Biological Age

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
1

I read about the concept of Biological Age some time ago from this statement in Jason Norcross’ article on body composition:

“Why is age included in these formulas? As normal people (not T-mag readers!) age, there’s an increase in intra-abdominal fat, a decrease in total muscle mass, and a decrease in bone density (12). These equations try to account for these changes by adding body fat as we age. Of course, this doesn’t apply nearly as much to people who train with weights. Anyhow, whether you choose to put your actual age or choose to call yourself a 20-year old is up to you. Personally, I think anybody who trains hard with weights would do better to plug 20 in as their age, as it more accurately reflects your true muscle mass.”

Recently, I encountered biological age again on this website:
http://www.socsci.uci.edu/econ/personnel/devany/devany.html
“Based on body composition, strength, flexibility, reaction time, and blood
profile, a research institute rated my biological age at 32 a few years ago.
I don’t take this seriously, but it is consistent with how I feel. My body
composition and hormonal profile are not so remarkable when you understand
that what we call aging in this modern world really is the accumulated
damage of inactivity and dietary abuse. Hunter gatherers don’t age like
Westerners do because they retain their metabolic fitness.”

My questions are:

  1. If you’ve been training consistently over the years and taken one of these tests, what were the results? Was it close to 20 as stated in Jason Norcross’ article?

  2. Do you have a link to the details comparing chronological to biological age?

2

Very interesting. I have never had any sort of test done, but I do believe in that theory. It makes sense, and I think it’s why some people make it to 85 or 95 years of age with only average genes and others decay at 65 or 70.