LONGECITY

Here's a new and quite interesting study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The title is Quantification of biological aging in young adults and the study covers 954 Dunedin members (chronologically) aged 38 years in order to find out the differences in their actual biological age and of fast they had aged since they were 26 years old. They made use of 18 bio-markers for measuring their pace of aging and 10 bio-markers for measuring their biological age.

Some highlights

• At 38 years of chronological age, the study members Biological Age took on a normal distribution, ranging from 28 y to 61 y (M=38 y, SD=3.23).
• On a scale (see the study for definition), the cohort members ranged in their Pace of Aging from near 0 y of physiological change per chronological year to nearly 3 y of physiological change per chronological year.
• They estimate that roughly 1/2 of the difference in Biological Age observed at chronological age 38 had accumulated over the past 12 y.
• Study members with older Biological Age perceived themselves to be in poorer health compared with biologically younger peers and these biologically older study members were perceived to be older by independent observers.
• Three Dunedin Study members had a Pace of Aging less than zero, appearing to grow physiologically younger during their thirties. In larger cohorts, study of such individuals may reveal molecular and behavioral pathways to rejuvenation.
• Data were right censored (follow-up extended only toa ge 38); aging trajectories may change at older ages. Some cohort members experienced negligible aging per year, a pace that cannot be sustained throughout their lives. Future waves of data collection in the Dunedin cohort will allow us to model these nonlinear patterns of change.

It would have been very interesting if they could have included measurement of telomere lengths and telomerase expression in order to see if they correlated with the biological age and pace of aging.