This 2020 review by the Aging as a disease research group highlighted their specialty:
“A theory that fits both the aging and the rejuvenation data suggests that aging is caused primarily by the functional (and notably, experimentally reversible) inactivation of resident stem cells, which precipitates deteriorated tissue maintenance and repair and leads to the loss of organ homeostasis.
The damaged and unrepaired tissues suffer changes in their biochemistry, including the molecular crosstalk with resident stem cells, which further inhibits productive, regenerative responses. The inflammatory and fibrotic secretome can then propagate systemically, affecting the entire organism.
Skeletal muscle accounts for almost 40% of the total adult human body mass. This tissue is indispensable for vital functions such as respiration, locomotion, and voluntary movements and is among the most age-sensitive in mammals.
Muscle is capable of active repair in response to daily wear and tear, intense exercises, or injuries. Muscle regeneration relies on the adult muscle stem cells, also called satellite cells.
Rather than a significant decline in the total number with age, most of the data support a dramatic lack of activation of muscle stem cells after injury and a concomitant lack in the formation of progenitors that are needed for repair.
Multiple experimental approaches have been used for tissue rejuvenation and/or systemic rejuvenation; these include ablation of senescent cells and re-calibration of key signaling pathways that are needed for productive stem cell responses. To test the success in experimental rejuvenation, 1-4 approaches are typically applied, and skeletal muscle is well-suited for assaying each one.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7007696/ “Skeletal muscle as an experimental model of choice to study tissue aging and rejuvenation”
The review had a short section on inflammation details. Not enough, and there’s no tissue repair. Continuing unchecked is a systemic issue that led the reviewers to their paradigm of aging as a disease.
The review concluded with a subject that’s taught in high school, and should be understood at least before college graduation. It’s curious that an item like sample size required emphasis. Maybe research that doesn’t adhere to basics is a current issue?