Does the country you live in affect your biological age?
Where you live and how much money you have is strongly associated with how quickly you age biologically; the largest gap between biological and calendar age is found in low-income countries. This is one large study, but with nearly 162,000 participants and consistent effects across 40 countries, the findings deserve to be taken seriously.
Yes, it makes a considerable difference. A study of nearly 162,000 people from 40 countries found that people in Europe age most favourably on average: their biological age lags least behind their calendar age. The gap was largest in Egypt and South Africa, where the body aged biologically at a significantly faster rate than the calendar would suggest. Asian and Latin American countries fell in between. There were also differences within Europe: eastern and southern Europe scored worse than the rest.
Which factors explain this? Lower income was the strongest predictor of accelerated biological ageing: people with less money aged faster, and this held true at both the individual and regional level. The association was medium to large in magnitude. Poor air quality and sociopolitical circumstances, such as high inequality, limited political freedoms and gender inequality, were also associated with faster ageing.
The consequences are concrete. People who age biologically faster had, at follow-up measurements, a greater likelihood of cognitive decline and loss of daily functioning. The functional difference was the largest: the association had a medium to large effect size.
An important caveat: the study is observational. This means that country or income have not been proven to cause ageing, but they are strongly associated with it. People who move from a poor country to a wealthy one, for example, also bring part of their biological clock with them. Nevertheless, the researchers point to a 'likely causal' interpretation, given the breadth and consistency of the findings.
All findings come from a single large cross-sectional and longitudinal study (PMID 40659767, n=161,981, 40 countries). The effect sizes are robust and statistically sound, but independent replication is still lacking.