Yes, but the method matters: only artery-stiffness estimates predicted serious heart and blood vessel problems among 4 methods tested. The study tracked 3,561 people in a Chinese community. Researchers compared four ways to estimate Vascular Age, or how old your arteries act. Each combined an artery measurement with common heart risk factors. Over an average of 7.2 years, 294 people had serious heart or blood vessel problems. The strongest method used Pulse Wave Velocity (PWV), measured between the upper arm and ankle. This measures how fast a pulse travels through arteries, reflecting their stiffness. The other methods used neck artery wall thickness, fatty buildup in neck arteries, or ankle-to-arm blood pressure comparisons. Only the stiffness-based estimate showed a clear link after accounting for other risk factors. People in its oldest-acting 10% had a 44% higher risk of serious problems. That group was defined by how much older their arteries acted than expected for their actual age. The youngest-acting 10% did not show clear protection. Estimates from the other three methods showed no clear link to future problems. For BioSocial members, the key takeaway is that the measurement method matters. Two age estimates may look alike but tell different stories. When tracking your numbers, noting the test method can make comparisons more useful. It also gives community members context when comparing results over time. This study did not test whether lowering an age estimate lowers risk. It also does not show that every device gives the same useful estimate. A younger-looking number was not a guarantee of protection here. What has your Vascular Age shown, and how was it measured?