Peter Attia· MD
and then the last thing I do is I'll read the discussion section because I'll by this point have formulated my own thoughts on what the strengths and weaknesses of the studies are what questions remain Etc
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 then the last thing I do is I'll read the discussion section because I'll by this point have formulated my own thoughts on what the strengths and weaknesses of the studies are what questions remain Etc
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.
I generally do read the abstract first — and and that kind of gives me a sense of am I interested in this paper that the title of the paper is usually not sufficient for me to know if I'm going to be interested but the abstract usually is my go no go on that so I could you know read 10 abstracts in a matter of minutes and decide you know how do I want to read three of these papers — the next decision I make is how familiar am I with this subject matter and if I'm not really familiar with it I will read the introduction section a lot of times I am relatively familiar with the subject matter so I'll just skip the introduction section altogether and I usually go straight to the methods section