The academic paper this story is based on is here: <a href="https://nature.com/articles/s43587-024-00793-y" rel="nofollow">https://nature.com/articles/s43587-024-00793-y</a>
Despite the linked story title only mentioning omega3, the paper was about 3 interventions, that, vitamin D, exercise and found reduced epigenetic age from the interventionts, with bigger anti-aging benefit as they were combined.<p>With respect to vitamin D specifically, this isn't by itself good evidence vitamin D reverses aging. But it is consistent with the totality of evidence that being vitamin D deficient probably (causally) speeds aging. And it mildly increases the overall weight of evidence of a connection.<p>As with much vitamin D research, it would have been better for the intervention to have been titrate vitamin D supplement amount to achieve an optimal target range (eg 30-60ng/ml) rather than using a fixed relative moderate dose (2000IU).<p>The problem with a fixed dose is that surely some subjects started severely deficient, some mildly, and some had sufficient levels. The moderate but not very high fixed dose will have helped many in the middle group climb out of deficiency, not been enough for many in the 1st group to bring them fully out of deficiency, and been unnecessary for those in the 3rd group, so the study ends up seeing a weaker overall effect averaged over all subjects. This is well known within the vitamin D world, eg see <a href="https://x.com/KarlPfleger/status/1732514710715514883" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/KarlPfleger/status/1732514710715514883</a>, but somehow has not permeated to be widely enough understood, even within the scientific community (or the Hacker News community).<p>For an extensive list of papers supporting a link between vitamin D and speed of aging, see <a href="https://x.com/KarlPfleger/status/1390717755158974464" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/KarlPfleger/status/1390717755158974464</a>