Peter Attia· MD
but what often gets ignored is the people over 65 there was no statistical difference whatsoever between protein intake and igf-1
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.
but what often gets ignored is the people over 65 there was no statistical difference whatsoever between protein intake and igf-1
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.
and in people aged 50 to 65 there was a relationship between protein intake and igf higher protein intake was associated with higher igf now it wasn't a huge difference this gets over stated constantly but it was statistically significant
what was the optimal range it was actually around 120 to 160 nanog per milliliter and to reach this igf-1 sweet spot researchers estimated a daily protein intake of around 50 to 80 gam