Peter Attia· MD
we did do the statistical analyzes correcting for clinical risk factors including of course HL cholesterol itself we corrected for things like BMI and presence of diabetes dichotomous presence of diabetes if memory serves
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
we did do the statistical analyzes correcting for clinical risk factors including of course HL cholesterol itself we corrected for things like BMI and presence of diabetes dichotomous presence of diabetes if memory serves
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
we went on to use that in larger numbers of individuals and showed that actually that was much more predictive of risk of coronary heart disease than just measuring HDL cholesterol even when you controlled for HDL cholesterol statistically
we showed even in that setting that the eflux capacity was predictive of incident cardiovascular events so yes these are hard events not just proxies like measurement of corn or calcium for example