New BioAge Clock: DNAmFitAge: Biological Age Indicator Incorporating Physical Fitness

I like the idea of this clock as it seems to take in more of a functional measure of biological age, and thus reflect better true quality of life.

current epigenetic clocks did not yet use measures of mobility, strength, lung, or endurance physical fitness parameters in their construction. Here, we develop blood DNAm biomarkers for fitness parameters gait speed (walking speed), hand grip strength, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). We then use these DNAm biomarkers to construct DNAmFitAge, a new biological age indicator that incorporates physical fitness with epigenetic mortality risk estimators.

Full Pre-Pub Paper Here:

2 Likes

We all know superior cardiovascular fitness and skeletal muscle mass/strength is associated with longer healthspan/lifespan.

“Therefore, the DNAm biomarkers should not replace true fitness parameters. Instead, our DNAm fitness biomarkers can supplement direct measurements to understand physical fitness and physiological health from an epigenetic perspective.”

Horvath is simply confirming the signal at a biological level, which “implies” these markers are slowing down the “normal” aging process.

But is our sedentary lifestyle a “normal” aging process? I would argue it’s abnormal in the context of our evolutionary history and raw biological intrinsic potential. Why is it that we can expand our musculature and lung capacity and live longer? By extension, what limits of lifespan could the “perfect” functional human reach?

1 Like

It seems intuitively obvious that fitness and strength would increase longevity.
But I have doubts when I think how few Olympic athletes live to great ages.
I might be wrong but until a few years ago only one Olympian had ever reached 100 years. (I think he was a gymnast…maybe Czech?)
Maybe they are evidence of too much training being detrimental?