According to Experts.news, the human body likely does not age at a constant rate: several large-scale studies in recent years have identified periods of particularly intense restructuring of proteins, metabolites, the immune system, and other molecular markers during middle and old age. However, the widely held view of two specific “aging spikes” at approximately ages 44 and 60 now needs to be revised.
A study by Stanford University researchers, published in the journal *Nature Aging* on August 14, 2024, analyzed 108 individuals aged 25 to 75. The researchers collected blood, microbiome samples, and other biomaterials every few months and examined ten types of molecular data—ranging from transcriptomics and proteomics to metabolomics, lipidomics, and cytokines. Initial analysis revealed two distinct periods of change, occurring around ages 44 and 60.
Around age 44, processes related to lipid and alcohol metabolism, the cardiovascular system, skin, and muscles changed particularly noticeably. Around age 60, the authors observed changes in immune regulation, carbohydrate metabolism, kidney function, and a number of metabolic processes.
However, on July 15, 2026, *Nature Aging* added a special editorial note to the publication. Following further review by the authors and independent researchers, the reliability of the portion of the analysis used to identify peaks in molecular changes during specific age periods was called into question. The authors, together with the editorial board, are continuing to assess the scope of the issue and possible corrections.
This means that the claim that “humans age rapidly specifically at ages 44 and 60” cannot currently be considered a reliably established scientific fact.
At the same time, the more general conclusion that biological aging may occur unevenly is supported by a number of independent studies.
As early as 2019, scientists who studied 2,925 blood plasma proteins in 4,263 individuals aged 18 to 95 identified nonlinear changes in the proteome and three periods of intensified remodeling—at approximately 34, 60, and 78 years of age. The study was published in *Nature Medicine*.
The authors of the later Stanford study attributed the discrepancy between the first peak and their findings to, among other things, different protein measurement methods and a different age range of participants. However, both studies pointed to pronounced changes around the age of 60.
Another important finding emerged in 2025.
A study published in the journal *Cell* created a large-scale proteomic atlas of aging in various human tissues. The scientists found that changes in the protein composition of most of the organs studied accelerated noticeably around the age of 50, particularly between the ages of 45 and 55. Blood vessels proved to be among the tissues most sensitive to age.
Thus, this work also supports the idea of a period of accelerated biological remodeling in middle age, although it does not specifically confirm the age of 44.
The authors developed separate “proteomic clocks” for different tissues, since organs within a single person can age at different rates. This is consistent with the current understanding of biological age as a heterogeneous process, during which the condition of the heart, blood vessels, liver, kidneys, or other systems does not necessarily correspond to a person’s chronological age.
Additional data became available as early as 2026. In March, researchers published an analysis of plasma proteins from 50,506 UK Biobank participants in the journal *Cell Metabolism*. They examined 2,911 proteins and identified 1,339 proteins associated with signs of frailty.
When analyzing age-related changes, the scientists observed a two-phase pattern: the most pronounced periods of proteomic remodeling associated with frailty occurred around ages 50 and 63.
This is particularly interesting when compared to previous studies: while the exact figures vary, several independent datasets again point to an average age of about 45–55 years and the period after age 60 as stages of significant molecular remodeling in the body.
A separate large-scale study in *Nature Medicine* analyzed data from 45,441 UK Biobank participants and 2,897 plasma proteins, after which the researchers constructed proteomic “aging clocks.”
It turned out that the difference between proteomic and chronological age is associated with the subsequent risk of disease and death. A higher calculated biological age was associated, in particular, with an increased risk of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, chronic kidney disease, ischemic heart disease, and type 2 diabetes—even after accounting for a range of other risk factors.
The study confirms a broader concept: what matters is not so much a specific birthday—after which a person supposedly begins to age faster—as the individual rate of change in various bodily systems.
The initial study from Stanford University had several significant limitations, which the authors themselves pointed out even before the editorial note was published.
Only 108 people participated in the study, and there were just eight participants in the 25-to-40-year-old group. The median follow-up period was only 1.7 years, although the longest period reached 6.8 years.
Therefore, a significant portion of the age-related differences was actually determined by comparing people of different ages, rather than by observing how the same participants reached ages 40, 50, or 60. The authors explicitly pointed out this aspect of the study and the limitations of extrapolating the results to the entire population.
Following an editorial note in *Nature Aging*, this limitation becomes particularly significant.
The body of research does not yet allow us to identify a universal age at which every person’s body experiences a specific “ageing leap.”
Various studies have identified the most pronounced changes at approximately 34, 44, 50, 60, 63, and 78 years of age, with the results depending on the molecules and tissues studied, the analytical methods used, and the composition of the study participants.
However, a pattern that recurs in several independent studies points to two fairly broad periods of heightened biological restructuring: midlife—approximately ages 45–55—and the onset of old age after age 60.
Therefore, the most accurate conclusion from current research is not that a person necessarily “ages in a sudden leap” at a specific year of life, but rather that the rate of molecular and functional aging of various bodily systems changes over time and varies significantly among individuals.
Studies of the biological clock provide further confirmation of the clinical significance of this approach: molecular age can differ markedly from chronological age and, in several large cohorts, is associated with future risks of chronic diseases and mortality.
Generation Z may become the first generation in many decades to score lower on certain cognitive ability tests than its predecessors. This is indicated by studies in the U.S. and Europe, international educational tests, and data on the so-called Flynn effect reversal.
The debate has reignited following the publication of the article “Is Gen Z the First Generation Less Intelligent Than Their Parents?” by the popular science website RathBiotaClan. The author, Shibasis Rath, compiled research showing a decline in scores on specific measures—mathematical and verbal reasoning, attention span, memory, and problem-solving.
One of the catalysts for the article’s publication was a hearing held by the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on January 15, 2026. Neurobiologist and education expert Jared Kuni Horvath presented data to senators showing that over the past two decades, a number of developed countries have seen stagnation or a decline in literacy, math skills, attention, and the ability to engage in complex reasoning.
For most of the 20th century, IQ test scores consistently improved from one generation to the next. This phenomenon became known as the Flynn effect. The increase was attributed to improvements in nutrition and healthcare, expanded access to education, smaller family sizes, and the growing complexity of the environments in which people grow up and work.
However, in some developed countries, this trend first slowed down and then reversed.
One of the most well-known studies was conducted by Norwegian scientists Bernt Bratsberg and Ole Røgeberg. In a paper published in the *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* in 2018, they used data on military conscription and administrative records spanning several decades. By comparing brothers within the same families, the authors concluded that both the initial rise and the subsequent decline in outcomes were largely linked to environmental changes rather than genetic changes in the population.
In July 2026, Bratsberg and his colleagues published a new study in PNAS based on data from 579,379 Norwegian men born between 1967 and 1991. It showed that the expansion of secondary education may have masked a more general downward trend in cognitive test scores for a time. Once the growth in educational attainment slowed, the decline became more pronounced across various social groups.
American data yield a similar, albeit more complex, result.
Researchers at Northwestern University analyzed the results of 394,378 Americans who took online tests as part of the SAPA project between 2006 and 2018. Scores on verbal reasoning, matrix tasks, and number sequences declined over time. At the same time, spatial reasoning, on the contrary, improved.
That is why one of the study’s authors, Elizabeth Dvorak, cautioned against claiming that Americans are simply “getting dumber.” According to her, changes in test scores do not necessarily indicate a corresponding change in overall intellectual ability. It may reflect changes in skills, motivation, education, or the ability to perform a specific type of test task.
This is a fundamentally important caveat for evaluating Generation Z as well. Today’s young people may perform worse on some types of cognitive tasks and, at the same time, better on others—for example, when processing visual information or using digital tools.
Another major source of data is the OECD’s PISA program, which assesses the knowledge and ability to apply that knowledge among 15-year-old students.
Between PISA 2018 and PISA 2022, the average score in mathematics across OECD countries fell by a record 15 points, and in reading by 10 points. At the same time, science scores remained largely unchanged. The OECD emphasizes that the decline in reading scores began even before the COVID-19 pandemic, so it is impossible to attribute the entire trend solely to school closures in 2020–2021.
At the same time, the OECD itself does not attribute the problem solely to smartphones or computers. The organization notes that the reasons for the decline in educational outcomes are numerous, and that the competent use of digital technologies by teachers can, on the contrary, contribute to the development of digital literacy and the ability to critically evaluate information.
This is where the most controversial part of the discussion begins.
Horvat attributes the decline in certain indicators to the rapid proliferation of laptops, tablets, and other digital devices in the education sector. In his written testimony to the Senate, he argues that excessive screen-based learning can impair concentration, the depth of information processing, and memory retention—especially if digital technology simply replaces traditional instruction without offering improved pedagogical methods.
However, based on the available data, it cannot be concluded that smartphones are the sole or even the proven primary cause of the Flynn effect reversal.
The results may be influenced simultaneously by the quality of school education, changes in curricula, the social environment, the pandemic, sleep, physical activity, nutrition, patterns of information consumption, and shifts in motivation to take standardized tests.
Therefore, it is more accurate to speak not of a proven “decline in the intelligence of Generation Z,” but rather of an observed decline in performance across a range of cognitive and educational indicators in several developed countries.
Even this more cautious phrasing has serious economic implications.
Skills such as reading complex texts, mathematical analysis, concentration, and solving non-standard problems directly impact human capital. As artificial intelligence becomes more widespread, the importance of these skills may not diminish but rather increase: people need not only to receive a ready-made answer from a machine but also to evaluate its correctness, spot errors, and formulate complex tasks on their own.
If the decline in certain cognitive indicators is indeed sustained, the consequences may manifest in labor productivity, the quality of vocational education, the ability to master complex professions, and the economy’s innovative potential.
But there is also the opposite possibility: the digital environment does not so much reduce intelligence as it changes the structure of skills, making certain forms of information processing less in demand while developing others. This is precisely the question that remains open today.
The RathBiotaClan article is useful primarily as a popular science overview that brings together in one place several studies and public presentations by Jared Kuni Horvath. RathBiotaClan positions itself as an Indian platform for science education and media, registered in India as a micro services enterprise under the MSME/Udyam system. The resource’s founder, Shibasis Rath, specializes in popularizing research in biology and related sciences.
RathBiotaClan is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Therefore, it is more appropriate to use this publication as a starting point rather than as standalone evidence that Generation Z has become less intelligent.
The most important primary sources for this topic are studies in PNAS and the journal Intelligence, OECD PISA statistics, and materials from U.S. Senate hearings. These sources make it possible to verify the main claims of the popular publication.
DIGITALIZATION, EDUCATION, Generation Z, intelligence, RESEARCH
Drinking up to five cups of caffeinated coffee a day is generally safe for most adults and may be associated with a reduced risk of several cardiovascular diseases, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association (AHA).
The document was published on July 20, 2026, in the scientific journal Circulation. Its authors analyzed the results of studies on the effects of caffeine on blood pressure, cholesterol levels, heart rhythm, and the risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, and type 2 diabetes.
For most adults, consuming up to 400 mg of caffeine per day is considered safe. This corresponds to approximately three to five standard cups of black coffee, each about 240 ml. However, the actual caffeine content can vary significantly depending on the type of coffee beans and the method of preparation.
According to the AHA, drinking two to four cups of coffee a day is associated with a lower risk of heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. In some studies, the lowest risk of coronary heart disease was observed in people who drank two to three cups a day.
Regular consumption of coffee without sugar, syrups, or cream is also associated with a reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes. However, researchers emphasize that the benefits may be due not only to caffeine but also to other bioactive compounds in coffee that possess antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.
Adding large amounts of sugar, sweet syrups, cream, and other additives can reduce the beverage’s potential benefits. The authors of the review also do not recommend extending the findings about coffee to energy drinks. High doses of caffeine and the additional ingredients in energy drinks can raise blood pressure and increase the risk of heart rhythm disturbances.
The method of coffee preparation also matters. Unfiltered coffee—including espresso, French press coffee, and Turkish coffee—contains cafestol, which may contribute to an increase in levels of so-called “bad” cholesterol. When a paper filter is used, the content of this substance is significantly reduced.
However, experts do not consider five cups to be a one-size-fits-all recommendation for everyone. The response to caffeine depends on age, genetics, metabolic rate, medications taken, and overall health. For some people, even a small amount of coffee can cause a rapid heartbeat, anxiety, high blood pressure, or sleep disturbances.
Most of the data analyzed comes from observational studies, so while they show an association, they do not prove that coffee itself directly prevents disease. The American Heart Association notes the need for additional randomized controlled trials.
Source: ScienceAlert
Thanks to Ukraine’s participation in the POLARIN project under the Horizon Europe program, two new international research projects are launching at the “Akademik Vernadsky” station and on the icebreaker “Noosphere,” according to the National Antarctic Scientific Center (NASC).
“At the ‘Vernadsky’ station, researchers will study the aerosol-mediated dispersal of microbial communities in polar regions as part of the MICROAIRPOLAR project. The second project—TRICUSO-FLOATS—is dedicated to monitoring carbon in the Southern Ocean; for this project, six argon buoys equipped with a range of sensors will be deployed from aboard the icebreaker ‘Noosphere,’” the NANC stated in a press release on Tuesday.
Specifically, as part of the MICROAIRPOLAR project, which is being carried out by scientists from the Autonomous University of Madrid (Spain) and Northumbria University (United Kingdom), special MicroAirCollector equipment will be installed at three stations in the Arctic and three in Antarctica to collect samples of microorganisms from the air. Scientists will conduct genetic analysis to determine exactly what the wind carries into the polar regions and will track the trajectories of air masses and the movement of bacteria in the Arctic and Antarctic, as well as between them.
As part of the second project—TRICUSO-FLOATS, carried out by scientists from the National Oceanography Center (United Kingdom), the Norwegian Research Center, and Sorbonne University (France)—carbon monitoring will be conducted in the Southern Ocean. To this end, six argon buoys equipped with a range of sensors will be deployed from the Noosphere to measure total alkalinity and dissolved inorganic carbon content, which will help quantify how much carbon the Southern Ocean absorbs.
Both studies will begin during the next Antarctic season, which starts in late 2026.
The NASC also notes that POLARIN brings together 64 polar research infrastructures belonging to organizations from around the world. MICROAIRPOLAR and TRICUSO-FLOATS are the first winning projects to gain access to the “Vernadsky” and “Noosphere” stations as part of POLARIN.
“For Ukraine, such initiatives represent an opportunity to participate in cutting-edge scientific research and to be an active member of the global polar community,” the NASC concludes.
Surgeons and engineers at the University of California, San Diego, have used remotely controlled humanoid robots to perform surgery on live animals for the first time as part of a preclinical study.
This was not autonomous surgery: the surgeons controlled all of the robots’ movements from a console. However, the experiment marked an important step forward for medical robotics, as humanoid robots had not previously been used to perform full-scale surgical procedures on living subjects.
According to UC San Diego, two surgeries were performed as part of a preclinical trial, the results of which were published on July 8 in the journal *Nature*. In one case, the surgery was performed by a “human-robot” team: a humanoid robot operated under the surgeon’s control, while a human assisted. In the second case, the procedure was performed by two humanoid robots working side by side. Both surgeries were performed on pigs.
Ars Technica notes that the robots performed two invasive gallbladder removal surgeries on live pigs.
The robots are called Surgie. Unlike specialized surgical systems, such humanoid systems are more compact and can potentially be used in standard operating rooms without major renovations. UC San Diego notes that Surgie is about 5 feet tall and weighs about 60 pounds, whereas traditional robotic surgical platforms can weigh around 1,800 pounds and require a large team to set up.
According to one of the study’s senior authors, Professor Michael Yip, remotely controlled and, in the future, autonomous humanoid robots could expand access to surgical care in regions where there is a shortage of doctors and specialized infrastructure. Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, believe that such systems could be useful in rural hospitals, field medical settings, disaster zones, and other locations where it is impossible to quickly deploy a full-fledged surgical center.
However, the researchers emphasize that the technology is still far from clinical application in humans. During the operations, the robots had to be recalibrated several times, which caused the procedures to take longer than when using specialized surgical systems. Another issue is the delay between the surgeon’s movements at the console and the robot’s movements, which is particularly important for future remote surgeries.
The main significance of the experiment lies not in the fact that robots replaced surgeons, but in the fact that a humanoid robot was tested in a real surgical setting for the first time. Researchers view the immediate future of such systems primarily as assistants: they can help in the operating room, hand instruments, perform physical tasks, and eventually take over part of tele-surgical procedures.
For the medical technology market, this could open up a new niche between traditional surgical robots and versatile humanoid platforms. If such systems become sufficiently precise, safe, and affordable, they could lower the barriers to robotic surgery in small hospitals and resource-limited countries.
According to the Interfax-Ukraine Culture project, nearly 40% of Ukrainians attend cultural events once every six months or less, most often at movie theaters, according to the “Culture in Ukraine” study by Research.ua, which was presented by the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine on Thursday in Kyiv.
Specifically, when asked about the frequency of attending cultural events, 37% of respondents said they attend such events once every six months or less, 26%—once every few months, 30%—once a month or more often, and 7% noted that they do not attend cultural events.
Among the main sources of cultural news in 2025 were social media (75%) and messaging apps (65%), specifically: Telegram is a source of cultural news for 58% of respondents, Facebook – 51%, Instagram – 46%, and YouTube – 42%.
Among the most popular formats for cultural events are movie theaters (66% of respondents), music concerts (42%), and theater performances (40%).
Regarding barriers to attending cultural events: lack of funds (54% of respondents), lack of time (42%), lack of events nearby (26%), and lack of company (17%).
The survey was conducted December 22–30, 2025, via online interviews; the sample consisted of 2,000 respondents; the survey covered the adult urban population of Ukraine in all regions, excluding temporarily occupied territories.
https://interfax.com.ua/news/culture/1171698.html
