The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
sub-analysis then showed actually not only did the epigenetic age acceleration of almost five years correlate with inflammatory biomarkers but people that had extremely high inflammatory biomarkers one year later did still experience the age acceleration.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
And then I think, once they came into being, they're probably picking up inflammation a lot more than even the first-generation clocks.
So, I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on what that means? Like, to me, I look at that and I go, "Wow, inflammation is causing epigenetic age acceleration," because you see this like graph, right, I mean... So... Yeah. I think, definitely, when we measure aging in blood, we need to think, you know, what is, you know, probably driving these signals that we see. And I would guess that epigenetic age acceleration in blood is mostly reflective of inflammation.
definitely, I think, epigenetic aging measured in blood is very much tied to inflammation.