The Maui ReSet Pilot Study

Biological age is the snapshot. Pace of aging is the trend we can influence.

Over six months on Maui, ten everyday people, ages 34 to 79, followed the same daily nutrient protocol and had their biology measured before and after with independent epigenetic testing. This page tells the whole story, honestly: what we did, what we saw, what it does and does not mean, and how a physician’s fifty-year career led to the formulas at its center.

We are not going to overstate what this was. It was a small, real-world observational pilot, not a controlled clinical trial. What we can do is show you the readings, introduce you to the people behind them, and let you decide what the pattern is worth. The candor is the point.

To look at that honestly, we did three things. We chose a defined daily nutrient protocol. We recruited real people living real lives, with real stress and real health histories. And we measured them with an independent testing partner, before and after, so the numbers were not ours to grade.

The study at a glance

What the tests actually measure

Epigenetic clocks read chemical tags on your DNA, called methylation, that shift in patterns as you age. Two ideas matter here:

Three clocks, in one line each: OMICm Age is how old the body looks overall, the deepest and slowest-moving reading. Symphony Age shows which of eleven organ systems are aging faster or slower. DunedinPACE is how fast you are aging right now, the speedometer, and the one sensitive enough to move within about three months. These are risk-and-trend assessments, not diagnoses.

The bigger picture: the lever is real

In 2026, a large randomized controlled trial called COSMOS (n=958) reported that daily multivitamin-mineral nutrition modestly slowed the rate at which second-generation epigenetic clocks increased over two years, with a larger effect in people who started with an older biological age. That is rigorous, independent evidence that nutrient sufficiency is a real lever on aging biology. See the Evidence Library for the sources behind it.

Our pilot asks a narrower, downstream question: can nutrients delivered in highly absorbable picometer ionic forms move that needle meaningfully in everyday practice? The two studies use different clocks and very different designs, so they are not directly comparable, and we never present ours as beating a randomized trial. We show the parameters side by side and let them stand.

The practical implication is that six months may be too short to capture the full arc. If symptoms improve first and the deep clock moves last, a twelve-month protocol would give that deepest layer time to catch up. That is the central argument for a longer, larger, controlled study, which is exactly what a pilot like this exists to justify.

What we saw across the group

Reported as observed, cohort-level trends, not as proof of efficacy:

On the TruHealth panel, the group showed gains in categories tied to cellular energy and resilience, including mitochondrial function, NAD+ metabolism, stress markers, immune markers, and ketones.

We disclose the relationship plainly, because honesty is the premise of this page. Dr. Dean founded the company that makes these formulas and holds a creative and economic interest in them. She is both the scientific origin of the protocol and an interested party in the company that sells it. The testing, by contrast, was done by an independent partner, and the design and limits are stated openly.

Two ordinary ideas explain why this set was chosen for a study about aging biomarkers. Minerals are the foundation the cell runs on, and magnesium alone participates in hundreds of enzyme reactions, including the systems that copy and maintain DNA.

And the methylated B vitamins in the protocol feed one-carbon metabolism, the methyl-group system that supports normal cellular function, which is the same chemistry the epigenetic clocks read. None of this treats or cures anything. These are nutrients that support the normal structure and function of the body’s own systems.

What this means, and what comes next

Here is the honest summary. A rigorous randomized trial has shown that nutrient sufficiency can move epigenetic aging clocks. Our small pilot, using highly absorbable forms of those nutrients, saw favorable trends in most of ten real people over six months, alongside a consistent pattern where symptoms eased first and the deepest clock moved last. That pattern suggests a longer study would likely show more at the deepest layer. It is a hypothesis worth testing at scale, and that is what a pilot is for. For why that honesty matters, see why longevity is hard to prove.

If the approach makes sense to you, the path is the same one the study followed:

1. Discover where you stand, with a baseline biological-age reading.
2. Optimize with consistent, high-absorption nutrient support and healthy daily habits.
3. Verify by measuring again and watching the direction of travel.

Your biology is a snapshot today. The trend is the part you get to work on.