Peter Attia· MD
for the first three decades or so of life the disease begins gets a foothold in the artery but it's only in the fourth decade that you start to develop the lesions that can actually precipitate a clinical event
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
for the first three decades or so of life the disease begins gets a foothold in the artery but it's only in the fourth decade that you start to develop the lesions that can actually precipitate a clinical event
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.
atherosclerosis begins at Birth um when you do autopsies on people who are very young in fact I in the book include a photo of a guy who you know a man I forget I think maybe 26 years old who was a victim of a homicide or something so an completely unrelated death um but you look at the autopsy sections of his coronary arteries I mean he already had very Advanced artherosclerosis now it wasn't clinically relevant it wasn't going to kill him anytime soon but the point is this is a disease that takes decades to progress