Peter Attia· MD
by the way strength is even slightly higher Coral so so the haard ratio for being strong to not strong is about 3.2 for all cause mortality
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.
by the way strength is even slightly higher Coral so so the haard ratio for being strong to not strong is about 3.2 for all cause mortality
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 haard ratio for being strong to not strong is about 3.2 for all cause mortality think about that which is a big Hazard ratio it's a freaking staggering Hazard ratio you're talking about on the level of smoking right there no it's higher than smoking actually smoking is about two so to put that in perspective right um endstage renal disease is about three
so the hazard ratio for being strong to not strong is about 3.2 for all cause mortality
which is a big hazard ratio it's a freaking staggering hazard ratio but you're talking about on the level of smoking right there no it's higher than smoking actually smoking is about two
so the hazard ratio for being strong to not strong is about 3.2 for all-cause mortality
strength is even slightly higher Coral so so the hazard ratio for being strong to not strong is about 3.2 for all cause mortality