Peter Attia· MD
I I don't think there's a lot of value in clinical practice right now because we don't know precision or accuracy and I don't think you can make actionable recommendations based on these tests
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
I I don't think there's a lot of value in clinical practice right now because we don't know precision or accuracy and I don't think you can make actionable recommendations based on these tests
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.
so my sort of take-home is that the direct to Consumer biological age testing industry is a complete mess and I have no idea who to believe or if any of them are actually giving accurate data
so they ranged from um 42 to 63 I was like 53.7 years at the time I did the test um and the standard deviation I can't remember it was either seven or nine so mean of my chronological age standard deviation of seven or nine
Not only do none of the tests agree with each other, the identical tests rarely agree with each other.