A neuroscientist and CEO of a brain-health company has launched a contest where people compete to prove they are biologically younger than their calendar age. The winner will be the person who closes the gap between their chronological and biological age the most.
Christin Glorioso, founder and CEO of NeuroAge Therapeutics, created the Younger contest. Over six months, around 500 competitors will send blood samples, selfies, and grip-strength readings to measure their biological age across 11 organ systems. The leaderboard already exists, and the prize goes to whoever shows the greatest difference between how old they are and how old their body reads.
The Contest’s Design
Glorioso says she wants to explain to the world what aging clocks are. These tools measure biological age by tracking chemical signatures on DNA, protein levels, or lipids in blood. Some clocks measure functional health; others predict when a person will die. More than a hundred exist, and each captures a different slice of aging.
The contest uses multiple clocks. Competitors send a blood spot sample to TruDiagnostic, which measures epigenetic chemical groups on DNA and offers an overall biological age, a pace-of-aging score, and the ages of each of 11 organ systems. NeuroAge provides a brain age score from cognitive tasks. Participants also submit grip-strength readings and upload selfies to a Harvard-developed app that estimates face age.
Ultra competitors pay $4,499 for extra blood tests, MRI and DEXA scans. Regular entry costs $999. The writer of the article signed up for the standard package and received complimentary press access.
Why Biological Age Matters
Glorioso says the contest is also a public health push. A few years ago, David Sinclair, who studies aging at Harvard Medical School, and his colleagues estimated that increasing life expectancy by one year in the general population could save the US economy $38 trillion.
But measuring individual biological age is still controversial. Scientists use aging clocks to study aging and development in humans and many other species, but estimating a person’s biological age is not reliable yet. Glorioso hopes the data from the contest will help answer what each clock actually captures.
The Leaderboard So Far
The leaderboard is sparse. Only seven people have logged their baseline measurements, and six of them have biological ages tracking low. One 47-year-old competitor has been given a biological age of 68.1.
The writer saw that Glorioso herself took her baseline measurements in August and found her biological age was around 10 years below her chronological age. Then she saw competitor @Fred, who had a biological age 28.8 years below his chronological age.
The worst score belongs to that same competitor, who was given a biological age of 100 by the speed at which she can stand from sitting in a chair.
What the Scores Mean
The writer admits she knows she shouldn’t put too much stock in the scores. Four years ago, a company gave her a biological age that matched her chronological age, which was disappointing. A year later, the same company told her she had a young heart but a relatively old brain, liver, and hormonal system.
Her lifestyle hasn’t changed much since then. She wonders whether the years have made much difference.
Signing Up and Starting
The contest officially kicks off in January, but around 120 people have already signed up. Glorioso expects 500 participants in total. Each person’s six-month run starts as soon as they take their baseline measurements, whenever that may be.
A handful of people have already started. “I think the majority of people are going to want to sign up after the holidays,” says Glorioso. “They’re not going to want to be trying to win an aging contest over Christmas and Hanukkah.”
The Bottom Line
This is a contest where people try to prove they are biologically younger than their calendar age. The leaderboard already exists, and the prize goes to whoever closes the gap between how old they are and how old their body reads.
| Contest Detail | What It Measures |
|---|---|
| TruDiagnostic blood spot | Epigenetic chemical groups on DNA, overall biological age, pace of aging, 11 organ systems |
| NeuroAge cognitive tasks | Brain age score |
| Grip strength | Physical measure |
| Harvard app selfies | Face age |
| MRI and DEXA scans | Extra tests for ultra competitors |
| Score Type | Example Range |
|---|---|
| Chronological age | 40 years |
| Biological age | 28.8 years below chronological age (competitor @Fred) |
| Face age | Estimated from selfies |
| Organ system age | Varies by system |
| Pace of aging | Measured by TruDiagnostic |
Glorioso’s stated goals are clear: she wants to explain aging clocks to the public, gather data on what they measure, and promote NeuroAge’s brain-health tools. The leaderboard is a visible part of the contest, but the underlying technology is real.
The writer’s own experience suggests the scores are not always consistent. Four years ago, one company matched her chronological age. A year later, the same company gave her a mixed picture. Her lifestyle hadn’t changed, so the results were hard to interpret.
The contest is open now. People can sign up and start their measurements whenever they want. The leaderboard will fill out over the next six months.
The prize includes the person who shows the greatest difference between chronological and biological age, as well as the person who reverses their biological age the most. For the people inside it, the stakes are real. They are betting that a blood sample, a selfie, and a grip-strength reading can tell them something about how fast they are aging.
The contest is a reminder that aging is not a uniform process. Some people’s brains age faster than their hearts. Some people’s faces look older than their organs. The contest asks everyone to answer the same question: which clock tells the truth about you?
The writer has already sent her blood spot. She has uploaded her selfies. She has taken her grip-strength reading. Now she waits to see what the numbers say.
The contest will run until the end of the six-month period. The leaderboard will be updated regularly. The winner will be announced.
Source material: “A new contest pits competitors against each other in a race to biological youth,” MIT Technology Review.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.