New Leader on the Rejuvenation Olympics

[ng0rge]

Great new post on Reddit r/Biohackers from daniellewis4life on what he did to arrive at the top of the leaderboard.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Biohackers/comments/1fseyz5/how_i_grabbed_the_1_spot_in_the_rejuvenation/

[RapAdmin]

Interesting data and great to see. I just wish that the aging biomarker tests were more validated. None of the scientists I talk to, or hear from, from Steven Horvath on out, put much credibility in these tests yet.

They are moving in the right direction but nobody thinks we have a truly accurate and reliable biomarker for aging yet, in whole organisms or individual organs. This is all good for marketing and for companies to make some money, but its really unclear on the value and accuracy of these tests.

[ng0rge]

@RapAdmin

put much credibility in these tests yet.

Well, as I posted on the Reddit thread, I think that they are credible and useful in a certain context but still need improvement to be consistently used as a measuring stick for interventions. @Steve_Combi finds them useful, while @John_Hemming is having doubts. I’m certainly considering trying TruDiagnostics TruAge complete at the sale price of 4 for $1000 ($250 ea). I think there’s plenty of useful info there, especially following thru on changes with 4 tests. I hope something better comes along, like Teal Omics. But I think DunedinPace can tell you more than just my bloodtests - which are getting more expensive as I keep adding new ones.
I just came across a mention that one of the CPG sites corresponds to VO2 Max. not completely accurate I’m sure, but interesting.
There are a number of studies that have used the epigenetic tests, multiple at a time and they generally seem to agree that DunedinPace has solved some of the early problems but isn’t perfect yet.

By the way, speaking of the Rejuvenation Olympics, I just watched Michael Lustgarten interview Dave Pascoe and although quite long, 2 and a half hours, I liked it. Two interesting personalities, and BioHackers thru and thru.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soxPu_TTLPE

[RapAdmin]

I’ll just refer you to Steven Horvath’s talk that I saw last year at the Longevity Summit - I recommend you listen to his commentary on these clocks (I’ve queued up the video to the exact point he discusses them - its about a 3 minute long section).

Prof. Steve Horvath- "Epigenetic perspective on maximum versus expected lifespan in mammals"

Related: Steve Horvath - How to Cheat on your Epigenetic Age Test

[ng0rge]

Yes, I had watched that some time ago and I agree, for many people, even doctors and researchers, the advice “don’t waste your money” is sound… but remember - we are biohackers - a strange breed. So it’s like telling Ben Franklin - “don’t play around with lightning”. But Steve Horvath himself knows how much science has gone into the epigenetic clocks and I don’t think he would say it was a waste of time. He’s still working with lots of other scientists on improving them. So he’s not ready to recommend them to that audience but I think that he would agree that they can provide some useful information, even now.

[RapAdmin]

Sure - I think they might provide some general directional value. But I don’t think we have enough data to say that the person in 1st place in the leaderboard necessarily has a better probability (all things being equal) of living to 120 than the person at 40th place on the leaderboard.

I’m wondering if anyone has done a deep dive on the True Diagnostics implementation of the Dunedin Pace clock, the validation that has been done on the clock (beyond the data provided in the published papers on the clock), and can share what they believe are the strengths and weaknesses of the clock?

My suspicion is that this is much more a marketing tool (for Bryan Johnson and the TrueDiagnostics team), than an accurate diagnostic measure that provides actionable value.

It will be interesting when we get the results of the rapamycin study (and related studies) being done by Andrea Meier at National University of Singapore. They are evaluating people with a battery of bioclocks in their studies, and so we’ll see the first real comparison between the leading clocks and perhaps will learn more.

[ng0rge]

@RapAdmin

My suspicion is that this is much more a marketing tool (for Bryan Johnson and the TrueDiagnostics team), than an accurate diagnostic measure that provides actionable value.

That’s your inner skeptic talking. I’ve seen enough to not think it’s just a marketing tool…that’s harsh. And if you look more carefully at the people at the top of the leaderboard (10-20) you’ll see that nobody’s there by luck. They’re all working hard on their health, even Julie Gibson Clark . So the tests are definitely focusing in on some elite healthy individuals. And I think there’s something to learn from each of them, although their whole routine may not be valuable. This shows me that TruDiagnostics - imperfect as it is - does separate out some truly healthy individuals that will probably live a long time (or get cancer or hit by a truck).
I would have to search again but my feeling is that if you talk to people in the longevity field - like you do - they would be closer to my point about “some limited usefulness” than yours “scam!”(I’m exaggerating). Ask Matt Kaeberlein or Michael Lustgarten, no, they may not recommend that you go out and buy it but I don’t think they’ll say - totally useless.

@RapAdmin

It will be interesting when we get the results of the rapamycin study (and related studies) being done by Andrea Meier at National University of Singapore. They are evaluating people with a battery of bioclocks in their studies, and so we’ll see the first real comparison between the leading clocks and perhaps will learn more.

As I said, researchers are using it. So I think they see some value there.

[amuser]

Somebody start a contest for the worst values returned by trud:

DNAmCRP of 40.85. Someone call the fire department! And yet that’s only at the 95th percentile.

Exercise, good sleep, a healthy diet, and positive relationships no doubt fix this. Trud offers no explanation.

For comparison, my actual hs-CRP from a blood sample taken on the same day as the trud test: 0.35

[RapAdmin]

@amuser

Exercise, good sleep, a healthy diet, and positive relationships no doubt fix this.

Just so I’m understanding this correctly, this was your score from TrueD even with exercise, clean living, good sleep and healthy diet?

One thing I’m wondering about is to what degree our past actions or habits impact current aging rates as measured by DunedinPace numbers. That is, if we led a sedentary life behind a desk, ate junk food, never exercised, had a stressful life - how long does the impact of those lifestyle scenarios carry forward even as we change our habits and practices?

This post from X here: x.com

Seems to suggest that they can change relatively quickly (@AnUser , here’s looking at you

[John_Hemming]

Before you contract to buy tests at USD 250 each make sure you find out what the shipping, taxes and duties costs are.

I have always had uncertainties about methylation tests. I think Trudiagnostic are scientifically probably one of the best in that area of the market.

PACE means more than many of the tests.

However, if my methylation age is going down my PACE should not be going up.

[Steve_Combi]

This paper kind of answers a previous question I had about how the DunedinPACE test could be age related. It looks like as we age, the PACE increases. not surprising

If that is true (and it should be), then measuring PACE as we age is a reasonable add-on to other tests we may be doing as we experiment. Since both my wife and I have had slowing PACE results as we age, that goes against what would be expected. This may indicate our interventions are doing something…

Our best PACE to date was the most recent from Feb when my blood work was also the best it’s been in 15 years. Is this correlation? adding interventions, improving blood markers, slowing PACE?

Saturday we finally submitted our 5th sample in 4 years, so we’ll see how that goes in about 4 weeks. I’m pretty stoked about this one. And of course more than a bit of trepidation…

I’m not big on watching videos, I prefer reading so I can stop and digest

DunedinPACE is faster in individuals measured to be biologically older using prior measures derived from DNA methylation and physiological data, and who report poorer self-rated health. We compared DunedinPACE with the epigenetic clocks proposed by Hannum et al., 2013; Horvath, 2013; Levine et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2019, with measurements of biological age derived from physiological data and with participants’ subjective perceptions of their own health status in data from the UK-based Understanding Society Study (n = 1175, mean age = 58, SD = 15, 42% male).

DunedinPACE, a DNA methylation biomarker of the pace of aging

[JKPrime]

if this “rejuvenation” trend continues for five more years, that is, six year “age” reduction per one year of treatment then 1) supplement manufacturers including nmn and aging clock companies will profit 2) the subject of this test, a male currently 35 years chronologically will be 5 year old biologically?

[Steve_Combi]

I doubt we will see 5 year old bio ages

That would require reversing puberty.

[Joseph_Lavelle]

I have never done one of these tests because I’ll like it if it says good things but hate it if it says bad things while I have zero understanding of what’s real. It feels like astrology to me. Oh, and I have to pay to get it. Nope.

At least the blood markers have some ACM data to back them up, even if the tests are not exactly precise (biological variability plus testing “errors”).

[Virilius]

It’s going to be really ironic when the first ones from the top 10 start dying from cardiovascular causes because they fell for the supplement-only meme.

[ng0rge]

@John_Hemming

However, if my methylation age is going down my PACE should not be going up.

Yes, there are still some kinks to work out. The researchers are aware of the problems and a lot of work is being done on improvements. Just like the thread on the NYT article, nothing works for everybody and people like @Agetron got what appeared to be incorrect results from TruDiagnostics - that doesn’t mean all their results are bad. It just means, for whatever reason, like rapamycin, there are going to be people who get a bad result.

@Joseph_Lavelle

I have never done one of these tests because I’ll like it if it says good things but hate it if it says bad things while I have zero understanding of what’s real. It feels like astrology to me. Oh, and I have to pay to get it. Nope.

I’ve read extensively on the science…believe me, it’s not astrology. Compare it to the Levine Phenotype Age bloodtest, people seem to be implying (@RapAdmin ) that DunedinPace is less reliable than Levine at predicting long term mortality. I’ll search for links but I doubt that’s true. Yes, Levine is free and I’m not making the argument that TruDiagnostics is worth the money. But I am anxious to get better information than the Levine test gives you.
One of the known problems that has been posted is with changes in immune cell composition.

Development of an epigenetic clock resistant to changes in immune cell composition

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-024-06609-4

[Joseph_Lavelle]

@ng0rge

I am anxious to get better information than the Levine test gives you.

I’m not that interested. I don’t see how it can be helpful to get rough guesses at my biological age or rate of aging. My blood markers tell me if I have a problem to focus on. Beyond that I’m just doing what I can to be as healthy as possible and to signal to my body to remain youthful.

Here’s a paper full of experimental tests that may be available to provide guesstimates of biological age and rate of aging and organ age etc. When they get much better than a blood test with ACM data, I’ll pay.

Biological Age Predictors: The Status Quo and Future Trends - PMC.

[ng0rge]

@Joseph_Lavelle

Here’s a paper full of experimental tests that may be available to provide guesstimates of biological age and rate of aging

Great paper! But a little dated now since it’s from Dec 2022 and only goes up to 2nd generation epigenetic clocks. The paper aligns exactly with what I’m saying.

Thus, epigenetic clocks are among the most promising biomarkers of biological age and powerful predictors of lifespan. However, there are approximately 28 million CpGs in the human genome, and the above models only used approximately 20,000 CpGs available in 27 K, 450 K, and EPIC. Publicly available whole-genome bisulfite sequencing databases would greatly facilitate the development of even more accurate epigenetic clocks.

The pace of aging is both individual and multifactorial. Therefore, assessment of biological age as an indicator of overall health is crucial. Accurate and straightforward age assessment tools would aid clinicians in providing personalized care, improved estimates of the current health and health risks, and individualized prevention strategies.

We believe that age calculators meet the above requirements for routine clinical practice. Age calculators based on clinical markers are optimal for health screening. They facilitate the identification of risk groups for accelerated aging and development of individualized prevention strategies. The reviewed models could be used in routine clinical practice in their current forms. However, they still should be tested in various populations.

Mixed-type calculators have emerged in the past few years. They combine clinical and epigenetic features and provide a more comprehensive and reliable assessment of the pace of aging. These calculators, however, are more expensive, which could impede their routine application. Many calculators are still being improved and tested. We believe that analysis of epigenetic changes may soon become widely available in routine clinical practice.

DunedinPace has improved over the 2nd generation epigenetic clocks that they looked at. I would certainly, as they suggest, combine both blood biomarkers and epigenetic testing. If you look at what Daniel, the subject of this thread did, he also got extensive blood work done with iollo, which is also used by Michael Lustgarten @ConquerAging .

https://www.iollo.com/

@Joseph_Lavelle

I’m not that interested. I don’t see how it can be helpful to get rough guesses at my biological age

And you call yourself a “biohacker”…that’s embarrassing…just kidding. First they’re more than just “rough guesses” even if they are still a work in process. Second, the biohacker creed is testing, testing, testing…more info is always better. However, it is reasonable to say that it’s not worth the money. That’s an individual call.

[Neo]

@Joseph_Lavelle

When they get much better than a blood test with ACM data, I’ll pay

One key thing is that they seem to be backward compatible

The raw data from your test is digital and is available from each test you do today at any point in the future (at least if you go with Steve Horvath’s Clock Foundation). That means that as better algorithms come out you can rerun your old test dates and get updated outputs and hence a rich time series (again similar to how you could have sequenced your genome 5 years ago and each year gotten more and more insights as new genetics studies come out).

You can never get that future insight to your current health regime - if you don’t collect the data today.

TruDiagnostic actually did this around a year ago - they offered past testers to get their past tests analyzed with new algorithms developed at Yale and started providing different organ clock data that they have not originally offered.

(And they only charged 15 bucks)

Discover aging insights on eleven organ systems with SYMPHONYAge, using Yale University’s system-specific, epigenetic aging algorithms. TruDiagnostic exclusively offers the SYMPHONYAge clock series to deliver both individual and interconnected organ aging insights in our new SYMPHONYAge report.

Upgrade your previous TruAge COMPLETE test(s) to gain digital access to the epigenetic age calculations in our SYMPHONYAge reports, including:

Included Aging Insights:

1. Lung Age

2. Heart Age

3. Brain Age

4. Hormone Age

5. Metabolic Age

6. Musculoskeletal Age

7. Blood Age

8. Liver Age

9. Inflammation Age

10. Kidney Age

11. Immune System Age

12. Your Whole Body, SYMPHONYAge
(Organ Systems Age)

[Joseph_Lavelle]

@Neo @ng0rge Thanks. I hope these tools progress into usefulness but for now I believe it is what used to be called mental masturbation. A nice presentation doesn’t make the underlying data more accurate. Sure it feels good but what do you do with it when the data is NOT accurate in ways no one can say? What actions would anyone take based on this data that wouldn’t be clearer from basic blood tests or perhaps a basic genetic test (to clarify apoe, MTHFR, etc…keeping testing errors in mind…see paper below)?

I’ll keep waiting for useful information to help me prioritize but for now I already know what to do to improve my health. I just need to do it. Pretty reports with wide error bars won’t help.

False-positive results released by direct-to-consumer genetic tests highlight the importance of clinical confirmation testing for appropriate patient care

https://www.nature.com/articles/gim201838