While Asian skin ages way better, DunedinPACE still has SOME correlation with facial aging, and Lure is super-remarkable outlier even amongst Asians. Alex Zhavoronkov also reports a facial aging clock, as does Jackie Han (who lives in Singapore and studies Asians).
Asians do epigenetically age more slowly than whites, though the effect size is not huge (like maybe 2-3 years)
Itās possible that Asians suddenly show their age where they seem to age 20 years in a couple of years (thereās a stereotype about this, menopause in Asian moms)ā¦
Itās a sign of extremely strong elastin at minimum (signals of very low oxidative stress/oxidative damage and robust stem cells), and perhaps elastin is more central to aging than most ppl realize. If you get to THAT age while looking that young, something strange is probably happening. There are marks of aging that could be happening from behind [epigenetic aging, possibly brain aging] but a person who looks very young has a number of modules that donāt age, and while the modules that still age [and that make it unlikely sheāll pass age 115] may still be acting, it is way easier to reverse a lower number of modules than a higher number of modules
[to the extent that they matter, telomeres can still be shorter than a teenagerās and still not heavily affect aging for a few decades, upon which one can use telomere gene therapy to reverse that aspect]. Epigenetic aging (which also may not be easily captured in how old one looks) may also be easier to reverse than some of the other aspects of aging [esp in ~10-15 timelines]. As is menopause (this is easiest to reverse, and something Lure may have to look out for [and be in control of]). The real important question is whether or not aspects of phenomenally good skin health (like youthful viscoelasticity) is indicative of slower aging rate in the less reversible parts of aging, like extracellular matrix crosslinks/damage, protein aggregation, or general genetic mosaicism (If you look at Christopher Walshās youtube presentations, you can see that there is huge hetereogeneity in nuclear DNA damage in the brain w/age, with some 70+ years olds having nuclear DNA damage levels comparable to those decades younger)
Brain aging is altogether something different than aging in most other organs simply because having robust stem cells helps other tissue WAY more than it helps the brain (and some degree of brain aging, esp in the higher cortical structures, does not necessarily cause downstream age-related damage on the rest of the body). Neuroplasticity also causes DNA breaks in the brain that are not super-generalizeable to the pattern of DNA breaks in cells in the rest of the body.
[obviously - having speed, grace and agility and flexibility and lack of pauses when speaking also count for appearing decades younger than oneās age, and on this account ppl like Malathir Mohammed (who is living proof that a few people can get away with coronary disease without having it act as a āmaster acceleratorā of other kinds of aging) and William Shatner perform extremely well]
Iāve seen it said elsewhere that if you look at the old photo albums of supercentenarians, they often look ~2 decades younger than their age (obviously you have to factor in the negative examples here too)ā¦
Itās important to differentiate between Type I vs Type II error here - Iām sure there are some slow-agers who look their age (b/c of sun exposure), but my hunch is that itās very unlikely for people who look decades younger to be physiologically their age, especially after age ~40 (though maybe there are some cases, esp Asian moms, where they look extremely young and then start to suddenly look their age at 40-45).
My guess is that people who look Lure-level freakishly young age at minimum 1.5SDs better than others and are unlikely to suffer from the standard set of health problems that others suffer from (theyāre probably healthier on average than those who practice CR but who donāt have privileged genes). But I donāt have a rich dataset on this because I donāt have longitudinal data on people who are such huge outliers (being CR is rare enough, looking like her is even rarer). The real question is whether or not they have ā7 more years than everyone else doesā or if itās ā20-25 more yearsā
But the kinds of functional decline up to the 50s (eg reductions in ATP production, small decreases in stamina and energy and VO2max) that ARENāT visible on the skin or face up to the 50s are generally not hyper visible to most people. One can have these kinds of functional decline even without having the MOST important kinds of age related damage that immediately hit on viscoelasticity
David Sinclair himself has recently said that he was measured to be ā~9 years youngerā [I wonder if itās just epigenetics - epigenetic clocks are still nowhere as good as the more expensive āmultiomicsā clocks that are being developed], but he himself looks ~15 years younger. I kind of worry that David Sinclair will āshow his ageā all of a sudden at some point in the not-too-distant future (even if he does, however, itās not the worst thing if he can age as gracefully as William Shatner, which may happen given better theapeutics).
there are some false negatives. William Shatner and Edward O. Thorpe (the best super-agers I know of) did not look freakishly young in their 20s/30s, but they now pass off as decades younger [they are also old enough for functional decline to be super-noticeable].
ALSO, skin aging in GENERAL may be unusually affected by other things, like hyaluronic acid (this may be helpful for other organs too, I donāt know). Itās said HA is 75% lower in 80 year olds, and idk how much total replacement would make up for other kinds of skin aging
