#1 Victorian uni for graduate employment1
#1 in the world for sport science2
#1 Victorian uni for course satisfaction3
NEXT UP ON this.
Science fiction often explores what happens when humans move beyond the limits of biology. From the life-extending, subscription-based brain implants of Black Mirror to the bionic body of the Six Million Dollar Man (which doesn’t sound quite so out of reach in 2026), these stories ask: what if we could go beyond the limits of mainstream medicine? Could we be fitter, healthier and live longer?
This is the premise of biohacking – the idea that humans can extend and augment their natural capabilities. But what is biohacking, beyond science fiction? And can it really unlock new levels of human performance? With the help of Deakin exercise scientist Professor David Scott, we take a closer look.
Biohacking has been described as a ‘do-it-yourself approach to optimising functionality of body and mind’. This DIY ethos plays out through ‘hacks’ that allegedly save time and effort over traditional methods – like the use of off-label medicines, targeted exercises and technological enhancements.
As Scott explains, the biohacking movement likely emerged from the wearable tech trend of the Quantified Self movement in the 2000s, alongside ideas of ‘transhumanism’ – a philosophy that ‘advocates for the use of current and emerging technologies to augment the human condition’. Transhumanism has recently entered the mainstream through billionaire Bryan Johnson’s ‘Don’t Die’ movement.
At first glance, biohacking seems to be centred around how to live longer or get healthier – but the same goes for much of mainstream medicine. Considering so much of the movement exists outside conventional medicine, what is biohacking’s appeal to people in the first place?
‘People may be attracted to biohacking due to anxieties related to disease and ageing, a desire to maximise athletic performance and distrust of the traditional medical advice,’ says Scott. ‘The medical establishment is often perceived as being compromised by external interests and also reactive rather than proactive, prioritising treatment of disease over its prevention. Conversely, biohacking strategies often focus on achieving optimal health and performance, as opposed to simply avoiding disease.’
So, now we know where the concept of biohacking came from and why it’s become more mainstream – but what is biohacking actually like in practice?
As Scott explains, biohacking isn’t just one set of techniques – the idea can be based on diet, physical changes, technological augmentation and the use of medication or medical intervention.
‘Some examples include the off-label (e.g. using medication for an unapproved purpose) use of drugs like metformin (a diabetes medication) or rapamycin (an immunosuppressant) in the hope of slowing cellular senescence, despite a lack of definitive clinical trials in healthy humans,’ Scott says. ‘Peptides and stem cell therapies also receive a lot of attention but similarly lack the human clinical trial data necessary to validate their systemic efficacy or long-term safety.’
Scott also points to approaches like red light and pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapies – treatments that proponents claim ‘improve mitochondrial function or recovery.’ As with off-label medicines and untested therapies, though, the evidence for these claims remains limited.
‘There is currently no longitudinal evidence to support the claim that red light therapy can fundamentally extend the human lifespan,’ Scott says.
Diet is a common focus within the biohacking movement. One of the most extreme examples is Soylent, a meal replacement beverage that its creator, Rob Rhinehart, envisioned as a way to ‘make food obsolete’ while increasing tech industry productivity.
Other approaches include the fat-focused ketogenic diet, the animal product-only carnivore diet and intermittent fasting – diets Scott says are potentially problematic ‘if they result in inadequate energy intake or nutrient deficiencies.’
Biohacking diets often include the use of supplements, too.
‘Many biohackers promote the use of supplements such as nootropics, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D and probiotics, or even “stacks” of dozens of daily supplements,’ says Scott. ‘While many of these supplements are unlikely to be harmful when taken in accordance with guidelines, there is generally limited evidence for their effectiveness, particularly for people who are already consuming a healthy diet. So, like many biohacking therapies, they can be potentially costly with little to no benefit.’
Beyond fad diets and supplements lies the field of nutrigenomics. As Scott explains, nutrigenomics is a legitimate field, studying the link between nutrients and the human genome. However, while Scott says that the overall science is ‘robust’ – and there are studies that tout the potential benefits of ‘personalised diets’ based on nutrigenomics – the biohacking community has arguably co-opted the idea prematurely.
‘For example, companies market personalised nutrition kits based on minor genetic variations (SNPs), claiming to optimise your diet for your DNA,’ says Scott. ‘However, the reality is that we do not yet have sufficient evidence to provide highly specific, DNA-based dietary prescriptions that outperform general evidence-based nutritional guidelines.’
By this point, it seems clear that biohacking is not a shortcut for extreme human longevity or a path to becoming the healthiest person on earth. As Scott explains, there are some legitimate ideas within biohacking – but they’re often misconstrued or buried within business goals.
‘The promise of human enhancement through biohacking is supported more by sophisticated marketing than scientific evidence,’ he says. ‘To date, the movement has failed to produce or validate any novel “hacks” that were not already understood by the scientific and medical communities before the term’s popularisation.’
Scott says that physical activity and nutritional optimisation are the biggest drivers of long-term health, and many convenient ‘hacks’ for human enhancement are just attempting to shortcut this knowledge.
‘While biohackers may claim that they have identified more efficient protocols for these behaviours, the reality is that they are generally rebranding fundamental public health principles rather than achieving genuine scientific breakthroughs,’ Scott says.
Today, biohacking is no longer an underground phenomenon. From morning TV to celebrities on Instagram, ideas about living longer and ageing more slowly through biohacking are becoming mainstream. So, for those of us looking to live a healthy life while avoiding the pitfalls of misinformation, how do we distinguish fact from fiction?
According to Scott, it starts with science.
‘People considering undertaking a “biohack” need to critically assess the scientific evidence behind it, and particularly any safety data that is available,’ he says. ‘While many of the lifestyle-oriented biohacking methods may be effective and relatively low-risk, the use of medicines for unapproved purposes, or certain technologies with limited evidence, can potentially be harmful.
More broadly, we should be sceptical whenever we hear extraordinary claims. Biohacking rhetoric frequently focuses on “ceiling-lifting” interventions that promise to extend the human lifespan beyond the established biological limit of approximately 115 to 120 years. However, there is currently no empirical evidence to suggest that such an extension is physiologically possible.’
In the end, it’s worth remembering that the best answers typically are rarely the attention-grabbing ones – though this is, seemingly, what biohacking is all about. Instead, Scott says the ideas that increase the basic health of everyone in society are the ones that will actually help us all live longer.
‘In reality, the most significant advancements in human longevity have resulted from “floor-raising” interventions,’ Scott says. ‘Evidence-based, public health achievements, including improved sanitation, clean drinking water, widespread immunisation and the development of antibiotics, have significantly increased life expectancy by preventing premature mortality. This suggests that population-level initiatives will remain the primary drivers of human health and longevity, as opposed to unverified, individually tailored “hacks.”’
Professor, Faculty of Health/School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences/Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition
Deakin University
