The Key To SLOWING Aging? $1 Omega-3 vs. $2M Anti-Aging Protocol

What if you could slow aging for less than a dollar per day? And what if the alternative was spending millions of dollars on personalized high-tech protocols, like the internet's famous self-proclaimed immortal centimillionaire Bryan Johnson? Would you rather take the shortcut or the scenic route to longevity? Well, a new study just dropped in the journal Nature Aging, and the findings might surprise you. They definitely surprised me. Let's break it all down. But first, an introduction to Bryan Johnson for those of you who are not familiar with this man. The longevity science field, the longevity space, is blossoming with influencers exploiting the niche and making some hard-to-believe claims like that they're aging at two-thirds the rate of a normal person Or that they're having a birthday every 21 months. Or that they're, and this is a quote, "the healthiest person on the planet." Of course, I'm talking about the famous Bryan Johnson, the centimillionaire who made his fortune founding and selling Braintree Venmo for $800 million, and who has turned his life into a case study in anti-aging. Honestly, on balance, I like Bryan's Do Not Die movement, particularly insofar as it challenges status quo thinking. That's something we have in common. And in long form, I actually think he's quite a thoughtful character and is certainly a master of attracting social media attention, as is demonstrated by this video where I'm using him as a hook. So I guess kudos to him. Anyway, we're going to return to Bryan and his calendar-corrupted 21-month birthday. But first, I want to frame the discussion with data that may be directly relevant to your health. This new research I mentioned that I want to discuss in this video was published in Nature Aging and included an analysis of 777 people from the DOHEALTH trial who were randomly assigned to a protocol consisting of omega-3 supplementation, at 1 gram per day, vitamin D supplementation at 2,000 international units per day, or a simple at-home exercise program, 30 minutes, 3 times per week, or various combinations of these protocols. So, in total, we've got 8 different groups battling it out for longevity, placebo included. The researchers of this study sought to assess how each intervention or their combinations impacted biological age or rate of aging over a 3-year time period. And to do so, they used 4 separate epigenetic aging clocks called PhenoAge, GrimAge, GrimAge2, and DunedinPACE. They chose to use 4 clocks because they appreciated the limitations of this technology at the present day, so they wanted to look for consistent results across the 4 clocks. Good on them, right? Now, I want to give insight into how these aging clocks were invented and why one is different from the others. 3 of the clocks, PhenoAge, GrimAge, and GrimAge2, were developed using data from a cross-section of individuals of different ages, and they predict a biological age that may be distinct from a chronological age or age in calendar years. So, for example, if GrimAge2 says your biological age is 40, even though the world says you're 55 years old and you've had 55 birthdays, it means that your body looks 40 based on the measured biological markers. Hopefully that makes sense. So those were 3 in the clocks, but what about this last clock, Doomed in Pace? With PACE standing for Pace of Aging Calculated from the Epigenome. It's different. Dunedin PACE measures the rate of biological change, with a value of 1.0 indicating 1 year of biological change per calendar year. As opposed to the other clocks, which were developed by comparing people of different ages, Doomed In Pace was developed by following a cohort of individuals who were all the same chronological age and then measuring changes in biomarkers reflecting the health and integrity of different organ systems, like the cardiovascular system, the renal or kidney system, the hepatic or liver system, the immune system, and so on, and then normalizing to 1 such that 1.0 indicates 1 year of biological change per 12-month calendar year. Now, of note, the famous biohacker Bryan Johnson has boasted a value of 0.64 to 0.66 as his DunedinPACE rate of aging score, suggesting he's biologically aging at 66%, or about 66%, or about two-thirds of the average person. Actually, on X, around this past New Year, he reported his own record Dunedin Pace score of 0.57, which he claimed was a personal best, and that his birthday as a function of that score is every 21 months, which is 12 divided by 0.57. I now interrupt this program to bring you more of this program, but in blue. After I recorded this video, Brian posted that his new best Dunedin Pace score was actually 0.48. I find this interesting, but it's not clear to me if this is a result of an actual downtrend in his score, reflecting a true slowed pace of aging, which would be cool for him, a function of test variability and the fact that he has just more measures from which to choose and report, or, finally, if he's modifying his protocols to optimize this metric but without it translating to an actual slowing of his biological age. I'll have more to say later in this video, and forgive the junk cut to me in blue, but I thought it was only fair to steelman Bryan's position. So, how do the interventions in this study compare? Well, daily supplementation with just 1 gram of omega-3 improved scores on 3 of the 4 clocks, PhenoAge, GrimAge2, and DunedinPACE. And the average improvement for the DunedinPACE score was -0.17 with a 95% confidence interval of -0.04 to -0.13. And if you take the lower bound of this confidence interval at 0.13, and we take 1.0 to be the normal pace of aging, this could suggest Omega-3 alone at just 1 gram per day, which is lower than a lot of other trials, was lowering Dooned In Pace's estimated rate of aging to 0.69, which is near many of Bryan Johnson's scores, despite the fact that he's invested millions of dollars per year in developing his personal anti-aging protocol. Not bad, right, for something you can buy at Costco instead of spending millions at a high-tech longevity spa. Admittedly, Bryan's most recent score, if taken to be true, is substantially below 0.69. More on that in a moment. But it remains true that even after years of investing $2 million per year in developing a personalized health protocol, Bryan's scores were in range of the confidence interval for just 1 gram per day of omega-3 supplementation in a general population. And there's more. But how much confidence can you put in these numbers? And what do they really mean for you and for Brian? Well, strap on your scientist hat really tight for me because we're about to do some deep thinking, which actually should be good for cognitive health, so you're welcome. Anyway, one question you should ask yourself is what population these clocks or calculators were developed in. The Dunedin Pace looked at individuals 26 to 45 years old. In my opinion, this limits the relevance of this score outside that range. And of note, Bryan Johnson is 47, which is just outside the range. Also of note, and as a little fun fact, Bryan Johnson was born August 22nd, 1977, which is less than 3 weeks after after Tom Brady, whose birthday is August 3rd, 1977. So tell me in the comments, who looks younger and healthier? Anyway, comic relief and pattern interrupt to improve the average view duration on this video aside, it's worth noting that when researchers take older individuals outside the age range I just mentioned, such as individuals in their 70s and 80s, and calculate their DunedinPACE scores, those with higher scores representing faster aging are at higher risk for developing chronic disease, and even death, which gives me some confidence in these scores. So, do I have confidence in these scores overall? Or otherwise put, do I think they're actually useful measures? I do. I don't take the exact number, say Brian Johnson's 0.57, as gospel, but I do think the scores are directionally useful. In other words, if you can lower your score, over time that probably predicts an improvement in your lifespan or at least your healthspan. It's kind of a gamification of anti-aging, and I think that's just fine. With that said, a final interruptive remark on Bryan's numbers. Because Bryan places so much stock in these values, assuming his public hyping of these values isn't just a PR stunt and represents his true feelings about the pace of aging clock, It's possible that even if he is downtrending, this downtrend isn't actually linearly related to his actual pace of aging. There are many ways in medicine and science to hack biomarkers in manners that might not actually improve health, as I've demonstrated on more than one occasion. Although I don't think Bryan is eating Oreo cookies. But returning to the Nature aging data at hand, I would be skeptical that omega-3 supplementation can actually slow your biological rate of aging by a true 30%, even if you are an omega-3 hyperresponder. However, I do believe omega-3 supplementation, especially in those with lower levels, can improve healthspan and even lifespan, consistent with these data. And if you want a little bit more on omega-3 and fatty fish, you can see this video. By the same token, I don't think Bryan Johnson's rate of aging permits him to actually have a birthday every 21 months. And based on his own rate of aging, he is certainly not the slowest aging person or healthiest man on the planet. Actually, here's another fun fact, in the DunedinPACE cohort, they had an individual with a pace of aging of 0.40. Which blows Bryan Johnson out of the water. Now, maybe this person is a secret billionaire expending twice as much on Bryan on a secret health protocol that's not on the internet, but I doubt it. So what does all this really mean for you? Well, while Bryan Johnson's protocol certainly is fascinating, I have fun observing it myself, the reality is you do not need millions of dollars to take meaningful action on your health. And even your longevity. Simple evidence-based interventions like omega-3 supplementation, regular exercising, and optimizing a key nutrient, vitamin D, maybe sun exposure as well, can have measurable impacts on biological aging, at least given current tools. Now, does this mean omega-3 will slow your aging by 30%? Probably not. But it does suggest that small, consistent positive health habits can move the needle in meaningful ways. So, here are your actionable takeaways, in my opinion. If you're not eating fatty fish, rich in omega-3, consider doing so or consider supplementing with at least 1 gram, preferably 2, of omega-3 fatty acids daily. If you're curious about your own rate of aging, look into epigenetic aging testing. Take the results as directional, not definitive, and consider whether they're gonna motivate you to make more positive behavior change or not. And if you're looking to optimize your longevity, focus on proven fundamentals before chasing extreme interventions and spending millions of dollars that you might not have. I certainly don't. So what do you think? Are we overcomplicating longevity, or is Bryan Johnson onto something? Drop a comment below. And if you know someone who needs to hear this, send them this video. They might just save a few million dollars.