$1 Omega-3 vs. Bryan Johnson’s $2M Anti-Aging Protocol – Who Wins?

What if you could slow aging for less than a dollar a day? Well, it's possible. In this letter, we break down a new study, compare Bryan Johnson to Tom Brady, and mix data with Do Not Die...

What if you could slow aging for less than a dollar a day?

And what if the alternative was spending millions on personalized high-tech protocols like the internet’s famous semi-immortal centi-millionaire, Bryan Johnson?

Well, a new study just dropped in the journal Nature Aging, and the findings might surprise you.

Let’s break it down…

*If you prefer to watch a video covering these data, click below. Otherwise, read on!

Who is Bryan Johnson?

But first, an introduction to Bryan Johnson, for those who are not familiar:

The longevity science field 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 have a birthday every 21 months, or just 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 centi-millionaire 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’ll link three podcasts at the end of this letter) – I think he’s quite a thoughtful character, and is certainly a master of attracting attention – as is demonstrated by this letter where I’m using him as a hook. So, kudos to him.

Anyway, we will return to Bryan and his “calendar corrupted” 21-month birthday.

But I first want to frame that discussion with data that may be directly relevant to your health.

Omega-3 and Longevity

This new research that I want to discuss was just published in Nature Aging and included an analysis of 777 people who were randomly assigned to a protocol consisting of: Omega-3 (1g/d), Vitamin D (2000 IU/d), or a Simple at-home exercise program (30 min, 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 sought to assess how each intervention or their combinations impacted biological age or rate of aging over a 3-year time period.

To do so, they used four separate epigenetic “aging” clocks: PhenoAge, GrimAge, GrimAge2, DunedinPACE.

They chose to use four clocks because they appreciated the limitations of this technology, so they wanted to look for consistent results across the 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.

The Aging Clocks: One (DunedInPACE) is Unlike the Others

The three clocks—PhenoAge, GrimAge, and GrimAge2—were developed using data from a cross-section of individuals of different ages and predict a biological age that may be distinct from 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.

This last clock, DunedInPACE—with PACE standing for Pace of Aging Calculated from the Epigenome—is different.

DunedinPACE measures the rate of biological change, with a value of 1.0 = 1 year of biological change per calendar year.

As opposed to the other clocks, which were developed by comparing people of different ages, DunedinPACE was developed by following a cohort of individuals who were all the same chronological age and measuring changes in biomarkers reflecting the health and integrity of different organ systems (cardiovascular, renal, hepatic, immune, etc.), then normalizing to 1, such that 1.0 indicates 1 year of biological change per 12-month calendar year.

Of note, the famous biohacker Bryan Johnson previously boasted a value of 0.64 to 0.66 as his DunedinPACE rate of aging score, suggesting that he’s biologically aging at ~66% or ab out 2/3^rd of the average person.

Then, around this past New Year's, he reported a DunedinPACE score of 0.57, a ‘personal best’ according to Bryan, claiming that his birthday is every 21 months (12 / 0.57).

Finally, the latest news from Byran, published yesterday, was that his score is now 0.48.

Nuance Note: It’s not clear to me if this is (i) a result of an actual downward trend in his score reflecting true slowed pace of aging, (ii) a function of test variability and the fact he just has more measures from which to choose and report, (iii) if he’s modifying his protocols to ‘optimize’ his metric, but without translation to bona fide slowing of biological age. More on this in a moment…

How does the study compare?

So how did the interventions in this study compare?

Daily omega-3 supplementation improved scores on three of four clocks: PhenoAge, GrimAge2, and DunedinPACE.

The average for the DunedinPACE improvement was -0.17, with a 95% confidence interval of −0.04 to −0.31.

If you take the lower bound of that confidence interval at -0.31, and we take 1.0 to be the normal pace of aging (1 biological year per calendar year), that could suggest omega-3 alone at 1g/d was lowering the DunedinPACE-estimated rate of aging to 0.69—which is near many of Bryan Johnson’s earlier scores, despite the fact that he’s invested millions of dollars per year in developing his personalized anti-aging protocol.

Not bad, right, for something you can buy at Costco instead of spending millions at a high-tech longevity spa.

Admittedly, his most recent score, if taken to be true, is substantially below 0.69. More on that in a moment. Nevertheless, it remains true that even after years of investing $2M/year in developing a personalized health protocol, Bryan’s scores were in range of the confidence interval of 1g/d omega-3 supplementation. And, there’s more. Is he actually the “healthiest man on the planet by his own metrics?

How do you assess the numbers?

But how much confidence can you put in these numbers?

And what do they really mean for you, and for Bryan?

Well, strap your scientist hat on tight for me—we’re about to do some thinking.

One question you should ask yourself is what population What Population these clocks or calculators were developed in?

DunedinPACE looked at individuals 26–45 years old.

In my opinion, this limits the relevance of the score to those outside that age range. And Bryan Johnson is 47.

Fun Fact: Of note, Bryan was born August 22^nd, 1977, less than 3 weeks after Tom Brady, whose birthday is August 3^rd, 1977. Tell me in the comments who looks healthier?

Anyway, comic relief aside -- it’s worth noting that when researchers take older individuals, 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 death.

So, do I have confidence in the DunedinPACE score? Or, otherwise put: Do I think they’re actually useful measures?

I do.

I don’t take the exact number—say Bryan Johnson’s 0.66, 0.57, or 0.48, as gospel—but I do think they are directionally useful, i.e., if you can lower your score over time, that probably predicts an improvement in lifespan or healthspan.

It’s the 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 this values — assuming his public hyping of them 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 to ‘hack’ biomarkers in manners that might not actually improve health, as I’ve demonstrated on more than one occasion. #OreoVsStatin

Returning to the Nature Aging data…

Returning to the Nature Aging data at hand, I would be skeptical that omega-3 supplementation can slow your biological rate of aging by a true 30% — even if you’re 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.

By the same token, I don’t think Bryan Johnson’s rate of aging permits him to have a birthday every 21 months (or every 2 years). And based on his own rate of aging, he’s not the slowest-aging or ‘healthiest’ man alive.

Actually, in the DunedinPACE cohort, they had an individual with a Pace of Aging of 0.40, which even beats Bryan’s ‘best of all time’ superscore.

Now, maybe this person is a secret billionaire expending twice as much as Bryan on a secret health protocol. But I doubt it.

What does this all mean for you?

While Bryan Johnson’s protocol is fascinating, the reality is that you don’t need millions of dollars to take meaningful action on your health and even your longevity.

Simple, evidence-based interventions—like omega-3 supplementation, regular exercise, and optimizing a key nutrients—can have a measurable impact on biological aging.

Now, does this mean taking 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 a meaningful way.

Actionable Takeaways

• If you’re not eating fatty fish regularly, consider do so or supplementing with 1+ g of omega-3 daily.

• If you’re curious about your own rate of aging, look into epigenetic aging testing—but take the results as directional, not definitive. Consider whether the results will motivate you to make more positive behavior change.

• And if you’re looking to optimize your longevity, focus on proven fundamentals before chasing extreme interventions. Then, if you want to chase… be my freakin’ guest!

Final Comments. Video to Come. and Message to Bryan Himself

Before I depart, my intention with this video was to start or advance a conversation around longevity science and measurement tools. I have a video planned on this topic aligning with the contents of this letter.

Rather than ‘spring it’ on Bryan, as my videos tend to get more attention than my letters and are harder to edit, I have taken the following measures: Posted about the Nature Aging study and tagged Bryan, posted this letter as a thread on X and tagged Bryan asking for comment, and reached out to people who have interacted with Bryan (e.g. Derek from More Plates More Dates who has hosted Bryan Johnson on his Podcast), and several others. I’d like to see him engage thoughtfully.

Worthwhile Listening/Viewing, with Bryan Johnson

Bryan Johnson with Trevor Noah (45 min)

More Plates More Dates (4 hours)

Bryan Johnsons on Diary of a CEO:

And, if you want to see one prior video I did on anti-aging featuring Bryan: