Deep Dive: Biological Age Clocks — What Coaches Need to Know¶

From Chapter 1.4: Assessment & Biomarkers

What Are Biological Age Clocks?¶

You've likely heard clients ask about "biological age" tests: tools that claim to measure how old your body "really" is compared to your chronological age. These tests are generating buzz in longevity circles. But here's what you need to know: they're still developing technology, not yet validated for guiding interventions.

Epigenetic clocks measure DNA methylation patterns, chemical modifications to DNA that change with age. Scientists use machine learning to analyze thousands of methylation sites and create algorithms that predict age based on these patterns.

The idea: your "epigenetic age" might be younger or older than your chronological age, reflecting how fast you're actually aging. Some people are "biologically younger" than their years; others are "biologically older."

The Different Types of Clocks¶

Several biological age clocks exist, each trained on different outcomes:

The distinction matters: Clocks trained on mortality (PhenoAge, GrimAge) are more relevant for longevity than those trained purely on chronological age.

What the Research Shows¶

The Promise: Predictive Power¶

Epigenetic clocks can predict mortality risk. A 2018 study found that each 1-year increase in DNAm PhenoAge was associated with a 9% higher risk of all-cause mortality.¹ That's meaningful predictive power.

Some studies show lifestyle interventions can shift epigenetic age:
- An 8-week diet and lifestyle program reduced biological age by an average of 3.23 years in one pilot study²
- Exercise, nutrition, and sleep improvements correlate with younger biological age readings

The Limitation: Validation Gap¶

Here's the critical issue: no aging biomarker has yet been validated as a surrogate endpoint for healthspan or lifespan.

What does that mean? Regulatory bodies like the FDA require evidence that:

1. ✅ The biomarker predicts health outcomes. Epigenetic clocks do this
2. ❓ Interventions that change the biomarker also change health outcomes. Evidence is weak
3. ❓ The biomarker reliably reflects underlying biological processes. Still being studied

We can show that biological age predicts mortality. But we can't yet prove that lowering your biological age through interventions actually extends life. Correlation isn't causation.

Current Technical Limitations¶

Volatility and Noise¶

Epigenetic clocks show substantial variability:

• Technical noise alone can shift readings by multiple years (up to ~9 years between replicates for some clocks)³
• Day-to-day and diurnal variation can produce several-year swings within the same person⁴

This makes it hard to know whether a change represents real biological improvement or just measurement noise.

Tissue Specificity¶

Different tissues give different ages:

• Blood, saliva, and skin can show biological ages that differ by decades for the same person⁵
• Which tissue is "right"? We don't know yet.

Intervention Response Unclear¶

Some studies report biological age "reversals" after lifestyle changes, but:

• Many changes aren't replicable across different clock models⁶
• What looks like improvement on one clock may not appear on another
• We can't distinguish real biological change from statistical noise

No Standardization¶

Currently no consensus on:
- Which clock is "best"
- How to standardize sampling protocols
- What constitutes meaningful change versus noise
- How often to test

How to Talk to Clients About Biological Age¶

When Clients Ask About Testing¶

Sample response:

"Biological age clocks are interesting research tools that measure DNA methylation patterns associated with aging. They can predict mortality risk, which is valuable. But here's what the science says right now: we don't yet have strong evidence that improving your biological age score actually translates to longer, healthier life.

The technology is developing rapidly, and that may change. But for now, I'd recommend focusing on functional metrics: your VO2 max, strength, and mobility. Those are proven predictors of longevity AND things we can directly improve through lifestyle. Think of biological age clocks as supplementary information, not your primary focus."

When Clients Have Test Results¶

Sample response:

"Thanks for sharing this. Let me give you some context on what these numbers mean, and what they don't.

Your biological age came back 3 years younger than your chronological age. That sounds good, and it might reflect positive lifestyle factors. But I want to be honest: these tests have significant variability. If you tested again tomorrow, you might get a different number.

"More importantly, we don't yet know if improving your biological age score actually extends life. What we do know: improving your VO2 max, maintaining strength, staying active, eating well, sleeping well. These things definitely matter for longevity. Let's keep focusing there."

When Clients Want to "Reverse" Their Age¶

Some clients become fixated on biological age as a metric to optimize.

Sample response:

"I understand the appeal of having one number that tells you how you're aging. But biological age clocks aren't quite there yet. Here's what I'd suggest: use them as one data point among many, not as your primary focus.

If you want to track aging, let's focus on functional capacity: can you get up from the floor? What's your VO2 max? How's your grip strength? These directly measure what matters: your body's ability to function. And when we improve these, we know it predicts better outcomes."

The Bottom Line for Coaches¶

What to Emphasize¶

1. Biological age clocks are research tools, not clinical standards, interesting but not yet validated for guiding interventions

2. Functional metrics are proven and improvable: VO2 max, grip strength, and movement tests have stronger evidence and clearer actionability

3. Don't let clients obsess over biological age: it's one data point, not the whole picture

4. Trends might matter more than single readings, if someone tests repeatedly over years, the direction may be meaningful even if individual readings are noisy

5. The technology is improving: biological age clocks may become more useful in the future as research progresses

What to Avoid¶

❌ Presenting biological age as definitive or actionable
❌ Recommending specific interventions to "lower" biological age
❌ Letting clients make biological age their primary metric
❌ Dismissing the tests entirely (they do have predictive value)

Looking Forward¶

Biological age testing is a rapidly evolving field. In the next 5-10 years, we may see:

• More validated clocks with better reliability
• Clearer evidence linking intervention-driven changes to health outcomes
• Standardized testing protocols
• Integration into clinical practice

For now, treat these tests as supplementary information, interesting, potentially useful, but not yet ready to guide coaching decisions. The fundamentals still matter most.

References¶

1. Levine ME, Lu AT, Quach A, et al. An epigenetic biomarker of aging for lifespan and healthspan. Aging. 2018;10(4):573-591. doi:10.18632/aging.101414

2. Fitzgerald KN, Hodges R, Hanes D, et al. Potential reversal of epigenetic age using a diet and lifestyle intervention. Aging. 2021;13(7):9419-9432. doi:10.18632/aging.202913

3. Higgins-Chen AT, Thrush KL, Wang Y, et al. A computational solution for bolstering reliability of epigenetic clocks. Nature Aging. 2022;2:644-658. doi:10.1038/s43587-022-00248-2

4. Komaki S, Ohmomo H, Hachiya T, et al. Evaluation of short-term epigenetic age fluctuation. Clinical Epigenetics. 2022;14:97. doi:10.1186/s13148-022-01293-9

5. Apsley AT, Ye Q, Caspi A, et al. Cross-tissue comparison of epigenetic aging clocks in humans. Aging Cell. 2025;24(4):e14451. doi:10.1111/acel.14451

6. Borrus DS, Sehgal R, Armstrong JF, et al. When to Trust Epigenetic Clocks: Avoiding False Positives in Aging Interventions. bioRxiv. 2024. doi:10.1101/2024.10.22.619720

7. Biomarkers of Aging Consortium. Validation of biomarkers of aging. Nature Medicine. 2024;30:360-372. doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02784-9

← Back to Chapter 1.4: Assessment & Biomarkers