AGinging can feel surprisingly sudden. One morning you wake up to find new pain or loss of energy and memory that you could swear wasn't there just a few days ago. We don't literally age overnight, but as research increasingly shows, we don't age along a steady, linear path either.
Over the past decade, numerous studies have shown that aging—at least for some organs and systems of the body—may actually consist of long periods of stability punctuated by inflection points or periods of rapid biological change. This shift in thinking has raised hopes for anti-aging drugs. But it may also force us to rethink the way we think about aging in general, seeing it as a dynamic and varied journey rather than just a slow march of exhaustion and decay.
latest study Supporting this view, published in the journal Nature Communications, used a large number of brain scans to show that the structure and connectivity of the brain can be divided into five distinct eras, marked by turning points at nine, 32, 66 and 83 years. Of particular interest in this study is the identification of a very long “adolescent” phase, from nine to 32 years of age, in which brain connections appear to become stronger and more efficient – a period that extends into what we traditionally think of as static “adulthood.”
Other recent studies looking at various body structures have suggested a rapid period of aging in many organs. about 50 years; specific changes in metabolism and other systems about 44 and 60 years old; or what skin as an organ passes through four different phases of aging, while the adult immune system age in two phases.
These results are largely the fruit of the so-called “omics” revolution in research, which has created large data sets that make it possible to cheaply and quickly measure the entire set of proteins, DNA/RNA or other molecules in an organ or organism. (Equally significant is the explosion of funding and interest in aging research, which is likely a byproduct of our increasingly elderly society.)
At this stage, many studies are not strong enough—the widely publicized Stanford study showing shifts at ages 44 and 60 only had 108 participants—and so the specific claims they make about the aging of a particular organ at a particular time may not be true. But taken together, they suggest that aging is not a linear process for our bodies.
If aging is more acute than previously thought, it would seem time for simple measures that could prevent tipping points or leave milestones between eras undone. There's no shortage of tech moguls these days ready to try whatever scientific treatments can be extracted from this preliminary study. Let them take the risk. Such medical measures are likely to be ineffective at best.
The bigger question is whether we should even prioritize interventions against aging itself. The authors of the brain stage study were careful not to view transitions solely in terms of decline, suggesting that each stage was simply a distinct phase in the human brain's journey. This seems right. As we move toward a more detailed understanding of aging, we may be able to better time and implement disease-fighting measures we already know, from cancer tests to preventive medications. Prioritizing health over mere longevity is the way to go, and if the result is a longer life, so be it.
