Peter Attia· MD
so if you look at the biggest driver of mortality which would be end-stage renal disease in this cohort it's the same as going from low cardiorespiratory fitness to above average cardiorespiratory fitness
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
so if you look at the biggest driver of mortality which would be end-stage renal disease in this cohort it's the same as going from low cardiorespiratory fitness to above average cardiorespiratory fitness
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.
the improvements in all-cause mortality by moving up the chain of cardiorespiratory fitness... your all-cause mortality drops and it drops at levels that aren't appreciated by any other intervention quitting smoking going from having end-stage renal disease to not
it's the same as going from low cardiorespiratory fitness to above average cardiorespiratory fitness
is which was kind of on par with the increase in mortality that you would see from having endstage renal disease which is by the way greater than the hazard ratio associated with smoking
even when you took something less extreme I believe if you looked at the least fit 25% to the third quartile so the 50th to the 75th percentile the hazard ratio was still about just just below three I think it was 2.75 is which was kind of right on par with the increase in mortality that you would see from having endstage renal disease which is by the way greater than the hazard ratio associated with smoking
by the way it's not it's not lost on anybody that that's the exact same Hazard ratio of a smoker to a non-smoker that's how big the difference is
Having a very low V2 max in the bottom 25% of the population versus being in the top 2 and a half% of the population is about 400%.
if you're in the bottom quartile or um quintile so bottom 20 to 25% of the population with respect to your V2 max you've got a four to fivefold higher risk of mortality all cause mortality in any given year than those in the top 3% 2 to 3%.
if you're in the bottom quartile or um quintile so bottom 20 to 25% of the population with respect to your V2 max you've got a four to fivefold higher risk of mortality all cause mortality in any given year than those in the top 3% 2 to 3%
the fact that when all these other you know diseases or negative habits were looked at for example smoking it was at least by the data and the hazard ratio it was clearly worse to be in the low fitness group so the bottom 25% of the population that was you know looked at it was you they had a higher risk of mortality being in that low fitness group than smoking