Peter AttiaMD · longevity physician, founder of Early Medical
Measure comprehensively and act early
What it rests onMedicine 3.0: intervene decades before disease, using apoB, Lp(a), fasting insulin and other markers to steer.
Source: peterattiamd.com ↗
Joe SchwarczPhD · chemist, director of the McGill Office for Science and Society
Do the basics and skip the panels
What it rests onTopol's super-agers work, where extended healthy life tracks exercise, diet, sleep and social connection rather than supplements or expensive specialised testing.
Source: mcgill.ca ↗
Martin PicardPhD · mitochondrial psychobiologist, Professor of Behavioral Medicine at Columbia
The measurements that would actually tell you something do not exist outside a laboratory yet, so use your own sensing and change one thing at a time
What it rests onHe builds measurement instruments for a living, including a mitochondrial health index and a brain-wide mitochondrial map, and none of them is available to a consumer. His argument is that a trial average hides the people who improved, the people who did not change and the people who got worse, so it cannot tell an individual what suits them. Until measurement catches up with individuality, he writes that your own ability to feel is the most sensitive instrument you have for telling whether what you do, what you eat and the content of your life is aligned with who you are.
Source: tseenergy.substack.com ↗
Three people answering three questions. Attia is describing a paying clinical practice whose patients are already highly engaged and want to act decades before anything shows up. Schwarcz is answering the general reader who is deciding whether an expensive panel is worth buying, and his answer is that it is not, without claiming the markers are meaningless.
Picard is a laboratory researcher talking about the state of the science itself: he is not saying testing is wasteful, he is saying the tests that would actually capture an individual's energy and health are still in his lab and not in a clinic, which is why he falls back on a person's own observation in the meantime. So Attia and Picard disagree far less about the value of measurement than about which measurements are ready.
All three put movement, food, sleep and connection at the foundation and none of them puts a supplement there. Attia's own framing is that most of the gain comes from those fundamentals before anything experimental. Schwarcz reaches the same fundamentals from the super-ager evidence.
Picard names sleep, physical activity, diet and social interaction as the things a person controls, and his one dietary suggestion comes with a funding relationship disclosed beside it. None of the three claims a test is a substitute for any of that.
For Attia: outcome evidence that acting on the extra markers changes hard endpoints beyond what the fundamentals already deliver. For Schwarcz: the same evidence, read the other way, would move him too, since his objection is about whether the panel earns its cost rather than about whether biology can be measured.
For Picard: a validated, affordable individual-level measure of energy metabolism or intrinsic health, which is the thing his own laboratory is trying to build, would remove most of his reason for leaning on subjective sensing.
You do, and your call is dated, kept, and yours to change. Follow the people you already trust and what they publish turns into a short daily practice.
Free to sign up and use. We do not ask for a card.