According to the WHO, by 2050 in developed countries, the population over 60 years old will double. This will lead to a further increase in the retirement age and an elevation of burden on the health care system. Therefore, there is an acute issue of maintaining health and prolonging active longevity, as well as the introduction of monitoring for prevention of premature aging and age-related disorders to avoid early disability. The review aims to discuss the aging process and identify critical blood factors affecting or indicating progress in biological aging. The connection of biological age, the regenerative and immune systems aging with the shift in circulating blood factors have been evaluated. The concepts of "health and longevity hygiene" and the concept of "immunological age" are debated. Perspective methods of rapid and multiplex analyzes of blood factors are discussed, as well as the prospects for preliminary analysis of biological and immunological age at home with subsequent processing in high-tech centers to identify risk groups and monitor healthy aging. Approaches to protecting health, slowing aging and rejuvenating the elderly, maintaining healthy aging, and prolonging active life have been defined.

The article presents results of analysis of concepts “health” and “disease” to identify patterns of changes in their meaning and content which resulted into increasing of technologization of modern medicine. Every of considered ways of interpreting concept of “disease” contains certain image of human and one's attitude to internal (natural) and external (natural, social) environment and determines the degree of necessity, direction and character of impact on human body. The modifications of ways these categories are interpreted reflect evolutionary transition of successive changes in three paradigms of medicine: biocentric - sociocentric - technocentric. There is no clear demarcation between pathological and normal states of organism in the biocentric paradigm. The medical standard is identical to biological one; its criterion is viability. In the sociocentric paradigm, social factors of human activity dominate natural ones. The concept of “disease” acquires negative meaning and begins to be defined as “failure”, violation of adaptation of human organism. The natural consequence of this approach is increasing of spectrum and intensity of medical intervention: medical technologies begin to be applied to eliminate biologically normal conditions of patient's body. The main feature of technocentric paradigm is its constructivist character: biomedicine seeks to create new states of human body and psyche that do not exist in the nature. Understanding health as “well-being” leads to relativity of medical standards that becomes depended on constantly changing individual standards.