|
I used to work in theoretical physics, where it was not uncommon to spend lunch chatting with colleagues about time forming a loop or perhaps having an extra dimension. While those ideas are not as outlandish as they may sound, in the harsh reality of everyday life, time appears to pass in only one direction: forward. This means that as far as my chronological age is concerned, I’m not getting any younger.
But
this week’s column
covers a different measure of ageing—one that might be a little more malleable. Scientists call it “biological age” and use it to quantify the physiological condition of the body. A healthy person may have a biological age that is younger than their chronological age, whereas someone who has experienced health difficulties may have one that is older. And as health is modifiable, so too is the biological clock.
There is solid science behind the concept of biological age, the details of which are covered in the column. What is less clear, however, is how useful a measure it really is. Data at a population level can be valuable for taking the public’s temperature, and planning health initiatives accordingly. But for individuals there is a danger that a lower biological age becomes a target, rather than a measure.
And with
longevity
having something of a moment, the profit potential of biological ageing has not gone unnoticed. Influencers sell supplements that promise to turn back biological time and firms charge to measure how quickly it is ticking. But as in many health-related matters, the best approach is probably the most obvious: eat well, get enough sleep and exercise regularly.
Do you know your biological age? How does it compare with your actual age? Send in your stories to
wellinformed@economist.com.
| 
