Glonce

Younger contest challenges 500 people to lower their biological age in six months

researchThe Glonce editorsMIT Technology Review🔥51Glonce rating51Impact38Novelty50Relevance65Surprise50Players30Credibility82
Younger contest challenges 500 people to lower their biological age in six months

The author of The Checkup, MIT Technology Review's weekly biotech newsletter, has signed up for an unusual competition that rewards people for getting biologically younger. The author recently turned 40 and says the game focuses on biological age, a figure meant to be a better measure of the age-related health of our organs and bodies than the number of birthdays.\n\nOver a six-month period, around 500 competitors will try to reverse their biological age as measured in several different ways, and there is a leaderboard. The winners will include the person who shows the greatest difference between chronological and biological age, and the person who reverses their biological age the most.\n\nThe contest, called Younger, is the brainchild of neuroscientist and physician Christin Glorioso, who is also founder and CEO of NeuroAge Therapeutics. That company offers tools to track brain health and aging and is running a trial to find out whether biological brain age can predict the onset of Alzheimer's disease. Glorioso has several goals. The first is to "explain to the world what aging clocks are." Aging clocks are tools designed to measure biological age. Many read chemical signatures that sit on top of DNA and seem to change with age; others look at proteins or lipids in blood; some measure functional health; others predict when a person will die. There are more than a hundred, and they probably each capture a specific aspect of aging. Scientists find them useful for studying aging in humans and other species, but the author says using them to estimate the biological age of one individual is more controversial: they are not good enough for that yet. Part of the problem is that nobody really understands what each clock captures. Glorioso hopes contest data will help answer that and is aiming to generate "the world's most comprehensive clock dataset."\n\nBecause single clocks are limited, the contest uses several, an approach some longevity clinics also take. Standard competitors, the author included, send a blood spot sample to TruDiagnostic, which measures epigenetic chemical groups on DNA and reports an overall biological age, a pace of aging, and the biological ages of each of 11 organ systems, including the heart and brain. They also get a brain age score from NeuroAge after completing cognitive tasks, submit physical measures such as grip strength, and upload selfies to an app built by a team at Harvard that estimates face age. Ultra competitors pay $4,499 rather than the $999 for regular entry and get more blood tests and clocks, plus MRI and DEXA scans. The author has complimentary press access to the standard package.\n\nGlorioso also wants data on purported longevity approaches. Some participants will be offered red-light masks, sauna access or other low-risk offerings from partner companies that sponsor the event to varying degrees and may want to collect data on them. "A lot of these companies just can't afford to run [clinical] trials," she says. She also sees the event as a public health initiative, pointing to an estimate from David Sinclair, who studies aging at Harvard Medical School, and colleagues, made a couple of years ago: slowing aging enough to raise life expectancy by one year would save the US economy $38 trillion.\n\nThe event officially kicks off in January. Around 120 people have signed up, and Glorioso ultimately expects 500. Each person's six-month run begins when they take their baseline measurements, and a handful have already started. Glorioso expects most people to wait until after the holidays, as they will not want to try to win an aging contest over Christmas and Hanukkah.\n\nGlorioso took her own baseline in August; it put her biological age around 10 years below her chronological age. Then the author looked at the leaderboard and found competitor @Fred at 28.8 years below his chronological age. The leaderboard is sparse: only seven people have logged baselines. Six are tracking low. One 47-year-old, who competes publicly so her score breakdown is visible, was given a biological age of 68.1, with her worst result, speed standing up from a chair, translating to a biological age of 100.\n\nThe author also talked to Hillary Lin, a longevity-focused physician in New York, who has just started logging baseline measurements. Her past tests have tended to score her below her chronological age of 37, and last year's TruDiagnostic test put her pace of aging at 0.75, which suggests she does only nine months' worth of aging in a typical year. "That's supposed to be quite good," she says. Lin would have added more blood tests to build a fuller picture, and she worries six months may be too short to show changes in biological aging measures. Still, she is excited and planning to improve sleep, diet and exercise, though she already eats a high-protein, low-carb diet, works out daily and uses a sauna every few days. Glorioso has started drinking a smoothie made from a pond plant, cut added sugar and deep-fried foods, and bought a bunch of fancy Korean sunscreens to lower her face age. The author has not yet received a kit or logged baselines, and does not fancy a win against those two, but hopes to at least stand up faster than a 100-year-old.

Key facts

  • Younger is a six-month contest in which around 500 people try to reverse their biological age, measured by several aging clocks, with a leaderboard; it officially starts in January and around 120 people have signed up.
  • Winners include the person with the biggest gap between chronological and biological age and the person who reverses their biological age the most.
  • Entry costs $999 for regular competitors and $4,499 for Ultra, which adds more blood tests and clocks plus MRI and DEXA scans.
  • Creator Christin Glorioso, CEO of NeuroAge Therapeutics, hopes to build "the world's most comprehensive clock dataset" and to collect data on longevity products from sponsoring companies.
  • Only seven people have logged baselines so far; six track below their chronological age, including @Fred at 28.8 years below, while one 47-year-old was given a biological age of 68.1.

Why it matters

Aging clocks are widely used in research, but the author says they are not yet good enough to estimate the biological age of one person, partly because we do not really understand what each clock captures. Glorioso wants the contest to help explain what clocks do and to produce a large dataset by running many clocks on the same people. She also frames it as a public health initiative, citing a Sinclair-led estimate that a one-year rise in life expectancy would save the US economy $38 trillion.

Who it affects

The roughly 500 expected competitors, around 120 of whom have signed up, and especially the paying participants who will see their own clock scores. It also touches companies selling longevity products: some participants will be offered items such as red-light masks or sauna access, and sponsoring partners may collect data on them. Glorioso says many such companies cannot afford to run clinical trials. Scientists studying aging clocks are the other group, since the dataset is meant to help show what each clock captures.

How to use it

Regular entry costs $999. Ultra costs $4,499 and adds other blood tests and clocks as well as MRI and DEXA scans. Standard competitors send a blood spot sample to TruDiagnostic, complete cognitive tasks for a NeuroAge brain age score, submit physical measures such as grip strength, and upload selfies to a Harvard-built app that estimates face age. The event officially starts in January, but each person's six-month run begins as soon as they take their baseline measurements.

How solid is it

This is a first-person newsletter piece from The Checkup, MIT Technology Review's weekly biotech newsletter, and the author is a participant with complimentary press access to the standard package. Contest details come from Glorioso and the author's own sign-up. No results exist yet: only seven people have logged baselines, and the author has not yet received a kit. The $38 trillion figure is an estimate by Sinclair and colleagues from a couple of years ago.

Risks and caveats

The author warns that individual-level biological age estimates are controversial and that clocks are not good enough for that yet, and says not to put too much stock in the scores. Her own earlier tests were mixed: one matched her chronological age, and a later one showed a young heart but a relatively old brain, liver and hormonal system. Lin worries six months may be too short to show changes and would have included more blood tests. Sponsoring partners may want to collect data on participants. The sparse leaderboard, where one entrant sits 28.8 years below chronological age and another scores a biological age of 100 on one measure, shows how widely the numbers can swing.

“explain to the world what aging clocks are”

— Christin Glorioso, on the first goal of the Younger contest, in MIT Technology Review's The Checkup