Omega-3 supplements slow biological ageing

- https://archive.md/8LGxM

- Research ( Open Access ) https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-024-00793-y

" Individual and additive effects of vitamin D, omega-3 and exercise on DNA methylation clocks of biological aging in older adults from the DO-HEALTH trial

Abstract While observational studies and small pilot trials suggest that vitamin D, omega-3 and exercise may slow biological aging, larger clinical trials testing these treatments individually or in combination are lacking. Here, we report the results of a post hoc analysis among 777 participants of the DO-HEALTH trial on the effect of vitamin D (2,000 IU per day) and/or omega-3 (1 g per day) and/or a home exercise program on four next-generation DNA methylation (DNAm) measures of biological aging (PhenoAge, GrimAge, GrimAge2 and DunedinPACE) over 3 years. Omega-3 alone slowed the DNAm clocks PhenoAge, GrimAge2 and DunedinPACE, and all three treatments had additive benefits on PhenoAge. Overall, from baseline to year 3, standardized effects ranged from 0.16 to 0.32 units (2.9–3.8 months). In summary, our trial indicates a small protective effect of omega-3 treatment on slowing biological aging over 3 years across several clocks, with an additive protective effect of omega-3, vitamin D and exercise based on PhenoAge."

No, it does not! Headline writer is wrong again. The evidence in favor of slowing down “aging” is based on indirect epigenetic indicators of biological age. But these assays only measure the status of white blood cell-—not human health, aging or lifespan. Slowing or reversing these indicators could be interpreted as a good sign but does not mean aging has been slowed.

Hoever, two of the epigenetic indicators hardly budged—-GrimAge and DunedinPACE. The other two predictors picked up a modest positive effect of omega-3 by itself but weirdly NOT in combination with mild regular exercise. That implies the study is just not well powered.

Methods are solid but sample size is underwhelming; about under 100 subjects in each of 8 arms of a factorial design.

What can be said is that this mild dietary intervention may help and is unlikely to hurt. That unfortubately does not make a snappy headline for the Guardian?

Questions: Did the team correct for multiple tests? I may have missed that.