Chronological age is the time since you were born. Biological age is an estimate, usually from blood chemistry or DNA methylation, of how your body is aging. Aging clocks predict health risks across groups, but single readings can be noisy and are not diagnoses.
Your chronological age is simply how long you have been alive. Your biological age is an estimate of how your body is aging, calculated from measurements such as blood tests or chemical tags on your DNA. Two people born the same year can have different biological age estimates, and in large studies a higher estimate is linked to higher risk of disease and death. These "aging clocks" are useful research tools, but researchers note there is no gold standard measure of biological aging, a single reading can shift with technical noise, and a result is not a diagnosis.
Chronological age is the number on your birth certificate. It is exact, but it says little about how well your heart, kidneys, muscles or immune system are holding up.
Biological age tries to capture that difference. A 2023 framework paper in Cell from the Biomarkers of Aging Consortium (Moqri and colleagues) describes biomarkers of aging as critically important tools for testing longevity interventions over realistic time frames. The same paper is candid that there is currently no consensus on how these biomarkers should be evaluated and validated, and it proposes standard terms and validation steps for the field.
Most well-known clocks use DNA methylation, small chemical tags on DNA that change in patterns as we age. The clocks fall into roughly three generations.
| Type | Trained to predict | Example | What it is good at |
|---|---|---|---|
| First generation | Chronological age | Horvath clock (2013) | Estimating age across many tissues |
| Second generation | Health and mortality risk | PhenoAge (2018) | Predicting disease and death risk |
| Pace of aging | Rate of decline over years | DunedinPACE (2022) | Estimating how fast a person is aging now |
In 2013 Steve Horvath published in Genome Biology a multi-tissue age predictor built from about 8,000 samples across 51 healthy tissues and cell types. It uses 353 sites on the genome. In test data its estimates correlated with chronological age at 0.96, with an error of 3.6 years.
Levine and colleagues, writing in Aging in 2018, pointed out that first-generation clocks used chronological age as a stand-in for biological age. Their clock, DNAm PhenoAge, was instead built from clinical measures linked to lifespan and healthspan. It outperformed earlier measures in predicting all-cause mortality, cancers, healthspan, physical functioning and Alzheimer's disease. People whose PhenoAge ran ahead of their actual age showed more activity in pro-inflammatory pathways, which connects aging clocks to the idea of inflammaging.
DunedinPACE, published in eLife in 2022 by Belsky and colleagues, followed a group of people born in 1972 and 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, and tracked decline in 19 indicators of organ-system health over two decades. The team distilled that information into a single blood test. DunedinPACE showed high test-retest reliability and was associated with illness, disability and death.
Clocks are built and tested on large groups, and group-level accuracy is not the same as personal precision. A 2022 study by Higgins-Chen and colleagues in Nature Aging found that technical noise alone produced deviations of up to 9 years between repeat measurements of the same sample for six prominent epigenetic clocks. A retrained version based on a statistical method called principal components brought most repeat measurements within 1.5 years.
This has practical consequences:
If you get a biological age result, it is more informative to ask which clock was used, whether the lab uses a reliability-improved version, and how the result fits with standard health measures such as blood pressure, blood sugar, lipids and fitness.
This is the question researchers most want to answer, and the evidence is early. The strongest example so far is a post hoc analysis of the CALERIE trial, published by Waziry and colleagues in Nature Aging in 2023. In that trial, 220 adults without obesity were randomly assigned to a 25 percent calorie restriction target or their usual diet for two years.
Calorie restriction slowed DunedinPACE, an effect the authors described as a 2 to 3 percent reduction in the pace of aging. It did not significantly change PhenoAge or GrimAge. Treatment effects were small, and responses varied widely: some participants slowed markedly, while others sped up. The authors noted that proving an effect on healthy aging will require long-term trials that measure chronic disease and mortality directly.
That study does not mean everyone should restrict calories, and it is not a recommendation to do so without medical guidance. It shows that some aging measures may respond to interventions in controlled settings, and that the response depends on the measure used.
They answer different questions. Chronological age is exact, while biological age is an estimate of physiological condition that, in large studies, adds information about risk. Neither replaces a clinical assessment of specific conditions.
It depends on the clock and the lab. Research shows that technical noise can shift some clock results by up to 9 years between repeat tests, and newer methods can reduce that. The field has no agreed validation standard yet, so treat a single result with caution.
Claims like this usually go beyond the evidence. In the largest randomized test so far, two years of calorie restriction slowed one measure slightly and left two others unchanged. Ask what clock was used and whether changes were shown in a controlled trial.
Use it as a prompt to review well-established health factors with a licensed provider, such as blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol, sleep, activity and smoking. A biological age number by itself does not diagnose any condition. For background on the biology behind these clocks, see the hallmarks of aging.
A licensed provider can help you interpret a biological age result in the context of your full health picture, decide which standard tests are worth doing, and focus on changes with the best evidence. This article is educational and does not determine eligibility for any treatment.
Written by the NewDay Wellness editorial team from the sources above and checked against them before publication, and medically reviewed by Dr. Sean Arora and Dr. Shannon Arora of Arora Health & Aesthetics; see our editorial standards. This article is educational and does not diagnose conditions, establish eligibility for any medication, or replace care from a licensed provider. Compounded medications are not FDA-approved.
In published studies, the most commonly reported sermorelin side effects were brief facial flushing and pain at the injection site. Long-term safety data in adults are limited, and related drugs carry warnings about blood sugar, fluid retention and active cancer.
Read articleSermorelin is a lab-made copy of the first 29 amino acids of growth hormone-releasing hormone. It signals the pituitary to release its own growth hormone rather than supplying the hormone directly. The US brand was discontinued, and compounded sermorelin is not FDA-approved.
Read article
Peptides are short chains of amino acids. A few are FDA-approved drugs, but many prescribed peptides are compounded, which means they are not FDA-approved. FDA rules decide which peptide ingredients pharmacies may use, and those rules shifted between 2023 and 2026.
Read article