Peter Attia· MD
And if you're at 5.6, you're fine. And 5, but but 5.5 is better than 5.6. And 5.4 is better than 5.5. And five is better than 5.4. And 4.8 is better than 5.1.
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.
And if you're at 5.6, you're fine. And 5, but but 5.5 is better than 5.6. And 5.4 is better than 5.5. And five is better than 5.4. And 4.8 is better than 5.1.
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 have the literature, in other words, we have literature in non-diabetics, your A1C that says the lower the A1C, the lower the all-c cause mortality. It's a monotonic reduction that knows no lower limit.
But the data there there are data that show based on hemoglobin A1C that lower is always better. So 5.0 is better than 5.4 even though 5.4 is deemed completely healthy.