Peter Attia· MD
So if we're going to do something that is definitive to treat that, it's going to also have to treat the volume issue in your cheek. It's also going to have to address some of the skin textural issues in the region.
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.
So if we're going to do something that is definitive to treat that, it's going to also have to treat the volume issue in your cheek. It's also going to have to address some of the skin textural issues in the region.
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 you know your under eye area is pretty complex too because you do have bulging fat visible in the undereye area which by the way is exactly the same contour that you had when you're 20. It's just become unveiled because you've lost volume and the cheek has descended and now we're looking at the orbital retaining ligament and the malar ligament.