OBJECTIVES: In this study we compared the chronological and bio-functional age between two German speaking cohorts 30 years apart applying a comprehensive and generic Active and Healthy Aging (AHA) assessment model incorporating ICF. METHODS: Single-centre, cross-sectional, observational, non-interventional, non-randomized trial at an University based women's hospital, division of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine. All participants followed a standardized, holistic battery of biopsychosocial assessments consisting of bio-functional status (BFS), bio-functional age (BFA) and additional validated psychometric questionnaires. RESULTS: 462 non-pediatric, non-geriatric females were in the BeCS-14 cohort. The measured mean BFA was lower than the chronological age within the BeCS-14 cohort (regression coefficient 0.58) and comparable in the female LeCS-84 subcohort (regression coefficient age 0.85, communality age 76%). In detail, within the decades 35-45 years and 55-65 years the gradient of BFA increase (aging rate) was similar in both cohorts (decade 35-45 years: LeCS-84 4.08 ± 1.03 year equivalents and BeCS-14 4.78 ± 1.67 year equivalents; decade 55-65 years: LeCS-84 6.21 ± 1.29 year equivalents and BeCS-14 5.25 ± 1.18 year equivalents). Remarkably, within the LeCS-84 cohort the mean aging rate within the decade 45-55 years was significantly different from all other aging rates in both cohorts: 13.02 ± 1.05 year equivalents. However, within the BeCS-14 cohort the corresponding value was 4.83 ± 1.02 year equivalents thus indicating a continuous aging process across the adult life course. In BeCS-14, there was a significant age-related effect for cardiovascular performance and social stress exposition and younger age was associated with better cardiovascular performance while level of social stress exposition decreased in aging women. CONCLUSION: When comparing BeCS-14 and LeCS-84, the aging process seemed to be accelerated in women in LeCS-84 between 45 and 54 years of age. We can only speculate on the reasons, such as differences in the health care, political and social system. However, the differences observed support the use of our BFS/BFA assessment tool not only on an individual level (strengths/resources) but also population level following EIP-AHA requirements. Yet, it remains to be developed how the assessed health strengths/resources-profile may be integrated into AHA management.