Rethinking Longevity: Why Understanding the System Is More Important Than Optimization

Rethinking Health: Why Understanding the System Is Crucial

1. Mr. Auerswald, you say that health needs to be rethought. From your perspective as a biochemist: Why is it insufficient to focus on individual symptoms or isolated test results—and why is a systemic view of metabolism, cellular processes, and lifestyle so crucial for longevity?

M. Auerswald: If we view health solely through individual symptoms or isolated lab values, we are essentially always treating only fragments of a complex system. It’s like looking only at the volume of the violins in an orchestra and trying to conclude from that whether the music is harmonious.

As a biochemist, I don’t view the human body as a collection of individual parts, but as a highly interconnected biological system. Metabolism, cellular energy, hormone regulation, the immune system, the nervous system, and lifestyle constantly influence one another. An abnormal value is rarely the cause—it is almost always a signal that something has gone out of balance somewhere in the system.

This systemic perspective is particularly crucial for longevity. Healthy aging does not mean remaining “disease-free” for as long as possible, but rather “aging healthily”—maintaining cellular functions, regenerative capacity, and adaptability over decades. This is only possible if we understand how nutrition, micronutrients, exercise, sleep, stress, and environmental factors interact at the cellular level.

Those who merely treat symptoms are working against the body. Those who understand the system can work with the body. And that is precisely where true, sustainable health arises—not as a short-term intervention, but as a long-term biological strategy.

“As a biochemist, I don’t view humans as a collection of individual parts, but as a highly interconnected biological system. […] An abnormal value is rarely the cause—it is almost always a signal that something somewhere in the system has become unbalanced.”

From Pharmaceutical Research to Personal Responsibility

2. You made a conscious decision against a traditional career in the pharmaceutical industry. What insights from research and practice led you to the conviction that long-term health depends less on “external solutions” and more on personal responsibility and knowledge?

M. Auerswald: I should add that I am not opposed to conventional medical interventions from the outside, such as medications—an integrative approach that combines conventional medicine with naturopathy and alternative medicine is, in my view, the most sustainable. However, since conventional medicine tends to be acute care, it is usually insufficient on its own for chronic conditions to restore true health. A holistic approach is needed here, and this must include personal responsibility on the part of the individual just as much as the right knowledge among patients and therapists about what can be done to positively influence health.

The key point is this: health cannot be delegated. No medication, no doctor, and no supplement can replace lifestyle, nutrition, sleep, exercise, and stress management. These factors affect our cellular processes every day—positively or negatively. Those who understand them gain the freedom to act. Those who do not remain dependent on “external solutions.”

Personal responsibility does not mean having to do everything alone. It means building knowledge, understanding connections, and making informed decisions. This is precisely where long-term health arises—not through a single pill, but through a system that the body itself can stabilize.

Side Fact: Health as a Systemic Process In systems biology, health is not viewed as the result of individual parameters, but as an emergent property of complex biological networks. Changes in metabolism, inflammation, hormone regulation, or the nervous system interact with one another and, in the long term, influence adaptability and aging processes more strongly than isolated lab values.

Source: Kitano H. Systems biology: a brief overview. Science. 2002.

 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1069492 

Longevity begins at the cellular level—but not in the lab

3. Many longevity approaches focus heavily on high-tech, testing, and optimization. How do you view the role of fundamental cellular processes such as energy production, regeneration, and adaptability—and why can’t these simply be “outsourced”?

M. Auerswald: Many modern longevity approaches promise that we can “manage” our health through tests, trackers, and high-tech optimization. That can be helpful—but it doesn’t replace the foundation. Because the processes crucial for healthy aging take place in our cells every second, regardless of whether we measure them or not.

Cellular energy production, regeneration, and adaptability cannot be outsourced because they are not external services but the body’s own functions. Mitochondria produce energy efficiently only when nutrients, oxygen, movement, rest, and a stable nervous system work together. No test can compensate for a lack of sleep; no supplement can counteract chronic stress.

Adaptability is particularly important: A long-lived system is not the one that is perfectly optimized, but the one that can respond flexibly to stressors. This ability arises from recurring, real stimuli—movement, cold, heat, fasting, light, rest periods—not from constant monitoring.

High-tech can provide guidance. But true longevity arises where people understand how to support their biology in everyday life. The basics are often unspectacular—but they are non-negotiable.

Side Fact: Biological Resilience Biological resilience describes an organism’s ability to return to a stable functional state after stress. Studies show that this adaptability is closely linked to mitochondrial function, metabolic flexibility, and stress regulation, and is considered a central factor in healthy aging

Source: Hadley, E. C., Kuchel, G. A., et al. (2025). Editorial: Resilience in aging. Frontiers in Aging.

 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/aging/articles/10.3389/fragi.2025.1520842/full 

Micronutrients: Context Trumps Substance

4. In the field of micronutrients, the notion that “more is better” often prevails. How do you classify micronutrients from a biochemical perspective—particularly in relation to lifestyle and individual circumstances—when it comes to supporting normal bodily functions?

M. Auerswald: The notion that “more is better” is biochemically untenable when it comes to micronutrients. Micronutrients are not drugs, but regulators. They act as cofactors in enzyme systems, as signaling molecules, or as structural building blocks—and these systems always function in interaction with one another, not in isolation.

You can overdose on anything—even nutrients.

They should be taken in the amount the body currently needs. That is the essence of micronutrient therapy, in which I work as an instructor.

From a biochemical perspective, therefore, it is not about maximum intake, but about sufficient availability in the right context. A vitamin or trace element can only work effectively if energy production, digestion, absorption, transport, and cellular utilization are functioning properly. A stressed, sleep-deprived body with an unstable metabolism often cannot effectively utilize even high doses.

Added to this is the individual situation: life stage, stress, inflammatory status, gut health, exercise, and diet determine which micronutrients are currently limiting—and which are not. More of everything then tends to lead to imbalances rather than health.

I therefore do not view micronutrients as a substitute for lifestyle, but rather as support for normal bodily functions when the fundamentals are in place. The goal is stability, not constant stimulation. In practice, this means: targeted, moderate, time-limited—and always integrated into diet, sleep, exercise, and stress management.

“The idea that ‘more is better’ is biochemically untenable when it comes to micronutrients. […] From a biochemical perspective, it’s not about maximum intake, but about sufficient availability in the right context.”

Adaptability Instead of Optimization

5. In your work, you frequently emphasize adaptability. Why do you believe that it is not maximum optimization, but rather the body’s ability to respond flexibly to stimuli, that is a central factor in healthy aging?

M. Auerswald: Healthy aging is not a state of maximum optimization, but a state of high adaptability. From a biological perspective, we do not age because individual values deviate from the optimum, but because systems lose their ability to respond flexibly to stressors and then return to balance.

Evolutionarily speaking, the human body is not designed for constant comfort or permanent fine-tuning, but for changing stimuli. Movement and rest, food and fasting, activation and regeneration—it is precisely this dynamic that keeps the metabolism, mitochondria, endocrine system, and immune system functioning effectively. Those who try to optimize everything permanently often deprive the system of precisely these learning and adaptation processes.

Maximum optimization also creates fragility. A body that functions only under ideal conditions is vulnerable. An adaptable body, on the other hand, can better compensate for stress, illness, sleep deprivation, or unplanned stressors—and that is precisely what determines health in everyday life and in old age.

Longevity therefore does not mean controlling every stimulus, but rather regularly providing the body with meaningful challenges and allowing it sufficient space for regeneration. Adaptability is life’s true reserve—not perfection.

“Healthy aging is not a state of maximum optimization, but a state of high adaptability. […] Adaptability is life’s true reserve—not perfection.”

The biggest misconception in modern health culture

6. When you look at your work in health education and training: What fundamental misconception do many people have when it comes to health and longevity—and what would change if we understood health more as a process rather than a state?

M. Auerswald: The most common misconception is the idea that health is a static state that you achieve once and then “maintain.” Many people search for the point where everything aligns: the right numbers, the right diet, the perfect protocol. But biologically, humans don’t function that way.

Health is a dynamic process. Our bodies are constantly building up and breaking down, adapting, compensating, and learning. Symptoms or fluctuations are not automatically signs of failure, but often indications that the system is responding to stressors.

Those who view health as a static state interpret every deviation as a problem. Those who understand it as a process can work with these signals.

When we understand health as a process, our approach to it changes as well. The focus shifts away from quick fixes toward long-term habits. Instead of perfection, it’s about direction. Instead of control, it’s about understanding. And instead of fear of mistakes, it’s about the ability to learn.

For longevity, this is precisely what matters: It is not the person with the “best” metrics who ages healthily, but the one who understands their system, cares for it regularly, and allows it to rebalance itself time and again.

Knowledge vs. Implementation: Why Information Alone Is Not Enough

7. Many people today know a great deal about health—and yet still do not act on it. In your experience, what is the most common reason for failure in implementation, and what role does a deeper biological understanding play in developing sustainable habits?

M. Auerswald: In my experience, implementation rarely fails due to a lack of knowledge, but rather due to a lack of context. Many people collect information, tips, and studies without having an internal model of why certain things work. Knowledge then remains abstract—and abstract knowledge does not change behavior.

Another point is that health is often morally charged: right or wrong, disciplined or undisciplined. This creates pressure and overwhelm. Under pressure, however, people fall back on habits, not knowledge. That is why many good intentions fail in everyday life.

A deeper biological understanding changes that. Those who understand that sleep deprivation disrupts metabolism, stress drives inflammation, or exercise improves cellular energy make decisions not out of a sense of duty, but out of inner logic. Behavior is then not “forced through,” but makes sense.

Sustainable habits emerge where people can experience and make sense of cause and effect in their own bodies. Then health is no longer a project, but part of everyday life—quiet, unspectacular, yet effective.

Side Fact: Behavior and Health Literacy Research shows that health knowledge alone rarely leads to sustainable behavior. What matters most is understanding cause-and-effect relationships, self-efficacy, and the integration of new routines into daily life. Health changes are more likely to succeed in the long term through experienced feedback than through increased information.

Source: Michie S et al. The Behaviour Change Wheel. Implement Sci. 2011.

 https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.pdf 

The Future of Longevity: Education Instead of Shortcuts

8. In conclusion: When you think about the coming years of the longevity movement, which developments do you consider truly sustainable, and what would you warn people hoping for quick shortcuts about?

M. Auerswald: I consider a longevity approach to be sustainable if it takes biological fundamentals seriously and meaningfully integrates modern science. We don’t need to go “back to the Stone Age,” but we should understand the natural conditions under which the human body has functioned healthily for millennia—and combine that knowledge with today’s possibilities.

Personally, I’ve recently been living in the Swedish countryside, growing my own food, with the forest right on my doorstep and plenty of peace and quiet—yet I still have access to modern internet, a quick connection to the airport, and targeted technology (e.g., infrared light panels or daylight lamps for the winter) as well as dietary supplements. Just as an example.

A natural lifestyle does not mean romanticization, but rather living in harmony with nature: real food, exercise, daylight, sleep, social connection, and regular regeneration. Modern science and technology can help us better understand these factors, adapt them to individual needs, and detect imbalances early on—not replace them.

What I would caution against is the belief in quick fixes. Anyone who thinks longevity can be “bought” through individual substances, surgical procedures, extreme protocols, or constant self-optimization is missing the point. Such approaches often produce short-term effects but long-term instability.

In my view, the future lies in a hybrid approach: natural principles as a foundation, modern diagnostics and research as tools—and an understanding that health is not accelerated, but rather supported.

Note: This interview is intended solely for general information. The assessments and statements presented reflect the personal scientific opinion and clinical experience of the interviewed expert and are based, among other things, on their own research.

The content does not constitute health claims authorized under EU Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006 and should not be interpreted as statements regarding the prevention, treatment, or cure of diseases.

This interview is not a substitute for individual medical consultation. For health-related questions, please consult a healthcare professional.