Peter Attia· MD
so it's not even a perfect you and I'm having a hard time being convinced by anyone including proponents of very low IGF that an IGF outside of the range of about the 60th to 80th percentile is anything but optimal
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 it's not even a perfect you and I'm having a hard time being convinced by anyone including proponents of very low IGF that an IGF outside of the range of about the 60th to 80th percentile is anything but optimal
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.
you know I felt that like you know maybe this having low IGF all the time isn't such a good thing either
suggested to me that low IGF might not be the ticket maybe it's some combination of cycling high and low IGF but living at around the median to slightly above that the 60th 70th percentile
I do think that igf-1 you want it to go to your muscle you want to go to your brain
on one hand an individual that age quickly okay their growth of an IG F goes down quickly okay so you would measure falsely low igf-1 level if you get edge them on the wrong side of their aging right that wouldn't fit our theory that low IGF is good because that's their their accelerated aging yeah so this is a problem with an association study like that
with male it's not there is a trend but it's not significant
with male it's not there is a trend but it's not significant