- Researchers say younger generations appear to be aging faster than previous generations.
- They say the phenomenon may explain why certain cancers are rising drastically in young adults.
- The reasons for faster biological aging aren’t clear, but unhealthy diets, sedentary lifestyles, and exposure to carcinogens are likely factors.
Younger generations are aging biologically faster than previous generations, which may have dire health consequences.
A new study published in
Researchers from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis say that cancer can develop when genetic damage has accumulated in cells. When DNA is damaged, it can transmit flawed instructions, leading to malfunctions in cell division. That disruption can lead to cancer. This type of damage is commonly seen as people age.
Ketan Thanki, MD, a colorectal surgeon specializing in benign and malignant disease of the colon, rectum, and anus at the MemorialCare Todd Cancer Institute at Long Beach Medical Center in California, said the new research provides valuable information.
“The study shows that using established markers of biological age, we have evidence that younger generations are aging faster than previous generations,” he told Healthline.
“The study doesn’t pinpoint exactly why but points toward factors that research has been suggesting for years,” Thanki told Healthline.
The researchers cited a
- obesity and metabolic dysfunction
- unhealthy diet
- prolonged sedentary time
- circadian disruption
- exposure to environmental chemicals
However, the researchers noted that further studies are needed to determine why biological aging has accelerated in younger generations.
“A better understanding of how generational differences in accelerated aging relate to early onset cancers is needed urgently,” the study authors wrote.
“This question is central because early onset cancers show strong birth-cohort effects, with more recent generations experiencing higher risk as they age,” they continued.
To reach their findings, the researchers examined data on three generations of people listed in two data banks.
They studied blood markers from more than 150,000 adults in the UK Biobank, comparing people born in the early 1950s with people born in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The researchers also examined health data from more than 10,000 adults in the United States’ All of Us research program, which includes people born from 1965 onward. The researchers compared people born in the 1960s with those born during the 1990s.
Their primary metric was PhenoAge, a measure of biological aging based on chronological age and 9 blood biomarkers.
The team used that metric to calculate an “age gap” score to estimate whether a person appears biologically older or younger than expected for their actual age.
They found that younger generations appeared biologically older than the previous generations at the same chronological age.
People born in the United Kingdom between 1965 and 1974 had a 23% higher standardized PhenoAge-defined age gap than those born between 1950 and 1954.
Similarly, in the United States, people born during the 1990s had a 92% higher standardized age gap than those born between 1965 and 1969.
Using a subset of the data, the researchers examined whether the age-gap scores were associated with cancer risk.
They discovered that people with higher age-gap scores were more likely to develop cancer before age 55. This was particularly true with cancers of the lung, digestive system, and uterus.
The researchers added that every increase in age-gap score increased the risk of early onset solid cancers by 8%. The strongest association was for lung cancer, in which the risk rose by 57%
They reported that the associations persisted even after controlling for factors such as:
Thanki said the trend is concerning.
“Age-related morbidities — diseases that we have previously associated with the elderly — will become more and more common in younger people,” he said. “Beyond the burden on individual quality of life, this will lead to greater healthcare costs as a society and potentially even a shortening of life expectancy.”
Thanki added that changes in how healthcare is approached need to be made.
“We are already facing clinical and diagnostic challenges in younger adults, meaning unless we change how and how well we screen, we will miss more cases and see more patients presenting with advanced disease,” Thanki said.
In recent years, there has been a variety of reports noting the increase in cancer rates in younger adults.
A 2023 study reported that early onset cancer rates increased by 79% globally from 1990 to 2019.
A
In January 2026, the American Cancer Society (ACS) reported that colorectal cancer is now the leading cause of death due to cancer for people under the age of 50 in the United States.
This increase comes despite the fact that overall cancer mortality has declined by 44% over the past three decades for this age group. In addition, cancer rates for people over the age of 50 are also decreasing.
Experts say there are a number of factors that could be causing the rise in cancer risk in younger adults. These include:
- higher rates of obesity
- greater consumption of ultra-processed foods and foods high in refined sugar
- lack of physical activity
- irregular sleep patterns
- exposure to carcinogenic chemicals
There are lifestyle habits that younger adults can adopt to help lower their cancer risk. These include:
- a balanced, healthy diet with minimally processed foods
- regular aerobic and strength-oriented exercise
- limiting alcohol consumption
- avoiding tobacco use
Experts say screenings are one of the most effective tools for combatting cancer because most cancers are treatable if they are detected early.
“We really need to start rethinking our lifestyles,” said Thanki. “Our consumption of processed foods, alcohol, and environmental toxins, our levels of physical activity or inactivity, and what we consider healthy levels of body fat will all need to be modified.”
“The best interventions are often the simplest, though not necessarily the easiest,” he added.
Leave a Reply