Dr. Peter Attia

Probably depends a bit on family history, which really speaks to risk. Colon cancer is an easy one to talk about. So it used to be that traditional screening for low risk individuals was 50. I'm very grateful to see that that's been lowered to 45. So that means now people can get insurance to cover them five years earlier. And I think that matters a lot.

Probably depends a bit on family history, which really speaks to risk. Colon cancer is an easy one to talk about. So it used to be that traditional screening for low risk individuals was 50. I'm very grateful to see that that's been lowered to 45. So that means now people can get insurance to cover them five years earlier. And I think that matters a lot.

Probably depends a bit on family history, which really speaks to risk. Colon cancer is an easy one to talk about. So it used to be that traditional screening for low risk individuals was 50. I'm very grateful to see that that's been lowered to 45. So that means now people can get insurance to cover them five years earlier. And I think that matters a lot.

Personally, I would lower it to 40, although I understand maybe on an economic basis why it doesn't make sense. But as an individual thinking about yourself, look, I still think 3% to 4% of colon cancer deaths are in people younger than 40. That's a staggering statistic. People just don't think of young people getting colon cancer. And yet, you know, they do.

Personally, I would lower it to 40, although I understand maybe on an economic basis why it doesn't make sense. But as an individual thinking about yourself, look, I still think 3% to 4% of colon cancer deaths are in people younger than 40. That's a staggering statistic. People just don't think of young people getting colon cancer. And yet, you know, they do.

Personally, I would lower it to 40, although I understand maybe on an economic basis why it doesn't make sense. But as an individual thinking about yourself, look, I still think 3% to 4% of colon cancer deaths are in people younger than 40. That's a staggering statistic. People just don't think of young people getting colon cancer. And yet, you know, they do.

So, I would say somewhere between 40 and 45 is probably the right time for a person to get their first colonoscopy, unless they're high risk, in which case you want to be treated earlier than that. So, if a person has ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease or a family history of colon cancer, things of that nature, I would be doing it even sooner.

So, I would say somewhere between 40 and 45 is probably the right time for a person to get their first colonoscopy, unless they're high risk, in which case you want to be treated earlier than that. So, if a person has ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease or a family history of colon cancer, things of that nature, I would be doing it even sooner.

So, I would say somewhere between 40 and 45 is probably the right time for a person to get their first colonoscopy, unless they're high risk, in which case you want to be treated earlier than that. So, if a person has ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease or a family history of colon cancer, things of that nature, I would be doing it even sooner.

Well, unfortunately you can't, and to be clear, baseline, I said baseline risk. So you're never gonna take your coronary arteries back to what they looked like when you were 10 years old, right? So what we really aim to do is stabilize the progression of atherosclerosis. And so depending on what sort of screening modality is used to measure,

Well, unfortunately you can't, and to be clear, baseline, I said baseline risk. So you're never gonna take your coronary arteries back to what they looked like when you were 10 years old, right? So what we really aim to do is stabilize the progression of atherosclerosis. And so depending on what sort of screening modality is used to measure,

Well, unfortunately you can't, and to be clear, baseline, I said baseline risk. So you're never gonna take your coronary arteries back to what they looked like when you were 10 years old, right? So what we really aim to do is stabilize the progression of atherosclerosis. And so depending on what sort of screening modality is used to measure,

And the most common one that's used is something called the calcium score, but there's a more advanced test called a CT angiogram. So they're both CT scans, but the calcium score just runs over the body, doesn't put any contrast in, and is just looking to pick up the light of calcium. It's not a very granular test, but if you have any calcium in your coronary arteries, we know that's bad.

And the most common one that's used is something called the calcium score, but there's a more advanced test called a CT angiogram. So they're both CT scans, but the calcium score just runs over the body, doesn't put any contrast in, and is just looking to pick up the light of calcium. It's not a very granular test, but if you have any calcium in your coronary arteries, we know that's bad.

And the most common one that's used is something called the calcium score, but there's a more advanced test called a CT angiogram. So they're both CT scans, but the calcium score just runs over the body, doesn't put any contrast in, and is just looking to pick up the light of calcium. It's not a very granular test, but if you have any calcium in your coronary arteries, we know that's bad.

That's not a good test to measure progression because it's not a very accurate test and it can easily be over-interpreted. So if a person's calcium score is 100, if you had a calcium score of 100 at the age of 42, that's a four alarm fire. Even though 100 is not a very high number, that number could easily be 4,000. At the age of 42, it should be zero all day, every day.

That's not a good test to measure progression because it's not a very accurate test and it can easily be over-interpreted. So if a person's calcium score is 100, if you had a calcium score of 100 at the age of 42, that's a four alarm fire. Even though 100 is not a very high number, that number could easily be 4,000. At the age of 42, it should be zero all day, every day.

That's not a good test to measure progression because it's not a very accurate test and it can easily be over-interpreted. So if a person's calcium score is 100, if you had a calcium score of 100 at the age of 42, that's a four alarm fire. Even though 100 is not a very high number, that number could easily be 4,000. At the age of 42, it should be zero all day, every day.

But if it was 100 and then five years, and we started treating the heck out of you, and five years later it was 130, that would, in my mind, not constitute progression because of how crude the test is.

But if it was 100 and then five years, and we started treating the heck out of you, and five years later it was 130, that would, in my mind, not constitute progression because of how crude the test is.