A new study involving over 700 older adults suggests that taking one gram of omega-3 daily may help slow biological aging, with effects visible in molecular markers known as epigenetic clocks.
When combined with vitamin D and regular exercise, the anti-aging benefits became even more pronounced, lowering the risks of frailty and cancer as well.
Omega-3 Linked to Slower Aging in Humans
Taking one gram of omega-3 each day may help slow biological aging in humans, according to a new analysis of clinical trial data involving more than 700 older adults over a three-year period. The results were published in Nature Aging.
Earlier studies have shown that reducing calorie intake can slow aging in humans. Other experiments, mainly in animals or small pilot studies, have suggested that vitamin D and omega-3 may also have anti-aging effects. However, whether these benefits apply to humans on a larger scale has remained uncertain.
Epigenetic Clocks and Study Design
To explore this further, researchers Heike Bischoff-Ferrari, Steve Horvath, and their team used molecular tools called epigenetic clocks, which estimate biological aging based on patterns in DNA. They applied these tools in a clinical trial involving 777 adults aged 70 and older living in Switzerland.
Participants were divided into eight groups and followed for three years. Depending on their group, they received one or more of the following interventions: 2,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D daily, 1 gram of omega-3 daily, and/or a 30-minute home-based exercise program three times a week.
Omega-3 Slowed Aging by Months
In an analysis of blood samples, Bischoff-Ferrari and colleagues found that omega-3 consumption moderately slowed biological aging across several of the epigenetic clocks by up to 4 months. This finding was not dependent on the sex, age, or body mass index of the participant. Combining omega-3, vitamin D, and exercise was found to work even better, as shown by one of the tests.
Additionally, the authors also found that these three interventions together had the biggest impact on lowering cancer risk and preventing frailty over three years. Each intervention works through different but related mechanisms, and when combined, they reinforce each other, creating a stronger overall effect, the authors suggest.
Study Limitations and Demographics
The authors note that a key limitation of this work is that there is no standardized measure of biological aging, and that they opted for the most validated tests available. Likewise, they acknowledge that their sample of Swiss participants does not represent the average global population of adults aged 70 years and older.
Reference: “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” by Heike A. Bischoff-Ferrari, Stephanie Gängler, Maud Wieczorek, Daniel W. Belsky, Joanne Ryan, Reto W. Kressig, Hannes B. Stähelin, Robert Theiler, Bess Dawson-Hughes, René Rizzoli, Bruno Vellas, Laure Rouch, Sophie Guyonnet, Andreas Egli, E. John Orav, Walter Willett and Steve Horvath, 3 February 2025, Nature Aging.
DOI: 10.1038/s43587-024-00793-y
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
7 Comments
“The authors note that a key limitation of this work is that there is no standardized measure of biological aging”. So that means this study is useless, except perhaps to sell supplements.
Of the 16 authors, only Steve Horvath declared a potential competing interest, on two items with no apparent connection to supplement sales: one of them is an epigenetic clock measure, the other (Altos Labs) with no actual product to sell.
Since the third leg of their longevity-stool claim is exercise, we may as well charge them with peddling treadmills to boot.
Those who sell supplements can make use of this article. It doesn’t mean there is a direct conflict of interest by the researchers. “So that means this study is useless, except perhaps to sell supplements.” I didn’t say who did the selling. On the other hand, the concept of a “biological clock” is a sales angle for longevity product sales.
As for Altos Labs, “Altos Labs, Inc. is an American biotechnology research company. Altos Labs’ goal is to develop life extension therapies that can halt or reverse the human aging process.” So there may not be a product to sell, at this time. But someone working for Altos Labs would certainly be interested in supplements for longevity, so sales are part of the picture, just not now.
Eliminating bias is a crucial element of any scientific research – but also for the consumer of scientific research. The fixation on corrupt commercialism tells nothing to those of us who weren’t born yesterday, but it can certainly make one susceptible to a pernicious kind of dismissiveness – the store-bought presumption of wicked motives evident nowhere in the study.
The authors honestly and appropriately pointed out both their potential conflicts of interest (slightly more than nothing) and a limitation of the research, which is kinda normal. Yet this limitation doesn’t lead to an y such slippery slope as “just selling supplements (and we all know supplements are worthless)”. A horribly unscientific position, not to mention a litle cynical!
They say there is no standardized measure of biological aging. But the research identifies significant impact on a marker which is correlated with biological aging. A necessary and legitimate distinction….indicating an avenue for future research, and an honest step toward a potential clinical benefit. Not to mention a nice example of how the science on omega-3 fatty acids continues – in part by revisiting old points of ambiguity across several decades of nutritional research marked by enigmatic indicators.
Markers are good, as long as they’re not used to deface a storm-path graphic.. The fact that somebody might sell something as a result in no way indicts the research or researchers.
Dan Sapen, I asked ChatGPT if this article using biological age to sell supplements. Here is what it said:
This article does use the concept of biological age—via epigenetic clocks—to promote the anti-aging potential of specific interventions, particularly omega-3 supplements, and to a lesser extent, vitamin D and exercise. While it presents itself as a summary of a scientific study, it follows a familiar structure used in nutraceutical marketing and longevity hype.
Here’s a breakdown of how and why:
🔍 1. Biological Age as the Sales Hook
The key sentence:
“Taking one gram of omega-3 each day may help slow biological aging in humans…”
This implies a measurable, modifiable process — namely, aging — and a solution in the form of a supplement. Epigenetic clocks are used here as a proxy for aging, turning a broad and multifactorial process into a simplified metric.
This setup is central to longevity marketing:
Step 1: Reduce aging to a score (e.g., “biological age”).
Step 2: Show that a product alters that score.
Step 3: Suggest that this translates to real health or lifespan extension — which is not proven.
🧬 2. Study Limitations Are Mentioned—but Downplayed
The article states:
“There is no standardized measure of biological aging…”
This is an important admission, but it’s buried. The uncertainty and context-dependence of methylation-based age is acknowledged, but the rest of the article presents the results as reliable, translatable, and broadly beneficial — suggesting causality and generalizability that isn’t justified.
💡 3. Framing Interventions as Synergistic “Anti-Aging” Tools
“Each intervention works through different but related mechanisms… they reinforce each other…”
This is classic stacked-benefit marketing:
Suggest that combining interventions has a compounding effect.
Implies that readers should do all three: buy omega-3, buy vitamin D, and start an exercise regimen — often with a focus on supplements.
This kind of language mirrors that of supplement companies, even if this article is presented as science reporting.
📈 4. Mild Effect, Marketed as Significant
“Slowed biological aging… by up to 4 months… over three years”
This effect size is small and arguably within the noise range of epigenetic clocks, which themselves lack precision and clinical meaning in the short term. But the article frames it as clinically relevant, which exaggerates the outcome’s importance.
🧠 5. Overall Framing Serves the Longevity Industry Narrative
The narrative fits neatly into a growing commercial movement that:
Presents aging as a measurable disease-like condition
Offers biological age testing services (often at a cost)
Recommends lifestyle changes and supplements as interventions
Suggests that youth can be regained or prolonged, reinforcing consumer desire for control over aging
Even if the article doesn’t directly sell a product, it builds a belief system that feeds a growing market of tests, treatments, and longevity-based lifestyle services.
🧭 Conclusion
Yes, this article uses biological age as part of a sales-oriented framework, even if subtly:
It makes aging seem measurable and reversible via intervention
It frames supplements as tools to control the pace of aging
It echoes marketing logic, despite surface-level scientific restraint
I study longevity and ways to increase my lifespan. I do supplement because there is no way you can optimize your intake of nutrients from food alone considering what has been and is being done to what we eat. Recently, I heard about a newly discovered longevity fatty acid called fatty C15. I’m 76 and have been involved in supplement research and formulation for 42 years.
Yes.i been taking omega 3 fish oil n krill oil since young n now age 71..
..evitin look gud n young again..thank God..