Aaah, that's one of my favorite subjects. I haven't come across the study that you mentioned, so thanks for the link. I'm sure it will make its rounds in the news very quickly, so thanks to you I have something to write about soon.

I ignore Vit D, as it has flamed out so many times. Vit E is a bit different. Actually, there is no single molecule that is called vitamin E. It's more of a group name for four tocopherols and four tocotrienols. The former are more relevant to human nutrition. Their main effect is their antioxidant activity. So, in a scenario of elevated ROS activity, the tocopherols may serve a tangible purpose. Now, here is why I'm skeptical about the effect on biological age. The authors measured it, of course, using Horvath's clock, which is based on DNA methylation patterns. (Horvath was the first to develop such a clock, which is why he sits now as principal investigator in Altos Labs, a billionaires' club, funded with over 2 billion $, and which uses his clock as the metric to check whatever they invent in there). The thing is, the aging-related changes in methylation patterns were until very recently thought to be the cause of aging-related diseases. But that assumption is increasingly challenged, with one very recent discovery suggesting that methylation patterns may be secondary to random gene mutations (which do not necessarily cause cancer, most of them don't). To cut a long story short, changes in methylation patterns translate into changes in biological age, but not necessarily in a meaningful way. And targeting those patterns will hence not affect the aging outcomes. I have that subject on my to-write-about list.