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. Bu

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.