Peter Attia· MD
The next generation clocks actually had a bigger spread when you look at you. Of course, you have an average. That's right. Because they started to build it on a different variable.
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.
The next generation clocks actually had a bigger spread when you look at you. Of course, you have an average. That's right. Because they started to build it on a different variable.
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.
you know i could have built alternative clocks using other locations in the genome you know on that level these locations are not unique you know and when you look at the genome and we have in principle 28 million locations in the genome are cytosines you know and i want to say a quarter of them change with age some of them gain methylation some of them lose methylation so these methylation changes like almost global you know and in that sense epigenetic clocks um look at perfect representatives of the entire what is known methylone they represent everything that's going on but you can see that maybe looking at only 300 locations this is not ideal you know
I can make a clock out of a few hundred CpGs that are, you know, they're in specific genes, I can remove all of those genes and remake a new clock and I can get the same clock from a totally different set of genes.