French scientists find key markers of healthy aging

Discussions about healthy aging often focus on disease, and resilience raises another question: how much reserve remains in the systems that keep the body functioning under high blood pressure? The World Health Organization considers this reserve as part of a person’s physical and mental abilities, and resilience encompasses the immune system and response to stress, energy and metabolism, as well as nervous and muscle function.

To elucidate this link, the researchers studied 39 adults in Nice with an average age of about 64, none of whom suffered from chronic illness or took medication. Nineteen people did aerobics at least three times a week for 30 years, doing at least 2.5 hours of moderate exercise per week or half as much intense exercise, while the other 20 did not exercise or exercise regularly and reported giving them no more than 75 minutes a week while resting or walking; questionnaires and a wearable sensor confirmed the difference in current activity.

When the researchers combined these scores, those who exercised all their lives had the best results; older participants tended to score lower. However, since the researchers measured everyone only once, they cannot say that the same people had decreased vitality over time.

The most pronounced difference was found in two resting measurements: active participants had an average oxygen saturation of 96.8 percent compared to 94.8 percent in the inactive group, and heart rate variability of 49.9 compared to 27.2 milliseconds.

However, the active group did not outperform the inactive group in all measures. So, the markers of inflammation did not show a clear difference, as did the assessment of the immune system of the participants, and grip strength, knee strength and lung function also showed no clear differences. Nor was there a clear overall gap in energy, metabolism or nerve and muscle function. The link focused on specific aspects of physiological reserve, rather than that people who exercised throughout their lives were better off across the board.

Viability levels were also not related to the quality of life reported in the reports: scores tended to be high, making it difficult to identify the relationship.