Audit a URL →

Sign in Sign up free

Loading…

Weekly · Sunday Morning

Five longevity claims.
Worth your time.
Every Sunday.

Last Sunday

Rapamycin extends mouse lifespan 9–14%
NAD+ precursors reverse aging in humans
Blue-light glasses improve sleep quality
Walking 10 min after meals blunts glucose
Verdict change — caffeine half-life downgraded

5 audits·1 verdict change·0 affiliate links·Every Sunday

Joining 1,247 readers — founders, MDs, and longevity-obsessed people who fact-check their own health decisions.

Browse

Decisions Claims Content Creators

Product

Audit a URL Sunday roundup API (soon)Pricing

About

FAQ Methodology Editorial Standards Corrections Press & brand RSS feed

Legal

Terms of Service Privacy Policy DMCA

Finally, something serious in this space.
Because we actually read the papers.

© 2026 Whalespan. Independent, evidence-graded longevity.

The difference between biologic and chronologic age — Whalespan

Content›Video›The difference between biolo…

The difference between biologic and chronologic age

Peter Attia16m · 2025-01-30

Claims Made

33

Claims Supported

21

Support Rate

64%

Support rate

21 of 33 claims supported

21 supported12 partial / not

Claims from this content

26

✓Well SupportedAging may be a loss of epigenetic information that could potentially be restored.✓Well SupportedBiological aging, not chronological time, explains why dogs age approximately seven times faster than humans and develop similar age-related diseases.✓Well SupportedBiological age measured by DNA methylation can differ from chronological age by up to 20 years, especially in long-lived individuals.✕Not SupportedDirect-to-consumer biological age tests are not currently valuable in clinical practice due to unknown precision and accuracy.Not Supported

More from Peter Attia

Peter Attia on Zone 2 Cardio

Peter Attia on Rapamycin (with Matt Kaeberlein)

Attia walks back the clinic protocol: too aggressive for healthy adults

Discussion

Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this content — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.

M

Share your read of this content…

Posting publicly as you · linked to your social profiles

Sort by:

AV

A. Volkovreader

4h

Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.

NP

N. Park

2d

Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.

✕

Biological age cannot be quantified with correlative biomarkers, and these scores do not allow claims of age reversal.

✓Well SupportedEpigenetic regulation is a causal factor and key measurement of biological aging.

?Limited ResearchEpigenetic clocks' ability to measure biological aging and predict health outcomes or lifespan in individuals is not definitively proven.

◐Partially SupportedConsumer-grade biological age tests could become better predictors of lifespan than chronological age.

◐Partially SupportedEpigenetic tests measure methylation patterns and are a subset of biological age tests.

◐Partially SupportedPeter Attia's biological age assessment using multiple biomarkers is a more comprehensive reflection of biological age than epigenetic tests alone.

◐Partially SupportedChronological age is the best predictor of future years of life.

✓Well SupportedMechanistic connections between specific methylation changes and aging would increase confidence in epigenetic aging clocks.

◐Partially SupportedA combination of four or five easily measurable factors can accurately predict the remaining lifespan of a 70-year-old, independent of methylation clocks.

◐Partially SupportedThere is no single, definitive biological age equivalent to tree rings in humans.

◐Partially SupportedMethylation patterns in tissue samples can accurately distinguish between individuals of different chronological ages.

◐Partially SupportedAverage methylation at 10 specific spots is one of many age-related changes, indicating it is a marker of aging rather than a definitive measure.

◐Partially SupportedFrailty indices and functional marker metrics are valid forms of biological age clocks, distinct from epigenetic tests.

◐Partially SupportedEpigenetic disregulation is considered one of the 12 Hallmarks of Aging.

✕Not SupportedHealth should be assessed by considering the age of individual organs rather than a single concept of biological age.

◐Partially SupportedBiological age and health are overlapping but not identical, and it is possible to reduce health without accelerating biological aging.

◐Partially SupportedA 40-year-old overweight, sedentary, and unhealthily eating patient has a lower life expectancy than a 40-year-old patient with healthy habits and parents who lived to 100.

◐Partially SupportedEpigenetic algorithms have the potential to replace many, but not all, other measured biomarkers.

◐Partially SupportedClinical health assessment metrics like VO2 Max, Zone 2 performance, muscle mass, visceral fat, movement, balance, lipids, and insulin provide more actionable information than biological age.

◐Partially SupportedA 40-year-old patient with unhealthy habits has a shorter life expectancy than a 40-year-old patient with healthy habits.

◐Partially SupportedPeter Attia lists known health metrics (VO2 Max, Zone 2, muscle mass, visceral fat) rather than a single biological age number when discussing biological age clocks.

◐Partially SupportedThe process of biological aging is real but extremely complex, with current understanding estimated at only 5%.