OPEN POST: Turning 44 Or 60 Years-Old This Year? Hold Tight!

"Don't pop the hip, Cassie!" as they say in "A Chorus Line," and whatever you do, don't turn 44 or 60 years old. Why, you ask? Because they're both danger zones! According to a new Stanford University study, our bodies don't age in a straight progression from year to year. Instead, we age dramatically at the ages of 44 and 60.

First, at age 44, there are lightening-fast, accelerated changes "on a molecular level" which affect "cardiovascular functioning, lipid metabolism, and alcohol metabolism." In other words, you start losing your ability to process all those delicious vodka stingers, cheese burgers and bowls of ice cream. Can you say, "le fuck?" But wait, it gets worse. In your 60s, the second burst brings "a rapid decline in immune regulation," which means you'll likely get sick more often and have added trouble fighting it off. That cold which lasted a few days in your 20s? It might last up to two weeks in your 60s. "Le fuck" again.

Elaine Stritch was a notorious boozer and lived to be 89 years-old. She began drinking at age 14. Take that, Stanford.

The report helpfully adds that you can fight these rapid-aging bursts with a "sensible diet," "exercise," and by drinking "less alcohol" and "more water." Oh, really? You don't say. By the way, the results are the same with men and women, irrespective of menopause for the ladies. And hold on, it potentially gets worse yet again. There might be another "burst" at age 75, but more study needs to be done. So if you've just turned, let's say, 65, enjoy a decade or so of linear aging and stable health. By the time you turn 75, you might just have to give up Werthers!