Yeah, of course, maybe it would be 1.1. What I am trying to say is that the results could be reported in a more scientific manner.

For instance, about epigenetic clocks, there are a lot of them now. There is GrimAge for mortality, FitAge for fitness, and dozens of different clocks for chronological age. I cannot know for sure, but I am almost sure Bryan tried at least a few. Why did they select to showcase only this one? Is it because they liked the results the most?

Same for all other markers. All of them are "optimal" "above 95%", etc. Is there no marker that is not so great and can still be improved? Also showing the history of the measurements (how they fluctuate during years Bryan is on the protocol) would be wonderful. Or measuring the same markers for a different person, who is above him in the leaderboard, but not going through the protocol.

I want to repeat that I love what he is doing. But for some reason the website gives a marketing vibe. This is our protocol, everything is optimal, here is our olive oil. Which is a bit of a weird look, given the lengths Bryan Johnson is going through.

"Maybe" isn't exactly scientific; what he should've done was keep his existing lifestyle, have the same measurements taken, but not actually look at them because they would influence the measurements.

Without a baseline, the numbers are meaningless. What if most people are under 1 but there's a few outliers that skew the numbers?

Although even then it could be 1 thing out of 100 things he does to actually be helpful, e.g. exercise.

That's right. What matters most here is whether he might be just as healthy if he'd just exercise regularly and eat a decent diet.