrimAge DNAm clocks, mean change is similar in the AL and CR groups. For DunedinPACE, mean change is positive in the AL group (although the confidence interval overlaps zero at 24 months) and negative in the CR group. mo, months.

The urolithin A RCT (JAMA Network Open) similarly shows negative primary endpoints with positive secondary muscle-endurance/biomarker signals:

Figure 2 Effect of Urolithin A Supplementation on the 6-Minute Walk Distance and Maximal Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) Production in Hand Muscles and Muscle Endurance

4. Patient selection and indications

There is no validated clinical indication to “treat proteostasis loss”. Patient selection is therefore about who might reasonably be offered evidence-supported adjuncts, with informed consent.

– Reasonable candidates (shared decision, adjunctive):

– Middle-aged/older adults seeking risk reduction who can adopt lifestyle measures (moderate caloric restriction/weight optimisation, resistance + aerobic exercise) — the only measures with any hard-outcome support, largely independent of the proteostasis rationale.[10][14]

– Older adults with age-related muscle decline/low endurance who understand urolithin A’s evidence is limited to surrogate/secondary endpoints.[15][16]

– Inclusion considerations: capacity for informed consent; stable comorbidities; no contraindication to the specific agent; willingness to be monitored.

– Exclusion / high-risk (specialist input required):

– Frailty, sarcopenia, low BMI, or unintentional weight loss → avoid caloric restriction (risk of muscle/bone loss, undernutrition).[10]

– Any candidate for immunosuppressant-class agents (rapamycin) with active infection, poor wound healing, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, or immunosuppression.[4][22]

– Established proteinopathy/neurodegenerative disease → manage in secondary care; do not self-initiate off-label agents.

– Regulatory/ethical status:

– Lifestyle measures: appropriate as adjunctive care.

– Urolithin A, spermidine: sold as food supplements (urolithin A has US FDA GRAS status); use for “anti-ageing” is unproven — adjunctive with informed consent, honest about null primary endpoints.

– Rapamycin/sirolimus and NAD⁺ precursors for longevity: off-label/experimental — ideally only within research or registry frameworks.[4][20]

5. Assessment and baseline work-up

– History and examination: full medical/medication/supplement history; frailty and nutritional assessment; falls, cognition screen if indicated; goals-of-care discussion. Use validated tools (e.g. a frailty index/gait speed; grip strength; SPPB or 6-minute walk if function is a target — the endpoints used in the trials above).[15][21]

– Baseline investigations (tailor to the proposed intervention, not to “proteostasis” per se):

– FBC, renal and liver function, HbA1c, fasting lipids, hsCRP.

– For rapamycin/sirolimus (if pursued in a research context): add fasting glucose/HbA1c, lipids, and infection screen; baseline is essential given metabolic and immune effects.[4][22]

– Body composition (DEXA) if caloric restriction or muscle outcomes are targeted, to guard against lean-mass loss.[13]

– Ageing biomarkers — interpret cautiously: epigenetic clocks (e.g. DunedinPACE) and inflammatory markers may be documented for tracking, but must not be used to claim hard clinical benefit; clock changes are not validated surrogates for individual longevity. There is no clinically validated blood “proteostasis panel”.[11][12]

– Documentation for follow-up: weight/BMI and body composition, function (grip, gait, chair-stand/6MWT), metabolic panel, hsCRP, and any biomarker chosen — all with baseline values so change is interpretable.

6. Dosing regimens and practical implementation

Regimens supported by at least surrogate-level human RCT data are separated from those requiring caution.

– Supported by human RCT data (surrogate endpoints):

– Caloric restriction: ~12% sustained reduction in energy intake was achievable and improved cardiometabolic/pace-of-aging markers over 2 years; benefits require maintained weight loss. Deliver via dietitian support; avoid in low-BMI/frail patients.[10][13]

– Urolithin A: 500–1000 mg once daily orally; bioavailable, t½ ≈ 17–22 h; RCT durations 28 days–4 months. 1000 mg/day improved muscle endurance (secondary endpoint) in adults 65–90; 500 mg/day improved lower-limb strength in overweight middle-aged adults. Bypasses the need for microbiome conversion (only ~12% of people produce urolithin A endogenously).[25][15][16]

– Exercise: combined resistance and aerobic training per standard guidance; activates chaperones, proteasome and autophagy in human muscle. This is the most defensible “proteostasis-supporting” prescription.[2]

– Extrapolated / early-phase — use caution or research only:

– Spermidine: trial doses ~0.9–1.2 mg/day added (wheat-germ extract); the definitive 12-month RCT was null for cognition — not recommended as an efficacy intervention at these doses.[19][9]

– Rapamycin/sirolimus: intermittent low-dose (e.g. ~5–6 mg once weekly) has been used in small trials to achieve partial mTORC1 inhibition without mTORC2 blockade; optimal dose/cadence for geroprotection is unknown, and longevity trials do not exist. Only within a trial/registry with monitoring.[4][21]

– NAD⁺ precursors (NR): 1000 mg/day (up to 3000 mg/day tolerated over 4 weeks in PD) raised cerebral NAD⁺ with only exploratory clinical signals — no healthy-ageing efficacy data.[23][24]

7. Monitoring, safety and follow-up

– Clinical monitoring: weight, body composition, and functional measures (grip/gait/chair-stand) at baseline, ~3 months, then 6–12-monthly; watch for unintended weight/lean-mass loss with caloric restriction.[10][13]

– Laboratory monitoring:

– Urolithin A/spermidine/NR: no mandated monitoring; check LFTs/renal function periodically given supplement use and reassess if symptoms arise. Urolithin A RCTs reported no excess adverse events vs placebo; NR up to 3000 mg/day for 4 weeks showed no toxicity signal.[15][16][24]

– Rapamycin/sirolimus (research context): FBC, lipids, fasting glucose/HbA1c, LFTs, and clinical infection surveillance; monitor for mouth ulcers, and be alert to impaired wound healing peri-operatively.[4][22]

– Adverse effects:

– Caloric restriction: fatigue, cold intolerance, bone-density and lean-mass loss if excessive; disordered-eating risk — CALERIE-2 found no adverse psychological signal at ~12% but screen accordingly.[10]

– Urolithin A: adverse events mild/moderate and not different from placebo.[15][16]

– Spermidine: well tolerated; issue is lack of efficacy, not safety.[19]

– Rapamycin/rapalogs: dose-dependent stomatitis, dyslipidaemia, glucose intolerance/insulin resistance (especially with continuous dosing), cytopenias, impaired wound healing, and immunosuppression/infection risk — greater at immunosuppressive doses; adverse effects still occurred in short low-dose trials. Requires dose reduction/cessation and specialist input for significant abnormalities.[4][22]

– NR: no toxicity to 3000 mg/day over 4 weeks; long-term safety unknown.[24]

– Interactions/comorbidity: rapamycin/sirolimus has extensive CYP3A4/P-gp interactions and additive immunosuppression — full reconciliation essential; caution with statins, azoles, macrolides, ciclosporin. NR/urolithin A/spermidine have no well-characterised major interactions but should be recorded.

– Special populations: avoid all of these agents in pregnancy and breastfeeding (no safety data; rapamycin is contraindicated/teratogenicity concerns). Dose-adjust or avoid in significant renal/hepatic impairment. In frailty/extreme age, avoid caloric restriction and prioritise protein-adequate nutrition and resistance exercise.[10]

8. Contraindications and cautions

– Absolute:

– Pregnancy/breastfeeding for all pharmacological/supplement interventions here.

– Rapamycin/sirolimus with active serious infection, or where immunosuppression is unacceptable.

– Caloric restriction in patients who are frail, underweight, or have an active eating disorder.[10]

– Relative / specialist advice needed:

– Diabetes, dyslipidaemia, poor wound healing, planned surgery → rapamycin/sirolimus.[4][22]

– Sarcopenia/osteoporosis → caloric restriction (favour exercise + adequate protein instead).

– Polypharmacy / CYP3A4 substrates → rapamycin/sirolimus.

– Harm likely > benefit with current evidence: initiating rapamycin/sirolimus or NAD⁺ precursors for “longevity” outside a trial in an otherwise healthy person; using any of these agents in place of proven secondary-prevention therapy.

9. Practical management scenarios

Scenario A — Middle-aged patient with multiple cardiometabolic risk factors.

– Recommendation: Offer structured exercise (resistance + aerobic) and dietitian-supported moderate caloric restriction/weight optimisation (conditional, moderate-certainty surrogate evidence; strong for cardiometabolic risk). Consider urolithin A only if the patient specifically wants it and understands the limited evidence (conditional). Avoid rapamycin outside research.[10][13]

– Steps: assess cardiometabolic risk and body composition → shared decision emphasising that hard-outcome benefit comes from the cardiometabolic risk reduction, not from an unproven “anti-ageing” mechanism → initiate lifestyle programme → monitor weight/lean mass, HbA1c, lipids, BP at 3–6 months → escalate to guideline-based pharmacotherapy (statin, antihypertensive, GLP-1/SGLT2 as indicated) via primary/secondary care. Stop caloric restriction if lean-mass loss or disordered eating emerges.

Scenario B — Older, frail patient with multimorbidity.

– Recommendation: Avoid caloric restriction, rapamycin, and experimental agents (strong recommendation against, given harm risk and absent benefit). Offer resistance-based exercise and protein-adequate nutrition. Consider urolithin A 1000 mg/day only as a low-risk adjunct for muscle endurance, with realistic expectations (conditional, low certainty).[10][4][15][16]

– Steps: frailty and nutritional assessment → shared decision prioritising function and safety → supervised exercise + nutrition → monitor grip/gait/weight → refer to geriatric/falls services as needed.

Scenario C — Patient already under specialist care (e.g. Parkinson’s disease, established neurodegeneration) requesting a proteostasis-targeted adjunct.

– Recommendation: Restrict to research only; do not initiate NR, rapamycin, or similar independently (only in research). NADPARK/NR-SAFE are phase I safety/mechanistic trials, not efficacy trials.[23][24]

– Steps: liaise with the treating neurologist → continue all disease-specific therapy unchanged → if the patient wishes to pursue an experimental agent, signpost to a registered clinical trial → document consent and communicate with secondary care. Escalate/stop for any new symptom or interaction.

10. Research gaps and future directions

– Outcome gap: no human RCT links any proteostasis-targeting intervention to hard endpoints (mortality, incident dementia, disability); reliance on surrogates (autophagy transcripts, epigenetic pace-of-aging, muscle endurance) is the central limitation.[4][11]

– Biomarker validation: epigenetic clocks and putative “proteostasis” markers are not validated surrogates for individual outcomes; DunedinPACE moved in CALERIE while GrimAge/PhenoAge did not, underscoring discordance.[11][12]

– Dose/cadence: the optimal, safe geroprotective dosing of rapamycin/sirolimus (continuous vs intermittent) and of NAD⁺ precursors is unknown; long-term safety is untested.[4][21][24]

– Population specificity: effects of caloric restriction and mitophagy activators in frail, older, and female-specific populations remain under-studied; benefits reverse with weight regain.[13]

– Priority: current longevity-oriented use of rapamycin, NAD⁺ precursors and related agents should ideally be confined to well-designed RCTs and registries with functional and clinical (not merely molecular) endpoints.[4][20]

References

1. The Proteostasis Network and Its Decline in Ageing. Hipp MS, Kasturi P, Hartl FU. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology. 2019;20(7):421-435. doi:10.1038/s41580-019-0101-y.
2. Proteostasis and aging. Kaushik S, Cuervo AM. Nature Medicine. 2015;21(12):1406-15. doi:10.1038/nm.4001.
3. From discoveries in ageing research to therapeutics for healthy ageing. Campisi J, Kapahi P, Lithgow GJ, et al. Nature. 2019;571(7764):183-192. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1365-2.
4. Biomarkers of aging: from molecules and surrogates to physiology and function. Furrer R, Handschin C. Physiological Reviews. 2025;105(3):1609-1694. doi:10.1152/physrev.00045.2024.
5. Proteostasis Imbalance: Unraveling Protein Aggregation in Neurodegenerative Diseases and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies. Selvaraj C, Vijayalakshmi P, Desai D, Manoharan J. Advances in Protein Chemistry and Structural Biology. 2025;146:1-34. doi:10.1016/bs.apcsb.2024.11.008.
6. Proteasome Activation Delays Aging in Vitro and in Vivo. Chondrogianni N, Sakellari M, Lefaki M, Papaevgeniou N, Gonos ES. Free Radical Biology & Medicine. 2014;71:303-320. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2014.03.031.
7. Pathways of Cellular Proteostasis in Aging and Disease. Klaips CL, Jayaraj GG, Hartl FU. The Journal of Cell Biology. 2018;217(1):51-63. doi:10.1083/jcb.201709072.
8. Autophagy in healthy aging and disease. Aman Y, Schmauck-Medina T, Hansen M, et al. Nature Aging. 2021;1(8):634-650. doi:10.1038/s43587-021-00098-4.
9. Mechanisms of spermidine-induced autophagy and geroprotection. Hofer SJ, Simon AK, Bergmann M, et al. Nature Aging. 2022;2(12):1112-1129. doi:10.1038/s43587-022-00322-9.
10. Effects of Caloric Restriction on Human Physiological, Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes: Highlights From CALERIE Phase 2. Dorling JL, van Vliet S, Huffman KM, et al. Nutrition Reviews. 2021;79(1):98-113. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuaa085.
11. Cut Calories, Lengthen Life Span? Randomized Trial Uncovers Evidence That Calorie Restriction Might Slow Aging, but Questions Remain. Rubin R. JAMA. 2023;329(13):1049-1050. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.2437.
12. Effect of long-term caloric restriction on DNA methylation measures of biological aging in healthy adults from the CALERIE trial. Waziry R, Ryan CP, Corcoran DL, et al. Nature Aging. 2023;3(3):248-257. doi:10.1038/s43587-022-00357-y.
13. Weight Regain Reverses Caloric Restriction-Induced Benefits on the Insulin-Igf-1 Nutrient-Sensing Pathway: Post Hoc Analysis From the CALERIE-2 Randomized Controlled Trial. Warmbrunn MV, Yang L, Kishore Biswas R, et al. Diabetes Care. 2026;49(5):783-791. doi:10.2337/dc25-1911.
14. Lifestyle Strategies to Promote Proteostasis and Reduce the Risk of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Proteinopathies. Almeida MF, Farizatto KLG, Almeida RS, Bahr BA. Ageing Research Reviews. 2024;93:102162. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2023.102162.
15. Effect of Urolithin A Supplementation on Muscle Endurance and Mitochondrial Health in Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Liu S, D’Amico D, Shankland E, et al. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(1):e2144279. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.44279.
16. Targeting Aging With Urolithin a in Humans: A Systematic Review. Kuerec AH, Lim XK, Khoo AL, et al. Ageing Research Reviews. 2024;100:102406. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2024.102406.
17. The mitophagy activator urolithin A is safe and induces a molecular signature of improved mitochondrial and cellular health in humans. Andreux PA, Blanco-Bose W, Ryu D, et al. Nature Metabolism. 2019;1(6):595-603. doi:10.1038/s42255-019-0073-4.
18. The Effect of Spermidine on Memory Performance in Older Adults at Risk for Dementia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Wirth M, Benson G, Schwarz C, et al. Cortex; A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior. 2018;109:181-188. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2018.09.014.
19. Effects of Spermidine Supplementation on Cognition and Biomarkers in Older Adults With Subjective Cognitive Decline: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Schwarz C, Benson GS, Horn N, et al. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(5):e2213875. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.13875.
20. Impact of Geroscience on Therapeutic Strategies for Older Adults With Cardiovascular Disease: JACC Scientific Statement. Forman DE, Kuchel GA, Newman JC, et al. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2023;82(7):631-647. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2023.05.038.
21. Exercise and Weekly Sirolimus (Rapamycin) in Older Adults: RAPA‐EX‐01 Randomised, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Trial. Stanfield B, Leroux B, Kaeberlein M, Jones J, Lucas R. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle. 2026;17(2):e70274. doi:10.1002/jcsm.70274.
22. Can aging be ‘drugged’?. Riera CE, Dillin A. Nature Medicine. 2015;21(12):1400-5. doi:10.1038/nm.4005.
23. The NADPARK Study: A Randomized Phase I Trial of Nicotinamide Riboside Supplementation in Parkinson’s Disease. Brakedal B, Dölle C, Riemer F, et al. Cell Metabolism. 2022;34(3):396-407.e6. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2022.02.001.
24. NR-SAFE: a randomized, double-blind safety trial of high dose nicotinamide riboside in Parkinson’s disease. Berven H, Kverneng S, Sheard E, et al. Nature Communications. 2023;14(1):7793. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-43514-6.
25. Mitochondria as Nutritional Targets to Maintain Muscle Health and Physical Function During Ageing. Broome SC, Whitfield J, Karagounis LG, Hawley JA. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.). 2024;54(9):2291-2309. doi:10.1007/s40279-024-02072-7.