Why Treating Age Related Diseases Should Begin at 45

I have reviewed an article by Sarah Avery from the Duke University School of Nursing, and I have some insights to share about her findings on aging. According to Sarah, "people grow old at different rates, regardless of what the calendar says."

This observation underpins a crucial point: the pace at which our bodies age can vary significantly from person to person. For some, the effects of accelerated aging become evident as early as midlife, manifesting through early signs of dementia and physical frailty.

Early Identification is Key

The study, published in the journal Nature Aging, strongly suggests that we should start identifying and treating age-related diseases around the age of 45. This is a proactive measure to prevent the escalation of health problems that degrade the quality of life and impose substantial costs on individuals and society.

Expert Insight

Maxwell Elliott, a Ph.D. student in Duke's Department of Psychology & Neuroscience and the lead author of the study, aptly stated, "Aging isn't something that happens suddenly when people reach their 60s, it's a lifelong process. We have a way of measuring how quickly people are aging, and our findings highlight the importance of addressing biological aging in midlife while prevention is possible and before heavy organ damage has accumulated."

This perspective underscores the importance of early intervention to slow down the biological aging process.

The Dunedin Study: A Wealth of Data

The study's findings are based on data from the Dunedin Study, a long-term research project initiated in New Zealand in the 1970s. This study enrolled 1,037 babies born in 1972-73, and remarkably, over 90% of the original participants are still involved, providing regular health data.

This continuity offers a unique and valuable database for understanding aging.

Measuring Aging

The Duke researchers have utilized this data to develop a method for measuring biological aging. They assessed nineteen distinct health factors—ranging from heart, kidney, and lung function to immune system performance, dental health, mental acuity, and physical abilities—to gauge the rate of aging among participants.

Maxwell Elliott pointed out the unique advantage of this cohort: "The benefits of using this cohort for studying aging data is that everyone is the same age, and we are able to measure them over decades using the same biomarkers."

The Results: Good and Bad

The results revealed a stark contrast in aging rates among the 45-year-olds. Some participants aged more slowly than average, exhibiting fewer wrinkles, better mental sharpness, good cardiovascular health, and a brisk walking pace. These individuals are the embodiment of "aging well."

On the other hand, some participants aged more rapidly. These individuals looked older, showed cognitive decline (as evidenced by lower IQ scores), felt less healthy, and often held pessimistic views about aging. By midlife, those who aged faster were already at risk for developing frailties that could compromise both physical and financial independence.

Insights from the Researchers

Professor Terrie Moffitt, a senior author of the study, emphasized the importance of their findings: "Our analysis shows that the pace of aging is a strong indicator of the cumulative, progressive, and gradual deterioration across organ systems that underlie biological aging. These findings demonstrate that meaningful variations in biological aging can be measured and quantified in midlife, providing a window of opportunity for the mitigation of age-related diseases."

Maxwell Elliott further noted the broader implications of their work, suggesting that early interventions to slow aging could benefit not just individuals, but society as a whole. Early measures could help preserve quality of life, reduce healthcare costs, and alleviate the burden on social services.

A Critical Viewpoint

While the study provides compelling evidence for early intervention, it does have its limitations. For instance, it doesn't fully consider the impact of epigenetics—how environmental and lifestyle factors like pollution, diet, smoking, and alcohol consumption might influence aging. It's unlikely that all 1,037 participants lived in the same conditions, consumed identical diets, or had the same lifestyle habits.

Despite these limitations, I find the study intriguing. However, I'm skeptical about how readily governments will adopt these findings. The notion of extending age-related medical and financial support, such as assisted living facilities, to individuals in their forties might be too ambitious for many policymakers to embrace. It remains to be seen whether such a proactive approach to aging will gain traction in public policy.