Take this test to find out if your HEART is ageing faster than the rest of your body
But, US researchers have developed a new free online test that they claim could help predict biological age and turn back the clock.
Routine health data—including blood pressure, cholesterol levels, chronic illness, and lifestyle risk factors such as smoking—has long been considered a good marker of healthy ageing.
But until now, heart disease risk has been calculated as a percentage, leaving many patients uncertain of how likely they are to develop potentially deadly heart disease.
Traditionally, a doctor may tell a patient: 'Eight out of ten people with your profile may suffer a heart event in the next 10 years.'
But the new tool, based on data provided by American Heart Association, reframes the risk as an age—making it easier to understand just how much stress your heart is under.
The tool asks you to enter your sex, age, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, whether or not you have diabetes, and if you take medication for blood pressure or statins.
It also requires you to input your eGFR (estimated glomerular filtration rate) which is used to measure how well your kidneys are functioning.
In the current study, researchers tested the age calculator on more than 14,000 US adults aged 30 to 79 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination survey, between 2011 and 2020.
Using this data, it then generates your 'heart age'—and it might be older, or younger, than you.
Dr Sadiya Khan, a cardiology professor at Northwestern University and lead author of the study, said: 'Many people who should be on medicine to lower their risk of heart attack, stroke or heart failure are not.
'We hope this new age calculator will help support discussions about prevention and ultimately improve health for all people.'
None of the participants had history of cardiovascular disease.
On average, they found that women had a biological heart age four years older than their actual age.
For men, the results were more severe. Despite having an average chronological age of just under 50-years-old, the test suggested their hearts resembled that of a 56-year-old.
And among men who did not complete college or sixth form the prognosis was even bleaker, with nearly a third of this group having a heart age more than ten years older than their actual age.
This pattern—where there was a significant discordance between biological and chronological age—was most prevalent in Black and Hispanic adults.
Writing in the journal JAMA cardiology, the researchers concluded: 'The important thing is that we have very good options available in our tool box to help slow that aging down if we can identify it.
Dr Khan added: 'This may be even more important in younger people who don't often think about their risk for heart disease.'
The researchers now plan to study whether presenting risk in terms of age to patients improves outcomes and helps people better understand the need for preventative treatment.
Alarming data last year revealed that premature deaths from cardiovascular problems generally, such as heart attacks and strokes, had hit their highest level in more than a decade.
MailOnline has previously highlighted how the number of young people, under 40, in England being treated for heart attacks by the NHS is on the rise.
Cases of heart attacks, heart failure and strokes among the under-75s had tumbled since the 1960s thanks to plummeting smoking rates, advanced surgical techniques and breakthroughs such as stents and statins.
But now, other factors such as slow ambulance response times for category 2 calls in England — which includes suspected heart attacks and strokes — as well as long waits for tests and treatment have also been blamed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
7 hours ago
- Daily Mail
The unlikely group 'destined' to be struck by Alzheimer's disease as early as 40
Alzheimer's disease is largely seen as one of old age. The most common form of memory-robbing dementia, Alzheimer's affects nearly 7 million Americans, most of whom are over the age of 65. Your browser does not support iframes. Your browser does not support iframes. Your browser does not support iframes.
Telegraph
8 hours ago
- Telegraph
Partner ‘phubbing' could destroy your marriage
'Phubbing' risks destroying romantic relationships, researchers have warned. The frustrating habit, with its name a contraction of ' phone snubbing ', involves looking down at your mobile phone while your partner is trying to talk to you. Researchers from Anna University in Chennai, India, explained that by concentrating on your phone, you are not maintaining regular eye contact with your partner. This impacts how affectionate people feel towards them and affects levels of physical contact. As part of a study, researchers surveyed 300 people aged 45 or under who had been in committed relationships for up to 15 years. They were asked about their phone use and their partnerships. It found that couples who use their mobiles the most saw a decline in eye contact and sexual activity. 'As a subtle but persistent form of partner neglect, phubbing may contribute to declining reproductive intent by eroding emotional foundations,' the study said. Writing in the peer-reviewed African Journal of Reproductive Health, the researchers added: 'It disrupts human intimacy by reducing face-to-face attention, emotional closeness, and sexual desire. 'Our findings provide strong evidence that phubbing, frequently dismissed as a trivial annoyance, may have deeper evolutionary and relational consequences. 'Those who experienced frequent phubbing were over three times more likely to express hesitation or disinterest in having children with their partner. 'It may seem like a minor social slight, but repeated occurrence can undermine the emotional and physiological mechanisms that sustain romantic bonds and reproductive motivation.' A previous study published in Computers in Human Behaviour in 2016 found that texting during a conversation made the talk less satisfying for the people having it, compared with people who interacted without phones. Meanwhile, in a study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology in 2018, 'phubbing' was found to threaten four 'fundamental needs' – belongingness, self-esteem, meaningful existence, and control – by making 'phubbed' people feel excluded and ostracised.
The Independent
10 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump dubbed himself the ‘father of IVF' on the campaign trail. But his pledge to mandate insurance cover has disappeared
Donald Trump's vow to expand in vitro fertilization (IVF) access to millions of Americans is on hold, with White House officials backing away from plans to require Obamacare health plans to include the service as an essential health benefit, the Washington Post reported on Sunday. The Post reported that White House officials have privately moved away from the prospect of pushing for legislation to address the issue despite it being one of Trump's signature campaign promises, citing two persons with knowledge of internal discussions in Trumpworld. A senior administration official also acknowledged to the newspaper that changing Obamacare to force insurers to cover new services would require congressional action, not an executive order. The president has governed largely by executive fiat in his second term as he grapples with a closely-divded Congress and an unruly GOP majority in the House of Representatives. He's used those executive orders to dismantle whole parts of the federal government, including USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The president even tried to take an axe to the Department of Education, though that battle is still being waged in the courts. The Supreme Court recently cleared the way for Trump to cut roughly a quarter of the agency's staff. But many of Trump's campaign promises lie outside of his ability to influence via the hiring or firing of people and redirection of agency resources or agendas. In 2024, he laid out no direct path for his goal to expand IVF access, only telling voters that insurance companies would be forced to cover it. Still, he proclaimed himself the 'father of IVF' at at Fox News town hall, and promised during an NBC News interview: 'We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment. We're going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.' At the time, there was little to no acknowledgment of the fact that many if not most conservatives still oppose the Affordable Care Act and the same healthcare exchanges which Trump was now promising to utilize as he sought to use the power of the federal government to expand healthcare coverage. Now, with the passage of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' without any provisions expanding IVF access, and with the prospect of further policy gains before the midterms growing dimmer, it's unclear when the White House would have another chance to press the issue in Congress. In February, the president signed an executive order directing his advisers to 'submit to the President a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' It's been crickets on the issue since then. In 2024, many of Trump's critics and the media pointed out that the policy would essentially amount to a reversal or at the very least coming in sharp contrast to the first Trump administration's efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which ended in failure, and a contradiction of the conservative view that government should not exercise that level of control over Americans' health care decisions. The president's promise thrilled his party's natalists, embodied by Vice President JD Vance and an army of right-wing immigration hawks who fear the changing American demographics brought on as a result of falling birth rates and high levels of migration. It also wowed some of his Democratic and left-leaning critics, who see the policy as a means of furthering their goal of expanding access to healthcare for poorer Americans. For Vance, the issue of declining U.S. birth rates predates his MAGA heel-turn. In 2019, he told a gathering of conservatives in Washington: 'Our people aren't having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us.' 'We want babies not just because they are economically useful. We want more babies because children are good. And we believe children are good, because we are not sociopaths,' the future vice president added at the time. Two years later, he'd tell a right-leaning podcast: 'I think we have to go to war against the anti-child ideology that exists in our country.' During the 2024 campaign, those views emerged again as Vance attacked Democrats as 'childless cat ladies' and leaned heavily into attacking the left for supposedly being anti-family. Progressives fought back, pointing to efforts to expand the child tax credit and other benefits that aid young families under Joe Biden and other Democratic administrations, including the passage of Barack Obama's signature law: the Affordable Care Act.
