Peter Attia

We actually recently did a podcast on that.

About twice a year, we do a podcast called, what is it called?

I think we call it Proven Promising...

fuzzy nonsense like we basically take a bunch of drugs and supplements and run them through our framework and put them into five categories so glp-1s came out in that assessment as promising and promising is a high bar for us like we're sticklers and where i landed on that steven was the data look pretty good at the moment but the definitive study still hasn't been done

I don't see any evidence that a person with normal cognition, normal risk factors, insulin sensitive and of normal weight would benefit from them.

So these are spoken about in very different circles.

The discussion that you and I are having about GLP-1s is the discussion that's happening with physicians and scientists.

And these are really interesting questions.

I don't pay that much attention to the podcast sphere, but in podcast land, we're really talking about biohacking

And those people are talking about everything from lion's mane to beeswax to all sorts of God knows what.

There's virtually no overlap in those discussions that I can see.

I've spent a lot of time looking at both of these things.

And from where I sit and have no bias because I couldn't care less, I'm just interested in what works.

I think that there's potentially a signal there on the GLP-1 side.

My intuition, though, is it is not a cognitive enhancer.

It is something that prevents decline in the susceptible individual.

We think of cognitive function broadly in terms of executive function, which would include decision-making, memory, which is both short and long-term, and then there are lots of subtypes of memory, visual, spatial memory, etc.,

and then processing speed.

Those are the three pillars of cognition and they can all be measured.

Unfortunately, we don't have great off the shelf ways to measure this.