Peter Attia· MD
It's uh so that's actually classified as a steroidal sarm interestingly enough. So it was prescribed to women in the 80s I believe. Um and was also used to beef up cattle and might even still be.
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.
It's uh so that's actually classified as a steroidal sarm interestingly enough. So it was prescribed to women in the 80s I believe. Um and was also used to beef up cattle and might even still be.
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.
so that's actually classified as a steroidal s interestingly enough so it was prescribed to women in the 80s I believe um and it was also used to beef up cattle and might even still be um but it is super anabolic but it also has very odd progestogenic activity
so that's actually classified as a steroidal sarm interestingly enough so it was prescribed to women in the'80s I believe um and was also used to beef up cattle and might even still be um but it is super anabolic but it also has very odd progestogenic activity