You make a good point here… he’s basically saying that you can’t compare results from different clocks because they all measure different things. Which is fine - I agree with that.
Then he goes on to say that even within a single clock the results aren’t “actionable” - which, as you suggest, basically means he thinks there isn’t much you can do that you don’t already know you should do (e.g. eat vegetables, and exercise, etc.). So he’s saying the clocks don’t provide any new value in that area.
Yes - I’m with you on this Joseph, I tend to disagree with him a bit on that later point. While its certainly unproven that a given clock test results change over time (e.g. over a day, over a week, or month) is actually a meaningful change, or just noise,(because there haven’t been any good longitudinal studies on biocloeks in people, and various interventions).
But yes, for longevity and healthspan maximalists , we believe that there is a reasonable probability that some of the things we are doing are moving the needle in the right direction (no matter how hard it is to get a read on that needle movement). Whether its rapamycin, acarbose, exercise, … we believe that the evidence is that these move things in the right direction.
I think Steven Horvath is like most scientists, its not “proven” until there are good human studies demonstrating benefit. I think we likely take a slightly more “risk/reward” approach to longevity therapeutics, so we have a different view than Steven.
But I do agree with Horvath in that because there have been no good human longitudinal studies with these bio / aging clocks, they aren’t of much proven value (e.g. the data coming out Longevity Olympics isn’t really of scientific value, even it its interesting, entertaining, and possibly indicative of some sort of health trend). So, I feel the Levine Phenotypic clock is just find for my purposes right now.
