30 really is the new 20 (for some people – determining who they are will become crucial for pension plans and insurers)

Link: https://www.clubvita.us/news-and-insights/mega-trend-9-30-really-is-the-new-20-for-some-people-determining-who-they-are-will-become-crucial-for-pension-plans-and-insurers


Moshe Milevsky claims that someone could be up to 20 years younger biologically than their chronological age, and that biological age is a much be a better way of determining a person’s longevity. If this is true, is there a way that organizations that specialize in longevity and/or mortality and that use mathematical calculations in order to determine risk could use biological age instead of chronological age to predict future health and longevity?


There are two methods used to calculate biological age, coined by Milevsky as the “living” methodology or the “dying” methodology a.k.a. the mortality-adjusted approach.

Both methods begin with the collection of data. A researcher would first gather data from a large group of people at a wide range of ages, collecting biological samples and measurements in order to record various physiological and molecular variables (such as heart rate, blood pressure, mutations of DNA, or the presence of certain proteins in the blood). Researchers may also collect data on variables that they believe will be correlated with enhancement or deterioration of a person’s physiological condition, such as their wealth, occupation or even their appearance or number of Facebook friends!

Author(s): Nikiya Marilla

Publication Date: 16 Sept 2021

Publication Site: Club Vita