The maximal reduction for biological age when using the biological age calculator, Phenotypic Age, is ~20 years. In other words, if I’m 80 years old and my biomarkers are all reflective of youth, the lowest possible biological age will be ~60 years old. One reason for that is the inclusion of chronological age in the prediction of biological age, which adds strength to the correlation while simultaneously limiting the maximal biological age reduction.
To account for the possibility that youthful biomarkers at an older chronological age can yield a biological age that is more than 20 years younger, it’s important to quantify biological age using a tool that doesn’t include chronological age in its calculation. Aging.ai fits that criterion, and in the video I present biological age data with use of aging.ai for 24 blood tests since 2009.
Thank you, Michael. I can only encourage to keep going. Beside the excellent diet tracking you do (and I agree you overall see an effect) I do a quite similar BA tracking (plan to use other clocks, also blood based, not using CA and would like to at least have a baseline with DNA methylation), since ~15 years and use v1.0 (41 inputs, r=0.91 vs 0.8 for v3.0). I also try to compare v1.0 and v3.0. Inclusion or not of CA is debated in the literature. Of course, keep in mind aging.ai and Phenotypic Age are constructed in completely different ways, with a posteriori validation on mortality, as you have mentioned, for the former and a risk of mortality in the regression of cohort data for the latter.
Yes, exactly, I agree with everything that you said, albedo!
My aging.ai age is 47 but I’m 69. I don’t take supplements or fast
Hi Eve, one doesn’t have to take supplements or fast to have good blood test data. Congratulations on the 22y reduction! Is your data consistent, or it this your best result? That’s important to consider, too.