Peter Attia· MD
And in fact, there was a 4-year study out of Australia that followed people for 4 years. And either they wore sunscreen or they didn't. And the ones that did aged better.
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.
And in fact, there was a 4-year study out of Australia that followed people for 4 years. And either they wore sunscreen or they didn't. And the ones that did aged better.
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 the ones that did aged better.
And in fact, there was a 4-year study out of Australia that followed people for four years. And either they wore sunscreen or they didn't. And the ones that did aged better.
The only thing I know is wearing sunscreen is a net positive.
And the ones that did aged better. Was it randomized? It was randomized. Good. They aged better. Fewer lines, fewer wrinkles, and that's in a country that has a lot of sun.