3 ms·

I disagree, because "real age" is defined in terms of the epigenetic clock. We don't have enough time observing them with humans to connect them to real age, at

I disagree, because "real age" is defined in terms of the epigenetic clock. We don't have enough time observing them with humans to connect them to real age, at least as far as I have ever seen. If there's some major paper I have missed, and my other sources have missed, I'd love to see it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pc86 3y ago
Real age is chronological age, full stop. If you were born 50 years ago today, you're 50 years old. Age is a concrete, mathematical thing. That your cells appear to be younger or older to your actual (chronological) age is irrelevant. You don't get to say your "real age" is 45 because your cells are slightly better than they "should be."
- voisin 3y ago
  I think you two are talking past each other. “I am 50 years old” is a statement of fact like you refer. “Real age” is essentially a term of art used to describe your relative health - a single number to indicate the cumulative impact of your lifestyle, genes, etc. No one says “I have a real age of 50” to the question “how old are you?”
  - epistasis 3y ago
    Thanks. Moreover nobody would use an epigenetic clock to refer to chronological age, because it's inferior in every way for that purpose. The purported use of an epigenetic clock in humans is that it predicts either aging effects of remaining life span in some sense; neither of these have been proven to be biologically true because in the first we don't necessarily have the definition of aging, and certainly don't have it down to a single axis, at best it is understood along many different dimensions, many of which are not captured by epigenetic measures. And second sense, predicting remaining life span, is completely unproven. Even more speculative is whether measures which change a person's epigenetic age will result in changes in remaining lifespan. There's a chance that epigenetic age becomes useful for something, but it's just a chance. It's not established science.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pc86 3y ago

Real age is chronological age, full stop. If you were born 50 years ago today, you're 50 years old. Age is a concrete, mathematical thing. That your cells appear to be younger or older to your actual (chronological) age is irrelevant. You don't get to say your "real age" is 45 because your cells are slightly better than they "should be."

voisin 3y ago
I think you two are talking past each other. “I am 50 years old” is a statement of fact like you refer. “Real age” is essentially a term of art used to describe your relative health - a single number to indicate the cumulative impact of your lifestyle, genes, etc. No one says “I have a real age of 50” to the question “how old are you?”
- epistasis 3y ago
  Thanks. Moreover nobody would use an epigenetic clock to refer to chronological age, because it's inferior in every way for that purpose. The purported use of an epigenetic clock in humans is that it predicts either aging effects of remaining life span in some sense; neither of these have been proven to be biologically true because in the first we don't necessarily have the definition of aging, and certainly don't have it down to a single axis, at best it is understood along many different dimensions, many of which are not captured by epigenetic measures. And second sense, predicting remaining life span, is completely unproven. Even more speculative is whether measures which change a person's epigenetic age will result in changes in remaining lifespan. There's a chance that epigenetic age becomes useful for something, but it's just a chance. It's not established science.