Researchers tracked nearly 1,000 38-year-olds and found the rate at which participants aged varied widely. The subjects' "biological age," ranged from under 30 to more than 60, despite all having the same "chronological age."
"(The study) looked at a young, healthy population to see what the differences were overtime for them; as opposed to looking at older people who are already elderly -- some were sick, some were not -- and trying to figure out in retrospect how they had stayed healthy," Lenox Hill Hospital internist Dr. Len Horovitz said Wednesday on "Up to the Minute."
Their hypothesis? Participants who appeared older were actually aging faster than their chronologically-age-similar peers.
Using data compiled by the Dunedin Study, researchers compared participants' benchmark of 18 parameters, including organ function, dental health and cognitive function, to data from six and twelve years prior.
"What's amazing about this study is that they then took pictures of the people who were biologically old versus young, and they showed them to undergraduates at Duke and they predicted the age correctly," Agus said. "Biologically, they said these persons were older and these persons were younger."
