Texila International Journal of Public Health ISSN: 2520-3134 DOI: 10.21522/TIJPH.2013.10.04.Art009 Received: 16.08.2022 Accepted: 23.08.2022 Published on: 29.12.2022 *Corresponding Author: adelowoab@gmail.com Estimating the Biological Age and the Magnitude of Lifestyle Determinants of Ageing among Nigerian Adults Abiodun Bamidele Adelowo 1* , Paul Olaiya Abiodun 2 Department of Public health, Texila American University, Guyana 2 WHE Programme/Infectious Hazard Management, World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa Abstract Considering the various limitations of using chronological age, biological age estimation is becoming increasingly recognized as one of the novel public health and clinical strategies for preventing and controlling the rising global prevalence of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and for achieving healthy ageing. The objectives of this study are to estimate the biological age and compare it to the chronological age of Nigerian adults. Also, to score the magnitude of some of the lifestyle determinants of biological age among the study population. This cross-sectional study uses simple random sampling technique to select 82 Nigerian adults for the study, while standardized instruments were used to collect data. The P value for the study was set at 0.05 level of significance. The result of the study noticed poor mean Mediterranean Diet Adherence (MDAQ) score of 7.0 ± 2.28 and mean International Physical Activity (IPAQ) score of 1.3 ± 0.51. There was also suboptimal mean Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) score of 5.9 ± 3.01, mean Perceive Stress Scale-4 (PSS-4) score of 6.3 ± 2.79, and mean Social Connectedness Scale (SCS) score of 15.2 ± 4.13. Furthermore, the estimated biological age of the respondents (45.9 years, ±10.31), was higher than their chronological age (43.2 years, ±8.92). The study concluded that the magnitudes of the lifestyle determinants of ageing are high enough to result in accelerated biological ageing among the study population. Such development, if not mitigated, may result in a significant increase in the prevalence of NCDs and premature deaths in the near future. Keywords: Accelerated Ageing, Biological Age, Chronological Age, Lifestyle determinants of ageing, Health Promotion Intervention. Introduction Ageing can be broadly defined as the progressive, and largely internal, deterioration in an organism, resulting from time-dependent physiological changes, which consequently result in an increased inability to cope with environmental and lifestyle stressors, and may increase the risk of developing different diseases and death [1]. It can be broadly divided into five dimensions: chronological, psychological, social, functional, and biological ageing [1, 2]. Out of these, chronological ageing and biological ageing are the most relevant to public health and medical sciences. Chronological age simply means the number of calendar years a person has lived since birth. It is the most universally acceptable indicator of ageing [2, 3]. However, it has been argued that chronological age is not an accurate indicator of people’s true age, as it does not, in many cases, correlates effectively with people’s true bodily functions, behaviours, internal biological processes, health status, and risk of developing many diseases [3, 4]. For instance, a 40-year-old 1