Tests that measure 'biological age' aren't helpful for tracking your health, scientists say
Scientists warn that "biological age" tests, though popular, are unreliable for personal health tracking. Current evidence shows these tests lack precision for individual use, though they may offer broad insights in large studies.
Tests advertised as measures of "biological age" are increasingly popular with consumers seeking a snapshot of their long-term health, but scientists have cautioned that these tools are not reliable for tracking individual wellbeing. A consensus statement published this week by a group of leading aging researchers concludes that while such tests may offer broad insights when used in large population studies, they are not yet precise enough to guide personal health decisions. The statement, which synthesises findings from peer-reviewed work in gerontology and epidemiology, highlights concerns that commercial biological age tests—often based on DNA methylation patterns—can yield inconsistent results depending on factors such as lifestyle, time of day, or even recent illness.
The issue matters because the global market for anti-aging and longevity products is projected to exceed $83 billion by 2027, with biological age tests frequently promoted as early-warning systems for age-related diseases. Companies marketing these tests often claim they can predict the risk of conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or dementia years in advance. However, experts warn that without standardised protocols and rigorous clinical validation, such claims are premature. Recent high-profile studies, including one published in *Nature Aging* in March 2024, have shown that methylation-based clocks can vary significantly between individuals of the same chronological age, making their use in personalised medicine questionable.
The scientific community’s scepticism has grown amid a surge in direct-to-consumer health analytics. In 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to several companies selling biological age tests, citing lack of evidence for their diagnostic claims. Meanwhile, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has classified some tests as medical devices, requiring stricter oversight. These regulatory moves reflect broader concerns that unproven tests could mislead consumers into unnecessary interventions or false reassurance.
Looking ahead, researchers are calling for large-scale, longitudinal studies to refine biological age metrics and establish clinical benchmarks. Until then, they advise individuals to rely on established indicators of health—such as blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and lifestyle assessments—rather than commercial biological age scores. While the science of aging continues to advance, the message from the research community is clear: the current generation of tests is not a substitute for evidence-based medicine or personalised healthcare guidance.
