Although the WHI heavily influenced clinical practice recommendations, including the most recent ones from the USPSTF (2), it stirred debate. Some argued that the lack of cardiovascular benefits seen in the WHI could have been due to the selection of women who had experienced menopause many years previously and that beneficial effects would have been seen if hormone therapy had been started shortly after menopause (the “timing hypothesis”). Subset analyses of WHI lent support to this hypothesis. After 11 years of follow-up in the estrogen-only trial, women aged 50 to 59 years at enrollment had a reduced risk for coronary heart disease (HR, 0.59 [CI, 0.38 to 0.90]) and total myocardial infarction (HR, 0.54 [CI, 0.34 to 0.86]) with estrogen compared with placebo, in contrast to neutral or increased risks in older women (the P values for interaction by age were 0.05 and 0.007, respectively) (13). Interaction by time since menopause was also apparent, but less pronounced, in the estrogen plus progestin trial (14). Because of lower absolute risks for coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thrombosis, and other clinical events, the attributable risks from hormone therapy were lower in younger than older women. Regardless, the WHI could not definitively address the balance of benefits and risks of hormone therapy in newly menopausal women.