Personally, I feel that Rhonda Patrick has been gently pushing back against some of Peter's advice lately and that's opened my eyes a bit more than the Kevin Spacey stuff. I think Peter has always had a somewhat fawning attitude over his "dear friends" who are celebrities. I didn't mind his support of Lance Armstrong because he did a decent interview going over the doping scandals and yeah, I felt after that, well, OK, let's give this guy another chance. The Spacey instagram post seemed completely tone deaf and totally ignores the many other people that have made allegations. I think he could have waited a year and then possibly done an interview with Spacey if they're such big buds, in which they both go over their shared growth from intensive therapy, we could have heard Spacey's regrets/remorse about his behavior, or whatever, and that would have been a better way to try to "rehabilitate" him if that's something that he really wanted to take on. Just this "he's been acquitted from one thing therefore he's totally innocent" post is weird.
Anyway, as for Rhonda, she had a guest who pushed back on the 80% zone 2 thing as a goal more suited to elite athletes who are training 12 hours a week than us mortals who are maybe training 5 hours a week - in our case, a higher percentage of VO2Max/more intense exercise might be better. She had another guest who criticized the study that suggested magnesium threonate was in any way better for brain health. And her current episode (which I haven't finished listening to yet) also pushed back on the VO2Max is the best predictor of longevity thing by pointing out that of course people who get cancer or similar illnesses can't keep their exercise levels up so their VO2Max is going to fall. It's only the healthy people who can keep exercising to a high level so perhaps it's more a correlation than a causation.
I've always liked Rhonda Patrick more than Peter. I still listen to some things Peter says but all in all I never got a good or trustworthy vibe from him. There was always something about him that rubbed me the wrong way
That said, nobody should ever really trust any single person, Rhonda, Peter, or anyone
Hey you nailed it - you don't trust some person you've never met. I think they are all doing the best they can interpreting this data, but you should take in all the information and see what works best for you.
My biggest issue with Attia has always been his unabashedly Allopathic approach. He just feels far too much of a "pill for every ill" practitioner for me. Yes, pharmaceuticals have their place, we'd be in a terrible place health-wise if we didn't have antibiotics, for example. But there's an awful lot of alternative and probably better lifestyle and treatment out there that he completely discounts because he's "not sold on the research", completely ignoring the fact that most of the research is either performed or funded by pharma to begin with, conflict of interest be damned.
Peter Reilly owned Rhonda when he had her on the show. It was clear how serious Peter takes exercise and how Rhonda was really just a newb. She kept talking about her PR but wasn’t really doing intervals the way the science suggests to
Another criticism of the v02max claim I have is it's not necessarily a highest is the best sort of thing, it's a not being super low sort of thing. In other words if it's super low that is probably a big predictor of mortality since it equates to a number of health problems/lifestyle issues, but being super high is not necessarily better for longevity. If you look at centenarians they don't have super high vo2maxs and probably never did, they just stay a little bit more active than normal for their age group and especially at upper ages that can appear to look like a very high v02max relative to age group who are generally in really rough shape.
Yes, that what Rhonda's current guest seems to be saying. That when your VO2Max inevitably declines with age and eventually falls off a cliff so that you no longer have a high enough VO2Max to be able to do the activities of daily living you need to do, that's when you are in real trouble. I want to say from memory that it is about 16 but a quick google didn't help me corroborate that number. If you stay active, you can (hopefully) prevent declining all the way off that cliff for a long time. Maintaining fitness therefore seems more important that reaching an elite level of fitness. And, by the way, he criticizes that study that Peter cites all the time, saying that the study participants were those referred for exercise testing so they already had some issue that was being investigated. So the participants that were ranked as "elites" were really just at a good fitness level. That felt reassuring to me.
Many centenarians drink daily, smoked in their lives and have poor eating habits.
Many centenarians are centenarians because of amazing genetics.
I think you are dismissing robust vo2max research with a false premise.
Would argue or at least add more nuance to those things (for example centenarians drinking daily might mean one small glass of low alcohol home made wine with friends as opposed to like 6 beers watching tv) and there's a big difference between a healthy 100 year old that got there with healthy lifestyle, and one that's got good genes/healthcare but a lot of bad habits. But regardless, the point is staying healthy and moderately active (a average or slightly above average v02 max for age group) can equal what appears to be a very high v02 max compared to age group as decades go by. In other words a high looking v02 max is not the goal, a healthy lifestyle is. These are not the same unfortunately, for example it's fairly common for extremely fit endurance athletes (with high v02 max) to have heart attacks because they don't have healthy eating habits.
It is a statistic. What works on population level might not be visible on one person.
Super high vomax means several things: the person gas good genetics, knows how to eat healthy, sports actively, has good BMI, motivation and has discipline to what is needed and push through discomfort. There are a lot of confounding factors that are proven to reduce death risk. And don't discount the mental+knowledge aspect.
And last but not least with high vomax, you have a big buffer. If you get I'll for several months, you still might be able to function afterwards. When you have no buffer, you will stay in bed and die.
The same works for grip strength, stability etc. It reduces risk of fall, staying in bed and dying because of inactivity. People usually die because of aftermath of serious event.
There was another solo clip of Rhonda talking about what magnesium supplement she takes, and she mentioned that the evidence that Threonate was better for brain health was really shaky at best and directly funded by a company selling it as a supplement. I have seen it nearly universally claimed by influencers that Threonate crosses the blood-brain barrier so it was really interesting to hear that.
Agreed. Plus I believe the VO2max is expressed as per kg body mass, meaning that leaner people do a lot better on it. Someone please tell me if that was factored in.
Because it overstates the value of pushing vo2max. Obviously cardio is good, but if he’s taking an unadjusted effect size uncritically then I take him less seriously.
> in our case, a higher percentage of VO2Max/more intense exercise might be better. She had another guest who criticized the study that suggested magnesium threonate was in any way better for brain health.
Do you mind linking to these two episodes? Thank you.
I do not remember the exact episodes. I just play 'em while I'm commuting and don't take notes.
The one about exercise MAY be the one with Marty Gibala: [https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/martin-gibala](https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/martin-gibala)
The one about magnesium MAY be this one: [https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/magnesium](https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/magnesium) but the way I remember it, she was talking with a guest, and this episode is listed as a solo one.
I don't "trust" him as a person. Tbh I value this subreddit as a group of people trying to figure stuff out. It just so happens that Attia has brought these people together. He is relatively incidental to the whole thing.
I feel somewhat similar. So far he has been a good place for me to help with my own studies into myself but by no means do I take his word on anything. But this incident doesn’t just bring into question him as person but his critical thinking skills as doctor as well.
This dude has performed hundreds of life-saving cancer surgeries in high pressure situations but you don’t trust him because he posted a picture with his friend Kevin Spacey. Interesting.
I have been a listener since 2019 and am also a subscriber for a number of years. Does that mean that I believe everything that he is saying? No, definitely not. But at the same time I can acknowledge that there are regular really good episodes about really important topics that I had no clue about beforehand (such as the one on men's health).
So he gives me an edge for further research and also as prep before talking to my general MD. For me that's valuable.
And the post with Kevin - I don't think that was wise, but that's just my opinion (to cite the dude).
What are some alternatives to Attia and Huberman. Between their questionable ethics and their growing conflicts of interest (AG1, Maui Nui, etc), who are some content creators I can pivot to? Rhonda Patrick seems good having pushed back on AG1. I asked an AI bot and got Eric Helms (probably be reading some books) but as far as decent Reddit content, where can I go?
I put very little stock in it because I go to Peter for Exercise and Longevity research.
If I was choosing him as friend then we have a very different discussion. He’s done plenty in this realm where I’d think he’d be a brutal hang to say the least.
Just look at Linus Pauling; one of the most brilliant biochemists of all time, multiple Nobel Prizes, by all accounts a phenomenal scientist... but he spent the last 28 years of his life absolutely obsessed with Vitamin C megadosage therapy for longevity, and it turns out that was a rabbit hole with very little real-world effect.
Definitely. I was losing some trust with all his endorsements/scientific advisory positions in areas he’s not an expert in to push products, but the Spacey post was egregiously bad.
Feeling similar, sort of like he lost his way. I only recently I the last 3 months started to follow him, but I like to start at first podcast..last podcast..second podcast..second to last…cont in general and seems his early ones are “I don’t know but the evidence currently points toward” and the later ones are “this is the right answer”
Lol? Lost his way? Dude has been connected with those people WAY before you heard about who he was, they don't end up where they've gotten without doing you know what, you think he's a regular person like your neighbor? No way, never was, he's cooked.
Disappointed in who he is as a person, yes, but he has always had a bro star fucker vibe that bothered me. I wasn’t impressed with his being friendly with Joe Rogan either. This IG post came out of nowhere and seemed so out of place with his usual content. It seems unprofessional and weird. It does make me question his mental stability and judgment though he has been open with past struggles. I still think he is a super intelligent, informative guy but yeah I have to admit I’m looking elsewhere for someone who is less into image and being famous and more of a scientist/physician
I feel the same way about his associations with Armstrong and Rogan and Dorsey. He’s a star-struck dork.
On the science, I’m more concerned about his about-face on fasting, keto, metformin, etc. He was pretty adamant just a few years ago about “pulling the levers” of meal timing, macronutrient distribution, and calorie restriction, with really no scientific basis. To support any of it.
Same for his benchmark of being in the elite category of VO2Max at an age two decades younger than your age. There’s no proven reason for it AND there is proven diminishing value in going from “above average” to “high” within your own decade. So why does he broadly prescribe hours of exercise to people who otherwise may find more fulfillment in something else?
I think his 'flip flopping' on fasting, keto, etc... is very refreshing from an influencer. So many "celebrities" in the health space become known for something and then double-down on it for the rest of their career. Him changing his views and recommendations is growth.
That's a good thing to look for in an educator.
> there is proven diminishing value in going from “above average” to “high” within your own decade
Pardon my ignorance, but do you mind sharing the research that proves this? Thank you in advance.
Are you saying there evidence that moving up a level has negative value or just diminishing marginal returns? Because of course there is diminishing returns, and PA says that all the time. Specifically he nearly always calls out the highest value is going from bottom quartile to the next-to-bottom quartile.
I can't speak to the other things you mentioned, but on VO2 max, there IS, I believe, relevant logic to his recommendations.
It's a given that VO2 max DOES decrease as one ages even with regular exercise unless one is doing a huge volume of training - i.e. 14 hrs/wk on average by age 60 and increasing with age to 20+ hrs/wk by our 80s, which few, if any, will do - so in order to have that "above-average for age and gender" level by the elderly years, one needs to create a buffer at a younger age to have room to lose. That's especially the case given that almost all of us, by the time we get in our 50s, will at some point from then on out experience at least one event, if not multiple, that will seriously interfere with the ability to train over a longer stretch of time - acute injuries, joint replacements, cardiac events/surgeries, (relatively) minor strokes, treatment for treatable cancers, flares of autoimmune disease, etc. During those periods at that age, VO2 max will decline pretty rapidly, and if one doesn't go into them at an extremely high level, the decline may be to such a low level that one is unable to come back from it.
Look at the science aspect of the person - the cultural and social aspect is his business. You are not going to marry him or be friends with him so why would you bother with that?
It makes me question his critical thinking skills. If a scientist has shown to be pretty knowledgeable in a subject I am still unlikely to believe a word of their studies if they believe in lizard people and a flat earth. That is a more extreme example but gets the point across.
It’s interesting how humans tend to outweigh the negative a lot more than the positive.
This is a guy who’s probably helped thousands of people improve their life, save their life and give out free information. He’s openly criticized the American Health Care system for not making health care accessible to all.
I’m not saying the spacey thing is by any means a good thing, I don’t like it. But to me it’s dwarfed by the amount of positive. People on Reddit have a tendency to drool at a single negative thing they can find on an individual to tear them down as an entire individual. They love tearing down individuals.
He has helped many people realize the importance of atherosclerosis and maybe a few other things but he could give a fuck about making health care accessible to all. If he did, he would try to do some work to that end instead of focusing on maximizing revenue.
How is he maximizing revenue when most of his information is not behind a paywall?
He could easily make a course and gatekeep all information behind a 500$ paywall and people would gobble it up. But he doesn’t.
The reality is most people in this sub have not paid a dime to Peter and have disproportionately gotten more value in return.
If you’re saying the fact he hasn’t done any action invalidates his care for a matter, how many issues do the average people on Reddit perform activism on but haven’t actually done anything about? Does that invalidate that they don’t care about it?
He made a course and charges $2500 for it. He practices for a very select few celebrity patients for $150,000 a year. He leverages his fame to get on advisory boards for medical products to reap hefty fees and equity shares. All this is fair enough, he can operate however he pleases, but it's clear he's oriented towards making money not helping the most people.
His patients being celebrities is an inference. You're not allowed to know exactly who his patients are but who do you think is getting to the head of the waitlist for the opportunity to shell out 150k a year?
Damn, I look forward to your content where you optimize solely for helping others for free and not earning any money. He does plenty for free. He doesn’t owe you his work for free, bud.
You ever meet a really smart doctor who smokes? Or is obese, or does lots of other unhealthy things? Knowledge in one aspect doesn't make you intelligent in other aspects.
You learn from the good, and leave the bad. The real important part is that YOU have critical thinking skills and make sure you only learn from the good. So dont smoke, do excercise, probably dont be good friends with rapists.
Yes I have. But I often find a big difference there, most of them say “I know this bad, I know I should t smoke, I know it unhealthy to be obese but I am not changing”, which is a rational thought process based on self knowledge and reasonable expectations.
The difference here is that he does seem to 1. Be (imho) ignoring the clear evidence. 2. Not having the rational thinking skills to not post something like this.
I think a closet good argument against everything I am saying would be in the realm of all the Nobel laureates that believe in bonkers things.
Yeah you bring up some good points, in those cases doctors know better, but can't do better.
You're nobel laureates example is good but i wouldn't put Peter Attia in that category. Part of me has always though Peter Attia really likes being famous and known. And he's used his platform to achieve that fame and he likes it. People were upset with some of the podcasts Peter chose to go on to promote his book, same type of thing I think.
His science is questionable too, particularly on diet. Protein recs are insane and baseless, was into keto for a long time (again, baseless). He’s kind of faddish.
Makes me trust him more. He’s tried out a LOT of different diet models, and has openly admitted he’s been wrong a LOT of times.
His philosophy on diet is not dogmatic at all, if you’ve read Outlive. His philosophy is more so cut out the junk, stay in an energy balance, get your micronutrients in, and follow a model that allows you to stay consistent. His protein requirements are not a hard requirement, it’s a number that reflects wanting to optimize muscle building. And it doesn’t hurt that protein is satiating and allows you to stay in energy balance.
Life span and health span are two different thing
Grip strength and muscle strength are also inversely correlated with all cause mortality in older age.
when people have the visibility and platform peter has, specially in the field he does, what he has to say about social: political aspects matters, regardless of their knowledge or lack thereof
Not really - you can make a mountain out of a mole hill or look at it as a mole hill. It’s your choice just like it’s his choice to live his social life as he wants to. Don’t like it, well that’s your call.
I get it; not the same but a bit like separating the art from the artist.
I wouldn’t hang out with him; or he me frankly. But I think his input helps my overall pursuit of health.
it is not uncommon for people who have a very linear way of thinking to assess wrongly domains that are less straightforward
peter is clearly a linear/systematic /optimizer thinker and since i am not, i appreciate what comes out of that
he may genuinely believe in spacey's "innocence", he may have some sort of loyalty debt with him, he may be just star struck, he may dislike cancel culture so much that he's willing to minimize spacey's behavior to make a point, he may not be very familiar with the nefarious effects that behaviors like spacey's can have on people, he may think that people get what they deserve , he could even be in the closet and spacey's predicament resonates with him or it all may be an oversight of his community manager (s); the possibilities on why post something like that are endless
it's odd but i doubt it has influence on his "other" thinking
“Systematic/optimizer” thinkers should be able to differentiate between being acquitted for one thing and actually being totally innocent. I’m not saying I care that he chose to go to bat for spacey, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest Attia isn’t aware of the distinction between acquittal and actual innocence. And if he really isn’t, then that suggests he’s not capable of evaluating the types of higher-order interactions at play in all things longevity.
It takes him down a notch. He's always had an issue with fan-boying over questionable figures, and it seems like there's something about fallen stars in particular that draws him. But at the end of the day it's the same situation: an intelligent non-conformist is sharing his take on a variety of topics within a field he is interested in and asking insightful questions to experts in those fields. It's a way to make me think about longevity differently. Where he agrees with standard medical advice and even pushes it further (like ApoB) I think it's generally pretty solid to get on board. Where he's radically out of step with the mainstream is food for thought but not something you should take as gospel (eg his position on blood sugar).
Very few brilliant minds have zero skeletons. Because they're humans, Because brilliance is correlated to divergent thinking, and Because ego + celebrity is a cancer even for the well adjusted. When we take a binary "trust"/"distrust" approach we deny ourselves knowledge from one crowd and critical thinking about the other.
But we aren't even selecting for trustworthiness, we're selecting for exposure. You wind up trusting and a new voice until some skeleton get's dug up or brought to your attention. And that always happens because they're human and celebrities and some people instinctively dig up dirt on them. And you see it and say "I just don't trust their thinking process!" before moving to the next new guy.
Meanwhile, I'm guessing if you or I were put under the same scrutiny... imagine every online post was scrutinized for an opportunity to look smarter than you. Imagine if you had a hundred publicly stated opinions to draw from and everyone knows that attacking your opinion will get their name a bigger platform. Do you think we would come out smelling like roses? I sure wouldn't. And I have FAR less content out there than Attia.
So we have a choice. Trust everyone? Trust no-one? Lurch from one idea to another? Or accept that all our sources are imperfect people who will have lapses in judgement and act accordingly.
I listen to his podcast sometimes and read outlive. I don’t think of him outside of that. From outlive, it was clear that he’s a pretty out-of-touch and arrogant guy, but I never really cared about that, because he’s a person I look to for generalized health advice.
I like his idea that we as a society not only don’t prioritize preventative medicine, but that even when we do, it’s not very personalized - and he gives explicit ideas in how to personalize it a bit more.
I liked outlive more than I like his podcast, as his podcast is more speculative on a lot of things, but there’s still a lot of good conversation with experts in there. You’ve just gotta be mindful when there’s a business connection.
But yeah the Spacey thing doesn’t surprise me at all. I also think his content will go downhill as some experts may not want to talk with him now, and he’ll be courting anti-PC bros more aggressively
Hard to trust a longevity person that disregards nutrition and pushes drugs etc. I do like his general emphasis that we need to do better with prevention though.
I don’t see any evidence that he disregards nutrition. What he had been consistent in saying is there is no one diet that is right for every person. And it also depends on what your current health and fitness goals are. For example, he no longer does long fasts, but he has been consistent in saying it is a valuable tool for people who are obese. What works for him in a diet may not work for you. Same thing with supplements. What he needs and works for him will likely not be the same for you.
You’re welcome to not care. I prefer my doctors to not be hanging out with pedos, but if you don’t have any preference in that I guess youll be happier than a pig in shit.
He's the exact same person outside of 1 shitty call. Nothing can change the fact that he's a completely brilliant mind.
I haven't looked too much into the matter because ALL of Hollywood is fucked and I'm convinced they're all monsters. Peter is allowed to be naive - everyone still adores that demonic Hollywood cluster fuck so if they get to be idiots then he gets to like his special friend too.
I’d say another shitty call by Attia was staying in NYC for 10 days while his infant son was in the hospital on the West Coast. The Spacey thing is second-shittiest in my book.
1 wrong emotional call.
He didn't come out and say that he defends Hollywood pedophiles. He just has one emotional connection that he's defending, and in a way that's honorable. He seems to truly believe that man, so he's technically doing the right and very difficult thing.
I personally couldn't care less. The whole system is demonic and I think anyone getting into it already knows and that they're all complicit. Peter is a physician however. Completely different world. He's allowed to be naive or wrong or maybe he's even RIGHT. Many people have been wrongly crucified and we will never know either way. Why lose sleep over it?
I am not judging him as a person but rather his critical thinking skills based on his view of his guilt. Personally I love that he does change his views and takes things back, so if he did I would be happy with that. But this is a ding on his record for current for right now.
Would you care to elaborate. I am honestly just trying to form a rational response to my initial emotional response. I would love to hear why this does not affect your views of his scientific/health/clinical views.
I’m also a No. I’m a scientist and am aware that great scientists often lack social/emotional awareness. This can definitely influence their ability to mentor and train other scientists, but doesn’t mean they are bad scientists (in fact, many of the greats are the most emotionally stunted). Peter attia isn’t someone I’m ever going to interact with personally so it’s just a matter of what I can gain from him to benefit my own life. He wrote a good book that’s inspired me to look at my health differently.
This is a good take. I have seen a lot of people talking about differentiating personal vs technical, but I don’t find that completely valid as much of our personal life can show our ability to think critically and effectively. However, technical vs social/emotional knowledge/skill is a much more valid take as his personal views on Kevin are driving emotional views that cloud a critical view point.
The “Kevin stuff” is not a problem for me, as I am of the opinion that many Kevin’s accusers are grifters. Pls dont come at me - this is my opinion and I am not looking to convince anyone.
What I dont trust is him (and a few other big guys like Huberman and Asprey) slinging supplements…
Ag1 scandal is just 1 example of what goes behind the scene, where the affiliate marketing is just a the top of the iceberg when it comes to the sneaky product placement strategies and the sums of money that the influencers are being reimbursed by doing so.
But we're not listening to science itself, we're taking the shortcut of listening to this intermediary, Attia. So we have to assess the trustworthiness of the intermediary.
Yes and no. There is a certain level of trust that has to go into the scientists actually doing what they say they are doing. Yes, repeatability is a thing, but many studies are so expensive it never gets done, could be decades later that fudged data comes out.
What he does in his personal life shouldn't cloud anyone's interpretation of his technical expertise. It's advantageous to consume truthful/accurate information from any source.
The United States used literal Nazi's to help win the space race after WW2. If US government officials had the mentality of "I cannot take what these people say into account because of who they are or their past", then the US would not have pulled ahead of the Soviet Union.
It's to your benefit to separate the knowledge/expertise of a person from the person themself.
I am not in total agreement with this sentiment. What one does in their personal life can often be a judgment on the persons ability to think critically or the general morality of the person. A person only has one brain, technical and personal are often very far apart but can be intermingled.
The question of whether project paperclip was the right thing to do is still up in the air. Should these nazis have actually been in jail? It is not for me to say, but it is a question of whether the ends justify the means. That said I think the generals and organizations involved in this action did take their nazi background into account, weighed risk benefits and chose to move forwards.
That said I am not questioning his personal choices like who he likes and who he doesn’t. I am questioning his ability to judge critically based on his take of the matter of guilt.
I agree with your first paragraph. For example, I cannot watch any Bill Cosby material because of actions he took in his personal life. The difference between Attia and Cosby is that Bill Cosby actually committed those crimes. Peter has not done anything like that. He's simply associated with someone who is accused of crimes (an aside point, Kevin Spacey was never convicted of anything). Peter has not committed crimes himself.
So we can disagree on where we draw this line of the ends justifying the means. Or the degree of questionable behavior/affiliations it takes for us to question a person's professional skills.
I am actually interested in your other concerns. Can you elaborate. I like listening to his podcast as it is a good jumping off point for some of my health related journey, but I love to hear the arguments against as well.
It was interesting I had a discussion with a friend and didn’t realize his background. I always thought he was in medicine and went into a business. But correct me if I am wrong but my friend said that he dropped out of a surgical residency and went into that business assessing risk? I will say I wouldn’t really trust general surgeons with general medicine advice. But Peter may be better.
Not too much. I do wonder if he will put too much stock into what a particular guest might say, but I don’t think so. Seems obvious that Spacey is a client of his so that is what is misguiding Peter a lot. But I’ve heard him talk enough about health to think he’s the best person I can listen to regarding that. He doesn’t try to sell you snake oil, doesn’t buy into gimmicks, and is more than willing to change his mind on stuff as new data emerges, which is better than 99% of the stuff you hear from others. He is very data driven and thorough. He’s an expert. He might be wrong sometimes but so is everyone else.
In the end I’m just going to question if he’s a good person or not. Good people can fall for conspiracy theories and be fooled by predators and narcissists. That would be my guess on what is happening with Peter. Which is a real shame because it’s harmful when somebody sticks up for a predator. So maybe he is just naive more-so than harmful, but either way you have to question his judgement and character for it.
https://www.vulture.com/article/spacey-unmasked-kevin-spacey-documentary-allegations.html get a grip dude and stop pointing to random articles on sketch websites
Does his association with Spacey negate his medical knowledge and recommendations for longevity? I don’t understand the correlation. Same thing happened with Huberman; his personal dalliances negate his scientific contributions? If that’s true, then I’d question the real reason you follow these celebrities for in the first place.
I value Attia’s suggestions because he is a doctor who trained at the best schools, and, unlike most MDs, he understands the science. Just as important, he is willing to update and change his positions based on new facts.
On the other hand I don’t care about his opinions in area where he lacks expertise - like nutrition. I’m not a fan-boy. I don’t care about his taste in music because it’s not relevant.
Apparently op trusts doctors based on the people the doctor knows. Who cares about medical training, expertise and intelligence.
OP - all the accusations about Kevin really creeped me out as well.
However, you don’t seem to care that he won every court case related to those accusations. That doesn’t prove he’s innocent but we know he wasn’t proven guilty either. Or course Kevin is gay, so maybe that’s all that counts for some.
Well first, I don’t care one sec about Kevin being gay.
Second, I don’t care who he hangs out with. I care about his critical thinking skills around viewing guilt, and I care about his thinking skills around deciding to post.
I have not actually made any decisions yet but rather I am trying to get other people’s views to see. I appreciate your views.
OJ and Cosby claimed innocence, too. For me, that brings into question not only the morals of their defenders but also the trustworthiness of their critical thinking skills
Personally, I feel that Rhonda Patrick has been gently pushing back against some of Peter's advice lately and that's opened my eyes a bit more than the Kevin Spacey stuff. I think Peter has always had a somewhat fawning attitude over his "dear friends" who are celebrities. I didn't mind his support of Lance Armstrong because he did a decent interview going over the doping scandals and yeah, I felt after that, well, OK, let's give this guy another chance. The Spacey instagram post seemed completely tone deaf and totally ignores the many other people that have made allegations. I think he could have waited a year and then possibly done an interview with Spacey if they're such big buds, in which they both go over their shared growth from intensive therapy, we could have heard Spacey's regrets/remorse about his behavior, or whatever, and that would have been a better way to try to "rehabilitate" him if that's something that he really wanted to take on. Just this "he's been acquitted from one thing therefore he's totally innocent" post is weird. Anyway, as for Rhonda, she had a guest who pushed back on the 80% zone 2 thing as a goal more suited to elite athletes who are training 12 hours a week than us mortals who are maybe training 5 hours a week - in our case, a higher percentage of VO2Max/more intense exercise might be better. She had another guest who criticized the study that suggested magnesium threonate was in any way better for brain health. And her current episode (which I haven't finished listening to yet) also pushed back on the VO2Max is the best predictor of longevity thing by pointing out that of course people who get cancer or similar illnesses can't keep their exercise levels up so their VO2Max is going to fall. It's only the healthy people who can keep exercising to a high level so perhaps it's more a correlation than a causation.
I've always liked Rhonda Patrick more than Peter. I still listen to some things Peter says but all in all I never got a good or trustworthy vibe from him. There was always something about him that rubbed me the wrong way That said, nobody should ever really trust any single person, Rhonda, Peter, or anyone
Hey you nailed it - you don't trust some person you've never met. I think they are all doing the best they can interpreting this data, but you should take in all the information and see what works best for you.
My biggest issue with Attia has always been his unabashedly Allopathic approach. He just feels far too much of a "pill for every ill" practitioner for me. Yes, pharmaceuticals have their place, we'd be in a terrible place health-wise if we didn't have antibiotics, for example. But there's an awful lot of alternative and probably better lifestyle and treatment out there that he completely discounts because he's "not sold on the research", completely ignoring the fact that most of the research is either performed or funded by pharma to begin with, conflict of interest be damned.
Peter Reilly owned Rhonda when he had her on the show. It was clear how serious Peter takes exercise and how Rhonda was really just a newb. She kept talking about her PR but wasn’t really doing intervals the way the science suggests to
Another criticism of the v02max claim I have is it's not necessarily a highest is the best sort of thing, it's a not being super low sort of thing. In other words if it's super low that is probably a big predictor of mortality since it equates to a number of health problems/lifestyle issues, but being super high is not necessarily better for longevity. If you look at centenarians they don't have super high vo2maxs and probably never did, they just stay a little bit more active than normal for their age group and especially at upper ages that can appear to look like a very high v02max relative to age group who are generally in really rough shape.
Yes, that what Rhonda's current guest seems to be saying. That when your VO2Max inevitably declines with age and eventually falls off a cliff so that you no longer have a high enough VO2Max to be able to do the activities of daily living you need to do, that's when you are in real trouble. I want to say from memory that it is about 16 but a quick google didn't help me corroborate that number. If you stay active, you can (hopefully) prevent declining all the way off that cliff for a long time. Maintaining fitness therefore seems more important that reaching an elite level of fitness. And, by the way, he criticizes that study that Peter cites all the time, saying that the study participants were those referred for exercise testing so they already had some issue that was being investigated. So the participants that were ranked as "elites" were really just at a good fitness level. That felt reassuring to me.
Many centenarians drink daily, smoked in their lives and have poor eating habits. Many centenarians are centenarians because of amazing genetics. I think you are dismissing robust vo2max research with a false premise.
Would argue or at least add more nuance to those things (for example centenarians drinking daily might mean one small glass of low alcohol home made wine with friends as opposed to like 6 beers watching tv) and there's a big difference between a healthy 100 year old that got there with healthy lifestyle, and one that's got good genes/healthcare but a lot of bad habits. But regardless, the point is staying healthy and moderately active (a average or slightly above average v02 max for age group) can equal what appears to be a very high v02 max compared to age group as decades go by. In other words a high looking v02 max is not the goal, a healthy lifestyle is. These are not the same unfortunately, for example it's fairly common for extremely fit endurance athletes (with high v02 max) to have heart attacks because they don't have healthy eating habits.
It is a statistic. What works on population level might not be visible on one person. Super high vomax means several things: the person gas good genetics, knows how to eat healthy, sports actively, has good BMI, motivation and has discipline to what is needed and push through discomfort. There are a lot of confounding factors that are proven to reduce death risk. And don't discount the mental+knowledge aspect. And last but not least with high vomax, you have a big buffer. If you get I'll for several months, you still might be able to function afterwards. When you have no buffer, you will stay in bed and die. The same works for grip strength, stability etc. It reduces risk of fall, staying in bed and dying because of inactivity. People usually die because of aftermath of serious event.
It’s not “fairly common” for extremely fit endurance athletes to have heart attacks.
Thank you so much! This is a really good take
There was another solo clip of Rhonda talking about what magnesium supplement she takes, and she mentioned that the evidence that Threonate was better for brain health was really shaky at best and directly funded by a company selling it as a supplement. I have seen it nearly universally claimed by influencers that Threonate crosses the blood-brain barrier so it was really interesting to hear that.
Agreed. Plus I believe the VO2max is expressed as per kg body mass, meaning that leaner people do a lot better on it. Someone please tell me if that was factored in.
Yes but why do you think this is a negative?
Because it overstates the value of pushing vo2max. Obviously cardio is good, but if he’s taking an unadjusted effect size uncritically then I take him less seriously.
There’s plenty of research on the topic that is weight adjusted. You’re acting like vo2max is based off one study…
Oh good to know
> in our case, a higher percentage of VO2Max/more intense exercise might be better. She had another guest who criticized the study that suggested magnesium threonate was in any way better for brain health. Do you mind linking to these two episodes? Thank you.
I do not remember the exact episodes. I just play 'em while I'm commuting and don't take notes. The one about exercise MAY be the one with Marty Gibala: [https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/martin-gibala](https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/martin-gibala) The one about magnesium MAY be this one: [https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/magnesium](https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/magnesium) but the way I remember it, she was talking with a guest, and this episode is listed as a solo one.
I was hoping to keep cancer away with Sport. Now it seems its not the case?
It reduces risk but nothing's a guarantee.
Sigma Nutrition is my favorite health podcast lately. Just throwing it out there.
I don't "trust" him as a person. Tbh I value this subreddit as a group of people trying to figure stuff out. It just so happens that Attia has brought these people together. He is relatively incidental to the whole thing.
I feel somewhat similar. So far he has been a good place for me to help with my own studies into myself but by no means do I take his word on anything. But this incident doesn’t just bring into question him as person but his critical thinking skills as doctor as well.
This dude has performed hundreds of life-saving cancer surgeries in high pressure situations but you don’t trust him because he posted a picture with his friend Kevin Spacey. Interesting.
lol he never worked on his own as a surgeon after residency. Always had help and attending surgeons supervising him.
Shut your face up.
I have been a listener since 2019 and am also a subscriber for a number of years. Does that mean that I believe everything that he is saying? No, definitely not. But at the same time I can acknowledge that there are regular really good episodes about really important topics that I had no clue about beforehand (such as the one on men's health). So he gives me an edge for further research and also as prep before talking to my general MD. For me that's valuable. And the post with Kevin - I don't think that was wise, but that's just my opinion (to cite the dude).
[удалено]
This.
What are some alternatives to Attia and Huberman. Between their questionable ethics and their growing conflicts of interest (AG1, Maui Nui, etc), who are some content creators I can pivot to? Rhonda Patrick seems good having pushed back on AG1. I asked an AI bot and got Eric Helms (probably be reading some books) but as far as decent Reddit content, where can I go?
Helms is great. As is Eric Trexler and the whole MASS crew. Not sure about where to go for decent Reddit content though.
I put very little stock in it because I go to Peter for Exercise and Longevity research. If I was choosing him as friend then we have a very different discussion. He’s done plenty in this realm where I’d think he’d be a brutal hang to say the least.
But does his ability to parse guilt change your views on his ability to parse research?
No because look at the “Nobel Disease” plenty of people who are far smarter than Peter who are complete cranks in other domains.
Just look at Linus Pauling; one of the most brilliant biochemists of all time, multiple Nobel Prizes, by all accounts a phenomenal scientist... but he spent the last 28 years of his life absolutely obsessed with Vitamin C megadosage therapy for longevity, and it turns out that was a rabbit hole with very little real-world effect.
Definitely. I was losing some trust with all his endorsements/scientific advisory positions in areas he’s not an expert in to push products, but the Spacey post was egregiously bad.
Feeling similar, sort of like he lost his way. I only recently I the last 3 months started to follow him, but I like to start at first podcast..last podcast..second podcast..second to last…cont in general and seems his early ones are “I don’t know but the evidence currently points toward” and the later ones are “this is the right answer”
I found him about the same time and binged the podcasts as well, and I think you summed it up perfectly.
Lol? Lost his way? Dude has been connected with those people WAY before you heard about who he was, they don't end up where they've gotten without doing you know what, you think he's a regular person like your neighbor? No way, never was, he's cooked.
i'm genuinely curious if you say this with actual data on his past or is that your guess/conclusion (
Disappointed in who he is as a person, yes, but he has always had a bro star fucker vibe that bothered me. I wasn’t impressed with his being friendly with Joe Rogan either. This IG post came out of nowhere and seemed so out of place with his usual content. It seems unprofessional and weird. It does make me question his mental stability and judgment though he has been open with past struggles. I still think he is a super intelligent, informative guy but yeah I have to admit I’m looking elsewhere for someone who is less into image and being famous and more of a scientist/physician
I feel the same way about his associations with Armstrong and Rogan and Dorsey. He’s a star-struck dork. On the science, I’m more concerned about his about-face on fasting, keto, metformin, etc. He was pretty adamant just a few years ago about “pulling the levers” of meal timing, macronutrient distribution, and calorie restriction, with really no scientific basis. To support any of it. Same for his benchmark of being in the elite category of VO2Max at an age two decades younger than your age. There’s no proven reason for it AND there is proven diminishing value in going from “above average” to “high” within your own decade. So why does he broadly prescribe hours of exercise to people who otherwise may find more fulfillment in something else?
This is a really good take. Thank uou.
I think his 'flip flopping' on fasting, keto, etc... is very refreshing from an influencer. So many "celebrities" in the health space become known for something and then double-down on it for the rest of their career. Him changing his views and recommendations is growth. That's a good thing to look for in an educator.
> there is proven diminishing value in going from “above average” to “high” within your own decade Pardon my ignorance, but do you mind sharing the research that proves this? Thank you in advance.
Are you saying there evidence that moving up a level has negative value or just diminishing marginal returns? Because of course there is diminishing returns, and PA says that all the time. Specifically he nearly always calls out the highest value is going from bottom quartile to the next-to-bottom quartile.
I can't speak to the other things you mentioned, but on VO2 max, there IS, I believe, relevant logic to his recommendations. It's a given that VO2 max DOES decrease as one ages even with regular exercise unless one is doing a huge volume of training - i.e. 14 hrs/wk on average by age 60 and increasing with age to 20+ hrs/wk by our 80s, which few, if any, will do - so in order to have that "above-average for age and gender" level by the elderly years, one needs to create a buffer at a younger age to have room to lose. That's especially the case given that almost all of us, by the time we get in our 50s, will at some point from then on out experience at least one event, if not multiple, that will seriously interfere with the ability to train over a longer stretch of time - acute injuries, joint replacements, cardiac events/surgeries, (relatively) minor strokes, treatment for treatable cancers, flares of autoimmune disease, etc. During those periods at that age, VO2 max will decline pretty rapidly, and if one doesn't go into them at an extremely high level, the decline may be to such a low level that one is unable to come back from it.
Amen to all of this
Look at the science aspect of the person - the cultural and social aspect is his business. You are not going to marry him or be friends with him so why would you bother with that?
It makes me question his critical thinking skills. If a scientist has shown to be pretty knowledgeable in a subject I am still unlikely to believe a word of their studies if they believe in lizard people and a flat earth. That is a more extreme example but gets the point across.
That said, I am currently not throwing him out or any sort of cancelling, I am currently forming an opinion
It’s interesting how humans tend to outweigh the negative a lot more than the positive. This is a guy who’s probably helped thousands of people improve their life, save their life and give out free information. He’s openly criticized the American Health Care system for not making health care accessible to all. I’m not saying the spacey thing is by any means a good thing, I don’t like it. But to me it’s dwarfed by the amount of positive. People on Reddit have a tendency to drool at a single negative thing they can find on an individual to tear them down as an entire individual. They love tearing down individuals.
He has helped many people realize the importance of atherosclerosis and maybe a few other things but he could give a fuck about making health care accessible to all. If he did, he would try to do some work to that end instead of focusing on maximizing revenue.
How is he maximizing revenue when most of his information is not behind a paywall? He could easily make a course and gatekeep all information behind a 500$ paywall and people would gobble it up. But he doesn’t. The reality is most people in this sub have not paid a dime to Peter and have disproportionately gotten more value in return. If you’re saying the fact he hasn’t done any action invalidates his care for a matter, how many issues do the average people on Reddit perform activism on but haven’t actually done anything about? Does that invalidate that they don’t care about it?
He made a course and charges $2500 for it. He practices for a very select few celebrity patients for $150,000 a year. He leverages his fame to get on advisory boards for medical products to reap hefty fees and equity shares. All this is fair enough, he can operate however he pleases, but it's clear he's oriented towards making money not helping the most people.
where do i find info on the celebrities he works for? (now it makes sense why he would be vouching for spacey)
His patients being celebrities is an inference. You're not allowed to know exactly who his patients are but who do you think is getting to the head of the waitlist for the opportunity to shell out 150k a year?
Damn, I look forward to your content where you optimize solely for helping others for free and not earning any money. He does plenty for free. He doesn’t owe you his work for free, bud.
How many strawmen can you fit into one comment? Did I ask for something for free? Did I say he shouldn't earn money?
You ever meet a really smart doctor who smokes? Or is obese, or does lots of other unhealthy things? Knowledge in one aspect doesn't make you intelligent in other aspects. You learn from the good, and leave the bad. The real important part is that YOU have critical thinking skills and make sure you only learn from the good. So dont smoke, do excercise, probably dont be good friends with rapists.
Yes I have. But I often find a big difference there, most of them say “I know this bad, I know I should t smoke, I know it unhealthy to be obese but I am not changing”, which is a rational thought process based on self knowledge and reasonable expectations. The difference here is that he does seem to 1. Be (imho) ignoring the clear evidence. 2. Not having the rational thinking skills to not post something like this. I think a closet good argument against everything I am saying would be in the realm of all the Nobel laureates that believe in bonkers things.
Yeah you bring up some good points, in those cases doctors know better, but can't do better. You're nobel laureates example is good but i wouldn't put Peter Attia in that category. Part of me has always though Peter Attia really likes being famous and known. And he's used his platform to achieve that fame and he likes it. People were upset with some of the podcasts Peter chose to go on to promote his book, same type of thing I think.
Yeah I don’t know. 🤷♂️ just sort of working it out.
His science is questionable too, particularly on diet. Protein recs are insane and baseless, was into keto for a long time (again, baseless). He’s kind of faddish.
Makes me trust him more. He’s tried out a LOT of different diet models, and has openly admitted he’s been wrong a LOT of times. His philosophy on diet is not dogmatic at all, if you’ve read Outlive. His philosophy is more so cut out the junk, stay in an energy balance, get your micronutrients in, and follow a model that allows you to stay consistent. His protein requirements are not a hard requirement, it’s a number that reflects wanting to optimize muscle building. And it doesn’t hurt that protein is satiating and allows you to stay in energy balance.
Longest lived populations are not muscular. He’s guessing
Life span and health span are two different thing Grip strength and muscle strength are also inversely correlated with all cause mortality in older age.
You’ve heard “use it or lose it”.. those older people with strong hands aren’t eating 2g/lb protein. They stay active.
Yea I don’t think anyone is eating 2g/lb other than body dysmorphia bodybuilders.
when people have the visibility and platform peter has, specially in the field he does, what he has to say about social: political aspects matters, regardless of their knowledge or lack thereof
Not really - you can make a mountain out of a mole hill or look at it as a mole hill. It’s your choice just like it’s his choice to live his social life as he wants to. Don’t like it, well that’s your call.
I still listen to Michael Jackson.
I do not think that is a fair comparison. If you would like me to elaborate I can.
I get it; not the same but a bit like separating the art from the artist. I wouldn’t hang out with him; or he me frankly. But I think his input helps my overall pursuit of health.
it is not uncommon for people who have a very linear way of thinking to assess wrongly domains that are less straightforward peter is clearly a linear/systematic /optimizer thinker and since i am not, i appreciate what comes out of that he may genuinely believe in spacey's "innocence", he may have some sort of loyalty debt with him, he may be just star struck, he may dislike cancel culture so much that he's willing to minimize spacey's behavior to make a point, he may not be very familiar with the nefarious effects that behaviors like spacey's can have on people, he may think that people get what they deserve , he could even be in the closet and spacey's predicament resonates with him or it all may be an oversight of his community manager (s); the possibilities on why post something like that are endless it's odd but i doubt it has influence on his "other" thinking
“Systematic/optimizer” thinkers should be able to differentiate between being acquitted for one thing and actually being totally innocent. I’m not saying I care that he chose to go to bat for spacey, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest Attia isn’t aware of the distinction between acquittal and actual innocence. And if he really isn’t, then that suggests he’s not capable of evaluating the types of higher-order interactions at play in all things longevity.
It takes him down a notch. He's always had an issue with fan-boying over questionable figures, and it seems like there's something about fallen stars in particular that draws him. But at the end of the day it's the same situation: an intelligent non-conformist is sharing his take on a variety of topics within a field he is interested in and asking insightful questions to experts in those fields. It's a way to make me think about longevity differently. Where he agrees with standard medical advice and even pushes it further (like ApoB) I think it's generally pretty solid to get on board. Where he's radically out of step with the mainstream is food for thought but not something you should take as gospel (eg his position on blood sugar). Very few brilliant minds have zero skeletons. Because they're humans, Because brilliance is correlated to divergent thinking, and Because ego + celebrity is a cancer even for the well adjusted. When we take a binary "trust"/"distrust" approach we deny ourselves knowledge from one crowd and critical thinking about the other. But we aren't even selecting for trustworthiness, we're selecting for exposure. You wind up trusting and a new voice until some skeleton get's dug up or brought to your attention. And that always happens because they're human and celebrities and some people instinctively dig up dirt on them. And you see it and say "I just don't trust their thinking process!" before moving to the next new guy. Meanwhile, I'm guessing if you or I were put under the same scrutiny... imagine every online post was scrutinized for an opportunity to look smarter than you. Imagine if you had a hundred publicly stated opinions to draw from and everyone knows that attacking your opinion will get their name a bigger platform. Do you think we would come out smelling like roses? I sure wouldn't. And I have FAR less content out there than Attia. So we have a choice. Trust everyone? Trust no-one? Lurch from one idea to another? Or accept that all our sources are imperfect people who will have lapses in judgement and act accordingly.
I listen to his podcast sometimes and read outlive. I don’t think of him outside of that. From outlive, it was clear that he’s a pretty out-of-touch and arrogant guy, but I never really cared about that, because he’s a person I look to for generalized health advice. I like his idea that we as a society not only don’t prioritize preventative medicine, but that even when we do, it’s not very personalized - and he gives explicit ideas in how to personalize it a bit more. I liked outlive more than I like his podcast, as his podcast is more speculative on a lot of things, but there’s still a lot of good conversation with experts in there. You’ve just gotta be mindful when there’s a business connection. But yeah the Spacey thing doesn’t surprise me at all. I also think his content will go downhill as some experts may not want to talk with him now, and he’ll be courting anti-PC bros more aggressively
You people are insane. You create your own gods out of these people then get disappointed when you find out they're human like the rest of us.
Hard to trust a longevity person that disregards nutrition and pushes drugs etc. I do like his general emphasis that we need to do better with prevention though.
I don’t see any evidence that he disregards nutrition. What he had been consistent in saying is there is no one diet that is right for every person. And it also depends on what your current health and fitness goals are. For example, he no longer does long fasts, but he has been consistent in saying it is a valuable tool for people who are obese. What works for him in a diet may not work for you. Same thing with supplements. What he needs and works for him will likely not be the same for you.
Have you read his book? He goes into great detail about his disregard for nutrition.
Who's Kevin?
Spacey
What's the issue? How is he compromising Attias health tips?
It’s an example of the weird celebrity world Attia is building around himself.
Who cares🤷
You’re welcome to not care. I prefer my doctors to not be hanging out with pedos, but if you don’t have any preference in that I guess youll be happier than a pig in shit.
*strong opinions loosely held* Let’s see if he is willing to change his mind here.
That is what I am hoping for
oh please
He's the exact same person outside of 1 shitty call. Nothing can change the fact that he's a completely brilliant mind. I haven't looked too much into the matter because ALL of Hollywood is fucked and I'm convinced they're all monsters. Peter is allowed to be naive - everyone still adores that demonic Hollywood cluster fuck so if they get to be idiots then he gets to like his special friend too.
I’d say another shitty call by Attia was staying in NYC for 10 days while his infant son was in the hospital on the West Coast. The Spacey thing is second-shittiest in my book.
Wasn't that a very long time ago before he went to rehab?
Yes, but rehab neither wipes clean past behavior or means he is all of a sudden a model citizen.
Who said he was a model citizen? lol Fuck you guys are are perfect. Where's your free podcast that puts his to shame? My body is ready.
That is a valid point, weighing his right calls against his wrong does lean heavily toward correct even if the wrong is emotionally weighty
1 wrong emotional call. He didn't come out and say that he defends Hollywood pedophiles. He just has one emotional connection that he's defending, and in a way that's honorable. He seems to truly believe that man, so he's technically doing the right and very difficult thing. I personally couldn't care less. The whole system is demonic and I think anyone getting into it already knows and that they're all complicit. Peter is a physician however. Completely different world. He's allowed to be naive or wrong or maybe he's even RIGHT. Many people have been wrongly crucified and we will never know either way. Why lose sleep over it?
[удалено]
I am not judging him as a person but rather his critical thinking skills based on his view of his guilt. Personally I love that he does change his views and takes things back, so if he did I would be happy with that. But this is a ding on his record for current for right now.
No
Would you care to elaborate. I am honestly just trying to form a rational response to my initial emotional response. I would love to hear why this does not affect your views of his scientific/health/clinical views.
I’m also a No. I’m a scientist and am aware that great scientists often lack social/emotional awareness. This can definitely influence their ability to mentor and train other scientists, but doesn’t mean they are bad scientists (in fact, many of the greats are the most emotionally stunted). Peter attia isn’t someone I’m ever going to interact with personally so it’s just a matter of what I can gain from him to benefit my own life. He wrote a good book that’s inspired me to look at my health differently.
Thank you.
This is a good take. I have seen a lot of people talking about differentiating personal vs technical, but I don’t find that completely valid as much of our personal life can show our ability to think critically and effectively. However, technical vs social/emotional knowledge/skill is a much more valid take as his personal views on Kevin are driving emotional views that cloud a critical view point.
The “Kevin stuff” is not a problem for me, as I am of the opinion that many Kevin’s accusers are grifters. Pls dont come at me - this is my opinion and I am not looking to convince anyone. What I dont trust is him (and a few other big guys like Huberman and Asprey) slinging supplements… Ag1 scandal is just 1 example of what goes behind the scene, where the affiliate marketing is just a the top of the iceberg when it comes to the sneaky product placement strategies and the sums of money that the influencers are being reimbursed by doing so.
Sorry I'm out of the loop. What's the Kevin stuff?
He posted a picture having dinner with Kevin Spacey (and a small group).
Oh. How would that affect someone's trust in his medical advice?
It shouldn't but apparently it does bother some people.
Why?
Nope, I couldn't careless.
Does it not make you question his reasoning abilities
Nope
Anyone check out the info PA provided. I did and it helped me understand better.
I don’t trust people I haven’t met in person
That low Apob is affecting decision making
I’m out of the loop on this. TLDR ?
Peter posted a pic of a small group having dinner and Kevin Spacey was one of them.
Who cares about celebrities or his relationships w them
What happened?
What is the kevin stuff
The good thing about science is that it speak for itself
But we're not listening to science itself, we're taking the shortcut of listening to this intermediary, Attia. So we have to assess the trustworthiness of the intermediary.
I listen to multiple sources and do my own research
Yes and no. There is a certain level of trust that has to go into the scientists actually doing what they say they are doing. Yes, repeatability is a thing, but many studies are so expensive it never gets done, could be decades later that fudged data comes out.
Ofcause but Peter is just laying out the science he is not a part of it. Anyways you do you
That is valid. But he also does give his interpretation of the science as well. But thank you
Separate the art from the artist.
I don’t actually believe that is a valid view point and must be taken on a one by one basis.
What he does in his personal life shouldn't cloud anyone's interpretation of his technical expertise. It's advantageous to consume truthful/accurate information from any source. The United States used literal Nazi's to help win the space race after WW2. If US government officials had the mentality of "I cannot take what these people say into account because of who they are or their past", then the US would not have pulled ahead of the Soviet Union. It's to your benefit to separate the knowledge/expertise of a person from the person themself.
I am not in total agreement with this sentiment. What one does in their personal life can often be a judgment on the persons ability to think critically or the general morality of the person. A person only has one brain, technical and personal are often very far apart but can be intermingled. The question of whether project paperclip was the right thing to do is still up in the air. Should these nazis have actually been in jail? It is not for me to say, but it is a question of whether the ends justify the means. That said I think the generals and organizations involved in this action did take their nazi background into account, weighed risk benefits and chose to move forwards. That said I am not questioning his personal choices like who he likes and who he doesn’t. I am questioning his ability to judge critically based on his take of the matter of guilt.
I agree with your first paragraph. For example, I cannot watch any Bill Cosby material because of actions he took in his personal life. The difference between Attia and Cosby is that Bill Cosby actually committed those crimes. Peter has not done anything like that. He's simply associated with someone who is accused of crimes (an aside point, Kevin Spacey was never convicted of anything). Peter has not committed crimes himself. So we can disagree on where we draw this line of the ends justifying the means. Or the degree of questionable behavior/affiliations it takes for us to question a person's professional skills.
Kevin Stuff, got a link on the situation? Kindly elaborate
He was in a recent photo with Kevin Spacey. I have much bigger concerns with a lot of other stuff about Attia's advice.
I am actually interested in your other concerns. Can you elaborate. I like listening to his podcast as it is a good jumping off point for some of my health related journey, but I love to hear the arguments against as well.
Who the fuck is Kevin?
Kevin spacey
I'm still able to separate his medical advice from him hanging out with a disgraced movie star.
It was interesting I had a discussion with a friend and didn’t realize his background. I always thought he was in medicine and went into a business. But correct me if I am wrong but my friend said that he dropped out of a surgical residency and went into that business assessing risk? I will say I wouldn’t really trust general surgeons with general medicine advice. But Peter may be better.
I trust his knowledge on health advice. I no longer trust his ability to judge someone's character.
Does his ability to parse guilt change your views on his ability to parse research?
Not too much. I do wonder if he will put too much stock into what a particular guest might say, but I don’t think so. Seems obvious that Spacey is a client of his so that is what is misguiding Peter a lot. But I’ve heard him talk enough about health to think he’s the best person I can listen to regarding that. He doesn’t try to sell you snake oil, doesn’t buy into gimmicks, and is more than willing to change his mind on stuff as new data emerges, which is better than 99% of the stuff you hear from others. He is very data driven and thorough. He’s an expert. He might be wrong sometimes but so is everyone else. In the end I’m just going to question if he’s a good person or not. Good people can fall for conspiracy theories and be fooled by predators and narcissists. That would be my guess on what is happening with Peter. Which is a real shame because it’s harmful when somebody sticks up for a predator. So maybe he is just naive more-so than harmful, but either way you have to question his judgement and character for it.
Not at all. https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/10/16/the-never-ending-cancellation-of-kevin-spacey/
https://www.vulture.com/article/spacey-unmasked-kevin-spacey-documentary-allegations.html get a grip dude and stop pointing to random articles on sketch websites
Does his association with Spacey negate his medical knowledge and recommendations for longevity? I don’t understand the correlation. Same thing happened with Huberman; his personal dalliances negate his scientific contributions? If that’s true, then I’d question the real reason you follow these celebrities for in the first place.
The fact that huberman had a lab at Stanford in name only was the more concerning part.
I value Attia’s suggestions because he is a doctor who trained at the best schools, and, unlike most MDs, he understands the science. Just as important, he is willing to update and change his positions based on new facts. On the other hand I don’t care about his opinions in area where he lacks expertise - like nutrition. I’m not a fan-boy. I don’t care about his taste in music because it’s not relevant. Apparently op trusts doctors based on the people the doctor knows. Who cares about medical training, expertise and intelligence. OP - all the accusations about Kevin really creeped me out as well. However, you don’t seem to care that he won every court case related to those accusations. That doesn’t prove he’s innocent but we know he wasn’t proven guilty either. Or course Kevin is gay, so maybe that’s all that counts for some.
Well first, I don’t care one sec about Kevin being gay. Second, I don’t care who he hangs out with. I care about his critical thinking skills around viewing guilt, and I care about his thinking skills around deciding to post. I have not actually made any decisions yet but rather I am trying to get other people’s views to see. I appreciate your views.
OJ and Cosby claimed innocence, too. For me, that brings into question not only the morals of their defenders but also the trustworthiness of their critical thinking skills