Peter Attia· MD
I also put most of the implants in under the muscle or behind the muscle as opposed to on top of it and there's a lot of data that supports the benefits of that
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.
I also put most of the implants in under the muscle or behind the muscle as opposed to on top of it and there's a lot of data that supports the benefits of that
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.
implants put in under the muscle tend to have a lower capsular contracture rate because the muscle provides some sort of protection from it implants on top of the muscle have a higher capsular contracture rate
and I think for most women it just they like the fact that it looks and feels more natural to have the upper part of the implant covered by the muscle it's better for mammograms it's better god forbid if you develop breast cancer it has a lower rate of capsular contracture it helps support the weight of the implant as opposed to the implant just stretching out the breast when it's sitting on top of the muscle so there's many advantages