There is zero question that the same recommendations that decrease dysfunctional inflammation are associated with good health outcomes in any case. Full stop.
Whether or not a panel of inflammation markers identifies you as “high” those are still good recommendations and if you do not already follow them it would be wise to start. Ideally before you have a chronic dysfunction immune system that fails to resolve increased inflammation promptly after its need abates. Before there is metabolic or cardiovascular disease.
The mechanistic questions are interesting but do not change that.
I had kind of the same thoughts about non-specific inflammation that @Kropotkin reported above. I started a thread just about four years ago to ask about the state of non-specific inflammation in then-current mainstream medicine:
A lot of my exposure to information about non-specific inflammation was through following sports. Specifically, starting maybe 20-25 years ago, some high-profile professional athletes started speaking publically of their anti-inflammatory diets such as NFL stars Tom Brady, Ricky Williams, and Cam Newton; and NBA stars Chris Paul, John Salley, and Kyrie Irving. Early on, reports of these players’ diets were treated as individual eccentricities in the vein of “These guys will try anything for an edge.” Barely above the level of superstition. With hindsight, a lot of that was influential members of the sports media (to include announcers, former players as color commentators, studio hosts, and so forth) simply presenting new ideas in performance to the audience through old, hidebound perspectives.
Fast forward two decades. It looks like the science has not only caught up to these athletes that were on the vanguard, but indeed has trickle down to ordinary folks visiting their PCPs regularly and trying to live healthier.
Yes and no. The woo of specific anti inflammatory “superfoods” was woo and still is. And the simplistic inflammation bad even as it gets more embrace as a simple message to market is still woo.
I got around to reading the NYT link and it is indeed pretty good. My one critique is that they let that suggestion from one person that supplements are just being underdosed stand without comment. That is a dangerous statement let stand out of context in a general consumption piece.
To be very clear the evidence of any, let alone significant clinical impact from supplements sold as “anti inflammatory” is minimal at best, with randomized controlled trials generally finding zip … with some maybe for vitamin D in those with deficiency (under 25) and one trial on omega threes that is questionable as the mineral oil placebo arm is thought to actually be pro inflammatory. But that is a strong maybe possible positive at least. On the other hand high doses of some supplements can have real harms. Some with less margin between harmless to potentially harmful than others.