Longevity Briefs: Do Olympic Champions Age More Slowly?

#1

The problem:

Exercise appears to slow ageing, extending average lifespan and delaying the onset of age-related diseases. Olympic athletes train exceptionally hard, often from a young age, so they make an interesting group to study. In this study, researchers wanted to investigate the relationship between such intense long term exercise training and ageing in more detail, including how different types of Olympic athletes compare to each other.

To do this, they used multiple epigenetic clocks. These are algorithms that estimate someone’s age based on DNA methylation (chemical modifications that affect how the genetic code is read but without altering the code itself). If someone’s epigenetic age is estimated to be lower than their actual (chronological) age, this suggests that they may be ageing more slowly than average.

The discovery:

The researchers looked at DNA methylation data from 59 Hungarian Olympic gold medallists, 49 of whom were male, and compared them to 329 controls. 205 of those controls were master rowers (participants in the World Rowing Masters Regatta) while the remainder were healthy but untrained. The average (mean) age of the Olympians was 53 and 52 for males and females respectively, while for the controls it was 58 and 60.

After adjusting for the fact that controls were older on average, they found that in each gender, half or more of the clocks used showed no statistically significant difference in epigenetic age between olympic medallists and controls, while two clocks (SkinBlood and PhenoAge in males, SkinBlood and Hannum in females) showed a statistically significant slowing of epigenetic ageing. They also predicted longer telomere length in Olympic medallists compared to non-medallists, which could be indicative of slower ageing.

Read the full article:

Original research paper:

2 Likes
#2

Olympic athletes live 5 years longer than the.general population. So, they live to about 84.

That’s great news.

Until you realize your typical non-Olympic resident of Hong Kong or Japan lives until 85.5.

Olympic level training can’t match a healthy lifestyle in effect size.

(Rapamycin and other pharmacological interventions are probably equal or better than Olympic level training, IMHO.)

Screenshot_2025-01-05-17-21-21-18_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12
Screenshot_2025-01-05-17-21-21-18_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b121080Ă—1878 151 KB

Screenshot_2025-01-05-17-23-54-85_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12
Screenshot_2025-01-05-17-23-54-85_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b121079Ă—1995 152 KB

5 Likes
#3

I think Olympic medalists and elite rowers have an inclination towards a healthier lifestyle, after their competitive years are over. At least compared to the general population.

Maybe what we see is an effect of a healthier lifestyle. Less smoking etc.

4 Likes
#4

The top 5% economically in the USA have an average lifespan of 92. Money brings about 13 more years of lifespan.

6 Likes
#5

You have to be genetically privileged to be an Olympic champion to begin with, I’m not sure if they controlled for this.

There is something known as too much exercise

8 Likes
#6

I think that says more about the top 5% in the USA being able to circumvent insurance companies that delay and deny vital treatments.

If you look at that list of countries, hardly any of them have a higher wealth / income per capita than USA, in fact some are downright poor.

2 Likes
#7

The thing is, relative telomere length is never measured, to my knowledge, in most studies measuring aging. It must be a confounding factor to be taken into consideration when measuring life extension factors.
Let me be clear: “In causal inference, a confounder is a variable that influences both the dependent variable and independent variable, causing a spurious association.”

“a longer telomere length compared to a peer generally indicates slower aging.”
The study is flawed unless this variable is considered when claiming a life extension for this or that.

“Thus, variations in human telomerase gene that are associated with better maintenance of telomere length may confer healthy aging and exceptional longevity in humans.”

(An unrelated side note from this study is that the centenarians had a BMI of 22. I have seen this before, and that is why I try to maintain a BMI of 22)

FWIW: An answer from Open Evidence AI asking what can increase telomere length:

"There are several drugs, peptides, supplements, and lifestyle changes that have been shown to potentially increase telomere length, which is associated with slower aging and better health outcomes.
Supplements and Natural Compounds:

  1. TA-65: This is a dietary supplement derived from Astragalus membranaceus. Studies have shown that TA-65 can significantly increase telomere length in humans.[1-3]
  2. Centella asiatica extract (08AGTLF): This natural compound has been shown to significantly increase telomerase activity, which can help maintain telomere length.[4]
  3. Astragalus extract formulations: Various formulations, including Nutrient 4 and TA-65, have demonstrated significant telomerase activation.[4-5]
    Lifestyle Changes:
  4. Physical Activity: Regular physical activity has been associated with longer telomeres. A systematic review and meta-analysis found that physical activity, especially when combined with a healthy diet, can increase telomere length.[6]
  5. Diet: Adherence to a Mediterranean diet, rich in antioxidants and plant-based foods, has been associated with longer telomeres. [7]
    Other Compounds:
  6. Oleanolic Acid and Maslinic Acid: These compounds have shown significant telomerase activation in vitro.[4]
  7. Blends of Natural Compounds: Combinations of compounds such as α-lipoic acid, green tea extract, and others have shown synergistic effects in increasing telomerase activity.[5]
    Pharmacological Agents:
  8. Metformin: This drug, commonly used for diabetes, has shown potential in maintaining telomere length through its effects on cellular metabolism.[8]
  9. Rapamycin: Known for its anti-aging properties, rapamycin has been shown to influence telomere dynamics positively.[8]

“Longer Leukocytes Telomere Length Predicts a Significant Survival Advantage in the Elderly TRELONG Cohort, with Short Physical Performance Battery Score and Years of Education as Main Determinants for Telomere Elongation - PMC
Longer Leukocytes Telomere Length Predicts a Significant Survival Advantage in the Elderly TRELONG Cohort, with Short Physical Performance Battery Score and Years of Education as Main Determinants for Telomere Elongation
Longer Telomere Length in Elite Master Sprinters: Relationship to Performance and Body Composition - PubMed
Discovery of potent telomerase activators: Unfolding new therapeutic and anti-aging perspectives - PMC
A Natural Product Telomerase Activator Lengthens Telomeres in Humans: A Randomized, Double Blind, and Placebo Controlled Study - PMC
Effect of a lifestyle intervention on telomere length: A systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed”

3 Likes
#8

This is a disappointingly small result given the genetic, lifestyle and economic benefits olympians have over the general populace.

1 Like
#9

I’m in full agreement with matthost. Never mind dodgy clocks. We have death records for athletes, far more reliable than blue zone records. And while athletes have lifespan advantages , it’s nothing to write home about. Yet athletes have lottery type massive advantages in genetic gifts and exercise levels. On the whole they also have socioeconomic advantages. You would imagine that if exercise was truly the amazing intervention that everyone including Peter Attia claims, those who live the longest, the very elite of survivors would be all or almost all olympic athletes. So we look at supercentenarians, and not one olympian ever made it. If those who get the greatest doses of the greatest intervention aren’t overrepresented in the centenarian ranks you might argue that well, it’s because in the end it’s all about genes. But then you’d find yourself in the odd position of arguing that olympic level body genes are not the best, in other words the best are not the best.

Or, you know, you might conclude that above a certain, extremely modest level exercise is destructive to longevity.

2 Likes
#10

I don’t think it’s that, I think that the genes that allow Olympic level performance (which is an incredibly diverse set of genes, differing wildly based on the sport; some phenotypes are great for one, but terrible for another) are not necessarily the same genes that allow for a long lifespan. I don’t think it’s unusual to suggest that genes which allow for youthful vigor and reproductive success are not necessarily the ones which will keep you alive the longest.

In my opinion, without additional, more detailed data, I would not infer any relation between Olympic success and length of lifespan. It’s such a a varied lot that in my mind they’re not different than the general population.

4 Likes
#11

Ah, very good point. Sort of the theory of antagonistic plieotropy applied to extreme physical performance… that would make a lot of sense. A body (or set of genes) optimized for short term physical performance is probably very different one from something that is optimized for healthy longevity…

2 Likes
#12

I think that’s fair as far as genes go, and antagonistic pleiotropy might even be a factor. But I guess that’s not the heart of the argument, as the whole idea is that exercise is the key to longevity. And the more the better according to most of the experts in the field. We constantly hear how exercise is unmatched for effectiveness in health and longevity, the whole “if exercise were a drug” etc. And the concurrent argument promoted by many is “the more the better” with no upper limit. And here is where the olympian athletes enter. It’s hard to argue that anyone is doing more than these medalists wrt. exercise - and the results are underwhelming to say the least. Plus it’s also fair to say that most olympians have socioeconmic advantages, which is a validated longevity factor. I wonder if we normalized for socioeconomic status, their longevity advantage might be zero over non-exercisers, or light exercisers.

1 Like
#13

In light of the above charts showing that Olympic athletes live lifespans roughly similar to the average citizen of the longest lived countries (who presumably have higher rates of adherence to healthy lifestyles), I would argue that this is indirect support for the proposition that, through the longevity lens, Olympic athletes have essentially identical gene distributions to the average citizen.

1 Like
#14

and exercise does nothing for you, since if olympic medalists have the same genes as your average joe (which I don’t really buy), then adding all that massive exercise buys you nothing over the average non-or-light exercising joe in highly developed countries. Also, logic 101 tells us, that - using your logic - there is another possibility of looking through the longevity lens - exercise is a powerful longevity booster, except olympic medalists have worse genes than the average joe, so exercise merely normalizes lifespan and if they had the average joe’s genes, adding exercise should extend lifespan of the average joe, and would extend the olympians except they have bad genes :rofl:

But seriously, mostly it’s looking bad/mediocre for massive exercise. It’s all statistics. But never mind statistic trends and probabilities and hazard ratios. We are all individuals, and we may decide to eat whatever we want and assiduously avoid exercise and live to Charlie Munger’s 99, or exercise with dedication for decades and eat as healthy as you can and die at Jack LaLane’s 96.

As we all know, it is always, always better to be lucky than to be good.

2 Likes
#15

As it currently stands, it seems some data does suggest this.

But, I’m going to post some information from some doctors at the Longevity Summit in December… extremely high levels of exercise seems to greatly increase inflammation levels on an ongoing basis (which seems likely to be counter-longevity), but rapamycin can drop those inflation levels to baseline, so it seems there may be an argument for extremely high levels of exercise, while taking drugs like rapamycin to lower the persistent inflammation levels; so perhaps the best of both worlds… Anyway - I’ll post a full presentation on this issue later this week.

7 Likes
#16

I don’t know dude, could be. I think you’re arguing from a lonely position; most longevity gurus viz. Attia, I think, seem to argue that exercise will greatly increase your healthspan and give you higher quality of life at 70-80 thank otherwise. I don’t seem to see many people arguing that exercise is going to buy you an extra 20 years. It probably buys you another 5-10 in lifespan, and another 10-15 (rough estimates) in healthspan. That’s worth it to me

2 Likes
#17

I agree with this statement. Exercise may not increase your total lifespan if you are of reasonable weight and health, but it will likely increase the quality of life and activities that you can maintain as you grow older. Do you want to be in a wheelchair at 90, or surfing, etc. like these people: 70 is the new 30? Inspiring Stories of Healthy Longevity - #241 by RapAdmin

5 Likes
#18

I think the position on exercise is quite clear. Initially there are massive gains from exercise. The first range is probably up to walking 7000 steps a day. Failing to do that has serious health disbenefits. Then there are still material benefits and clearly resistance exercise helps to stay off sarcopenia. It is possible to hit the other side of the U shaped curve, but that is in the territory of endurance and even then it is hard to be harmful.

3 Likes
#19

And I would probably cosign what RapAdmin says here. Exercise might give you 5-10 years of superior functioning and healthspan. Where I don’t believe there is any evidence, is for longer lifespan. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary, at least in animal models. If we take the single most successful max life extending intervention, CR, then the animals which obtained the greatest longevity benefit were the ones on the greatest degree of restriction and without exercise (because that would require more calories). There was some indication that with less restrictive CR, you could add exercise and compensatory calories, and still come out at the same length (not longer!), but again, for the very longest, no exercise. Other exercise focused studies in rodents showed that exercise squared the survival curve, i.e. it greatly reduced mortality at any point in time, but it did not extend the curve, an important distinction. Recently there was the mouse study discussed on this site which disassociated healthspan from lifespan. So you can have better healthspan, but not lifespan. Or in plain words, you won’t live longer, but you will live better.

Of course it’s all a bit more complicated. It assumes that the long lived non exercisers have optimal everything else: diet (especially not overnutrition), no smoking or other deleterious lifestyle habits, vaccinations and protections against low status and poverty etc. With these optimal conditions, you can probably live just as long as an exerciser. Now, what exercise might do on top of that is allow your quality of life to be better, you can do more where physical limitations might constrain you otherwise (say, long treks, playing physical games etc.). But even so, I would not go overboard - I believe that you need very little (relatively) exercise to obtain all or almost all the healthspan benefits. There is absolutely no health reason to spend hours upon hours in the gym or on the running trail. Just not being sedentary, and engaging in activities of daily living with some aspect of physical movement - gardening, walking around with errands, etc., not sitting on the couch, you are likely extracting the vast majority if not all the benefits of exercise on healthspan. But quality of life is the ultimate difference - if you enjoy physically strenuous sports or activities, mountain climbing, sailing, tennis etc., then yes, you really cannot do without exercise. That’s where I think the advantage lies without question. But for everything else? Meh.

That said, I do exercise, and not just a little - it’s my Pascal’s wager approach. I don’t overdo it, but it’s what would be considered pretty vigorous and consistent program - 200 minutes a week of jogging with a cople of HIIT sessions (4 sessions a week), 64 minutes of weighted and jumping squats a week (2 sessions), some isometrics etc. I do this to maximise my mobility resources - this is important for aging, avoiding falls etc. and general functional abilities to max out ADL capabilities.

Bottom line: if you do everything else to high standards, exercise is a nice-to-have, not a must-have, useful but overrated by folks like Peter Attia. Of course, YMMV, and I might be totally wrong!

2 Likes
#20

I agree. The volume of abuse would have to be extreme to be overall harmful, all other things equal. I’d bet the link to too much exercise harm is in the mindset of them extreme exercisers. All the people I’ve ever known who spent 20-30 hours a week exercising (non-professionals) had apparent obsessive / compulsive disorders. They felt badly about themselves if they weren’t exhausted from training. I don’t think we should make conclusions about the exercise itself being the problem. It would be very hard to exercise too much if the volume was built up over time and the person was healthy. That’s my guess.

4 Likes