The world’s population is increasingly seeking ways to live longer and healthier lives. An increasing number are looking to biological age tests to measure their level of wellness. These tests, which can cost around $500, claim to measure one’s biological age—an estimate of how old one’s body appears to be, as opposed to chronological age. Yet, upon deeper analysis it is clear there is a large margin of error when it comes to the accuracy of these tests across commercial vendors. A 2022 study found that these samples can vary by as much as nine years. This significant finding makes us worry about the accuracy and the reliability of these assessments.
Hassan Vally, an associate professor of epidemiology at Deakin University, has discussed the benefits of biological age tests. He’s careful to explain that these tests need to be used as screens, not diagnoses. Most of these tests use very different algorithms to calculate biological age based on data they collect resulting in large differences in the results. An equivalent sample from a 40-year-old may reveal a biological age of 35 years at the lowest. It can expose an age level as high as 44 years, which illustrates the danger of misleading contextualization.
Understanding Biological Age Tests
These biological age tests are meant to provide an estimated measure of how quickly or slowly someone is aging on a biological level relative to their chronological peers. As opposed to chronological age, which is just a measure of how many years a person has lived, biological age indicates one’s physiological and health conditions. The underlying idea is that people might age at different rates, due to genetic, lifestyle, and environmental factors.
The tests use advanced algorithms to detect biological markers, such as DNA methylation patterns. These patterns underlie what are collectively referred to as epigenetic clocks, which are extremely accurate predictors of biological aging. How different commercial providers perform these tests is where the differences can be enormous. Every provider uses different algorithms and methodologies, adding to the lack of uniformity in test results.
A typical biological test result can show a 35-year-old biological age for a 40-year-old. This surprising finding speaks to a healthier physiological state than expected. If a biological age score of 44 years were returned that would indicate faster aging. These types of differences can create more consumer confusion, undermining consumers’ efforts to become smarter health care shoppers and healthier patients.
The Limitations of One-Off Tests
One-off biological age tests might be more appealing. As experts like Vally stress, they offer little real-world value for most drivers. Not only do these tests fail to offer a full picture of an individual’s current health, they don’t offer any predictive information about future sickness either. Rather, they serve as snapshots in time. The best part is, these snapshots are not static—stress, diet, and exercise can all influence their numbers.
Furthermore, one-time testing does not take into account lifestyle or health changes that happen after the test. These adjustments can change the outcomes on the ground. For individuals looking to make informed health decisions based on reliable data, a single biological age test may not suffice. Ongoing, real-time monitoring coupled with holistic assessment is key to gaining insight into a person’s entire health journey.
Additionally, the legal and ethical implications of biological aging tests are complex given the current landscape. Consumers might put unreasonable confidence in outputs that have not been fully validated and standardized across the industry. This can result in misleading conclusions from the data and increased stress about an individual’s health condition.
The Role of Research and Media Coverage
Recent articles published in platforms such as The Conversation and Livescience.com have shed light on the effectiveness of biological age tests. Many area residents are already familiar with these tests, which can offer thrilling predictions of greater longevity. Onboarding flows can be effective tools for expanding user adoption if done right. Livescience.com covered the launch of these new biological aging tests. Though these tests only predict the odds of dying within the next 12 months, they further complicate the conversation around these potentially harmful assessments.
These findings highlight the importance of further research into the validity and usefulness of biological age tests. Experts have called for better standardization among similar providers to help consumers get consistent, dependable information. These inconsistencies we’ve found in recent research studies point to the absolute importance of transparency about testing methodologies.
