Dr. Rhonda Patrick

So it's a very biostatistical test that's done that really, really relies on

large, large sample numbers.

And so there's these tests that are done.

They're measuring epigenetic changes, and they can basically measure your biological age.

But the standard of deviation is about four to five years.

So when you have hundreds of thousands of different people coming into that sample size, it's a lot more accurate.

You can actually do a large study and

and figure out like what someone's biological age is and what different lifestyle factors can regulate that.

When you go down to these consumer available tests at the individual level, it's a lot of noise because again, the standard of deviation is four to five years on average.

And so the test isn't really that accurate on the individual level.

So you could do that test and then do it again,

in two weeks and have five years difference, right?

So my take home from that is you can claim all these things being biologically 18.

I don't think that's accurate.

I think that Brian Johnson's doing a lot of things right with his diet and lifestyle and he is improving the way he ages.

It's a lot easier to reverse

accelerated aging so in other words if you were doing things bad in your diets if you're eating a lot of ultra processed foods if you're overweight if you smoke if you drink a lot if you're sedentary and don't exercise you're kind of accelerating the way you age and it's a lot easier to slow that acceleration which makes it look like reverse aging but if you're already doing everything really that you can to to live as healthy as you can

It's really hard to reverse that biological age by 20 years because you're already doing sort of everything, right?

And that's where these new technologies come into play.

So I would say I don't believe that Brian Johnson's 18.