A clinician considers cardiovascular risk and individual circumstances when using ApoB. The calculator's scoring range is not a treatment target.
| Risk category | ApoB threshold |
|---|---|
| Borderline–intermediate risk | 90 mg/dL |
| High risk | 70 mg/dL |
| Very high risk | 60 mg/dL |
NLA = National Lipid Association (US). These are thresholds for considering treatment intensification with a clinician, not self-assessed treatment targets.
The NLA describes these as thresholds for considering treatment intensification, not a guarantee of benefit or a universal treatment goal. Risk categories are defined by the consensus and need clinical assessment.
The consensus notes that ApoB treatment thresholds are less established than LDL cholesterol thresholds and were extrapolated from corresponding lipid thresholds.
The Longevity Score calculator uses one best-scoring range, < 60 mg/dL, without determining an individual's clinical risk category. This range is a model choice, not a treatment target.
If a clinician has placed you in one of the categories above for medication decisions, that category — not this page — should drive treatment. This page exists so you can see where your own target sits relative to the tool's single number, and ask an informed question rather than an uninformed one at your next visit.
Score your ApoB against all 8 dialsThe calculator's best-scoring range is below 60 mg/dL. It is a model choice, not a treatment target or a recommendation to start or intensify medication.
Treatment decisions consider overall risk, existing disease, treatment, benefits and harms. The NLA thresholds are points at which clinicians may consider intensifying treatment, not automatic treatment instructions.
What a good ApoB level is · How to lower ApoB · The atherogenic dial
Choose a question. Answers come from this site, and nothing you open is sent anywhere.
The calculator's best-scoring range is below 60 mg/dL. It is a model choice, not a treatment target or a recommendation to start or intensify medication.
Treatment decisions consider overall risk, existing disease, treatment, benefits and harms. The NLA thresholds are points at which clinicians may consider intensifying treatment, not automatic treatment instructions.
Chronological age counts birthdays. Biological age estimates how old your body appears to be functioning, based on measurable biomarkers. Two people born the same year can differ by a decade or more in vascular stiffness, insulin signalling or cardiorespiratory fitness. Biological age makes that gap explicit — and unlike your birthday, it can move in either direction.
Each biomarker you enter is scored against longevity-optimised reference ranges and grouped into one of eight dials. Every dial produces its own biological age, and those are combined using fixed weights into a single composite, then expressed as a Longevity Score from 0 to 100. The weighting reflects how strongly each system predicts healthspan: structural and vascular carry the most, hormonal the least.
No. The short form contains a subset of scoring inputs plus context-only fields, and you can leave any of them blank. It is not a recommendation to obtain tests. Missing values are excluded from the calculation — never treated as zero or as 'normal'. A dial with no scored data is dropped entirely and the remaining weights renormalise.
Some inputs can be measured without bloodwork. Blood pressure needs a home cuff and waist-to-height needs a tape measure. Wearable estimates vary; the floor-based sitting-rising test carries a fall risk and should only be attempted if safe.
Both terms describe what this tool does, and which one fits depends on what you are asking. "Anti-aging" is the term most people search, and loosely means anything aimed at slowing or reversing age-related decline — this tool fits that description if you score your dials and act on what you find. "Healthspan calculator" is the more precise term: healthspan is the number of years lived without serious chronic disease or disability, and that cannot be measured directly, so this tool scores eight systems that each function as an early-warning proxy for it. Either way, the method is the same: real biomarkers, published thresholds, no vanity-metric framing.
Several popular tools ask only about habits — exercise days, sleep hours, smoking, diet quality — and return a single precise-looking age. We looked at the research behind that approach and chose not to build it. Published studies do show real, individually-measured links between specific habits and epigenetic age acceleration, but those effect sizes come from different study populations, different DNA-methylation clocks and different measurement units. Adding them together into one number is not something the underlying research actually supports — it produces a precise-looking result built on an imprecise method. Our dials use direct physiological measurements instead: a real blood pressure reading, a real VO₂ max, a real ApoB value. Several dials score from home-measurable data alone with no quiz-guessing involved — see what you can measure without a blood test, above.
Standard reference ranges describe what is common in a general population, which now includes a great deal of metabolic dysfunction. They are tuned to flag disease, not to identify what is optimal for a long healthspan. A fasting insulin of 20 µIU/mL sits inside most labs' normal range and is strongly associated with insulin resistance. This tool uses longevity-optimised thresholds instead, so a flag here means room for optimisation — not a diagnosis.
For understanding a single result, do — a frontier chat model is genuinely good at that, often clearer than most medical sites, and it handles markers no fixed tool covers. The limitation is different from the one most people assume. A language model produces a plausible response rather than a computed one, so the same panel can score differently on different days. That is fine when exploring an idea and disqualifying when measuring change, because you cannot tell how much of a difference is you and how much is the method. Use both: a chat model to understand, a fixed instrument to track.