Yesterday, Deepinder Goyal, co-founder of Zomato, ignited widespread debate with the public release of his team’s “Gravity Aging Hypothesis”—a theory claiming that decades of upright human posture and gravity’s effect on cerebral blood flow are central drivers of aging, triggering brain-centered systemic decline.
Deepinder Goyal’s hypothesis draws on two years of research, international expert consultations, and a deep dive into comparative biology, citing the longevity of inverted animals like bats, yoga’s head-below-heart benefits, and the tendency for shorter people to live longer. This bold idea has rapidly captured attention for suggesting that improving brain blood flow could potentially slow down aging and extend healthy lifespans.
The Medical Rebuttal against Deepinder Goyal: Dr. Rajesh Parikh’s Detailed Counterargument
In direct response, Dr. Rajesh Parikh, a neurologist from Surat with three decades of clinical experience, issued a detailed critique across social platforms—with his views going viral in the medical community.
Dr. Parikh challenges the core of Goyal’s thesis, emphasizing that:
- Cerebral Autoregulation Protects, Not Restricts: The brain hosts an advanced defense system (cerebral autoregulation) that aims to keep blood flow steady, not maximize it with changing pressures. When a person inverts (e.g., doing headstands or using inversion tables), this system acts to constrict arteries and maintain optimal flow, preventing dangerous hyperperfusion.
- Physiological Dangers of Inversion: Going upside down causes dramatic spikes in both arterial and venous pressure in the brain, with documented risk of eye pressure surges, acute blood pressure increases, and impaired venous drainage—all potentially harmful, especially for older adults or those predisposed to vascular issues.
- No Real Anti-Aging Evidence: According to Dr. Parikh, “the entire scientific basis cited for anti-aging is anecdotal or based on single, biased case studies” rather than rigorous clinical trials. He warns that the widely-promoted “increased blood flow” effect is not beneficial—in fact, abnormal increases during inversion would signal a breakdown in cerebral regulation, not optimization.
- Counterexamples from Space: Astronauts in microgravity (essentially constant gentle inversion) often suffer accelerated aging and chronic headward fluid shift, leading to vision problems and other issues—directly contradicting gravity-centric anti-aging claims.
“This is highly misleading and incorrect. Please DO NOT DO INVERSIONS for brain health and super aging. Mr. Goyal is promoting a dangerous practice. He might be gifted at creating a startup but let’s stop at that. This is pure pseudoscience.” — Dr. Rajesh Parikh
This is highly misleading and incorrect. Please DO NOT DO INVERSIONS for brain health and super aging. Mr Goyal is promoting a dangerous practice. He might be gifs at creating a startup but let’s stop at that.
— 𝙍𝘼𝙅𝙀𝙎𝙃 𝙋𝘼𝙍𝙄𝙆𝙃 (@imacuriosguy) November 15, 2025
This is pure pseudo science. https://t.co/oYEG3yoAm9
Social Impact and Broader Debate
Dr. Parikh’s thread, which details the pathophysiological consequences of inversion and debunks the gravity-ageing link as “textbook healthy user bias,” has resonated with medical professionals and garnered substantial engagement online. His warnings underscore the importance of evidence-based health practices and the potential risks of oversimplified longevity “hacks” going viral without scientific consensus.
The “Gravity-Ageing Hypothesis” discussion now exemplifies the tension between innovative wellness entrepreneurship and rigorous medical scrutiny. With experts cautioning against the adoption of inversion therapies for anti-aging—especially in the absence of robust, longitudinal studies—the longevity debate is set to continue, highlighting the need for critical thinking in the public health discourse.
Read this: What Is Continue? Deepinder Goyal Invests $25 Million in a New Venture to Extend Human Lifespan
As this conversation evolves, it’s clear that longevity science demands a multidisciplinary, evidence-driven approach—where new ideas must withstand the test of both curiosity-driven entrepreneurship and deep clinical expertise.
