#19

The other guy has a better average too.

#20

I turned my mobile to landscape and saw more information.

#21

I’ve been in touch with the folks at Trudiagnostic about “normalization” and sent them a link to this thread. I’m hoping they will check it out and comment.

#22

Are there other members of this forum on the leaderboard?

#23

Is Michael Lustgarten a member here? Can’t remember ever seeing him post.

@John_Hemming I thought that DunedinPace only gave you a speed/rate of aging and not a biological age. Isn’t that one of the things that distinguishes it from earlier Epigenetic age tests?

#24

image
image881×53 2.83 KB

1 Like
#25

PACE gives a rate of aging, but the same methylation pattern from the same sample is used for epigenetic ages. I had test results with the epigenetic age going down but pace going up.

I understand now that people with fewer than 3 results are now listed separately.

2 Likes
#26

My wife and I, Joan and Steve Matheson

3 Likes
#27

now we need a spreadsheet where we could enter a from age and a to age and see the result :slight_smile:

1 Like
#28

Here it is:
DunedinPace Age normalization.xls (18 KB)

BTW if somebody can find the ages of the top contenders in the Rejuvenation Olympics I can re-rank them with age compensated pace.

3 Likes
#29

I wonder what you get wifh the other results.

#30

I have done a blog post about this

1 Like
#31

I posted my complete test results here and will use that thread for any additional test results.

2 Likes
#32

It’s also important to understand that more and more people are doing these tests and some of those people who were not previously participating have good results and bumping others down. A new person who is not on there but has 3 tests could register and be # 1, moving all those below down 1 rank. That’s what Joan and I did. Our 4 tests go back 3 years so we both displaced people already in the rankings.

A leader board is not just about my or my wife’s numbers, as the pool of participants grows (now over 740) expect individual rankings to vary as often as every day at 4:00am :slight_smile:

The “average” for me and my wife will change with our next test in Sept. I’m hopeful that our additional efforts will bring that test result down and that will lower our average.

They average your most recent 3 tests. If you do not have 3 tests within 2 years you don’t get the blue check mark.

So there are 3 rankings that you can sort on;

  1. average Pace Rank - the 3 most recent Pace tests - these have the blue check
  2. average Pace - could be 1, 2 or 3 test results - note the blue check or lack of
  3. best Pace - could be 1, 2 or 3 test results - note the blue check or lack of

Quite a few without the blue check and a VERY low Pace have an average that equals their best. That can be an indicator of having done only 1 test.

If you sort on “best pace” then the ones with less than 3 will be ranked. Some of those are very low and if they keep it up with their next 1 or 2 tests to establish their average, they could easily displace more people down the Average Pace Rank.

This is an interesting example of “gamification” to stimulate interest and competition. It will establish bragging rights for many individuals, consultants, clinics.

For example, both my wife and I are in the top 100 :slight_smile:

3 Likes
#33

I using my model to find the optimal dosage.
Here is the blood concentration vs various doses:

image
image759×501 87.7 KB

As you can see at low doses only the absorption peak is above the target threshold but this pen is meaningless as it’s only showing the difference of speed between the gut => blood absorption vs the blood => organs distribution.

Here is the time in days above the thresholds:

image
image743×511 32.1 KB

At low doses only the peak crosses those thresholds which shows that the organs probably don’t cross them.
At around 10mg the organs get enough rapamacyn to cross the 3ng/ml threshold and the time above that threshold increases.
All that is clearly non linear with a minimum active dose followed by a logarithmic response.

2 Likes
#34

I have seen that your wife has a better result than me. I also agree that things will change. I am currently not targeting this particular metric, however.

I was asking about your other results from TruDiagnostic. I wrote about mine here:

It is curious to me to relate the epigenetic age calculations they do to the dunedinPACE results.

Algorithm 6th April 5th July 15th November
OmicAge 64.098 58.432 58.362
PaceOfAging 0.78 0.82 1.051
Fitness Age x x 46.55
Intrinsic Epigenetic Age (Horvath) 62.94 59.28 53.38
Extrinsic Epigenetic Age (Hannum) 47.25 45.8 36.59
1 Like
#35

I posted a link to my complete tests for you and anyone else who cares to read them.

1 Like
#36

Thanks. I have looked. I am trying to get a mechanistic idea of what the results mean. I am no wiser than after my own results sadly.

2 Likes
#37

I had the same question as I saw one marker decline (in the good way) and my Pace did not.

Each of these algo’s is looking at different parts of the DNA and measuring different “things” and my guess is that they do not correlate 100% with each other.

That is what I’ve come to after reading about these tests. Since each test is looking for specific data on a specific thing, it seems to me that this is normal.

The new SymphonyAGE algo is a real eye opener. My average organ age is 73, 5 years older than my chrono. And yet my Pace is 0.94 BUT was over 1 the previous 3 tests.

My wifes SymphonyAGE is 52, 15 years younger than her chrono and her Pace is 0.74 and hers has always been under 1

1 Like
#38

That is awesome!! Thanks for this!