I used AGING.AI to give a guess about aging. I am not saying it is accurate, but it is free
I use other anti aging strategies, such as 1/2 gram NMN, Red Light, Saunas and 16/8 fasting.
In October 2019 I was chronologically 62, AGING.AI thought I looked like a 51 year old.
December 2022 at age 65 I had started Rapa with one mg one week, 2mg the next and so on up to 5mg and then I took a break. After the break I got blood tests and AGING.AI thought I looked like a 46 year old. Not bad.
Next I did 12 weeks of 5 mg per week (still chronologically 65) and AGING.AI thought I looked like a 37 year old.
Nothing happens in a vacuum, I also started eating L. Ruterai yogurt about the same time I started Rapa.
I was hoping that my platelets would rise during the 12-week Rapa test, I have IPT which is a mild immune disorder. Sadly no change there.
Nevertheless, interesting numbers! My doctor knows what I am doing, but would not prescribe Rapa. I order from India.
@Tom_Wallace, I did that one too just for the fun of it. I’m 53 and put my pre-rapa blood work in and got 34. When I put my 1 month post rapa blood work in I got 27. The lowest estimate I’ve gotten from other online calculators is 39. I’ve wondered if the height and weight input that Aging AI asks for makes a difference compared to the others?
@Tom_Wallace, interesting. I’m 5’1 100-105 pounds. The most obvious difference between Aging AI and the other free online calculators I’ve done so far is height/weight input. We are both in the ideal body weight category so it seems with that might figure into their assessment heavily (pun intended). From a quick glance and to my non expert eye I don’t see any huge difference in my labs but there must be something so I’ll look more closely. I am feeling better than I did in my late 20’s- early 30’s lately though but I was quite sick back then.
FWIW the two biggest differences in my pre and post labs are glucose (106 before and 89 after) and sodium (133 before and 139 after). All the other changes seem minuscule/very slight but could be important and I’d have no clue!
Because I do weekly blood tests I have spent some time studying what causes errors in blood tests. One of the biggest problems is that certain biomarkers metabolise between a blood sample being taken and the actual test being performed and/or the sample being centrifuged/frozen (depending upon how things are handled).
I have not made a study of it, but it seems like nearly every one of these age tests returns a younger age regardless of how much or how long they have been taking rapamycin. It makes me wonder if that is just because most people on this forum are reasonably healthy. The blood test results used in these age calculators are probably aggregates of the population. So you are being compared to some very unhealthy people.
I’m not saying the tests are not useful as a gauge (as long as they are not tweeking them every year as new data comes in), but if you do not know what weights they are putting on different categories you will get different results even with the exact same numbers as time goes along. Then they are not useful as a gauge.
Has anyone who feels healthy had ages come back significantly higher than their actual age?
Yes, my father and I both took epigenetic age tests, and our ages came back higher. My age was lower with Aging.ai and Levine.
My epigenetic test age dropped 7 years after taking Rapa, even though it was still higher than my chronological age. These tests have been a mixed bag.
@DeStrider Thank you.
I do not think I will spend my time on them and will just gauge results on how I feel and looking at blood test results myself. Because they vary so much from person to person they could also lead someone in completely the wrong direction.
While I share @DeStrider 's skepticism of the value of the current biological aging clocks as extremely accurate measures of our longevity, I do think there may be some value in them as longitudinal markers of how you are doing relative to earlier tests and health protocols you are using… at least I’m hoping thats the case.
Its one way to measure “progress”. There is some good data behind them, though they are far from perfect.
Yes, true, but it seems to me that due to that imperfection they are better off used in large studies to look for statistical significance. Are they actually a good reliable marker and repeatable in an n=1 senario? I do not know the answer to that question and have no personal experience.
In other words, if they are too variable they could erroneously cause a person to change direction without warrant. So why do them at all if that is the case.
I agree with @RapAdmin . The tests are useful to track changes. Do a baseline test. Make a change. Test again to see what the change did. If your age went down, then you are doing something right. But the actual numbers are all over the place.
Yes… believing the biological age is one thing. Maybe?
But, the benefit is test… make a change… test again… adjust… restest…look for change… can give you a strong baseline for seeing positive or negative effects.
My example is using two tests - TruMe and GlycanAge to health gains when changing my rapamycin dose. The increased rapamycin dose from 6mg to 36 mg negatively affected my biological age.
The decreased dose back to 6mg for 4 months returned benefits of reversed age. See charts below. For me, I will stick with about 8-12 mg rapamycin for 7 months and retest in the fall. See charts.
