It’s also super common to use memorable names and phrases in scientific literature/presentations. It’s common in my field (biophysics). I don’t know why “blue zone” is so pseudoscientific.
Communicational style comes from environment, inclination, choice and target, and may suggest but not prove (low) quality of content.
Many are irritated e.g. by the style (apparently very frequent in the USA), in articles and books, using the pattern "John one day left the house and a number of things happened; he had graduated there and does this for a living. Now, the science" - odd conflations of narrative and data following the sequences of a novelist instead of theoretical structures: nonetheless, they do frequently have juice to extract.
And it is utter bullshit, published in a fourth tier journal by a non-scientist with something to sell.
“Blue zone”, “power 9”, “vitality compass” — please spare me. This is pure pseudo-scientific crap.