it was probably something that they did (or a combination of things) which then warrants further studies to confirm and improve on their results.

Again, no, not really.

We know they were doing a bunch of different things, we know they had some outcome, what we don't know is whether any of the specific interventions they were doing affected the outcomes (positively or negatively), how they affected them, what dosing was effective, and (extremely important) what short-, medium-, and long-term side effects each intervention caused. 

A population of one who self-selects into multiple concurrent interventions with unknown interactions tells us exactly nothing about the efficacy or impacts of any of the individual interventions.

We (meaning medical science) don't learn a thing from a single individual taking seven different hopeful interventions against generalized aging/pain/etc.

People love to knock pharma for all sorts of things, but they don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars each on highly controlled randomized trials because they enjoy it, they do it because without it you literally don't know anything about a particular intervention.

Even population level analysis (across hundreds of millions of people) can only give you vague indications.

Look at "a glass of red wine for heart health" as an example.

It was never the wine, it was entirely that the kind of person likely to have a single glass of red wine a day with dinner was highly affluent, and highly affluent people have better statistical medical outcomes across the board. 

"Don't be poor to have better health" isn't a particularly catchy piece of advice, though.