In this episode, Matt Kaeberlein examines the controversy surrounding biological age tests. While many direct-to-consumer kits claim to measure biological age, their accuracy and usefulness remain questionable. Backed by extensive research and clinical insights, the discussion highlights why these tests often lack scientific validity, regulatory approval, and actionable health applications.

Key Points:

While biological age tests hold promise for future medical use, their current consumer versions are unreliable and offer little benefit. Investing in established health metrics is a more effective strategy for longevity and well-being. This episode critically examines their accuracy, scientific validity, and real-world usefulness.

• Lack of Scientific Validation: No direct-to-consumer biological age test has been approved or validated by regulatory bodies, making their accuracy and reliability questionable.
• Inconsistent & Unreliable Results: Testing the same biological samples with different kits yields highly variable results, proving these tests are statistically meaningless.
• No Actionable Health Insights:  Even if accurate, these tests fail to provide useful guidance for improving health or longevity, making them of little practical value.
• Better Alternatives Exist: Proven biomarkers such as VO2 max, body composition, insulin sensitivity, and inflammation markers offer more reliable indicators of health and ageing.