Are You Aging Faster Than Your Age? How to Tell at Home
In this article
In Dunedin, New Zealand, researchers have followed 1,037 people born in the city in a single twelve-month window in 1972 and 1973, nine in ten of the eligible births, for their whole lives. By the time 954 of them reached 38, the team had measured eighteen markers of how their bodies were holding up, from lung and kidney function to gum health and immune markers, at 26, at 32 and again at 38, and worked out from the change how fast each person was aging. Everyone in the room had been born within the same twelve months. Their bodies did not agree. Some were accumulating nearly three years of biological age for every year on the calendar; others were barely aging at all.
The part that matters for you is what came with the faster pace. Before midlife, with an age-related disease diagnosed in barely one person in a hundred, the people aging fastest already gripped more weakly, balanced worse, scored lower on thinking tests, reported worse health, and, when strangers rated photographs of their faces, looked older. By age 45, they were also walking more slowly. Aging faster than your age is a real thing, it starts early, and it leaves marks you can see without a lab.
Higher risk of death over a median seven years of follow-up for adults aged 51 to 75 who could not balance on one leg for ten seconds, after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index and existing conditions
Araujo et al., British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2022, 1,702 adults
The short answer
Yes, you can tell, at least roughly, and you don't need a lab. A handful of signs that large studies tie to mortality can be checked at home in minutes: how fast you walk, whether you can balance on one leg for ten seconds, how hard you can squeeze, your resting heart rate, and how old you look and feel. None of them is a diagnosis. Together, and especially as a trend over a year or two, they give an honest read on how your body is holding up against the calendar. A habit-based estimate of your biological age adds the other half of the picture: which of the things you do is worth the most years, which no test in this post can tell you.
Below are the five signs, each with the study behind it, the test, and a plain note on what it can't tell you.
What "aging faster" actually means
Your chronological age is the calendar. Your biological age is an estimate of how worn the machinery is, expressed in years so the two can be compared. The gap between them is the interesting number, and we cover how it's measured and why the different methods disagree in biological age vs chronological age.
The Dunedin work added a second idea worth keeping: your pace of aging. Two people can share a biological age today and be heading in different directions, one slowly and one quickly. A single reading tells you where you are. Repeated readings tell you which way you're moving, and the second is the one you can do something about.
Five signs of accelerated aging you can check at home
1. The 4-meter walking speed test
Walking speed is the closest thing medicine has to a vital sign for aging; physical therapists have argued for calling it the sixth one. A pooled analysis of nine studies, 34,485 adults aged 65 and over followed for up to 21 years, found that every 0.1 meters per second of faster usual walking speed was associated with a 12% lower risk of death (hazard ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.90). At age 75, predicted ten-year survival ranged from 19% at the slowest speeds to 87% at the fastest in men, and from 35% to 91% in women. Walking speed plus age and sex predicted survival about as well as a full list of chronic conditions, smoking history, blood pressure and weight.
The test: mark out four meters (about 13 feet) on a flat floor, start from a standstill, and walk it at your normal pace, as if you were walking down the street, while someone else times you. Five seconds is 0.8 m/s, the speed at which survival in that study matched what age and sex alone would predict. Four seconds or faster is 1.0 m/s or more, where survival was consistently better than expected.
The honest limit: the data comes from people over 65. If you're 40, walking speed isn't yet telling you much about mortality; it's telling you what will matter later, and a slowing trend across your 50s is the thing to notice.
2. The 10-second one-leg balance test
Balance drops quickly after the mid-50s, and it turns out to carry a signal of its own. In a Brazilian cohort of 1,702 adults aged 51 to 75, one in five could not hold a one-legged stance for ten seconds. Over a median of seven years, 4.6% of those who could had died, against 17.5% of those who could not. After adjusting for age, sex, body mass index and existing conditions, failing the test was associated with an 84% higher risk of death from any cause (hazard ratio 1.84, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.78), and adding it to the usual risk factors measurably improved the prediction.
The test: stand near a wall or counter in case you need it, arms at your sides, and lift one foot to rest against the back of the other calf. Eyes open, fixed on a point at eye level a couple of meters away. Count to ten. You get three tries in total, on whichever foot you prefer. Passing means holding it once without touching anything.
The honest limit: the study couldn't fully account for recent falls or how active people were, so part of what balance measures is simply overall fitness. That's still worth knowing.
3. The grip strength test
We wrote a whole post on this one, because a hand squeeze predicted death better than blood pressure in a 139,691-person study across 17 countries: every 5 kg of lower grip strength was associated with a 16% higher risk of death from any cause. Grip earns that power by being a cheap window into whole-body muscle and strength.
The test: the number the studies use comes from a hand dynamometer, a device you squeeze as hard as you can; a basic digital one costs roughly $20 to $30. Grip strength and longevity has the protocol, what counts as strong for your age and sex, and what to make of dead hangs and stubborn jars if you don't own one.
The honest limit: the one response the evidence doesn't support is buying a gripper and squeezing it at your desk. Grip predicts survival because it reflects the strength of the whole body, and that's the thing to build.
4. Your resting heart rate
A slow, steady resting pulse is one of the plainest markers of cardiovascular fitness, and the mortality data behind it is enormous. A meta-analysis of 46 studies covering 1.25 million people found that each additional 10 beats per minute of resting heart rate was associated with a 9% higher risk of death from any cause (relative risk 1.09, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.12) and an 8% higher risk of cardiovascular death.
The test: first thing in the morning, before coffee and before you get out of bed, count your pulse for 60 seconds. Do it three mornings and take the middle value. A watch or phone can do this for you, but the counting version works fine.
The honest limit: resting heart rate moves with fitness, sleep, stress, illness, caffeine and some medications, so a single high reading means nothing. A rate that has drifted upward over years, while your life stayed roughly the same, is the pattern worth taking seriously.
5. How old you look and feel
This one sounds like folklore. It isn't. In a Danish study of 1,826 twins aged 70 and over, three panels of assessors, nurses among them, rated how old each person looked from a photograph. Perceived age predicted who would die first, even within twin pairs, and it also tracked telomere length, the protective caps on chromosomes that erode with age. The authors' conclusion was blunt: perceived age is a robust biomarker of aging.
Feeling older matters too. In an English cohort of 6,489 adults aged 52 and over, followed for just over eight years on average, 24.6% of the people who felt older than their actual age died, against 14.3% of those who felt younger. After accounting for their health, mobility, mood and habits at the start, feeling older was still associated with a 41% higher risk of death (hazard ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.82).
The test: no timer for this one. Do people guess your age high or low, and do you feel older or younger than the number? Both answers are, in part, reports on the same habits the other four signs measure.
The honest limit: this is the softest of the five. Looks and feelings are shaped by plenty that has nothing to do with how fast your body is wearing, and both studies measured them with trained panels and questionnaires you can't reproduce at home. Treat this sign as a reason to check the other four, not as a number.
What these signs cannot tell you
Three things, said plainly, because a sign misread is worse than no sign.
A marker is not a lever. These five are windows into muscle, balance, cardiovascular fitness and what geriatricians call physiological reserve, the spare capacity your body can draw on when something goes wrong. Walking faster on purpose during the test, or squeezing a gripper to raise a grip number, changes the reading without changing anything it was a window into. Nobody has shown that improving any of them in isolation extends life. They respond to how you live, not to how you take the test.
Most of the data comes from people over 50, much of it over 65, and one reading is noise. If you're younger, these are early signals, not verdicts, and Dunedin is the reason to take them seriously anyway: the differences were already visible at 38. Every test above gets more useful the second time you do it, a year later, under the same conditions. Write the numbers down.
None of this is a diagnosis. A sign that surprises you is a reason to see a doctor, not a reason to search harder online. And if any of the physical tests feels unsafe, skip it; the information isn't worth a fall.
The habits underneath the signs
Here is the reassuring part. Genes, old injuries, illness and plain luck all show up in these five signs, and none of that is yours to control. What is yours is the short list of habits that turns up in every large longevity study, because those habits are what build muscle, balance, cardiovascular fitness and reserve in the first place. Regular movement including some strength work. Enough sleep. A mostly whole-food diet. Little or no alcohol. Not smoking. Managed stress. People you're close to. A reason to get up. Routine checkups that catch things early.
That list doesn't change from post to post, and it shouldn't. The research keeps landing on the same behaviors because they genuinely move the biology. If you want to see them ranked by how many years each one is worth, how many years each habit adds does that, and how to lower your biological age covers which changes the evidence actually supports.
The direction matters more than the order. A 45-year-old whose walking speed, balance and resting pulse are holding steady is in a better position than the same numbers reached on the way down.
Get your number
The tests above tell you how your body is holding up right now. They don't tell you why, and they don't tell you which change would help you most. That second question is what our calculator answers: it estimates your lifespan and biological age from the nine habits with the strongest mortality evidence, using the approach we document in full in our methodology, and it shows the single habit worth the most years to you.
To be clear about what it is not: we don't measure telomeres, epigenetic clocks or any biomarker, and we don't ask for your walking speed or grip, because a number typed from memory isn't the same as a number read off a stopwatch. We estimate from how you live. So do the tests this week, write the numbers down, and take the assessment for the part the stopwatch can't see.
So what's your biological age?
The 2-minute assessment estimates your biological age from the habits with the strongest evidence, and shows the one lever worth the most years to you.
Take the Assessment →Frequently asked questions
How can I tell if I'm aging faster than my age?
Look at markers that large studies have tied to mortality and that you can measure yourself: your usual walking speed, whether you can balance on one leg for ten seconds, your grip strength, your resting heart rate, and how old you look and feel. None is a diagnosis on its own; together, and especially as a trend over time, they give an honest read on how your body is holding up relative to the calendar. A habit-based biological age estimate adds the other half: which of your habits is worth the most years, which the tests can't tell you.
Can you test your biological age at home?
Not precisely. The lab methods, epigenetic clocks and biomarker panels, need a blood or saliva sample, and the different clocks don't fully agree with each other. What you can do at home is check the signs that track with biological age and with mortality: walking speed, one-leg balance, grip strength, resting heart rate, and how old you look and feel. A habit-based estimate like ours gives you a number in about two minutes, built from the nine habits with the strongest mortality evidence, and it's most useful as a trend when you repeat it.
What is the difference between biological age and pace of aging?
Biological age is an estimate of how worn your body is right now, expressed in years. Pace of aging is how quickly that estimate is changing. The Dunedin Study measured both in 954 people, tracking eighteen biomarkers from age 26 to 38, and found that people born within the same twelve months varied widely on each, and that the faster agers were already less physically able, scored lower on cognitive tests, and looked older to strangers. A single test tells you your position; repeating it tells you your pace.
Is the one-leg balance test accurate?
It's a validated signal, not a precise measurement. In 1,702 adults aged 51 to 75, being unable to hold a one-legged stance for ten seconds was associated with an 84% higher risk of death over a median of seven years, after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index and existing conditions. The study couldn't fully account for recent falls or physical activity, so part of what it captures is general fitness. It's worth doing because it takes ten seconds and costs nothing.
Does a high resting heart rate mean I'm aging faster?
A higher resting heart rate is associated with higher mortality across a very large body of evidence: in a meta-analysis of 46 studies and 1.25 million people, each additional 10 beats per minute was linked to a 9% higher risk of death from any cause. But one reading proves little, because resting heart rate moves with fitness, sleep, stress, illness, caffeine and medication. Measure it on three quiet mornings, take the middle value, and pay attention to whether it drifts upward over years.
If I'm aging faster than my age, can I slow it down?
You can't change your calendar age, but the biology underneath appears to be partly modifiable, and the five signs in this post respond to the same habits: regular activity including strength work, enough sleep, a whole-food diet, little or no alcohol, not smoking, managed stress, close relationships, a sense of purpose, and routine checkups. The evidence-backed response is to change the habits rather than to practice the tests. Progress is best judged as a trend over time using the same measurement, whether that's your walking speed or a habit-based biological age estimate.
Related reading
Citations
- Belsky DW, Caspi A, Houts R, et al. Quantification of biological aging in young adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015;112(30):E4104-E4110. (The Dunedin Study: 954 people, eighteen biomarkers tracked at 26, 32 and 38; faster agers were less physically able, showed cognitive decline, and looked older.)
- Rasmussen LJH, Caspi A, Ambler A, et al. Association of neurocognitive and physical function with gait speed in midlife. JAMA Network Open. 2019;2(10):e1913123. (904 Dunedin Study members at 45; faster biological aging across organ systems was associated with slower gait speed.)
- Studenski S, Perera S, Patel K, et al. Gait speed and survival in older adults. JAMA. 2011;305(1):50-58. (Pooled analysis of 34,485 adults aged 65 and over; hazard ratio 0.88 per 0.1 m/s.)
- Fritz S, Lusardi M. Walking speed: the sixth vital sign (white paper). Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy. 2009;32(2):46-49.
- Araujo CG, de Souza e Silva CG, Laukkanen JA, et al. Successful 10-second one-legged stance performance predicts survival in middle-aged and older individuals. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022;56(17):975-980. (1,702 adults aged 51 to 75; adjusted hazard ratio 1.84 for those unable to complete the stance.)
- Leong DP, Teo KK, Rangarajan S, et al. Prognostic value of grip strength: findings from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. The Lancet. 2015;386(9990):266-273. (139,691 adults in 17 countries; hazard ratio 1.16 per 5 kg lower grip.)
- Zhang D, Shen X, Qi X. Resting heart rate and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the general population: a meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2016;188(3):E53-E63. (46 studies, 1,246,203 participants; relative risk 1.09 per 10 beats per minute.)
- Christensen K, Thinggaard M, McGue M, et al. Perceived age as clinically useful biomarker of ageing: cohort study. BMJ. 2009;339:b5262. (1,826 Danish twins aged 70 and over; perceived age predicted survival and correlated with telomere length.)
- Rippon I, Steptoe A. Feeling old vs being old: associations between self-perceived age and mortality. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2015;175(2):307-309. (6,489 adults aged 52 and over; feeling older than one's age was associated with a 41% higher mortality risk after adjustment.)