In a country famous for pastries, pork roast, and a relaxed approach to alcohol, a strict new counter-culture is rising. Treatments, supplements, and biological age tests are popping up across Copenhagen. Some clinics call it “longevity.” Others talk about “optimizing health.”
But is this a meaningful health revolution, or is it just a niche lifestyle for those who can afford it?
The hunger for this knowledge is undeniable. In 2021, the book Gopler ældes ikke (Jellyfish Age Backwards) by young Danish scientist Nicklas Brendborg became a massive bestseller. It spent weeks at the top of the charts, translating complex longevity science into something the average Dane could devour. While Brendborg focuses on science rather than extreme biohacking, the book’s success proved that Denmark is listening.
To understand the trend, I spoke with Aske Juul Lassen, Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen and part of the Copenhagen Centre for Health Research in the Humanities. His research covers aging, health and how societies think about growing older. His perspective is direct: yes, longevity is an emerging trend in Denmark, but it’s far from mainstream, and it comes with important concerns. “It’s definitely emerging, but it’s still very narrow”
The first thing Aske wanted to make clear was that this trend is not sweeping the country. “In my view, it’s still pretty narrow. It’s mostly an urban, upper middle-class population. It’s not in every corner of the country or every social group.” He explained that many Danes, even those with high incomes, simply do not engage with longevity practices because these methods clash with the Danish way of thinking about health. “We have a long tradition of caring about health, but not a long tradition of extreme healthy behavior. And this trend is, in my view, pretty extreme. I don’t see it as a very healthy or very good trend”
While the idea of living longer sounds positive, Aske says that research shows a different picture. “We know from many studies that this is not necessarily something that increases quality of life. On the contrary, it can decrease quality of life.” According to him, the strict routines, heavy self-monitoring, and constant focus on preventing aging can actually make people less happy. “The more you accept the injuries and the changes that come with aging, the better quality of life you often have.
The extreme longevity trend goes against this idea.” He believes Denmark consistently ranks high in the world for quality of life partly because people here take a practical, balanced approach to health. “We are engaged in our health, but we don’t take extreme measures. And the longevity trend is very extreme.” Aske describes several levels of involvement. Some people limit themselves to supplements and careful diets. Others take it further.
“There are parts of this trend that have a very strict way of living. Some people monitor every aspect of their diet and exercise. Some use different supplements. Some even try medicines that are not meant for this. And in the most extreme versions, people start injecting younger people’s blood.”
He stressed that not everyone does these things, but they do exist in the global longevity scene.
Are people being misled?
I asked Aske whether misinformation plays a big role.
“I think there is so much information out there, and so many different levels of trust. People who engage in this trend are often well informed, but they get their information from their own sources.”
Those sources vary widely. Medical researchers, he says, do not generally support the more extreme claims.
“Most medical researchers don’t think you can live to 120, 130, or 140 years by doing this. They may say it could improve health a bit, but the very long-life idea is not supported.”
This aligns with the views of established figures like Bente Klarlund Pedersen, a professor of integrative medicine and perhaps Denmark’s most prominent health communicator. In her book Yngre med årene (Younger with the Years), she advocates for a ‘KRAM’ approach (Diet, Smoking, Alcohol, Exercise) rather than expensive gadgets. The consensus among the Danish medical establishment remains firm: the boring basics work best, even if they don’t sell expensive supplements.
Aske also pointed me to a study he co-authored a few years ago, which looked at how people use and interpret biological age measurements in Denmark. The research found that most people don’t actually trust the numbers fully, but still use them as a rough guide to reflect on their health and daily habits. The study describes this as a kind of “pragmatic” approach to health tracking, where people mix the number with their own lived experience and body knowledge. As the authors write, people “use measurements as a pragmatic, rough indication of individual health” rather than something exact. (Moreira, Hansen & Lassen, 2020 — Sociology of Health & Illness)
What about “pioneers” like Bryan Johnson?
I asked Aske about figures like Bryan Johnson, the American tech millionaire who follows strict daily routines, takes over 30 supplements a day, and shares every detail online. Aske didn’t know him specifically, but he recognized the pattern.
We actually have a prime example of this right here in Denmark. Emil Thorup, a well-known Danish TV host and architect, has effectively become the face of biohacking in Denmark. Through his program Emil Thorups Livsforlængende Eksperiment (Emil Thorup’s Life-Extending Experiment) on DR, he tested everything from strict fasting protocols to advanced medical scans, essentially becoming the ‘Danish Bryan Johnson.’ Aske recognizes this pattern immediately. ‘Is it only for their own sake, or are they also spreading a message about how others should live? That matters,’ he notes.
The bigger question: should we even want extreme longevity?
The conversation turned to the philosophical side. What does it actually mean to live much longer? Aske believes this is not just a health question, but a question about the meaning of life. “One thing that makes life worth living is that it ends at some point. There are things you need to do today or tomorrow, not in 10 years, because life has an end.” Trying to live indefinitely, he says, can distort that balance. “If you think you might live 500 years, would you ever feel the need to act now? I think that undermines important aspects of life.” He also pointed out social and ethical issues. “People need to die for people to be born. If people stop dying, we end up in overpopulation. Then what? Move to another planet?” These questions are not new.
He noted that science fiction has explored them for decades.“There are many ideas. For example, some stories say if you choose to live a very long life, you can’t have children. Others explore how relationships change when one person outlives everyone. Aske’s research center often studies aging within local communities. Longevity culture, he says, doesn’t fit that focus. “It’s not very communal. It’s a very individualistic idea. We work more with supporting community life and meaningful activities, not strict protocols.”
So what should the public understand about the trend?
In the end, Aske repeated that longevity practices will likely remain a niche in Denmark. “There is an increasing trend in a very narrow group. But we need to be cautious. Whom does it benefit? Why does it exist? And is it a good trend, or does it create more problems?” He thinks it clashes with the way Danes usually think about health. “It counteracts many strengths in Danish society, where we try to be healthy but not in an extreme way.”
Final thoughts
Longevity clinics and products may continue to grow. But according to Aske Juul Lassen, the current trend is limited, extreme and not necessarily good for well-being.
His advice, indirectly, is simple: healthy habits matter, but obsession does not.
And perhaps the Danish approach, moderate, relaxed, and social, might be healthier than chasing the dream of a drastically longer life.
