DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
Découvrez 08 - Slim
Your ally for a slimmer figure and healthy weight
Journal
You’re 50 years old. But is your body really 50?
It’s one of the most compelling ideas in modern aging science: our chronological age—the number of years that have passed since we were born—may tell only part of the story.
Two people born on the exact same day can have dramatically different health profiles, physical abilities, and aging trajectories.
One may develop multiple age-related diseases relatively early.
The other may remain healthy and highly functional for decades longer.
That raises a question that has become central to longevity research:
Can we measure not simply how much time has passed, but how our bodies are actually aging?
Over the past decade, one family of biomarkers has transformed the way scientists approach this question:
epigenetic clocks.
By analyzing chemical modifications on our DNA, algorithms can generate estimates that are strongly associated with chronological age—and, in some cases, with disease risk and mortality [1–6].
Commercial biological age tests now use some of these technologies to deliver results such as:
“You’re 50 years old, but your biological age is 42.”
It’s a powerful idea.
But scientifically, what does that number actually mean?
And more importantly:
If your epigenetic clock moves backward, have you actually become younger?
To answer that, we first need to distinguish between two concepts that are often treated as interchangeable.
Chronological age is straightforward.
It is simply the amount of time that has passed since you were born.
However you measure it:
50 years is 50 years.
Biological age is much harder to define.
The concept attempts to describe the biological state of an organism independently of the number of years it has been alive.
In simple terms:
CHRONOLOGICAL AGE = How long have you been alive?
BIOLOGICAL AGE = How does the biological state of your body compare with what we typically observe at your age?
The problem is that there is no master clock inside the body displaying:
BIOLOGICAL AGE: 43.7 YEARS.
Biological age is therefore a scientific construct estimated from biomarkers.
Researchers can examine cardiovascular function, lung function, muscle strength, cognition, blood biomarkers, proteins, metabolites, gene expression, and many other biological signals.
And since 2013, one of the most influential approaches has focused on:
DNA methylation.
Nearly every cell in the human body contains essentially the same genome.
And yet:
a neuron is not a muscle cell.
A skin cell is not a liver cell.
The difference therefore cannot be explained by DNA sequence alone.
It also depends on how genes are regulated.
Epigenetics refers to a collection of biological mechanisms that regulate genome activity without necessarily changing the underlying DNA sequence.
These mechanisms include:
DNA methylation, histone modifications, and chromatin organization.
When it comes to epigenetic clocks and biological age, the most extensively studied mechanism is:
DNA methylation.
DNA methylation involves the addition of a small chemical group—a methyl group—to certain cytosines in DNA.
These modifications frequently occur at locations known as:
CpG sites.
The name simply means that a cytosine—C—is followed by a guanine—G—in the DNA sequence, with the two connected by a phosphate—p.
Hence:
C-p-G.
The human genome contains millions of CpG sites.
And their methylation patterns are not random.
Some sites are highly methylated, others much less so, and those patterns vary depending on tissue, cell type, development, environmental exposures, and age.
DNA methylation can play an important role in gene regulation, although the relationship is far more complex than:
METHYLATED = GENE OFF
and
UNMETHYLATED = GENE ON.
The effect depends on where methylation occurs and on the surrounding biological context.
It changes.
As we get older, some regions of the genome tend to gain methylation while others lose it.
Aging is also associated with broader changes in epigenetic organization and increasing heterogeneity between cells.
Most importantly for aging clocks, some CpG sites change with age in sufficiently consistent patterns that an algorithm can use them as:
molecular markers of aging.
This observation led to the development of the first generation of epigenetic clocks.
The basic principle is surprisingly intuitive.
Researchers take a large population of people whose chronological ages are known.
They measure DNA methylation at hundreds of thousands of CpG sites.
An algorithm then identifies the combination of sites that best predicts age.
And the resulting estimates can be remarkably accurate.
Two landmark studies published in 2013 laid much of the foundation for modern epigenetic aging research.
The first, led by Gregory Hannum and colleagues, analyzed more than 450,000 CpG sites in blood samples from hundreds of participants [1].
Using these data, the researchers developed a model based on a much smaller set of CpG sites capable of estimating age.
That same year, Steve Horvath published what would become one of the most famous epigenetic clocks in aging research [2].
His goal was broader.
Instead of developing an aging clock specifically for blood, Horvath assembled nearly 8,000 samples across 51 different tissues and cell types.
The final algorithm used:
353 CpG sites.
Based on their DNA methylation patterns, the Horvath clock could generate an age estimate that correlated remarkably well with chronological age across many human tissues [2].
It was a major breakthrough.
For the first time, scientists could examine a relatively small collection of chemical marks on DNA and estimate, with surprising accuracy:
approximately how old the person behind the sample was.
This is where things become more complicated.
The Horvath clock was primarily trained to predict:
chronological age.
Its remarkable ability to estimate our age therefore does not automatically mean that it perfectly measures our:
“true biological age.”
Imagine an algorithm that can look at a photograph of your face and estimate your age with extraordinary accuracy.
That would prove that the algorithm can detect features that change as we get older.
It would not necessarily mean that it can measure:
how quickly your entire body is aging.
That distinction led researchers to develop newer generations of epigenetic clocks.
Imagine that you are:
50 years old chronologically
but an epigenetic clock estimates your age at:
55.
That difference could be interpreted as a form of epigenetic age acceleration.
Conversely, an estimate of 45 might suggest relative epigenetic age deceleration.
In research, the statistical methods are more sophisticated than simply subtracting one number from the other. Scientists may use residuals from models adjusted for chronological age and, in some cases, blood-cell composition.
But the basic question is:
Does your DNA methylation profile look “older” or “younger” than expected for your chronological age?
And that turns out to be biologically interesting.
Yes, in multiple observational studies.
A major meta-analysis involving 13 cohorts and 13,089 participants found that several measures of epigenetic age acceleration were associated with mortality, including after adjustment for a range of conventional risk factors [3].
Another systematic review and meta-analysis involving more than 41,000 participants also found an association between accelerated DNA methylation age and mortality [4].
Depending on the model, a five-year increase in certain measures of epigenetic age was associated with an approximately 8% to 15% higher relative risk of mortality, although the researchers also highlighted heterogeneity across studies and the possibility of publication bias [4].
This matters.
It suggests that some epigenetic clocks are doing more than simply reconstructing the date on our birth certificate.
They can also capture:
biological information associated with future health outcomes.
But one distinction is essential:
ASSOCIATED WITH MORTALITY ≠ CAUSING MORTALITY
An epigenetic clock can be an excellent risk biomarker without itself being a mechanism that drives aging.
The earliest DNA methylation clocks were therefore primarily designed to predict chronological age.
They revealed something extraordinary:
our epigenome contains a remarkably strong signature of the passage of time.
But scientists then began asking whether epigenetic biomarkers could be designed to capture something more clinically meaningful:
health, disease, and mortality risk.
That led to the second generation of epigenetic aging clocks.
In 2018, Morgan Levine and colleagues introduced:
DNAm PhenoAge [5].
The underlying logic was different.
Researchers first developed a measure called Phenotypic Age, combining chronological age with several clinical biomarkers selected for their ability to predict mortality.
This measure incorporated information from biomarkers reflecting multiple physiological systems.
The researchers then identified DNA methylation sites capable of predicting that phenotypic age.
The resulting clock was based on:
513 CpG sites.
PhenoAge was therefore no longer simply asking:
“How old are you?”
It was moving closer to:
“What kind of age-related physiological risk profile does your DNA methylation resemble?”
In published analyses, DNAm PhenoAge was associated with several aging-related outcomes, including mortality, disease, physical function, and other measures of health [5].
The concept of an epigenetic clock had fundamentally changed.
In 2019, another major epigenetic clock appeared:
DNAm GrimAge [6].
The name was intentionally provocative.
GrimAge was developed using epigenetic surrogates for several plasma proteins, along with a DNA methylation-based estimate of cumulative smoking exposure.
These signals were then combined to develop a predictor of:
time to death.
Across multiple cohorts, GrimAge showed strong associations with:
mortality, coronary heart disease, certain cancers, and other measures of age-related morbidity [6].
This is why GrimAge has become one of the most widely discussed biomarkers in longevity research.
But there is an important subtlety.
If GrimAge incorporates information indirectly related to smoking exposure and proteins associated with disease risk, it is not particularly surprising that it can predict mortality more effectively than an epigenetic clock trained only to predict chronological age.
In other words:
not all epigenetic clocks are asking the same question.
Their basic philosophies can be summarized like this:
HORVATH / HANNUM
→ How old does your DNA methylation profile appear to be?
PHENOAGE
→ What kind of age-related physiological risk profile does your DNA methylation resemble?
GRIMAGE
→ What does your DNA methylation reveal about biological signals associated with morbidity and mortality risk?
These are not three different thermometers measuring exactly the same temperature.
They are better understood as:
different instruments designed to capture different dimensions of aging.
And that helps explain why the same person can receive different biological age estimates depending on which epigenetic clock is used.
Imagine two 50-year-olds.
Today, their biomarkers generate exactly the same estimated biological age:
50 years.
But one is aging slowly.
The other is aging rapidly.
Five years from now, their biological trajectories could look very different.
A single biological age number may fail to capture that dynamic.
Researchers working with the Dunedin Study, a remarkable longitudinal cohort in New Zealand followed for decades, therefore took a different approach.
Instead of asking:
“How biologically old are you right now?”
they tried to measure:
“How fast are you aging?”
The Dunedin Study follows roughly 1,000 people born in New Zealand in 1972–1973.
Because the same individuals have been repeatedly assessed over decades, researchers have something exceptionally valuable:
longitudinal data showing how multiple physiological systems actually change within the same people over time.
The research that ultimately produced DunedinPACE used longitudinal changes in 19 biomarkers of organ-system integrity measured across approximately two decades [7].
Researchers then developed a blood DNA methylation signature designed to estimate this pace of aging.
The concept is fundamentally different.
DunedinPACE is not primarily trying to tell you:
“Your biological age is 47.”
Instead, it aims to estimate:
how quickly your body is changing as you age.
The score is centered approximately around:
1.
In simplified terms:
DUNEDINPACE = 1 → reference pace of aging
DUNEDINPACE > 1 → relatively faster physiological aging
DUNEDINPACE < 1 → relatively slower physiological aging
However, the score should not be interpreted too literally, as though every decimal point translated perfectly into a precise number of biological years gained or lost.
It is a statistical biomarker.
Not a perfect biological stopwatch.
The findings are compelling.
In validation studies, a faster DunedinPACE has been associated with several indicators of less favorable aging, including:
morbidity, disability, and mortality [7].
Research examining cognition and dementia also found that DunedinPACE was associated with cognitive performance and Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis. In an independent cohort of 2,264 participants, it was also associated with subsequent dementia risk [8].
This obviously does not mean that DunedinPACE can:
predict with certainty who will develop dementia.
These are probabilistic associations observed across populations.
But the findings reinforce an important idea:
measuring the pace of aging may be fundamentally different—and, in certain contexts, more informative—than simply estimating a biological age.
There is no universal answer.
And that is one of the most important lessons to emerge from current aging research.
If your goal is to predict:
chronological age, certain first-generation clocks can perform extremely well.
If your goal is to investigate:
mortality risk or age-related health outcomes, GrimAge or PhenoAge may be more informative in certain settings.
If your goal is to study:
the pace of aging, DunedinPACE was specifically developed to address that question.
Asking:
“Which epigenetic clock is the most accurate?”
without specifying what you want to measure is therefore a little like asking:
“What is the most accurate medical instrument?”
A thermometer and a blood pressure monitor can both be excellent instruments.
They simply measure different things.
Not as a single, definitive number.
An epigenetic clock can provide meaningful biological information.
It can reveal whether your DNA methylation profile looks more or less like patterns typically observed with aging.
Certain clocks can also provide statistical information associated with future health risk.
But there is currently no universally accepted:
“TRUE BIOLOGICAL AGE”
that can be measured down to the decimal point.
Your brain, arteries, muscles, immune system, skin, and kidneys may not all age at the same rate.
And different approaches to measuring biological aging capture:
different pieces of that complexity.
So when a commercial biological age test tells you:
“You’re 52, but your biological age is 44,”
it should not be interpreted as though eight years have literally disappeared from your body.
The number is the product of:
a biomarker + an algorithm + a reference population + a measurement method.
It is not a new birth date.
But an even more fascinating question remains.
If epigenetic clocks really do capture certain dimensions of biological aging, what happens when we change our lifestyle or metabolism?
Can calorie restriction, exercise, diet, omega-3s, or longevity interventions actually turn back our epigenetic clocks?
And if a biological age test drops from 50 to 47:
Did we actually become three years younger?
This is, of course, the question everyone wants answered.
If DNA methylation can be used to estimate certain dimensions of biological aging, could changing our lifestyle, diet, or metabolism actually:
slow down—or even reverse—our epigenetic age?
Several studies suggest that certain epigenetic clocks are indeed responsive to interventions [9–12].
But that immediately raises a much bigger question:
TURNING BACK AN EPIGENETIC CLOCK = BECOMING BIOLOGICALLY YOUNGER?
For now, science does not allow us to put an equal sign between the two.
In 2019, a small study called **TRIIM—the Thymus Regeneration, Immunorestoration and Insulin Mitigation trial—**attracted enormous attention [9].
The original goal was not actually to “reverse aging.”
Researchers were investigating an intervention designed to promote regeneration of the thymus, an organ essential to immune function that progressively involutes with age.
Nine men between the ages of 51 and 65 underwent a one-year protocol that included:
recombinant human growth hormone, DHEA, and metformin [9].
When researchers analyzed several epigenetic aging clocks, they observed reductions in multiple estimates of epigenetic age.
After 12 months, some analyses suggested an approximately 2.5-year reduction relative to expected chronological aging, with the divergence appearing to accelerate later in the study [9].
The finding was fascinating.
And the headlines were almost inevitable:
“Scientists reverse biological aging.”
But that is not what the study proved.
The study included only:
nine participants.
All of them were:
men.
There was no true:
randomized placebo control group.
And the intervention combined several different compounds.
It is therefore impossible to determine with confidence which part of the protocol was responsible for the observed changes.
Most importantly, a decrease in an epigenetic aging score does not demonstrate that the participants literally recovered several years of biological youth.
TRIIM should therefore be viewed as an intriguing proof-of-concept study.
Not proof that human aging can be reversed.
To understand what epigenetic clocks can actually tell us about interventions and aging, the CALERIE trial is far more informative [10].
CALERIE is one of the rare long-term randomized trials to investigate calorie restriction in healthy, non-obese adults.
A total of 220 adults were randomized to either:
calorie restriction
or
an ad libitum diet
for two years.
The intervention targeted a 25% reduction in calorie intake, although the actual sustained reduction in energy intake was more modest.
Researchers then analyzed several DNA methylation measures to determine whether calorie restriction had influenced biological aging.
And the results perfectly illustrate the complexity of epigenetic clocks.
After two years, researchers found no significant calorie-restriction effect on:
PhenoAge
or
GrimAge [10].
They did, however, detect an effect on:
DunedinPACE.
Calorie restriction was associated with a modest slowing of the pace of aging as measured by DunedinPACE [10].
That is scientifically interesting.
But look at what just happened.
Same intervention.
Same participants.
Same biological samples.
Yet:
PHENOAGE → no significant effect
GRIMAGE → no significant effect
DUNEDINPACE → modest slowing
This is one of the clearest examples of why talking about:
“epigenetic age”
as though it were a single biological measurement can be misleading.
Different clocks capture different dimensions of aging.
It did not demonstrate that calorie restriction:
“rejuvenates humans.”
Instead, the study showed that a two-year metabolic intervention could measurably alter a DNA methylation biomarker specifically designed to capture the pace of aging [10].
That is already meaningful.
But DunedinPACE remains:
a biomarker.
To demonstrate that slowing this biomarker truly reflects slower human aging, researchers would ideally need to show that intervention-induced changes subsequently predict:
fewer age-related diseases, less functional decline, more years lived in good health, and potentially lower mortality.
We are not there yet.
In 2025, an analysis of the European DO-HEALTH trial added another important piece to the puzzle [11].
This analysis included 777 older adults followed for three years.
Researchers investigated three interventions:
2,000 IU of vitamin D per day
1 gram of omega-3 per day
a simple home-based exercise program
both individually and in combination.
They then evaluated four measures of epigenetic aging:
PhenoAge, GrimAge, GrimAge2, and DunedinPACE.
In this analysis, omega-3 supplementation was associated with slower aging according to:
PhenoAge, GrimAge2, and DunedinPACE [11].
When all three interventions were combined, an additive effect was observed for PhenoAge.
But the magnitude of the effect deserves close attention.
Over three years, the reported standardized effects corresponded to approximately:
2.9 to 3.8 months [11].
Not three years.
Not ten years.
A few months.
That does not make the finding meaningless.
A small effect sustained across a large population could potentially matter.
But there is an enormous difference between:
“some epigenetic biomarkers changed slightly”
and
“the participants became younger.”
Several studies have linked physical activity or structured exercise programs with changes in certain epigenetic aging clocks.
A recent systematic review of human interventions identified studies in which exercise was associated with decreases in some next-generation epigenetic clocks [12].
But the findings are not uniform.
Exercise protocols differ in duration and intensity. Study populations vary. Different tissues are analyzed. And different epigenetic clocks are used.
DO-HEALTH is again instructive: its exercise intervention did not simply turn back every aging clock in the same way [11].
So it would be premature to claim:
“X minutes of exercise reverses Y years of biological age.”
We do not have that equation.
The same problem applies to nutrition.
Several small intervention studies have reported changes in epigenetic clocks following dietary interventions or programs combining diet, exercise, sleep, and supplementation.
Some are scientifically interesting.
But many have important limitations:
small sample sizes, multi-component interventions, short study durations, limited independent replication, or multiple epigenetic clocks analyzed simultaneously.
The 2026 review of human intervention studies did identify several nutritional and lifestyle interventions associated with decreases in certain aging clocks [12].
But it also showed that:
not every intervention produces an effect
and
not every epigenetic clock responds in the same way.
So the scientifically useful question is not:
“Which food reverses DNA aging?”
It is:
“Can specific interventions reproducibly alter validated epigenetic biomarkers of aging?”
Based on current evidence, the answer appears to be:
probably yes for certain interventions and certain biomarkers—but the clinical meaning of those changes remains uncertain.
This is where caution becomes especially important.
The longevity market now includes a growing number of interventions marketed around biological aging, including:
NAD+ and NAD+ precursors, rapamycin, senolytics, polyphenols, vitamins, minerals, and other supplements.
But a biologically plausible mechanism does not mean an intervention will reverse an epigenetic clock.
And even if it does:
that still does not prove that it extends lifespan.
The 2026 systematic review of 41 human studies illustrates this perfectly. Some interventions were associated with reductions in certain next-generation epigenetic clocks, while others—including nicotinamide riboside, rapamycin, and some senolytic interventions in the studies identified—did not produce detectable changes in the clocks analyzed [12].
That does not mean those compounds have no biological effects.
It simply means that:
the epigenetic clocks used in those studies did not detect the expected slowing of epigenetic aging.
A large harmonized analysis brought together data from 51 human intervention studies and recalculated a consistent panel of 16 epigenetic aging clocks, along with numerous other DNA methylation biomarkers [13].
The goal was to answer a deceptively simple question:
Do epigenetic biomarkers of aging respond to interventions?
The broad answer was:
some do.
But not all of them—and not in the same way.
Clocks designed to predict mortality or the pace of aging appeared, overall, to be more responsive to interventions than some first-generation chronological-age clocks [13].
The type of intervention, study population, and duration also influenced the response.
That is important.
It suggests that epigenetic clocks could eventually help researchers evaluate potential longevity interventions much faster than waiting decades for clinical outcomes.
But at the time of publication, this analysis was available as a preprint, and it does not resolve the fundamental question:
Is a biomarker that responds to an intervention a true surrogate for healthspan or longevity?
Not necessarily.
Imagine that researchers want to determine whether an intervention genuinely slows human aging.
The ideal experiment would involve recruiting thousands of people, randomizing them, and following them for:
20, 30, or 40 years.
Researchers could then compare:
cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia, loss of independence, and mortality.
Scientifically, that would be extraordinarily informative.
Practically, it is extremely difficult.
This is why researchers are interested in surrogate endpoints.
A surrogate endpoint is a biomarker that changes relatively quickly and reliably predicts meaningful long-term clinical outcomes.
In theory, an epigenetic clock could eventually serve this purpose.
Instead of waiting 30 years, researchers might be able to observe after two years:
“This intervention slowed DunedinPACE.”
But before that can be interpreted as proof that an intervention slows aging itself, scientists need to establish that:
intervention-induced changes in DunedinPACE—or another epigenetic clock—reliably predict subsequent improvements in meaningful clinical outcomes.
That level of validation has not yet been established across the field.
No.
This may be the single most important misconception to avoid.
Imagine a biological age test reports:
BEFORE: 52 YEARS
and six months later:
AFTER: 47 YEARS.
That does not automatically mean you have:
gained five years of life expectancy.
It does not mean your organs have literally become five years younger.
And it does not mean your disease risk is now identical to that of an average 47-year-old.
The number is generated by a statistical model.
Depending on the epigenetic clock, it may represent:
an estimate of chronological age, an age-related phenotypic profile, mortality-associated risk, or the pace of aging.
Directly converting that difference into:
“years of life gained”
is not scientifically justified.
Yes, potentially.
An intervention could alter certain DNA methylation marks that carry substantial weight in a particular algorithm.
The clock could then change.
But that would not necessarily prove that:
the full spectrum of biological processes driving aging throughout the body has been reversed.
This is the crucial distinction between:
BIOMARKER REVERSAL
and
BIOLOGICAL AGE REVERSAL.
They are not yet synonymous.
Not necessarily.
Some age-related DNA methylation changes may directly participate in cellular regulation and potentially contribute to aspects of the aging process.
Others may instead be:
consequences of aging, markers of environmental exposure, responses to disease, or simply correlates of time passing.
An epigenetic clock can therefore be highly predictive without every CpG site within it being causally involved in aging.
Consider a deliberately simplified analogy.
Gray hair is associated with aging.
Dyeing it black:
changes the marker.
It does not:
make the body younger.
Epigenetic biology is vastly more complex than hair color, of course, but the analogy illustrates the underlying problem.
Changing a marker of aging and changing aging itself are not necessarily the same thing.
For now, caution is warranted.
A 2025 critical analysis concluded that epigenetic clocks are extremely useful in research and at the population level, but do not currently meet the standards required to guide individual medical decisions [14].
There are several reasons:
how the sample is collected;
how it is stored and processed;
the DNA methylation platform used;
the computational preprocessing pipeline;
the algorithm selected;
the tissue being analyzed;
the cellular composition of the sample;
and biological variability itself.
In other words, a biological age estimate is not yet equivalent to a standardized clinical measurement such as:
blood glucose, blood pressure, or cholesterol.
Yes.
DNA methylation is partly:
tissue-specific.
A blood sample primarily contains different populations of blood cells.
Saliva contains a different mixture of cells, including epithelial and immune cells.
Other tissues have their own epigenetic profiles.
Some epigenetic clocks were specifically designed to work across multiple tissues.
Others were trained or validated in particular tissues.
Using an epigenetic clock outside the context in which it was developed can therefore affect how the result should be interpreted.
This helps explain why two commercial biological age tests using:
different sample types
or
different algorithms
may give the same person different biological age estimates.
It is tempting.
But again, interpretation is difficult.
If your biological age result moves from:
46 to 44
over three months, you need to know whether that difference represents:
a genuine biological change
or
normal analytical and biological variability.
Not all epigenetic clocks have the same level of individual-level reproducibility.
Recent critical analyses have highlighted that repeated measurements in the same person can vary enough to complicate clinical interpretation [14].
To use an epigenetic clock seriously as an individual tracking tool, we would need a clear understanding of:
within-person variability, measurement error, and the minimum change that can reasonably be considered biologically meaningful.
Those standards have not yet been universally established for commercial biological age testing.
That would be the opposite—and equally misleading—conclusion.
Epigenetic clocks represent a major scientific advance.
They allow researchers to investigate:
individual differences in aging;
relationships between lifestyle, environment, and biological aging;
disease and mortality risk;
and potentially the biological response to longevity interventions.
Across cohorts and clinical trials, they can provide extremely valuable information.
The problem begins when a statistical research biomarker is transformed into an absolute personal claim:
“This is your body’s real age.”
Science is not there yet.
Because they may analyze:
different CpG sites;
different tissues;
different dimensions of aging;
and use:
algorithms trained to predict different outcomes.
A biological age test based on something similar to the Horvath clock is not asking the same question as a test based on GrimAge or DunedinPACE.
You could therefore theoretically appear:
“younger” according to one clock
and
“older” according to another
without either result necessarily being technically incorrect.
The algorithms are simply looking at aging through different lenses.
Observational studies have linked different measures of epigenetic age acceleration with numerous health and environmental factors.
Smoking is particularly important for certain clocks—which makes sense because GrimAge incorporates an epigenetic surrogate for cumulative smoking exposure.
Adiposity, metabolic factors, several diseases, and psychosocial or environmental exposures have also been associated with some measures of accelerated epigenetic aging.
But once again:
ASSOCIATION ≠ CAUSATION.
If people with a particular characteristic have, on average, an older epigenetic age, that does not automatically prove that the characteristic directly caused the observed acceleration.
Probably not from a single type of biomarker.
Aging simultaneously affects:
the epigenome, transcriptome, proteins, metabolites, immune system, mitochondria, organs, and functional capacity.
This is why researchers are increasingly exploring approaches that combine multiple layers of biological information.
These include:
multi-omics aging clocks.
DNA methylation, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and other biological data could potentially be integrated to create a more comprehensive picture of aging.
But more data does not automatically produce:
a perfectly measurable “true biological age.”
We may be dealing with a deeper conceptual issue:
aging may not be a single variable.
It may ultimately make more sense to measure several complementary dimensions of aging rather than forcing all of them into:
one number expressed in years.
An epigenetic clock is an algorithm that primarily uses DNA methylation patterns to estimate an aging-related characteristic, such as chronological age, age-related risk, or the pace of aging.
Biological age is a concept intended to represent the state of an organism’s aging independently of the number of years since birth. There is currently no single test capable of determining a universally accepted, definitive biological age.
Horvath was primarily developed to predict chronological age from DNA methylation.
PhenoAge incorporates information related to physiological risk and mortality.
GrimAge uses epigenetic surrogates for certain proteins and smoking exposure to predict mortality-related outcomes.
DunedinPACE was designed to estimate the pace of aging rather than produce an age in years.
Certain measures, including GrimAge and DunedinPACE, are associated with mortality risk across populations.
They cannot tell an individual:
when they will die.
Some human intervention studies have reported reductions or slowing in certain epigenetic aging measures.
That does not yet demonstrate that overall biological aging has been reversed.
In the randomized CALERIE trial, two years of calorie restriction produced a modest slowing of DunedinPACE, but no significant change in PhenoAge or GrimAge [10].
In an analysis of the DO-HEALTH trial, 1 gram of omega-3 per day for three years was associated with small effects on several epigenetic aging clocks [11].
This does not demonstrate that omega-3 supplementation extends human lifespan.
Some intervention studies have reported favorable changes in certain epigenetic clocks following exercise.
The findings are heterogeneous, however, and do not allow scientists to translate a specific amount of exercise into a precise number of:
“biological years reversed.”
There is currently no single test recognized as measuring an individual’s universal or “true” biological age.
The most appropriate biomarker depends on the scientific question being asked.
It can provide an estimate based on the algorithm and biological sample used.
That estimate should not be interpreted as a definitive clinical measurement of the “real age” of your entire body [14].
No.
There is no established one-to-one relationship between a three-year reduction on an epigenetic clock and three additional years of human life expectancy.
Epigenetic clocks have fundamentally changed the science of aging.
They have revealed that DNA methylation contains a remarkable amount of information about:
age, health, mortality risk, and the pace of aging.
First-generation clocks such as Horvath and Hannum showed that chronological age could be estimated from a relatively small number of CpG sites.
PhenoAge and GrimAge then shifted the question toward:
physiological risk, healthspan, and mortality.
DunedinPACE introduced a different idea:
Instead of simply asking how old the body appears to be, can we measure how fast it is aging?
Intervention trials are now beginning to show that some of these biomarkers can change.
Calorie restriction modestly slowed DunedinPACE in CALERIE [10].
Omega-3 supplementation produced small changes in several epigenetic clocks in DO-HEALTH [11].
Other interventions have generated signals across different studies [12,13].
But we have not yet demonstrated that:
turning back an epigenetic clock turns back human aging itself.
We are probably beginning to measure certain dimensions of it.
And that alone is remarkable.
For centuries, age had only one measurement:
the calendar.
Today, scientists can examine DNA methylation and detect biological signatures associated with the passage of time, disease risk, mortality, and the pace of physiological change.
But there is no hidden biological counter inside our cells displaying:
“YOUR TRUE BIOLOGICAL AGE IS EXACTLY 43.6.”
Epigenetic clocks are:
models.
Highly sophisticated models.
Sometimes remarkably predictive ones.
But still models.
The next major challenge for the field may therefore not simply be building an even more accurate biological age calculator.
It will be demonstrating that changing what these clocks measure actually translates into:
more years lived in good health.
Because ultimately, the most important question may not be:
“What is my biological age?”
It may be:
“How quickly is my health changing with age—and can we meaningfully alter that trajectory?”
If scientists can answer that question, epigenetic clocks could become one of the most important tools in longevity medicine.
But we are not there yet.
[1] Hannum G, Guinney J, Zhao L, et al. Genome-wide Methylation Profiles Reveal Quantitative Views of Human Aging Rates. Molecular Cell. 2013;49(2):359–367. DOI: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.10.016.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23177740/
[2] Horvath S. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biology. 2013;14. DOI: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-10-r115.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24138928/
[3] Chen BH, Marioni RE, Colicino E, et al. DNA methylation-based measures of biological age: meta-analysis predicting time to death. Aging. 2016;8(9):1844–1865. DOI: 10.18632/aging.101020.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27690265/
[4] Fransquet PD, Wrigglesworth J, Woods RL, Ernst ME, Ryan J. The epigenetic clock as a predictor of disease and mortality risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Epigenetics. 2019;11:62. DOI: 10.1186/s13148-019-0656-7.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30975202/
[5] 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.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29676998/
[6] Lu AT, Quach A, Wilson JG, et al. DNA methylation GrimAge strongly predicts lifespan and healthspan. Aging. 2019;11(2):303–327. DOI: 10.18632/aging.101684.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30669119/
[7] Belsky DW, Caspi A, Corcoran DL, et al. DunedinPACE, a DNA methylation biomarker of the pace of aging. eLife. 2022;11. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.73420.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35029144/
[8] Sugden K, Caspi A, Elliott ML, et al. Association of Pace of Aging Measured by Blood-Based DNA Methylation With Age-Related Cognitive Impairment and Dementia. Neurology. 2022.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35794023/
[9] Fahy GM, Brooke RT, Watson JP, et al. Reversal of epigenetic aging and immunosenescent trends in humans. Aging Cell. 2019;18(6). DOI: 10.1111/acel.13028.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31496122/
[10] Waziry R, Ryan CP, Corcoran DL, et al. Effect of long-term caloric restriction on DNA methylation measures of biological aging in healthy adults from the CALERIE trial. Nature Aging. 2023;3(3):248–257. DOI: 10.1038/s43587-022-00357-y.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37118425/
[11] Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Gängler S, Wieczorek M, et al. Individual and additive effects of vitamin D, omega-3 and exercise on DNA methylation clocks of biological aging in older adults from the DO-HEALTH trial. Nature Aging. 2025;5(3):376–385. DOI: 10.1038/s43587-024-00793-y.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39900648/
[12] Johnson AA, Sinclair DA. Turning back time: a comprehensive list of interventions that decrease next-generation epigenetic aging clocks in humans. 2026. Systematic review of 41 human intervention studies.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42294499/
[13] Sehgal R, Borrus D, Kasamato J, et al. DNAm aging biomarkers are responsive: Insights from 51 longevity interventional studies in humans. bioRxiv. 2024. Preprint. DOI: 10.1101/2024.10.22.619522.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39484592/
[14] Apsley AT, Etzel L, Ye Q, Shalev I. From population science to the clinic? Limits of epigenetic clocks as personal biomarkers. Epigenomics. 2025;17(18):1447–1461. DOI: 10.1080/17501911.2025.2603880.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41403206/
[15] Teschendorff AE, Horvath S. Epigenetic ageing clocks: statistical methods and emerging computational challenges. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2025;26(5):350–368. DOI: 10.1038/s41576-024-00807-w.
URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39806006/
