Dr. Peter Attia

There are three other questions that I want to ask you going back to hormones post-menopause. I'm saving the three most contentious questions for last on this topic. Question one, someone's posing this question to you, not me. I buy your argument that hormones are safe, but I am now 56 years old. I finished menopause at 49. Isn't it too late to do anything about it?

There are three other questions that I want to ask you going back to hormones post-menopause. I'm saving the three most contentious questions for last on this topic. Question one, someone's posing this question to you, not me. I buy your argument that hormones are safe, but I am now 56 years old. I finished menopause at 49. Isn't it too late to do anything about it?

Or the window idea.

Or the window idea.

Throughout life.

Throughout life.

Okay. Now I'm going to ask another question that is the extension of that question, but I think your logic is going to hold the same, which is the hedging strategy, which says not only use as little as possible for as short a duration as possible, says you really need to stop this after 10 years.

Okay. Now I'm going to ask another question that is the extension of that question, but I think your logic is going to hold the same, which is the hedging strategy, which says not only use as little as possible for as short a duration as possible, says you really need to stop this after 10 years.

So even if you were lucky enough to catch a woman through perimenopause, you got her on hormones by the age of 49. Now that she's 69, you got to stop it, right?

So even if you were lucky enough to catch a woman through perimenopause, you got her on hormones by the age of 49. Now that she's 69, you got to stop it, right?

By the way, that was the argument put forth to me with one of the authors of the WHI, who is by far the most willing to concede that mistakes were made, which was, okay, yes, I will concede that the estradiol is doing amazing things for the woman's bones. But remember, they're going to go away when you stop the hormones. As though that was a necessary thing to do.

By the way, that was the argument put forth to me with one of the authors of the WHI, who is by far the most willing to concede that mistakes were made, which was, okay, yes, I will concede that the estradiol is doing amazing things for the woman's bones. But remember, they're going to go away when you stop the hormones. As though that was a necessary thing to do.

Yes, and it actually dovetails perfectly into my third critical situation, which is how do we manage hormones in women who are at risk of breast cancer from a familial standpoint, who have been diagnosed with DCIS, which is not cancer, but increases the risk of cancer. So that's kind of a subset of the first group.

Yes, and it actually dovetails perfectly into my third critical situation, which is how do we manage hormones in women who are at risk of breast cancer from a familial standpoint, who have been diagnosed with DCIS, which is not cancer, but increases the risk of cancer. So that's kind of a subset of the first group.

And then in women who actually have breast cancer or have a history of treated breast cancer. So I would imagine you see women that fit into all four of those buckets. How do you handle it?

And then in women who actually have breast cancer or have a history of treated breast cancer. So I would imagine you see women that fit into all four of those buckets. How do you handle it?

It's insanely helpful. And of course, it echoes exactly what Ted Schaefer said when we spoke about this after discussing the Traverse trial, which was, I think, to me, the most telling thing that Ted said was, look, if I have a man who's got a Gleason 3 plus 3, means he has prostate cancer and we are going to follow this.

It's insanely helpful. And of course, it echoes exactly what Ted Schaefer said when we spoke about this after discussing the Traverse trial, which was, I think, to me, the most telling thing that Ted said was, look, if I have a man who's got a Gleason 3 plus 3, means he has prostate cancer and we are going to follow this.

And if it becomes a three plus four, we're going to actually have to take this thing out. We'd put him on TRT if he needed it. And his argument was exactly your argument on the pregnancy side, which is the reason we would happily give him TRT is let's just assume he's a man replete with testosterone. Would we castrate him during that period of time of observation? Of course not.

And if it becomes a three plus four, we're going to actually have to take this thing out. We'd put him on TRT if he needed it. And his argument was exactly your argument on the pregnancy side, which is the reason we would happily give him TRT is let's just assume he's a man replete with testosterone. Would we castrate him during that period of time of observation? Of course not.