From the Desk of Carolyn Dean MD ND
Ten people, six months, three biological age clocks, and an honest account of who moved, who did not, and what we still do not know.
A birthday tells you how many years you have lived. However, a biological age test asks a different question: What can certain measurable patterns in your body tell us about how it is functioning and changing over time?
Between August 2025 and February 2026, ten everyday people on Maui explored that question. As part of the Maui ReSet Pilot Study, they completed blood testing at the beginning and end of a six-month nutrient protocol.
I wanted to see what happened when people followed a consistent daily nutritional routine while continuing to live their ordinary lives. After all, those lives include stresses, responsibilities, and unexpected events.
I’ve been calling for such a study for decades. But with testing for biological clocks now available, the path was clear.
And the results were very interesting and very encouraging. However, they were not uniform, and that matters just as much as the improvements.
Let me be clear from the beginning: the Maui ReSet Pilot Study was an uncontrolled observational pilot, not a randomized clinical trial. It had ten participants, no control group, no placebo group, and no random assignment.
Participants reported their own adherence to the protocol. Meanwhile, TruDiagnostic, an independent third-party laboratory, performed biological age testing using fingerprick blood samples collected before and after the study.
These limitations mean we cannot establish that the nutrient protocol caused the changes we observed.
Instead, the findings generate hypotheses and offer questions worth exploring in larger, more rigorous studies. They do not prove that a particular protocol is effective.
I put it in the “proof of concept” category. And I believe that an honest account of what the study did and did not show is the best place to begin.
What the Maui ReSet Pilot Study Was and Was Not
The ten participants ranged in age from 34 to 79. They came from a farm store (Oko’a Farms, which I support), a farmers market, and the wellness community on Maui.
Each person followed the same defined daily nutrient protocol for six months. Meanwhile, they continued managing personal responsibilities, dietary habits, work, family life, and individual health circumstances.
We did not put people in a laboratory and attempt to control every variable.
There were no forced dietary changes. In addition, participants experienced the ordinary events that can influence health and wellbeing.
That makes the study different from a tightly controlled clinical trial. However, it actually mimics what doctors can do in their own clinics.
Why I Chose a Nutritional Pilot Study
My reasoning was that a consistent nutritional foundation deserved examination through standardized testing before and after the protocol.
A comprehensive supplement protocol can be challenging to evaluate using a conventional randomized trial, particularly when several nutrients work together.
Basically, randomized controlled trials often look at one drug or one supplement at a time. But that’s not how the body works, and I wasn’t interested in testing one supplement at a time.
Instead, I wanted to examine a complete nutritional foundation.
A pilot study can help identify patterns and inform future research. However, it cannot substitute for a controlled trial.
For this study, we used TruDiagnostic’s TruHealth and Advanced TruAge testing panels.
The laboratory measured biological age indicators and functional nutrient categories at the beginning and end of the six months. We then examined the group results alongside the individual experiences behind those numbers.
Biological Age Versus Pace of Aging: Three Clocks Explained
When we talk about biological age, we’re talking about a relatively new way of assessing aging. It’s a field that a lot of biohackers and podcasters are following.
The Maui ReSet Pilot Study used three measures: OMICm Age, Symphony Age, and DunedinPACE.
OMICm Age is an epigenetic age clock associated with research from Harvard. Meanwhile, Symphony Age is an organ system clock developed at Yale that looks across 11 organ systems.
Both estimate aspects of biological age using patterns in DNA methylation.
DunedinPACE is different. Instead of giving an age estimate in years, it estimates the pace at which biological aging is occurring.
Understanding the Difference Between Age and Pace
Here is the simplest way I explain the distinction.
Think of biological age as a reading on a dashboard and DunedinPACE as a speedometer.
A pace score of 1.0 represents approximately one year of biological aging per calendar year. A score below 1.0 indicates a slower estimated pace, while a score above 1.0 indicates a faster one.
However, these clocks are research tools, not diagnoses.
They measure different aspects of biology, and each has limitations. Therefore, a result is not a verdict on someone’s health, future, or lifespan.
This distinction became especially relevant in our pilot.
For example, one participant’s deeper age clock readings rose during a difficult hormonal transition. Yet her DunedinPACE score improved.
If we had looked at only one number, we would have missed an important part of her story.
Maui ReSet Pilot Study Results: What Happened?
Across the ten participants, seven showed favorable movement on at least one biological age measure.
Six of ten improved on an epigenetic age clock (OMICm Age or Symphony Age). Meanwhile, five showed a slower DunedinPACE score.
All ten participants also improved in multiple functional nutrient categories measured by the TruHealth panel.
Each person showed improvement in between five and twelve of the nineteen measured categories. In addition, their self-reported symptom scores improved by between 2% and 79%.
These findings were encouraging. However, the individual results tell a more complicated story.
Changes in Nutrient and Functional Markers
Looking at the functional categories gives us a more detailed picture.
Stress recovery markers improved in seven of ten participants. Likewise, seven showed improvement in a marker associated with NAD+ metabolism.
Vitamin markers improved in eight of ten participants, as did ketone markers. Meanwhile, mitochondrial markers improved in six of ten.
The immune category moved the least.
Only four of ten participants improved in the reported immune markers, and several readings fell.
Therefore, six months of observation did not produce consistent improvement across every measured system.
That matters because I don’t want to present these findings as though everyone improved in every category.
When Real Life Affected the Results
In our study, life got in the way of three of our subjects.
For example, one 34-year-old participant went to the hospital after undergoing an unapproved, harsh detox. This was not part of the study protocol.
His biological age readings actually moved older during the study.
Another participant experienced a turbulent hormonal transition. As a result, her deeper age clock readings rose even as her pace of aging score improved.
These events illustrate how complicated real life observations can be. However, they do not establish why a particular reading changed.
Even so, both of these subjects reported symptom improvement on their surveys at the end of the study. They also said they would continue the protocol.
Three Personal Stories Behind the Maui ReSet Pilot Study Results
The participants’ names below are pseudonyms to protect their privacy.
These are individual experiences, not predictions of what another person would experience.
Helen, 70: From Housebound to Taking Long Walks
Helen was essentially housebound at the beginning of the study.
Her OMICm Age reading moved from 63 to 58 years. In addition, her self-reported symptom score fell by about 55%.
She reported that she could drive and take long walks again.
Those are meaningful personal changes.
Suzanne, 50: Changes in Pace, Energy, and Sleep
Suzanne saw her DunedinPACE score move from 1.00 to 0.83. Meanwhile, her Symphony Age reading changed from 49 to 44 years.
She also reported steadier energy, better sleep, a decrease in medication, and a more hopeful outlook.
Her physician directed any medication adjustments she made.
Grace, 53: Why One Biological Age Number Isn’t Enough
Grace was navigating a turbulent hormonal transition during the six months of the study.
This included stopping birth control and beginning hormone replacement prescribed by her physician.
Her OMICm and Symphony readings moved in an unfavorable direction. However, her DunedinPACE score improved from 0.96 to 0.83.
In addition, her self-reported symptom score improved by about 43% overall, following a mid-study increase.
Grace’s experience is an important reminder that different biological age measures do not always move in the same direction.
Therefore, we need to look at the whole picture rather than focusing on a single number.
The Nutritional Foundation Participants Followed
The Maui ReSet Pilot Study examined a defined seven-formula daily nutrient foundation.
We call it the Maui 7, and it is available as the Cell Nutrient Stack.
The seven formulas included:
- ReMag
- ReMyte
- ReAline
- Pico Potassium
- D3K2 ReSet
- Pico Zinc Plus
- Vitamin C ReSet
I designed these formulas and am the founder and formulator of the nutrient line. Therefore, I have a creative and economic interest in the products used in the study.
Two nutrients especially help explain the nutritional concepts behind the protocol: magnesium and B vitamins involved in methylation.
Magnesium, B Vitamins, and DNA Methylation
An epigenetic clock examines patterns of DNA methylation.
This process involves adding and removing chemical tags that help regulate how the body uses genetic information.
Researchers measure these patterns when calculating certain epigenetic age estimates.
Meanwhile, biochemical pathways involving nutrients such as folate and Vitamin B12 supply methyl groups.
Magnesium also plays an important role. It serves as a cofactor in hundreds of enzyme reactions, including reactions involved in DNA maintenance.
The bottom line is that this testing measures methyl groups that attach to DNA.
These attachments number in the millions, and they decrease with age.
That is one reason I have been so interested in the relationship between nutrition and biological aging.
How the Maui ReSet Pilot Study Fits Into Aging Research
The Maui pilot is one small part of a much wider scientific conversation about nutrition and biological aging.
For example, a separate study published in Nature Medicine in March 2026 examined epigenetic aging measures in 958 participants from the randomized COSMOS trial.
Over two years, researchers found modest effects of daily multivitamin and mineral supplementation on two second-generation epigenetic clocks compared with placebo.
The modest number was approximately four months of slowed epigenetic aging.
In our Maui ReSet Pilot Study, the average estimated biological age decreased by four years among the six participants who improved on an age clock!
However, these are different studies with different designs, measurements, and time frames. Therefore, we cannot treat their results as a direct comparison.
The COSMOS researchers also noted that further research is necessary to understand the clinical significance of these changes.
What Can Biological Age Testing Tell You?
If you’re curious about your own biological age, you can explore the Biological Age Calculator referenced on my protocol page.
However, treat any result as a starting point for learning.
A single reading is a snapshot.
You can also repeat testing after several months to observe whether your readings change. For example, someone following our protocol may want to see whether their measurements shift over time.
Even so, a change in a biological age estimate does not prove that a particular supplement or routine caused it.
These tests can provide interesting information, but they cannot tell us everything about our health.
Disclaimer: If you have questions about your health, supplements, or test results, discuss them with your healthcare provider before making changes to your routine.
What Comes Next for the Maui ReSet Pilot Study?
This pilot is a beginning, not a conclusion.
It gives us observations to examine and questions to pursue. However, larger studies with appropriate comparison groups are necessary to determine whether researchers can reproduce these patterns.
We also need to understand what the findings mean for health over time.
The above paragraph is another disclaimer. But what I say personally about the study is that all the people in the study loved the formulas and loved how they felt.
To me, their experiences validated what I’ve been saying for a very long time.
If you take well absorbed nutrients, they will help make your body run in the way God and Nature intended.
That’s my perspective after decades of studying and writing about nutrition. At the same time, I recognize that this small observational study cannot establish cause and effect.
Continuing the Conversation About Healthy Aging
In the weeks ahead, I’ll continue exploring practical questions about healthy aging and everyday wellness.
For example, we’ll look at immune resilience during cold and flu season, gut health, and staying grounded through the holidays.
We’ll also discuss approaching grief and anxiety with care.
Then we’ll return to broader longevity topics through February.
Each subject offers another opportunity to examine the research and separate established knowledge from unanswered questions.
In addition, we’ll consider how nutrition fits into the larger picture.
What the Maui ReSet Pilot Study Can Teach Us
For now, I invite you to read the Maui ReSet Pilot Study for yourself.
Look at the results across all ten participants and their various and varied experiences.
After all, seven participants showed favorable movement on at least one biological age measure, but not everyone improved in the same way.
And the study’s limitations remain important.
That, to me, is what useful nutrition research should encourage: curiosity, thoughtful discussion, and a willingness to keep learning.
Read the full Maui ReSet Pilot Study, explore the participant stories, and review the healthy aging protocol.
Ultimately, the goal is not to chase a number on a test.
Instead, it is to understand what the numbers can and cannot tell us, and to make informed decisions about our health along the way.
Study Disclosure and Disclaimer
The Maui ReSet Pilot Study is an observational pilot involving ten participants over six months. It was not randomized or controlled, and its findings generate hypotheses rather than provide clinical proof of efficacy.
Participants reported their own symptom scores, and individual results vary. TruDiagnostic, an independent third-party laboratory, performed the biological age testing.
Dr. Carolyn Dean is the founder and formulator of the nutrient line used in the study and holds a creative and economic interest in those products.
The formulas are dietary supplements intended to support normal structure and function. They are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
The Food and Drug Administration has not evaluated these statements.
Consult your healthcare provider before beginning any new dietary supplement or wellness program.
This content is for educational purposes only and discusses nutritional and lifestyle support for normal structure and function of the body. It is not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure disease. Consult a qualified healthcare professional for personal medical guidance.
👉 Learn more and become a member here:
https://drcarolyndean.com/wellness-courses/
