Peter Attia· MD
well if we're in the business of using any form of pharmacology to enhance our physiques we should take whatever we can get provided it's safe
Loading…
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.
well if we're in the business of using any form of pharmacology to enhance our physiques we should take whatever we can get provided it's safe
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.
if you're can achieve a certain level of body fat through caloric restriction without gp1s and you use any given dose of GP ones to reduce your hunger you get two things out of that one is now you can push to even more exotically lean levels which you should be we're not trying to race to the same point the destination changes so you can get some faint glutes striations and win a few shows without glps maybe you can get completely stripped out of your mind with them
if you can achieve a certain level of body fat through caloric restriction without gp1s and you use any given dose of gp1s to reduce your hunger you get two things out of that one is now you can push to even more exotically lean levels which you should be we're not trying to race to the same point the destination changes
are we seeing more bodybuilders now use glp1 agonists to yes yeah I was about to say right like why wouldn't you it would make it would make the most difficult part of bodybuilding easier which is the calorie restriction right