In this solo episode of the Optispan Podcast, host Matt takes a critical deep dive into the world of direct-to-consumer biological age tests. He starts by delivering a clear verdict: these tests don’t work. Matt explains that despite growing hype in the longevity space, current consumer-facing biological age assays are statistically meaningless, lack actionable insight, and ultimately do more harm than good. Drawing on both Optispan’s clinical experience and his own personal experiment with multiple biological age tests, Matt outlines why the company has chosen to stop offering these tests in their clinical programs.

Matt provides a foundation for understanding biological age clocks, emphasizing that while the underlying science of molecular aging markers is valid in the research setting, these tools are not ready for clinical or personal use. He explains how clocks are often based on a subset of epigenetic changes that correlate with chronological age, healthspan, or mortality risk, but none of these specific markers have been mechanistically linked to health outcomes. Furthermore, even in research, there is no consensus on how to translate these correlations into clinical practice.

He outlines four core criticisms of consumer biological age tests: (1) they are not approved or validated by any independent regulatory body like the FDA; (2) there is zero transparency or quality control in the industry; (3) the results vary wildly, making them statistically useless; and (4) they provide no actionable guidance for improving health. Matt uses his own case to illustrate these points—testing the same day with multiple kits returned biological ages that ranged from 43 to 61, rendering the results meaningless.

Matt also questions the ethics of practitioners who recommend these tests without understanding how they work or how the results influence care. He urges listeners to ask their healthcare providers direct questions if these tests are suggested: Are they FDA approved? What actions will be taken based on results? Are providers making a commission? Do they understand the underlying methodology? He challenges the notion that motivation alone is a justification for selling inaccurate tools, particularly when the same motivational impact can often be achieved through more scientifically valid means.

The episode concludes with a direct call to action for the biological age testing industry: establish standards, improve test reliability, and prove clinical utility. Matt reiterates his support for the core science and the potential of aging biomarkers but emphasizes that until these tests are rigorously validated, they do more to erode trust in the longevity field than advance it. He encourages companies to get serious about transparency and validation—and promises to be the first to endorse the tests when they are finally ready for clinical use.