In this Beyond Tomorrow episode, host Julian speaks with three of the most influential voices in longevity science—Dr. Matt Kaeberlein, Dr. Aubrey de Grey, and Dr. Gordan Lauc—about whether ageing can truly be measured, slowed, or even brought under medical control. The conversation cuts through hype around “biological age” tests, digs into what ageing really is at a biological level, and asks what meaningful progress in longevity will actually look like.

Key Points:

This episode challenges the idea that ageing can be reduced to a single number. The experts argue that most “biological age” tests oversimplify complex biology. They call for a shift toward validated, functional, and clinically meaningful measures of health. Longevity’s future, they warn, depends on evidence, transparency, and resisting hype.

• What ageing really is: Ageing is framed as the lifelong buildup of molecular and cellular damage that gradually reduces the body’s ability to maintain normal function, eventually leading to disease and death.
• Biological age lacks a clear definition: The speakers agree there is no universally accepted or biologically precise definition of “biological age,” making it impossible to measure directly with today’s tools.
• Why ageing clocks fall short: Epigenetic and other ageing clocks do not measure ageing itself; instead, they track molecular patterns that correlate with age, disease risk, or mortality—often in inconsistent ways.
• Consumer tests can mislead: Many direct-to-consumer ageing tests lack transparency about accuracy and error rates, meaning changes in results may reflect noise rather than real biological change.
• Health and function matter more than a score: The panel stresses that real-world measures—such as physical strength, cardiovascular fitness, metabolic health, cognitive performance, and inflammation—are currently more meaningful than a single age number.
• Glycan age as a promising approach: Glycan-based biomarkers focus on immune function and chronic inflammation, offering a more mechanistic and clinically oriented way to assess aspects of ageing-related health.
• The biggest risk to longevity science: As interest explodes, the field risks being derailed by hype, oversimplification, and unproven claims, potentially undermining public trust and slowing genuine scientific progress.