Digestery
Longevity supplements › Rapamycin and Aging › Studies

Randomized trial · measured the question itself

13-week trial in 40 inactive older adults: rapamycin did not clearly improve chair stands

Stanfield and colleagues · Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2026

Original title: Exercise and Weekly Sirolimus (Rapamycin) in Older Adults: RAPA-EX-01 Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

No difference

Chair-stand gain: sirolimus minus placebo was -2.13 repetitions (95% CI -4.61 to 0.34; p = 0.089). Sirolimus had more side effects (99 vs. 63 events), including one possible drug-related pneumonia.

The study at a glance

Type of study
Randomized trial
Who or what was studied
40 people · 40 inactive adults aged 65 to 85 (average 72.2 years)
What was tested
Sirolimus (rapamycin) 6 mg once a week vs placebo for 13 weeks, with a home exercise program in both groups
What it measured
The question itself: aging and age-related decline
Daily amount
6 mg/week
How long
13 weeks
Who has a stake
Company stake
One author founded a supplement firm; another is CEO and holds equity in Optispan; others work for the CRO. Funding from Dr Brad Stanfield Ltd.
Journal
Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2026
Source
PubMed record 41985884. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • ✓Randomized: people were put into groups by chance, so the groups start out alike.
  • ✓Compared with a placebo, a dummy treatment.
  • –Small: 40 people. Small trials can miss real effects or find chance ones.
  • •Lasted 13 weeks.
  • ✓Measured the question itself: aging and age-related decline.
  • –Company stake: One author founded a supplement firm; another is CEO and holds equity in Optispan; others work for the CRO. Funding from Dr Brad Stanfield Ltd.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

Each dot is one on-topic paper on this question. Steps near the top answer the question more directly.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: aging and age-related decline

    3

    1 benefit, 1 mixed, 1 no difference

    ↑ This study is the ringed dot

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    2

    2 no difference

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    2

    2 benefit

  4. Population studies

    1

    1 no direction

  5. Blood levels and genes

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  6. Animals

    2

    2 benefit

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Does rapamycin slow aging in people?”

Not shown in people.

Confidence: very low. Based on 16 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer

Of the other 2 papers on the same step: 1 benefit, 1 mixed. This one found no difference.

Other papers on the same step

See all 16 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The reviewer corrected 1 field after reading the abstract. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.