Also, even if the difference is 100% in the diet and exercise regimen (which I consider vanishingly unlikely, given the established and increasing knowledge bas

Also, even if the difference is 100% in the diet and exercise regimen (which I consider vanishingly unlikely, given the established and increasing knowledge base of how genetic factors influence major age-related illnesses), a 14% increase in muscle mass between "sedentary" and "world-class athlete" doesn't suggest the greatest ROI for a more moderate regimen. I think there's value in this study; the study of extremes often yields useful hints for future research. But the way it's reported here is pretty bad. This kind of crap will continue until the prevailing attitude shifts away from the concept of "successful aging". Where would we be if Jonas Salk had focused on "successful polio"?