Biological Age Clocks: Are They Useful?

Weighing in on the controversy.

Controversy recently broke out in the biological aging biomarker space, with Peter Attia stating that we do not have enough data for biological age clocks “to have any meaning in terms of our overall lifespan and healthspan,” and TruDiagnostic arguing that some of his points therein “no longer represent the current state of epigenetic aging clocks,” and that “biological clocks do respond to interventions we know positively affect biological aging.”

The potential benefit of intervention-sensitive biological aging clocks is clear: we would be able to test whether the things we do for our health are making us age more quickly, more slowly, or having no effect.

On the other hand, if biological aging clocks are meaningless, they can actually hurt us. Not only would they be a waste of money, but they could give us a false sense of worry if they show we are aging too fast, or could lead us astray thinking we are benefiting from something that is hurting us.

Genuinely understanding this is critical, because the damage that accumulates from time spent in a suboptimal state of health is likely to become irreversible the longer we wait to fix it. The sooner we get ahead of that process, however, the more likely we can stop that damage in its tracks and reverse whatever harm has come.

This article is a 7-minute read and reserved for Masterpass members, and is part of the “Reviews of Lab Tests” series in the “Lab Tests” section of the site.