Peter Attia· MD
it seemed to me like we hadn't really tried and at the risk of hurting somebody we decided to do it
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.
it seemed to me like we hadn't really tried and at the risk of hurting somebody we decided to do it
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.
we did really comprehensive uh bone and functional measures at Baseline we recruited about 100 people randomly allocated them to this high-intensity resistance and impact training and a because in research you you have to exercise research is really hard to Blind to your participants and and blinding is so important in clinical trials so we had to not tell our participants which was the intervention that we thought was going to be effective we just said if you got randomized to this low intensity home program we were trying to see whether that worked too
we recruited postmenopausal women so we were looking for people we advertised for over 60 but I think we did recruit one person who was 58 because she had been through menopause when she was young um and they just needed to be well clear of men course we didn't want to be fighting that withdrawal of estrogen phase um and they needed to have low bone mass so they needed to be at least a t-core of minus one uh at either the the spine or the hip