Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 611

Ageing in spurts

Recently I’ve focused a lot on aspects of longevity. A blog post on explaining the often-misused term 'life expectancy', then one on whether our lifespan is influenced more by genetics or by lifestyle, then what our biological age (as opposed to our chronological age) depends on.  And now (the final one, I promise!) one on the fact that our biological age itself doesn’t change at a uniform rate, but seems to increase in spurts at specific times in our lives.

A quick reminder: our chronological age is how old we are in terms of how long it has been since we were born, whereas our biological age relates to how much the life systems in our body have aged. And since different systems in our bodies have aged at different rates and to different extents, our so-called biological age is just a rough shorthand for the average of how old our body systems seem to be. For some our biological age is less than our chronological age, for others our biological age exceeds our chronological age.

The gap between the two doesn’t stay constant. It seems that there are particular times when our biological clock accelerates.

OK, now to one recent study and its conclusions.

The study involved 108 participants aged between 25 and 75, resident in California. They were followed for varying periods of time, the longest being almost 7 years, though most of them were followed for a bit less than 2 years. There were, in all, more than 5,000 biological samples taken (oral, blood and stool samples, for sure: I couldn’t understand what else was involved), hence more than 100,000 biological features were measured, resulting in more than 200 billion data points.

Now the conclusions.

The molecules and microbes that they studied didn’t change uniformly over time. When the researchers looked at the results more closely (a colossal amount of analysis was involved), the rates of changed showed a fair amount of clustering relative to participants’ ages. (And as you can guess, the effects of many factors, for example female menopause, had to be eliminated. Insulin-sensitivity and ethnicity were other causal characteristics eliminated.) Specifically, then, they identified two major waves of ageing-related molecular changes across the human lifespan.

Explaining them, a science reporter for the New York Times says that the study found that people seemed to age more rapidly around age 44, and again around age 60. The clusters of changes in the first ageing spike (around age 44) appeared to be mostly related to fat and alcohol metabolism, as well as to muscle function. The second spike (around age 60), while also involving muscle function, appeared to be mostly related to immune dysfunction. (The study’s authors note that a previous study reported crests at ages 34, 60 and 78, but their data didn’t include anyone older than 75.)

A study coauthor said that the first spike could help explain why people seem to have more trouble processing alcohol starting in their 40s, while the second spike could help explain why people become more prone to illness in their 60s. (This is consistent with a recent study on the ageing of mice, which suggested that there were sudden chemical modifications to their DNA, one in early-to-mid life, the other in mid-to-late life.)

I notice that they didn’t comment on muscle function, though both spikes were specifically associated with muscle function, and at my age that’s an important feature of my health.

Fascinating! So if you ever thought that you seemed to age more rapidly in a particular year or period of your life, now you’ll know that this is not unexpected.

But I’m not going to get too excited about all of this, and I don’t think we should focus too closely at ages 44 and 60. (For example, age 44 isn’t really at all close to the age 34 that the previous study suggested.) What sort of study would indeed be valid in getting us excited?

In principle it’s simple. You’d look at a very large number of people, accommodating differences in age and sex and race and whatever other characteristics you think might be relevant; you’d come up with an estimate of the initial biological age of each person in this investigation; and you’d follow up with frequent re-evaluations of their biological ages over a very long period of time. That way, for each person you’d be able to observe the rate at which their biological age changes; and for each group of people you’d be able to see whether and when their biological ages change at something other than a smooth rate. As I said, simple, at least in principle.

But what’s simple isn’t necessarily easy to actually carry out. And in fact it has proven to be remarkably difficult to do. The results cited are based on a tiny and limited study: 108 Californians aged 25-75, so, on average, two people at each chronological age; and they were followed, on average, for two years each. Not many people, not from around the world, not for very long. Not exactly definitive; in fact, barely a start. So I think these conclusions are at best an indicator of what future much larger studies should start to look at.

Would these conclusions apply, not just to a bunch of a hundred Californians, but also to people from, let’s say, South America, Australia, Japan (where people reach the highest chronological ages), Africa, etc etc? If it is found that there are still spikes in the ageing process, how much do the numbers differ across people? For example, if the first spike tends to occur somewhere between 34 and 44, what does that imply for the way we should try, as individuals, to deal with it? To what extent do lifestyle and environmental factors affect the spike ages? And so on. We know nothing about any of this.

It doesn’t matter that these conclusions from the study are now being widely cited as if they’re established fact. As you can infer from the way I’m saying all of this, I think those conclusions are fascinating, yes, but hardly facts. Experts are cited in the NY Times article as saying that the findings are “quite interesting, but I would say preliminary,” and they’re just “touching the surface” of how molecular changes relate to ageing. Exactly.

 

Don Ezra, now retired, is the former Co-Chairman of global consulting for Russell Investments worldwide, and the author of “Life Two: how to get to and enjoy what used to be called retirement”. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.

 

2 Comments
lyn
May 16, 2025

Don, time -frame for study of which you wrote, thought may be too short for scientific study of aging, made me think of Seven Up TV series started 1964 of 14 x 7yr olds followed up every 7 years, can't recall which was last one seen by me, quick google says series available, last one 2019 so they would have been 63, will watch to see if anything coincides, visible aging on screen/survival. Think originally commissioned for if 'class' born into makes difference. Longevity of women to fit 90+ in predominantly female family via all back to 1850's except for 1, like Doug below with interesting tale of 3 sisters, makes me feel it's genetic & sorted day of birth.

DougC
May 15, 2025

Don, your comments on the California-108 study are well-founded. Two people in each age group for 2 years - the results are indicative of only the 2 people for 2 years and can hardly be extrapolated to wider populations.
Aging might not be invariable, but I suspect that genetics, diet and lifestyle combine to determine rates of aging that consequently differ quite a lot across wide population groups; and this will not be represented in cohorts of 2 people in each age group across 2 years.
For example, genetics. From personal experience, 3 generations ago 3 of my male ancestors married 3 sisters from the same family. All the members of that family and their direct descendants lived long and active lives – almost all into their 90’s and 2 past 100, my aunt (who resembled the females in that family a generation before) lived to 104. I only knew 3 in that cohort but they didn’t appear to have perceptibly aged suddenly around their 60’s – but possibly around their 90’s. I don’t know whether I have any of those genetics, but recently had to show my passport to prove I am over 70 and not to have to remove my shoes at an airport security check – I’m 82.
If the California-108 study had included some such ‘out-liers’ in their sample, the results might have been very different.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

How long will you live?

‘Life expectancy’ – and why I don’t like the expression

How not to run out of money in retirement

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Raising the GST to 15%

Treasurer Jim Chalmers aims to tackle tax reform but faces challenges. Previous reviews struggled due to political sensitivities, highlighting the need for comprehensive and politically feasible change.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

9 winning investment strategies

There are many ways to invest in stocks, but some strategies are more effective than others. Here are nine tried and tested investment approaches - choosing one of these can improve your chances of reaching your financial goals.

Planning

Super, death and taxes – time to rethink your estate plans?

The $3 million super tax has many rethinking their super strategies, especially issues of wealth transfer on death. This reviews the taxes on super benefits and offers investment alternatives.

Taxation

Raising the GST to 15%

Treasurer Jim Chalmers aims to tackle tax reform but faces challenges. Previous reviews struggled due to political sensitivities, highlighting the need for comprehensive and politically feasible change.

Shares

The megatrend you simply cannot ignore

Markets are reassessing the impact of AI, with initial euphoria giving way to growing scepticism. This shift is evident in the performance of ASX-listed AI beneficiaries, creating potential opportunities.

Gold

Is this the real reason for gold's surge past $3,000?

Concerns over the US fiscal position seem to have overtaken geopolitics and interest rates as the biggest tailwind for gold prices. Even if a debt crisis doesn't seem likely, there could be more support on the way.

Exchange traded products

Is now the time to invest in small caps?

With further RBA rate cuts forecast this year, small caps may be key beneficiaries. There are quality small cap LICs and LITs trading at discounts to net assets, offering opportunities for astute investors.

Strategy

Welcome to the grey war

Forget speculation about a future US-China conflict - it's already happening. Through cyberwarfare and propaganda, China is waging a grey war designed to weaken democracies without firing a single shot.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.