Do the Poor Really Age Faster Than the Wealthy?

A person's financial situation is known worldwide to be the factor for their ability to have a standard quality of life, and to obtain health coverage. But is this the basis for the allegation that the poor may age faster than the wealthy? While reading through my e-mail, I came across one that claimed just this. So to satisfy my curiosity, I clicked the link within and found a one paragraph blurb on this topic.

This site claims that studies that were performed at St. Thomas' Hospital in London that involved DNA testing and cell damage were shown to gauge a person's "biological age". Biological age is based on factors in your life that can reduce or increase your body's age in relevance to your actual birth age. Aging Cell, a research journal, claims that "belonging to a low-income bracket is associated with the equivalent of a seven-year increase in biological age in comparison to the highest income brackets". Their studies were consistent, according to this site, even when they tested people who were overweight or smoked.

My problems with this study are quite abundant. Even though they use the word "may" in their studies, it points to the fact that it most definitely has to be so in at least 1 or more cases for them to make this type of assumption. Are they trying to say that poor people don't eat healthy? Or that they can't obtain health coverage? Or that their style of living is sub-standard? Or perhaps that their levels of stress are higher than that of wealthy people? What, exactly, are they trying to say about poor people that causes them to age faster?

Not all poor people eat cheap, high calorie foods. It is just as cheap to eat healthy as it is to eat unhealthy. So when you factor in the diet of the two groups, you can pretty much rule out that this is not one of the reasons for a poor person to age biologically quicker than a wealthy person.