Ageing rates vary widely, says study

About time we were judged on who we are and not how old we are. Age brings experience but people don't seem to appreciate that.

How very true VQ, it's high time that people were judged ' at Interview' and not just written off so that they never get the interview .

I've just been reading that article too but my interest was from a science/ health point of view. Interesting how we all can see things from different angles.

How do they explain how some days I feel 40 and some more like 80.

Or, indeed how inside can feel a whole different age from the exterior,?

Sometimes you see someone who just looks much older than their chronological age. I usually think that maybe they've had a hard life but sounds like hard luck with their genes. Similarly there are strikingly young looking people. Interesting research.

Nature v nurture, genes v lifestyle Jane

It just proves that age is just a number.

Your chronological age and your biological age may be different numbers. Some individuals are years younger biologically than their chronological age but others are years older.
We didn't need a study to tell us the evidence of our eyes, but this does explain why.

Look to your telemars

I did that thing which was in the news a few weeks ago and was a lot younger than I really am! As a 'glass half full' person I am happy with that and continue to feel much younger which I think is all that matters. DH tends to be the opposite but I simply refuse to allow him to be 'old' and so does the rest of the family.

I think the study was to do with purely physical determinants of ageing.

Yes it is "petallus* but if you're physicality fit then perhaps you're more likely to feel good in yourself and vice versa ?

Two of my kids had their bone age measured when they were in primary school.Their bone age was 4 years minus their actual age. Which was good in their case, as it meant that they were going to grow to average height so we didnt need to consider growth hormones for them.

Can you explain that soontobe?
Surely 4 years minus their actual age would be a minus quantity?

Primary school goes up to the age of 11.

So their bones were four years older than their actual age?

Why might you have needed to consider growth hormones ? Was there a medical reason for this?

4 minus 11 still gives a minus quantity! (-7 )

I take it you meant their actual age minus 4 years ??

#youcantakethemathsteacheroutofschool

No Ana, 4 years younger.

Greenfinch, I dont want to go into much medical detail, but 3 of my kids were short. Very short.
It is on my side of the family to be very short until about 21, and even then to still grow.

It might have been less confusing if you'd just said their bones were found to be four years younger than their actual age in the first place!

Sorry to be nosy soon.It was just that my friend had a very short daughter and it was due to the drugs she was taking for asthma. I did not mean to delve but it is the sort of thing I would ask my friends.

And my comment? Don't I warrant a reply? sulk emoticon

Thats ok Greenfinch. I am just aware that I am talking about members of my family, not me, and I always consider the internet to be anything but private, so I bear in mind what they would want me to post.
2 of them, well actually all 3 are asthmatic to a degree, some worse than others. But in their case, although the asthma drugs play a part, it is more than that as it their height is very much genetic.
2 of them were born prematurely which wouldnt have helped.

<sniff>