Today, you can be 35 on paper but have blood vessels like someone in their 60s. And sometimes it works the other way around: you’re 70, but healthier and more active than many people in their forties, DKNews.kz reports.
What does that actually mean? And has science really learned to measure our “real” age?
We spoke with Dr. Mikhail Bolkov, MD, PhD, researcher at the Institute for the Study of Aging at the Russian Gerontology Research and Clinical Center (Pirogov University).
And it turns out: the topic is fashionable, but full of misconceptions.
What biological age really is
Biological age is not magic. And it’s not a countdown clock.
It’s a calculated indicator based on biological markers. It shows how much your organs and tissues have aged compared with the normal range for your chronological age.
And organs do not age at the same speed.
For some people, the eyes wear out first. For others, it’s the lungs. In people exposed to toxins - industrial chemicals, alcohol, drugs - the liver ages faster. It sounds simple, but that’s essentially how it works: whatever gets damaged more, ages faster.
So we often see cases like:
- a 28-year-old with high risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease,
- an elderly person whose vessels and nervous system look surprisingly “young.”
For doctors, biological age helps:
- assess overall health,
- estimate risks,
- plan prevention of age-related diseases.
But it does not predict how long someone will live. It’s a clinical tool, nothing more.
Why proteomics and AI are attracting so much attention
One of the hottest fields today is proteomics.
In simple terms: scientists analyze proteins in blood and tissues. We’re talking hundreds and thousands of markers processed with machine learning and big-data tools.
This makes it possible to:
- detect unexpected disease markers,
- track aging processes,
- identify risks long before symptoms appear.
But it is not the only approach — and definitely not a miracle cure.
Proteomics is popular because:
- it reflects real biological processes,
- proteins often explain what is happening in the body,
- results correlate well with organ function.
Compare that with telomere length. Yes, telomeres tend to shorten with age — but this doesn’t hold equally true for everyone.
That’s why, according to Dr. Bolkov, aging must be assessed comprehensively:
- genome,
- epigenome (DNA methylation, histone modifications),
- proteome,
- lipid profile,
- telomeres,
- plus clinical indicators.
In Russia, the RussAge project is developing “biological clocks” based on arteries and heart measurements — tools that actually help doctors give practical advice.
The Stanford study: revolution or well-packaged PR?
Recently, Stanford researchers announced that they can:
estimate the biological age of 11 major organ systems through plasma protein analysis.
Sounds impressive.
But the expert is cautious:
They’re not the first. Plasma proteins have long been studied as markers of age and disease. This is simply a well-marketed AI-driven product.
Large proteomic studies were already running in the US and Europe.
Stanford added:
- powerful analytics,
- a convenient platform,
- great promotion.
Useful, yes — but not a scientific revolution.
The Horvath clock: useful, but not the final answer
The Horvath clock is one of the best-known aging tests. It measures epigenetic changes — regions of DNA that become less readable with age.
It can:
- correlate strongly with aging,
- highlight accelerated aging in certain conditions.
But its limitations are clear:
- it doesn’t explain what exactly is wrong,
- it doesn’t guide clinical treatment,
- it doesn’t work for everyone.
That’s why major studies usually rely on several epigenetic tests at once. In routine practice, their use is still limited.
Should ordinary people rush and take these tests?
Short answer — no.
More precisely: for most people, it’s curiosity.
Proteomic tests today are:
- expensive,
- not widely available,
- diagnostic — not therapeutic.
If they were cheap, I’d use them for screening in every patient. But for now, it may be more useful to see a cardiologist, endocrinologist — or even your dentist.
So:
- If you can afford it — fine.
- If not — good preventive medicine is more valuable.
Can these tests reveal something unexpected?
Yes. Sometimes something very serious.
In short: yes — including raising suspicion of cancer.
But remember:
- a test does not equal a diagnosis,
- it cannot predict disease with certainty,
- it never replaces a doctor.
It simply points to where doctors should look deeper.
Can a test make you “younger”?
No.
A test:
- doesn’t rejuvenate you,
- doesn’t extend life,
- doesn’t cure anything.
It simply:
- highlights weak points,
- supports prevention,
- motivates lifestyle change.
The real “pill of eternal youth” does not exist yet.
Key takeaways
- Biological age is a health assessment tool.
- Proteomics and AI are promising — but not magic.
- Stanford built a product, not a miracle.
- Tests help science more than everyday medicine.
- The strongest longevity tools remain simple: sleep, diet, movement, quitting harmful habits, and regular checkups.
