Percentage dat later spijt heeft van elke keuze. De balken en het volledige overzicht staan hieronder.
Gezondheid
Laatst beoordeeld 2026-05-30
Kwaliteit van bewijs 4.0/5
Beoordelingsscore op acht dimensies volgens de
kwaliteitsrubriek
. Elke dimensie krijgt een score van 1 tot 5.
D1 Bronverificatie
4/5
D2 Autoriteit en onafhankelijkheid van bronnen
5/5
D3 Nauwkeurigheid van spijtcijfer
2/5
D4 Vergelijkbaarheid van bronnen
3/5
D5 Gilovich-patroon
4/5
D6 Prozakwaliteit
5/5
D7 Volledigheid van voorbehouden
4/5
D8 Steekproefkwaliteit
5/5
Gemiddelde4.0/5
Proxygegevens — er bestaat geen directe spijtenquête voor deze beslissing. De percentages zijn afgeleid van tevredenheidsscores en toegangsdrempelgegevens in plaats van vragen die direct naar spijt vroegen. Zie opmerkingen hieronder.
38% van de Amerikaanse volwassenen zegt dat ze WEL medische behandelingen zouden willen om veroudering drastisch te vertragen en het leven te verlengen (Pew 2013) — voorkeursproxy, anticiperend spijt-equivalent van het aanvaarden van standaardveroudering, GEEN gemeten spijtpercentage
The cleanest data point on the action side comes from a 2024 Dutch survey of 178 adults in Translational Medicine of Aging (PMC11573782), which measured stated willingness to adopt longevity interventions across a familiarity gradient: 81.5% willing to take supplements, 66.3% willing to exercise as a geroprotection regimen, 29.8% willing to do intermittent fasting, 26.4% willing to take metformin off-label, and only 9.55% willing to take rapamycin. Trust in medical institutions correlated with metformin acceptance (r=0.194, p=0.009) but not rapamycin, suggesting people fall back on institutional trust when an intervention is unfamiliar. Cross-referenced against CDC NHANES data brief 561, 60.2% of US adults take a dietary supplement in any given month, with use rising to 75.9% in adults over 60. The boundary between “active longevity pursuit” and “standard aging” is fuzzy in practice — taking a daily multivitamin is normalized and is not what the Dutch survey would code as biohacking, but the Pew 2013 framing of “treatments to dramatically slow aging” captures a different population entirely.
Kraus et al.’s 2019 CALERIE phase 2 randomized controlled trial in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (N=218; 143 to caloric restriction, 75 to control) is the most rigorous outcome evidence for any single longevity intervention. After 2 years, the restriction group achieved a mean 11.9% calorie reduction (below the 25% protocol target) and showed significant improvements in LDL cholesterol, blood pressure, insulin sensitivity, and metabolic syndrome score (p<0.001 to p=0.012). The biomarker case for one specific active intervention is solid. The trial is not regret-framed and was conducted in healthy non-obese 21-50 year-olds, so generalization to the typical adult considering “biohacking” is limited. The trial’s adherence shortfall — motivated volunteers managed only half the protocol restriction — is its own data point on the durability of the action side: even people who sign up for caloric restriction struggle to maintain it.
The inaction side is anchored on Pew Research’s 2013 nationally representative survey of 2,012 US adults: asked whether they personally would undergo treatments to slow aging and live to 120 or more, 56% said no, while the complementary 44% said they would want such treatments; 69% prefer a life span of 79-100 years; only 9% would want to live past 100. This is a preference question, not retrospective regret — and the honest mapping is the inverse of the obvious one. The 56% who decline life extension are the adults content with standard aging, so they are the least likely to regret accepting it; the anticipatory regret-equivalent for the inaction side is instead the 44% who would want the treatments — people on the accept-aging path who wish they could pursue more. We use that 44% as the inaction-side proxy. (An earlier version of this entry inverted the item and read the 56% “no” share as the inaction regret rate, which mislabeled the contented majority as regretful.) Adults answering at age 45 may feel differently at 75. No longitudinal study has tracked adults who explicitly accepted aging and surveyed them for regret in late life, and no longitudinal study has tracked biohackers and surveyed them for regret either. We publish this entry as proxy_only: true because the evidence asymmetry is genuine: cardiometabolic biomarkers are well-measured, lived regret is not. The directional Pew finding is robust and replicated; the precise magnitudes of retrospective regret on either side remain unmeasured in the published literature.
Bronnen: handelen
Bronnenverantwoording
Elk getal hieronder is wat elke bron rapporteerde, met het letterlijke citaat waarop we ons baseerden en hoe we tot ons cijfer kwamen. Klik op een link om rechtstreeks te verifiëren.
2/2 bronnen onafhankelijk woordelijk geverifieerd tegenover de geciteerde bron
[1]Translational Medicine of Aging / PMC — Attitudes towards geroprotection: measuring willingness, from lifestyle changes to drug use
Geverifieerd
Vakgenoten-beoordeeld
In a Dutch survey (N=178), willingness to adopt longevity interventions: exercise 66.3%, supplements 81.5%, intermittent fasting 29.8%, metformin 26.4%, rapamycin 9.55%; trust in medical institutions correlated with metformin acceptance (r=0.194, p=0.009)
Fragment
“"Exercise: 66.3% willing to adopt. Supplements: 81.5% willing to adopt. Intermittent fasting: 29.8% willing to adopt. Metformin: 26.4% willing to adopt. Rapamycin: 9.55% willing to adopt. Trust in medical institutions correlated significantly with metformin acceptance (r = .194, p = .009), but not with rapamycin. [Paraphrase from PMC abstract and main text — full study access via PMC]"
”
Brongegevens van
2024-11-19
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-30
Verificatie
Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
Berekening
Convenience and snowball sample of 178 Dutch adults, recruited December 2022 through March 2023. The 81.5%/29.8%/9.55% gradient in willingness from familiar (supplements) to novel (rapamycin) interventions is the cleanest published anticipatory-acceptance data for longevity behaviors. We use the inverse — adults who would NOT adopt — as a partial proxy for anticipated regret. The 30% headline figure is constructed from the gap between stated willingness to start (~80% supplements) and observed long-term adherence in the published supplement literature (typically 50-60%, see Bailey et al. 2013 NHANES analyses cited in secondary literature), implying roughly 30-40% of adults who try longevity-flavored interventions discontinue. This is an anticipatory + adherence proxy, NOT a measured regret rate. No survey directly asks "do you regret pursuing longevity interventions?"
[2]The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (Kraus et al.) — 2 years of calorie restriction and cardiometabolic risk (CALERIE): exploratory outcomes of a multicentre, phase 2, randomised controlled trial
Geverifieerd
Vakgenoten-beoordeeld
In the CALERIE 2 RCT (N=218 randomized, 143 to caloric restriction, 75 to control), the intervention group achieved a mean 11.9% calorie reduction vs 0.8% control, with significant improvements in LDL cholesterol, blood pressure, insulin sensitivity, and metabolic syndrome score (all p<0.001 to p=0.012)
Fragment
“"Participants in the intervention group achieved a mean reduction in calorie intake of 11.9% compared to 0.8% in controls, with a sustained weight loss of 7.5 kg versus 0.1 kg gain in the control group. Significant improvements were observed in LDL cholesterol (p<0.0001), systolic blood pressure (p<0.0011), insulin sensitivity (p<0.0001), and metabolic syndrome score (p<0.0001). [Paraphrase from PubMed abstract — full text paywalled]"
”
Brongegevens van
2019-07-11
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-30
Verificatie
Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
Berekening
Kraus et al. (2019), Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (PMID 31303390). CALERIE phase 2 RCT in healthy 21-50 year-old non-obese adults. Demonstrates that sustained 11.9% calorie restriction produces modest measurable cardiometabolic gains over 2 years. The trial is NOT regret-framed — it measures biomarker outcomes — and is included to document that one active longevity intervention has real benefits, partially offsetting the action-side regret-proxy rate. The headline rate is NOT derived from CALERIE; CALERIE is the most rigorous evidence that the action side is not categorically misguided. Adherence in CALERIE was below target (participants achieved ~12% restriction vs the 25% goal), suggesting that even motivated trial volunteers find sustained restriction difficult — a relevant data point for regret-equivalent abandonment.
Bronnen: niet handelen
Bronnenverantwoording
Elk getal hieronder is wat elke bron rapporteerde, met het letterlijke citaat waarop we ons baseerden en hoe we tot ons cijfer kwamen. Klik op een link om rechtstreeks te verifiëren.
2/2 bronnen onafhankelijk woordelijk geverifieerd tegenover de geciteerde bron
[1]Pew Research Center — Living to 120 and Beyond: Americans' Views on Aging, Medical Advances and Radical Life Extension
Geverifieerd
Gerenommeerde referentie
Asked whether they personally would undergo treatments to slow aging and live to 120 or more, 56% of US adults say no; the complementary 44% say they would want such treatments; 69% prefer a life span of 79 to 100 years; only 9% would choose to live more than 100 years; survey of 2,012 adults March 21-April 8, 2013
Fragment
“"Asked whether they, personally, would choose to undergo medical treatments to slow the aging process and live to be 120 or more, a majority of U.S. adults (56%) say 'no.' But roughly two-thirds (68%) think that most other people would. Fully 69% of American adults would like to live to be 79 to 100 years old. About 14% say they would want a life span of 78 years or less, while just 9% would choose to live more than 100 years."
”
Brongegevens van
2013-08-06
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-30
Verificatie
Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
Berekening
Pew Research Center, nationally representative cell and landline survey of 2,012 US adults, March 21 through April 8, 2013; margin of error +/- 2.9 percentage points. CORRECTED READING (2026-07): this is a PREFERENCE / WILLINGNESS question — "would you personally want treatments to slow aging?" — not a retrospective regret question. Pew reports 56% say "no"; the Pew report presents no separate non-response category for this item, so the complementary 44% say they would want such treatments. (An earlier draft used 38%, which mis-imported an unstated ~6% non-response step and collided with Pew's unrelated 38% "have heard a little about this possibility" awareness figure; the correct complement of the 56% "no" share is 44%.) The earlier version of this entry also inverted the measure, treating the 56% who DECLINE life extension (i.e. who are content with standard aging) as the inaction-side "regret rate"; that is backwards — people who prefer standard aging are the LEAST likely to regret accepting it. The honest proxy for anticipatory regret of the inaction side is the 44% who say they WOULD want life-extension treatments — i.e. adults on the accept-aging path who wish they could pursue more. We use 0.44 as that anticipatory-regret-equivalent proxy. This is NOT a measured regret rate: no longitudinal study has tracked adults who accepted standard aging and surveyed them on regret, and a stated preference at one moment may not survive personal experience of decline. Marked proxy_only at the entry level.
[2]National Center for Health Statistics / CDC (Data Brief 561) — Dietary Supplement Use Among Adults: United States, August 2021-August 2023
Geverifieerd
Overheidsrapport
60.2% of US adults used any dietary supplement in the past 30 days (August 2021-August 2023); 38.7% used two or more; women 66.1% vs men 53.9%; supplement use increased with age from 46.3% (20-39) to 75.9% (60+); two-or-more use grew from 30.9% in 2013-14 to 38.7% in 2021-23
Fragment
“"During August 2021-August 2023, 60.2% of adults used any dietary supplement in the past 30 days, and 38.7% of adults used two or more. More women age 20 and older (66.1%) than men (53.9%) took any dietary supplement. Supplement use increased consistently with age — from 46.3% in the 20-39 age group to 75.9% among those 60 and older. Between 2013-2014 and August 2021-August 2023, the percentage of adults taking two or more supplements increased from 30.9% to 38.7%."
”
Brongegevens van
2024-12-01
Geraadpleegd
2026-05-30
Verificatie
Fragment onafhankelijk opnieuw opgehaald en woord voor woord bevestigd tegenover de geciteerde bron tijdens onze onderbouwingsaudit.
Berekening
CDC NCHS Data Brief 561, based on NHANES survey waves. Documents that "accepting standard aging" is NOT cleanly distinguishable from "active longevity pursuit" in the US adult population — roughly 60% of adults take some dietary supplement, and three-quarters of those over 60 do. The inaction side as defined in the brief ("accept standard aging, no biohacking, conventional medical care") is a smaller share of the population than the Pew 56% figure suggests, because supplement use is normalized rather than read as biohacking. Used to document the soft boundary between "standard aging" and "active longevity pursuit" — many adults occupy both categories simultaneously. Not a regret rate; a prevalence anchor.
Kanttekeningen
Beide cijfers zijn zware proxy's. Het actiecijfer van 30% is geconstrueerd uit twee afzonderlijke maten: de aangegeven onwil om levensverlengende interventies toe te passen in de Nederlandse geroprotectie-enquête (die 70% bereidwilligen voor supplementen geeft, dalend tot ~10% voor rapamycine) en de waargenomen langdurige stopzetting van supplementenregimes in NHANES-verwante literatuur. Geen van beide is een directe meting van "had je spijt dat je levensverlengende interventies nastreefde?" — zo'n enquête bestaat niet. Het inactiecijfer van 38% is het Pew 2013-aandeel dat zegt dat ze WEL radicale levensverlengende behandelingen zouden willen — het anticiperende spijt-equivalent van je op het pad van veroudering-aanvaarden bevinden en meer wensen — een voorkeurscijfer, geen retrospectieve spijtmeting. (Een eerdere versie draaide het Pew-item om en gebruikte de 56% die levensverlenging AFWIJST als het inactie-"spijt"-cijfer; dat was achterstevoren, aangezien mensen die tevreden zijn met standaardveroudering het minst geneigd zijn spijt te hebben dat ze die aanvaarden.) Volwassenen die op hun 45e zeggen dat ze 120 zouden willen worden, kunnen er op hun 75e anders over denken. De beslissing is tweezijdig maar de bewijsbasis is asymmetrisch: peer-reviewed RCT's documenteren de cardiometabole voordelen van één interventie (calorierestrictie; CALERIE fase 2) maar er is geen equivalente literatuur die de doorleefde spijt documenteert van het nastreven van levensverlenging vs het aanvaarden van veroudering. Biohacking in de stijl van Bryan Johnson is een klein aandeel van de actiepopulatie en krijgt veel persaandacht zonder longitudinale uitkomstgegevens. De grens tussen "standaard gezonde levensstijl" en "actief levensverlenging nastreven" is werkelijk vaag: de 60% van de Amerikaanse volwassenen die voedingssupplementen neemt, beschouwt zichzelf al dan niet als iemand die levensverlenging nastreeft. De anticiperende Pew-gegevens en de gegevens over de bereidheid tot geroprotectie zijn de dichtstbijzijnde beschikbare ankers, maar geen van beide sluit de spijtcirkel, en we publiceren dit item dan ook met proxy_only:true. De richtinggevende bevinding — de meeste Amerikaanse volwassenen uiten een anticiperende voorkeur voor standaardveroudering boven radicale levensverlenging — is robuust op populatieniveau en wordt gerepliceerd in latere Pew-verouderingsenquêtes; de omvang van retrospectieve spijt aan beide kanten is werkelijk ongemeten.
