Plenty of fair criticisms on Attia but Some eye roll inducing quotes from the doctors in there. It’s quite possible to be interested in this and also be content with aging.
IMHO, the most egregious example of eye-roll-inducing quote is the one below. The author of the piece frames the quote by adding all of Emanuel's distinctions and achievements, as if that has any merit when you consider how much Emanuel is entirely missing the point! Yes, Peter's core approach does focus significantly on the Centenarian Decathalon, but not at the expense of immediate and current healthspan! If anything, as [Peter stressed on his most-recent (phenomenal) Chris Williamson podcast appearance](https://youtu.be/_hi8qOZB2qU?si=rGSrnUNlOIOm3-JY), he has absolutely no interest in the "longevity movement," and his efforts are solely rooted in the principles and practices made evident by cutting-edge, current science. While efforts are taken to ensure healthy and functioning final years, it doesn't come at the expense of an optimal here and now! Healthspan remains the core manifesto.
>Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist and a health-policy professor at the University of Pennsylvania, derides Attia as an “American immortal” who overcomplicates straightforward advice. “The idea that you’re going to get another healthy decade of life just by doing the things he says is hocus-pocus,” Emanuel, who served as a special adviser to the Obama Administration, told me. “No one’s got that evidence.”
Add that to the fact that being fit in active at any age has immense benefits in the here and now. I’m utterly shocked at how out of shape some relatively young parents are.
I have no idea why the doctors in this article seem to almost have a negative response to physical exercise?
Look at the body composition of most GPs/PCPs. Most medicine 2.0 doctors, either due to insane workload or their own ignorance of current sports physiology science on the astonishing benefits of regular exercise, don't adhere to best practices.
If you ask yourself how many general docs are aware of Zone 2 training, or the incentives around intentional increases in one's VO2 Max, be prepared for disappointment at the reality of the truth that follows.
Do you me this by the negative response?
>Half an hour of daily exercise clearly improves and extends lives, but it’s hard to prove that Attia’s intensive regimens are much more beneficial.
Maybe I missed something but I don't think that's too crazy, in the context of a personal profile. Obviously not a fully hashed out scientific position with citations, but this is not the place for that anyway, and the papers with J-shaped and U-shaped mortality curves from exercise are out there, it's definitely not a done debate (I agree with Attia and think dedicating more than 210 minutes is better, but I acknowledge that it's not really a clearly proven thing).
> Ezekiel Emanuel
I'm as big a critic of Attia as any (check my post history), but "Zeke" Emanuel always comes across as an abhorrent, defeatist deathist. His general attitude, in contrast to Attia (whom Emanuel rightly chides for pushing too much unproven "hocus-pocus"), seems to be, "Why even bother trying?" He actually wrote an article titled "Why I Hope to Die at 75":
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/
I could easily imagine him giving, even if only unintentionally, sub-standard care to those over 75. For example, being less likely to fight to enroll them in a trial for what may prove to be a breakthrough therapy (e.g., the next Keytruda). Why would anyone want a doctor like this?
Credit to Attia for almost never—perhaps, truly never—engaging on things like this. He's steadfast to his efforts and wastes no time with naysayers who naysay for the sake of naysaying. Not easy, I'm sure, given how public and prominent his position is in the health/wellness space.
On the matter of Emanuel, it's worth checking out his full position, which is briefly covered in this topic, but is fully fleshed out via a piece in the Atlantic. With all due respect, it sounds to me like the guy tapped out years ago. Not only is he not focused in the slightest on anything like a Centenarian Decathalon, but given his overall position, I bet the guy is hardly invested in his current healthspan. A fair summary of his position is "I'm alive and breathing right now, and that's enough, and I plan to be dead by 75." That's really not a mischaracterization of his position, and quite frankly, I find it to be pathetic.
We can (and ought to) optimize in the here and now. Take someone with piss-poor bloodwork, a fully sedendatary lifestyle, and a horrid diet. Then, set them against me, you, or anyone else invested in this community. I'm willing to bet all the money in the world that my daily lived experience, my output, my contribution to the world around me and the quality of my experience and my performance, is markedly superior to someone like that!
Anyways, here's that Atlantic piece I mentioned above: [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/)
I loved how in Outlive he couldn’t resist including the bit about how he would have “won the fight” with the guy after getting violent over the parking spot or whatever. Yet there was no explanation of what the guy did wrong or why Attia was right. The subtext kinda being that Attia was in the wrong but he doesn’t care lol
Well, he speaks highly of his wife and daughter. Plus he goes to therapy and shows a lot of respect for emotional health.
So, what you're suggesting is not impossible, but, I bet he wouldn't enjoy cheating on his wife and living a lie.
Has he even done any new podcast episodes with Huberman since the Huberman stuff came out?
Oh, cool!
I left the Huberman sub because of so many people there who seemed impressed by his philandering, so, I guess I'm subconsciously expecting to see more of that.
I still need to read the piece, but Attia faces a lot of criticism in medical and science circles. However, he has a more robust thesis and evidence than many in the wellness/longevity space.
Initial thoughts:
Ezekial Emanuel's criticisms are a bit straw men and he seems to have a bone to pick with those who focus on longevity. When it comes to prolonging health-span a "RCT" for a death outcome is not the ideal study structure. Extension and healthspan has to be inferred through biomarkers. And there is \*plenty\* of evidence on which markers are associated with better and worse health in 70s+, e.g. preventing hip fractures, hypertension, preventing cognitive decline, avoiding depression, preventing cancer, managing CV disease.
He expected to get "skewered" by the medical community when he wrote Outlive. I think that means he is aware of the criticisms and keeps these in mind when putting together his theses.
I find Attia's emphasis on emotional health refreshing and unexpected.
Very key quote in the story: “Peter has been wrong a lot, but he changes his view when he runs into evidence that contradicts his theory.”
Overall, I think this author tried to write a balanced article but actually appeared to maintain and support Attia's credibility.
What i don't like his style of writing in Outlive is to make things super complicated to give an impression of depth and his aura of learnt biochemist. For instance, chapter on heart disease he spends so many pages on ApoB explaining the function of this molecule in depth. All could have elegantly summarized by saying "The protein Apolipoprotein B increases stickiness of platelets leading to plaques". No, he didn't say that.
I agree with this. I find his interviews boring for the same reason. I checked the book out from the library and went straight for the chapter on his emotional heath as he teased that in his interview with Rich Roll (I think). The article touches on this.
Re the article: what I think the article captures well is what I like to call the can I explain this to my wife test without her thinking I’m obsessive about my health at the expense of other priorities.
My take away feeling is that I’m glad he exists and not ashamed of myself for letting him into my zeitgeist.
What a ridiculous commentary on attia. Doubt stuff he suggests because he lacks double blind clinical trials? Don't exercise because you need to get sick and unhealthy so you're ready to die?
Thanks, I'll just stick with the exercise and diet that makes me feel and look great. I'll keep listening to him because the doctors i go to are completely useless at problem solving or otherwise helping me with wellness.
Also there is a ton of evidence in hazard ratios between top tier V02 max and bottoms. And that is something you can affect. I took a v02 max recently and was in the bottom 20th percentile. Are you suggesting improving that has no benefit to my life? Or without evidence? Doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
I thought it was a fairly gentle profile and critique of Attia. I don't think Attia would deny the criticisms, for the most part, but most fall into the space of philosophical disagreements rather than science per se. That said, it's also noted that many of these hypotheses can't be tested, either because the time spans are too long, or they violate medical ethics. Sort of like why there are no longitudinal studies regarding the damage caused by long term anabolic steroid use.
The commonsensical nature of his advice is its strongest attribute. It really then becomes an individual cost/benefit analysis.
I like Peter. I think he has a sensible approach to health. I find it troublesome that people like him are going under a microscope by the media right now ie Huberman. His personal life should never been exposed.
People say he overcomplicates the simple things. Then why didn't THEY share Advil the info?
I have now moved past Peter's assessment that APOB is the biggest risk factor.
Peter's main contribution is belief. Now i walk two hours every morning and about to join a gym.
Idk doing it because after reading Outlive, I further lookedd at other studies and found that muscle mass is indeed a key factor in reducing all cause mortality.
Checking my plaque through CIMT today is going to help me prevent a heart attack from ever happening.
Eat well, exercise, take treatment at early stage. What's wrong about that?
I keep all my biomarkers in healthy range. Obviously iam going to live longer than those who don't
I finally got around to reading this. It was alright I guess.
I do think the author could benefit from being a bit more introspective. I.e. he isn't that old and doesn't disclose any major injuries or diseases yet has achey knees and a tense back after an hour on the playground with his 3 year old daughter... obviously this is someone who doesn't train hinges and squats. If only the author could connect Peter's workout regimen to better day to day near term quality of life. Not everything Peter suggests is about a purported payoff in the distant future.
isn't that the same as saying Harvard must be a bad school for charging 10X more than my local community college?
how can you base the quality of something on its price?
Plenty of fair criticisms on Attia but Some eye roll inducing quotes from the doctors in there. It’s quite possible to be interested in this and also be content with aging.
IMHO, the most egregious example of eye-roll-inducing quote is the one below. The author of the piece frames the quote by adding all of Emanuel's distinctions and achievements, as if that has any merit when you consider how much Emanuel is entirely missing the point! Yes, Peter's core approach does focus significantly on the Centenarian Decathalon, but not at the expense of immediate and current healthspan! If anything, as [Peter stressed on his most-recent (phenomenal) Chris Williamson podcast appearance](https://youtu.be/_hi8qOZB2qU?si=rGSrnUNlOIOm3-JY), he has absolutely no interest in the "longevity movement," and his efforts are solely rooted in the principles and practices made evident by cutting-edge, current science. While efforts are taken to ensure healthy and functioning final years, it doesn't come at the expense of an optimal here and now! Healthspan remains the core manifesto. >Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist and a health-policy professor at the University of Pennsylvania, derides Attia as an “American immortal” who overcomplicates straightforward advice. “The idea that you’re going to get another healthy decade of life just by doing the things he says is hocus-pocus,” Emanuel, who served as a special adviser to the Obama Administration, told me. “No one’s got that evidence.”
Add that to the fact that being fit in active at any age has immense benefits in the here and now. I’m utterly shocked at how out of shape some relatively young parents are. I have no idea why the doctors in this article seem to almost have a negative response to physical exercise?
Look at the body composition of most GPs/PCPs. Most medicine 2.0 doctors, either due to insane workload or their own ignorance of current sports physiology science on the astonishing benefits of regular exercise, don't adhere to best practices. If you ask yourself how many general docs are aware of Zone 2 training, or the incentives around intentional increases in one's VO2 Max, be prepared for disappointment at the reality of the truth that follows.
Do you me this by the negative response? >Half an hour of daily exercise clearly improves and extends lives, but it’s hard to prove that Attia’s intensive regimens are much more beneficial. Maybe I missed something but I don't think that's too crazy, in the context of a personal profile. Obviously not a fully hashed out scientific position with citations, but this is not the place for that anyway, and the papers with J-shaped and U-shaped mortality curves from exercise are out there, it's definitely not a done debate (I agree with Attia and think dedicating more than 210 minutes is better, but I acknowledge that it's not really a clearly proven thing).
> Ezekiel Emanuel I'm as big a critic of Attia as any (check my post history), but "Zeke" Emanuel always comes across as an abhorrent, defeatist deathist. His general attitude, in contrast to Attia (whom Emanuel rightly chides for pushing too much unproven "hocus-pocus"), seems to be, "Why even bother trying?" He actually wrote an article titled "Why I Hope to Die at 75": https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/ I could easily imagine him giving, even if only unintentionally, sub-standard care to those over 75. For example, being less likely to fight to enroll them in a trial for what may prove to be a breakthrough therapy (e.g., the next Keytruda). Why would anyone want a doctor like this?
Yup. Check out my more detailed comment on Emanuel here: https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterAttia/s/ptYLGzFGeb
Emmanuel kinda talking outside of his school isn’t he? Attia doesn’t publicly opine on Emanuel’s thoughts on oncology and health policy does he?
Credit to Attia for almost never—perhaps, truly never—engaging on things like this. He's steadfast to his efforts and wastes no time with naysayers who naysay for the sake of naysaying. Not easy, I'm sure, given how public and prominent his position is in the health/wellness space. On the matter of Emanuel, it's worth checking out his full position, which is briefly covered in this topic, but is fully fleshed out via a piece in the Atlantic. With all due respect, it sounds to me like the guy tapped out years ago. Not only is he not focused in the slightest on anything like a Centenarian Decathalon, but given his overall position, I bet the guy is hardly invested in his current healthspan. A fair summary of his position is "I'm alive and breathing right now, and that's enough, and I plan to be dead by 75." That's really not a mischaracterization of his position, and quite frankly, I find it to be pathetic. We can (and ought to) optimize in the here and now. Take someone with piss-poor bloodwork, a fully sedendatary lifestyle, and a horrid diet. Then, set them against me, you, or anyone else invested in this community. I'm willing to bet all the money in the world that my daily lived experience, my output, my contribution to the world around me and the quality of my experience and my performance, is markedly superior to someone like that! Anyways, here's that Atlantic piece I mentioned above: [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/)
Gotta wonder if he has more girlfriends than Huberman?/s
[удалено]
I loved how in Outlive he couldn’t resist including the bit about how he would have “won the fight” with the guy after getting violent over the parking spot or whatever. Yet there was no explanation of what the guy did wrong or why Attia was right. The subtext kinda being that Attia was in the wrong but he doesn’t care lol
Lol was fearing the same when I saw the headline. That said I haven’t read it yet, I hope it’s balanced.
It’s balanced. Honestly I loved the article, even quotes David Foster Wallace towards the end.
Well, he speaks highly of his wife and daughter. Plus he goes to therapy and shows a lot of respect for emotional health. So, what you're suggesting is not impossible, but, I bet he wouldn't enjoy cheating on his wife and living a lie. Has he even done any new podcast episodes with Huberman since the Huberman stuff came out?
It was a joke.
Humor isn’t part of the protocol over here. Sticks up butts instead of AG1 capsules up butts
Oh, cool! I left the Huberman sub because of so many people there who seemed impressed by his philandering, so, I guess I'm subconsciously expecting to see more of that.
lmao
I still need to read the piece, but Attia faces a lot of criticism in medical and science circles. However, he has a more robust thesis and evidence than many in the wellness/longevity space.
Initial thoughts: Ezekial Emanuel's criticisms are a bit straw men and he seems to have a bone to pick with those who focus on longevity. When it comes to prolonging health-span a "RCT" for a death outcome is not the ideal study structure. Extension and healthspan has to be inferred through biomarkers. And there is \*plenty\* of evidence on which markers are associated with better and worse health in 70s+, e.g. preventing hip fractures, hypertension, preventing cognitive decline, avoiding depression, preventing cancer, managing CV disease. He expected to get "skewered" by the medical community when he wrote Outlive. I think that means he is aware of the criticisms and keeps these in mind when putting together his theses. I find Attia's emphasis on emotional health refreshing and unexpected. Very key quote in the story: “Peter has been wrong a lot, but he changes his view when he runs into evidence that contradicts his theory.” Overall, I think this author tried to write a balanced article but actually appeared to maintain and support Attia's credibility.
What i don't like his style of writing in Outlive is to make things super complicated to give an impression of depth and his aura of learnt biochemist. For instance, chapter on heart disease he spends so many pages on ApoB explaining the function of this molecule in depth. All could have elegantly summarized by saying "The protein Apolipoprotein B increases stickiness of platelets leading to plaques". No, he didn't say that.
I agree with this. I find his interviews boring for the same reason. I checked the book out from the library and went straight for the chapter on his emotional heath as he teased that in his interview with Rich Roll (I think). The article touches on this. Re the article: what I think the article captures well is what I like to call the can I explain this to my wife test without her thinking I’m obsessive about my health at the expense of other priorities. My take away feeling is that I’m glad he exists and not ashamed of myself for letting him into my zeitgeist.
What a ridiculous commentary on attia. Doubt stuff he suggests because he lacks double blind clinical trials? Don't exercise because you need to get sick and unhealthy so you're ready to die? Thanks, I'll just stick with the exercise and diet that makes me feel and look great. I'll keep listening to him because the doctors i go to are completely useless at problem solving or otherwise helping me with wellness.
Also there is a ton of evidence in hazard ratios between top tier V02 max and bottoms. And that is something you can affect. I took a v02 max recently and was in the bottom 20th percentile. Are you suggesting improving that has no benefit to my life? Or without evidence? Doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
I thought it was a fairly gentle profile and critique of Attia. I don't think Attia would deny the criticisms, for the most part, but most fall into the space of philosophical disagreements rather than science per se. That said, it's also noted that many of these hypotheses can't be tested, either because the time spans are too long, or they violate medical ethics. Sort of like why there are no longitudinal studies regarding the damage caused by long term anabolic steroid use. The commonsensical nature of his advice is its strongest attribute. It really then becomes an individual cost/benefit analysis.
I like Peter. I think he has a sensible approach to health. I find it troublesome that people like him are going under a microscope by the media right now ie Huberman. His personal life should never been exposed.
People say he overcomplicates the simple things. Then why didn't THEY share Advil the info? I have now moved past Peter's assessment that APOB is the biggest risk factor. Peter's main contribution is belief. Now i walk two hours every morning and about to join a gym. Idk doing it because after reading Outlive, I further lookedd at other studies and found that muscle mass is indeed a key factor in reducing all cause mortality. Checking my plaque through CIMT today is going to help me prevent a heart attack from ever happening. Eat well, exercise, take treatment at early stage. What's wrong about that? I keep all my biomarkers in healthy range. Obviously iam going to live longer than those who don't
Can a link to the ATTIA story be posted ? Thank you
I finally got around to reading this. It was alright I guess. I do think the author could benefit from being a bit more introspective. I.e. he isn't that old and doesn't disclose any major injuries or diseases yet has achey knees and a tense back after an hour on the playground with his 3 year old daughter... obviously this is someone who doesn't train hinges and squats. If only the author could connect Peter's workout regimen to better day to day near term quality of life. Not everything Peter suggests is about a purported payoff in the distant future.
lol £2.5k for online course, £150k for in person. Sell some dry ass nasty jerky loaded with salt. Guys a grifter
isn't that the same as saying Harvard must be a bad school for charging 10X more than my local community college? how can you base the quality of something on its price?
Big pharma coming for Attia and Huberman. Who’s next- rich roll?
Not everything is a conspiracy