It's more of a hypothesis paper by a retired scientist. Bruce Ames, the author used to do experiments on vitamin and mineral deficiencies in animals 20+ years ago. What he found was things like increased DNA strand breaks. Nothing positive was found in terms of longevity or healthspan when supplementing excess anti-oxidants. It's possible to search Ames B[author] on pubmed to see his old publications.

  "Maybe some these things would extend healthspan if people have a less than optimal diet." 

...or that maybe some novel and expensive things might have small health impacts. Not that they do otherwise, or that there is rigorous experiments demonstrating so.

I think some people are eagerly clamoring to supplement based on this list, which is just fueling the 30bn dollar a year supplement industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/style/wellness-industrial...

Why not fund basic research into age related disease instead?

i.e. [ https://www.lifespan.io/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/, http://dogagingproject.com, http://sens.org ]

Bruce Ames is a renowned scientist, but he also has an anti-aging nutritional supplement company on the side named Juvenon.

DNA damage and declining DHEA levels are said to be excessive due to chronic magnesium insufficiency/deficiency. Also, as the body releases magnesium when ready to unroll inflammation, deficiency can result in impaired clearance.

Even acne is often prevented by sufficient vitamin D + magnesium.

It’s nutrition. You almost can’t run long term randomised experiments patient compliance is so low. Take it as interesting at best like the rest of the field that told us salt was bad for us, that dietary cholesterol effected serum cholesterol and trans fats were healthier than polyunsaturated (margarine vs butter).

Also how do you control for diversity of bacteria in our guts and variation of metabolism on an individual basis?