Pēteris Apinis: Today's young people age biologically faster than earlier generations
Pēteris Apinis, a writer for the Latvian daily Latvijas Avīze, reviews studies on biological ageing ahead of his lecture "Ageing Beautifully". He says younger people age faster than their peers did 50 years ago, and cites lifestyle and environmental factors.
In an article in the Latvian daily Latvijas Avīze, author Pēteris Apinis discusses research suggesting that today's young people age biologically faster than their peers about 50 years ago, while those who have reached old age age more slowly. The article draws on material for his lecture "Ageing Beautifully", which he will give on 6 November at 11:00 at the "Baltic Beuty" conference at the Ķīpsala exhibition complex in Riga.
What biological age means
Apinis explains that biological age, unlike the age on a passport, reflects the condition of the body: inflammation, metabolic load, and wear on organs and the immune system. He cites studies in which people born in the 1960s aged more slowly up to the age of 40 than those born in the 1990s. In a study carried out in the United Kingdom, people with the highest biological age had a 15 percent higher risk of developing cancer before the age of 55. American studies, according to the author, are linked to more frequent deaths from colorectal cancer among young people.
Possible causes
Apinis names a sedentary working life, increasingly processed diets, obesity, chronic stress, air pollution and synthetic substances in the environment as influencing factors. He says that in Latvia a third of school leavers are overweight or obese, and at least half of pregnant women have at least one metabolic risk.
The author stresses that biological age can be partly influenced: avoiding smoking, drinking less alcohol, regular physical activity, maintaining metabolic health and getting enough sleep all help.
The situation in Latvia
Apinis writes that Latvia ranks last in the European Union for healthy life years, with people experiencing chronic illness at around 52–54. He criticises the lack of preventive care, long waiting times for specialists and high patient co-payments. These are the author's own assessments.
He ends by urging readers to treat online information about slowing ageing critically, since the longevity field has become a lucrative business niche.
