How Accurate Are Biological Age Tests, Really? An MD Weighs In

As we age, the rate at which our bodies undergo biological changes can vary significantly from person to person. Some of us experience rapid aging, increasing our risk of age-related diseases, while others age at a slower pace, enjoying extended periods of health and vitality.

Recognizing this diversity, scientists are actively exploring therapies that can decelerate the aging process, aiming to prevent or delay diseases such as heart disease and dementia, which are strongly linked to advancing age. Biological age testing is playing an increasingly important role in this research.

While animal studies have shown promising results in extending lifespan, translating these findings into human trials presents challenges.

Human lifespans are much longer than those of model organisms, requiring studies to follow participants for several decades to detect delays in disease onset or extensions of lifespan.

To address this, researchers developed tests that measure biological aging, acting as a "speedometer for aging."

Biological age, often referred to as cellular age, represents the age at which an individual's cells are functioning relative to an average individual of the same age.

These tests monitor specific markers or indicators of biological aging, providing rapid insights into the effectiveness of interventions on age-related changes. This approach accelerates the evaluation of potential therapies, facilitating the identification of treatments that can extend health span and delay age-associated diseases in humans.

As of now, accurately measuring biological age is a challenge. Most current technologies work by determining the DNA methylation levels2 (methylation is a biological process in which methyl groups attach to certain segments of DNA—read up on how it relates to longevity here) across thousands of locations in the human genome. These tests include multiple methylation sites to average out errors.

However, one of the primary challenges in developing more accurate biological age tests lies in the variability of results obtained from different sites. I'm intrigued by tests like TruMe Labs, which takes a different approach by measuring a significantly lower number of genes but optimizing their technology and data collection algorithms for these specific genes. This results in lower variations and smaller errors, potentially allowing for more accurate results at a lower cost. MyDNAge is another reputable test that uses the epigenetic age clock, developed by Steve Horvath, PhD, to determine biological age.

The cost of these tests can vary (Editor's note: TrueAge and MyDNAge cost $299, while other at-home testing kits can be as much as $500. These tests are not typically covered by insurance), but there is a growing demand for more affordable options to make them accessible to a wider population.

New (yet-to-be-published) data from TruMe Labs illuminates the effectiveness of various compounds like Rejuvant (with time-released CaAKG), Metformin, Resveratrol, and multivitamins in reducing biological age. With a comprehensive dataset comprising over 5,000 entries and nearly 900 disclosed compounds, this data provides valuable insights into the potential of different substances to reverse the aging process. Interestingly, the data suggests that combining multiple compounds may actually diminish their effectiveness in reducing biological age. This highlights the importance of more targeted supplementation.

These are exciting findings, and they show the potential of biological age tests to revolutionize the healthcare and longevity industries in the future. Continued research and collaboration between scientists and clinical investigators are essential for validating these tests and translating them into practical tools for improving public health.