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.
PACE exhibits an ideal balance of sensitivity and reliability. + It identified the most significant changes across 50 tested interventions (datasets). + It consistently aligned with the majority of 16 other clocks tested.
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.
Speed of aging (PACE) is one of the most clinically validated aging markers. My team and I use it extensively to measure the efficacy of health protocols.
The DunedinPACE clock (via @TruDiagnostic), created by researchers at Duke University and Columbia University is the only 3rd generation clock and has been validated in 50+ publications. + DunedinPACE is responsive to validated interventions like caloric restriction. It also changes with interventions that already improve biological age, making it ideal for tracking.
In a recent evaluation of 16 biological aging clocks across 51 interventional studies, DUNEDIN Pace stood out as most reliable by always being either in agreement with a majority of the remaining clocks, or uniquely detecting a change in biological age, where no other clock did.