1.7 Years of Biological Aging In The Past 3.6 Years

In an earlier post (https://michaellustgarten.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/maximizing-health-and-lifespan-is-calorie-restriction-essential/), I documented my aging.ai biologic age for 13 blood test measurements from 2016 – 2019. If you missed that post, here are those data:
agingai2Note that note my average biologic age has slowly increased from 2016 to 2019, from 28y in 2016 (2 measurements), to 29.25y in 2017 (6 measurements), to 29.5y in 2018 (6 measurements), to 30y in my June 2019 measurement.

To gain more insight into my 2019 prediction for biologic age, I kept measuring. On September 17, 2019, I had my worst biological age to date, 33y, based on the blood test data below:
Screen Shot 2019-11-03 at 3.51.05 PM.png

Seeing a biological age that high (for me) was the motivation that I needed to finally stick to a mild caloric restriction, which I hypothesized would positively affect my biological age. I wrote about this in my recent Phenotypic Age post (https://michaellustgarten.wordpress.com/2019/11/01/biological-age-31-3y-chronological-age-46y/). Did it work? Shown below is my blood test data for October 29th.

Screen Shot 2019-11-03 at 4.07.28 PM

Based on that data, my biological age was 28y, and when averaging the 3 measurements in 2019 (so far!), my average biological age is 29.67y. When considering that my average biological age in 2016 was 28y, it looks like I’ve only aged ~1.7 years in 3.58 years of elapsed time!

 

If you’re interested, please have a look at my book!

6 thoughts on “1.7 Years of Biological Aging In The Past 3.6 Years

  1. Dennis Fink

    Glad you finally added CR or CRON, whichever it was (likely the later)! Was going to recommend CRON which I’ve been trying for close to a year (1 meal at 10:00 and sometimes snack around 4:00). So many years of bad habits for me have my Levine P-age at 69 vs chrono. 75 but will try to use your results and others to slow my aging as you have! Great work! On 2g Metformin/d makes CRON (pescatarian) easy for me and I think I’m getting less protein siding w/ those who think less is better (about 50g most days, ~30g on low days).

    Like

    Reply
    1. Michael Lustgarten Post author

      I’ve been CR before, but it’s incredibly tough for me, even a mild CR (4%) isn’t easy, and that’s on a high-volume, nutrient dense diet. but for the good of science, let’s see how the data looks with continued CR in a few months!

      Like

      Reply
    1. 20thcenturyfox

      I don’t know what to think of aging.ai. I had never heard of aging.ai until today. So I went to the site and filled out their questionnaire…”fill in your lab values and we’ll guess your age.” Well I must have hit a typo somewhere because they guessed I am 23. Seriously. My chronological age is 71.3. They didn’t offer me a teddy bear…but then I didn’t

      (PhenoAge was less flattering but more realistic. It estimated my BA is 55.9. My RDW of 11.7 is obviously what skewed that result. Until today I didn’t even know what RDW signifies. The note I had made on my lab report was “Low normal; d/n seem very important.” Too bad I can’t bottle it and sell it.)

      Like

      Reply
      1. Michael Lustgarten Post author

        Without going into the data, yeah, PhenoAge is better than aging.ai. Ha, I have a video on RDW, for more info!

        Like

  2. 20thcenturyfox

    Thanks, Dr.L, until seeing that video I was certainly baffled and amazed at how heavily weighted RDW is in the BA calculation.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael Lustgarten Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s