There is only one way to defeat aging at the personal level, and that's to have a viable intervention before you need it. Usually the goal is to extend healthy lifespan, but the mathematical limit of that effort is a cure for aging.
There are some lifestyle things that you can do, but these are all obvious. The benefits of doing the 'obvious' things completely overwhelm the benefits of doing all the fine-tuning. There is literally no amount of kale (or whatever) that will get you to the goal. Sure, quitting smoking can add years to your life. Trimming obesity will do the same. Sleep, meditating, etc. all have benefits. But if you live your life like a fine-tuning mechanic, you're barely budging the needle. And, it's not the best use of your resources.
So, you need a viable intervention in time. That means that it needs to be invented and that you need to be able to afford it. Since any intervention will be on a Moore's Law type curve, bringing the discovery forward it time is the same as making it cheaper before you need it.
If you want it invented, you either need to reward investors for figuring it out or you need to literally assist the research. There's no amount of wealth accumulation that you can do that will increase Consumer Demand for success, because not only is that wealth zero-sum but also there is already a maximized customer base that will spend on any viable intervention. So, the only way that 'being rich' helps is if the intervention is invented in time, but you need it before it comes down in price.
Better bang-for-the-buck is to literally fund the necessary research. Not only is this the noble thing to do, but it also allows synergy. Keep in mind, you were willing to spend a bazillion dollars on kale, so the willingness to 'spend to win' was already present. The only difference is that it benefits from the synergy in my own efforts. If you and I both decide to just spend too much on kale, the cure doesn't come forward in time. If you and I spend the same amount on R&D, the cure comes forward in time. And if you figure out how to earn more money, your ability to fund the research grows. In many ways, 'making money then donating' is going to be more efficient than trying to do the research yourself. And in some ways, your donation is the same as you putting in hours to figure out the problem. If I donate an hours' wages, then there's a grad student who can work on it for an hour. Given that they have a Master's degree (I don't) and are surrounded by scientific (I am not), then getting them to do the work is the best way to do it. And all I needed to do was to work an hour to pay them to work an hour.
Extra benefit if you earn more than a grad student, which I assure you, is easy.
Keep in mind, in science we are always building on previous research. The goal is to get biologists spending IQ points on inventing new ways to extend healthy lifespan. There are ways to directly fund the efforts, but people usually balk. Imo, Huntington's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, Cystic Fibrosis, and Type 1 Diabetes are all fields where the feedforward benefits are large and obvious and where we under-invest. Very worst case, you're helping other people. Best case, you're increasing the odds that you'll make it over the finish line.
Keep in mind, the average person is not swayed by this, or even cares very much about funding any type of medical research, so canvassing can be better than personal donations. I have zero charisma and good earning power, so my donations are important to me. I have a charming and beautiful friend that regularly brings in 10x more money into medical research than I do, even if it's not targeted as carefully.
If you think that your quest is better done with effort than money, I can assure you that you're wrong. There's no amount of kale that will get you success. And if I join you in eating kale, there's no synergy.
