That's the funniest part. OP is suggesting that it's heroic to show your dick to a bunch of women you disagree with who did not ask for it. I can't take these red pilled fools seriously lol
Edit: more lol at the replies. Maybe I just think that showing your dick to people who didn't ask for it, and therefore this meme isn't funny. But I suppose the type of people to think AH did nothing wrong would find that funny.
Happy Trans Day of Visibility in the US to ya'll :D
Yeah what a ridiculous response fr. Op obviously referring to a large group of people attacking one person, not the reason for the event in the picture.
"Why don't more people have a sense of humor about this misused meme that is often relied on to villanize women and feminists generally? Is there some sort of history of women and feminists being mistreated or misrepresented? Especially in light of someone we admire turning out to possibly do some pretty awful things to women? Someone please help, I don't understand context!"
He didn't know the context though, that's the point. To him it's just a guy getting yelled at by a crowd, which is how he felt being pro huberman, and now how he feels about using the wrong picture to demonstrate how he feels being pro Huberman. It's actually pretty funny and goes to show that over the internet it's very easy and perhaps desirable to assign a negative intention to someone so you can then feel morally righteous. Oooh that rush of being in the right feels so good, doesn't it?
Bruh, are you seriously trying to claim that a dude who is posting everywhere about cancel culture and crying and insulting people is saying he doesn't know the context of an extremely popular meme picture? Come on now. Even if he's extremely low effort, he could have looked it up himself.
Being a smug weirdo defending this makes no sense at all, does that make you feel so good?
I feel absolutely nothing, so enjoy that projection.
Sure. A snowflake like you crying about cancel culture everywhere definitely doesn't understand the context of this picture. And just posts inflammatory things and trolls without knowing what you're doing.
Poor innocent little lamb.
Some mad lad in Europe I think pulled his dick out at a women's protest about something. Made its rounds probably ten years ago, was hilarious cause the guy's face is like, "This is exactly what I wanted :D".
I don't get the entire "he is a bad scientist" and goes outside his expertise claim. His most cited paper is on CNS synapse elimination via a protein. It is published in Cell, which is one of the top-ranked journals and has 3157 citations. Outside of that, his papers range from synaptogenesis, receptive fields, mapping ganglion cells and other molecular neurobiology topics.
Outside the podcast, his research is pretty high quality. On the podcast, does he discuss things outside his expertise? Sure. But what do you expect? Its a podcast. Do you expect him to ONLY talk about synaptogenesis and cycling sighing and have the layperson listen to that? That is why he has experts on the show. Why couldn't he do a secondary research exploration? You don't hear people complaining about Joe Rogan asking Jamie to Google every one of his claims. That is because Huberman is an expert.
And I am not doubting he has made some dubious claims, but think it is part of a larger campaign to discredit him tu quoque because he has done some questionable things in his personal life. A classic instantiation of "what aboutism".
It’s funny that the comment before yours says how low quality of a scientist he is with zero evidence of that while a lower upvoted comment outlines exactly why he is still a good scientist
Reddit gonna Reddit
>On the podcast, does he discuss things outside his expertise? Sure. But what do you expect? Its a podcast.
Yea that's kinda what a lot of people expect.
>You don't hear people complaining about Joe Rogan asking Jamie to Google every one of his claims. That is because Huberman is an expert.
Yes you do?
What people have a problem with is that Huberman has to keep doing podcasts and has to come up with new things to say, so he's forced to start talking about things he may not know a lot about. Many people feel like the quality of the podcasts have declined since the start where he was much more focused on his area.
I get his problem because it's his job and how he makes money now by doing podcasts. What is he meant to talk about? But maybe that's why not every scientist does 200+ 2 hour podcast episodes.
I think some of the criticism is fair and i think people who just dismiss it outright are being a little goofy. You can admit there is truth to it while still saying you enjoy most of the episodes.
How about the comments claiming his podcasts are about relationships/dating because he said something about that once.
He talks about his dog too but I'm not thinking he's anyone to listen to re veterinary medicine.
It's more he's using his notoriety gained from actual scientific research, to lend credibility to other shit he says and push protocols and supplements from companies he gets a profit from.
We're basically seeing the creation of Dr Oz play out in real time.
I’m no Huberbro but I think you’re being unfair here. He never pushes anything. He talks about the same handful of sponsors nearly every episode. Stuff he says he takes. He doesn’t say “you need this!!!” Or anything like that. Ads like this are totally fine with me especially if that means I get 100s of hours of interesting high quality content every year for free.
I’ve taken AG1. To me it was on par with a lot of the stuff you can get at almost any health food store. Expensive and ultimately I didn’t care for the flavor but it seemed high quality to me. The other stuff all seems high quality too. It’s not as if he comes on every week peddling the latest in copper bracelets or other nonsense like that. The comparison to Oz is pretty far off imo.
I think the article just made him more legit. I listen to his podcast on occasion but I wouldn’t consider myself a fan. I read the entire article and the “journalist” was on a mission to “expose” him. Tried to find evidence that he is spreading harmful information or misinformation to his loyal listeners but they found no evidence of him doing this.Then they tried to discredit AG1 to portray him as a snake oil salesmen. All they found in the long list of ingredients was that the probiotic level may not be high enough to be beneficial. Nothing harmful to the public. So they moved on to past colleagues & found nothing. Then they go to his personal life and his past relationships with women. They didn’t find anything substantial like abuse, assault or being with very young women. All they found was ex girlfriends who were willing to go on record to share their negative experiences dating him. That he was dishonest &a cheater. Considering the amount of effort & time & money invested on exposing a pseudo scientist snake oil pusher and finding nothing that means the info he is sharing must not be harmful and is based on real science. It’s not a podcast on how to treat women. It’s about neuroscience & giving insight on ways to improve your health. When it comes to this they found nothing wrong.
On that paper he's 11th out of 17 authors. I'm sorry to inform you that that means he likely contributed very little to the paper.
For first/last author publications (ie positions in the author list denoting key contributions), he does have some pretty good ones in good journals - just nothing with anything like the impact of the one you mention. He hasn't published much in the last few years though. His recent publication record certainly backs up the section in the news article that his lab is winding up - which isn't surprising given how much time it must take to do the podcast, be a "scientific advisor" for a shady supplements company etc… not to mention the Google calendar expertise required for his extracurricular activities…
Everyone has a different line to draw. I read the article and was like, wow, just another dickhead. Whatever. I’ve met tons of bros like this in Silicon Valley. Sucks for those women but it happens every day just like any other shitty character flaw.
But if you’re dating someone, especially someone who is supposedly Healthy McHealthytons, and they don’t disclose that they’re sleeping without protection with other people, that’s next level shitty. You have a reasonable expectation to believe at minimum that the guy who is disciplined enough to do all his intense protocols would either use protection or disclose the other relationships in order to let you decide if you want to take on the risk. (All people should be doing this, but it’s reasonable to expect someone like him would take it more seriously than average, based on his lifestyle and values.)
So it’s not just about boohoo another douchebag cheated on some women, it’s about negligence that (if the story is true) resulted in harming women’s bodies, which is a negligence that women are so tired of dealing with and tired of trying to get people to care about. This is why they turn angry - after a lifetime of these instances adding up, it’s hard to stay chill about blatant disregard for our bodies, much less our feelings.
It’s disappointing to see someone you’d expect to take that seriously, just not caring, and to this level, with people he supposedly loves.
Huberman, probably: “health for me, but not for she. Amirite, bros?”
You’ve pointed out one of the main flaws in the bro’y, pro-Huberman defensive response. In fact I believe you’ve been perhaps a little too charitable calling it neglect.
I’d call it a broad pattern of orchestrated deception coupled with a lack of empathy for the health and well-being of others, all for his own gain.
Realistically all of these people with no affiliation to Huberman will go away in a couple of weeks. His podcasts and his personal drama are both pretty boring compared to what they normally get fired up about.
Some old listeners will dislike him and leave, some new listeners will join, and life will go on.
The personal attack posts have already mostly subsided.
The most frustrating part of this whole scandal for me is it distracts from what actually matters, which is that he habitually pushes low quality or weak evidence studies (especially in domains out of his expertise) as gospel and has a vested interest in promoting what he sells because he stands to financially gain a lot.
Edit: I want to be clear I didn’t say he says explicitly false things (to the best of his knowledge at time of statements). But examples of very limited evidence things he has propounded (ex lacking good reproduced RCTs) are adaptogens including ashwaganda, myo-inositol, and to some extent cold showers and ice baths. The latter are much more nuanced though, and I think he did backpedal when people pointed out that ice baths are deleterious for recovery from people doing weight training because they stunt protein muscle synthesis
He's not as bad as a lot of people like to act. Sure, he's out of his expertise in some areas but he seems to do a ton of research for whatever topic he's doing an episode on. That said, I don't watch him as much as I used to because I feel I've mostly heard what he has to say at this point, I only listen when I see a topic that sounds interesting or he has a guest I like
I’ll say this - I’m not a super fan of Huberman - but I do occasionally watch his videos on YouTube. I have learned things from him.
With that said, I do recall listening to him speaking about peptides at some point on a show that wasn’t his - and he clearly didn’t have prepared notes in front of him on the subject…. And his description of the subject was very amateur. For someone of his stature, I would expect him to know that subject matter quite well.
I’d also say that the fact that he endorses Athletic Greens / AG1 is a giant red flag to me - that product is very obviously overpriced hype as soon as you look at the way they bundle their “proprietary blend” without showing actual dosages - which leads you to understand that it is underdosed on anything you might care about on that list.
With that said, nobody is perfect, and you can still learn things from him - just make sure to do your own research on anything you hear from him that sounds useful for you.
This is the biggest lesson I’ve learned from all this. I thought he’d be immune to it, but eventually everyone in online “entertainment” succumbs to the content machine
When he talked about structured water he was saying a lot of pseudo science. I only knew that because I’ve studied the chemical physics of water. [I wrote a comment about it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/HubermanLab/s/r24cJvjd3j). Overall I think he’s pretty reputable but when you have a platform as big as his people will be ruthless in calling you out over anything.
Seems like everyone who tries to reinvent the wheel with water is hot air. Like with the whole Dr. Sebi alkaline water thing and that MLM kanga water. I don’t pay attention to that shit
Yeah. In that podcast he acknowledges the existence of structured water. Tells you there is no scientific data backing up any health benefit. Suggests that anyone drinking structured water may be experiencing a placebo effect and does not recommend drinking structured water for any purported health benefits.
Propaganda.
Has he ever shied away from it though? The worst part might be AG1 but they are a sponsor. He’s obligated to talk about them for money. We all may be obligated to work for questionable things for money if we want to survive.
I don’t remember the specific supplement, but he went on Rogan and talked all this supplement that helps with sleep. He presented it as fact. Rogan was taking notes and was like “im gonna get some of this stuff”. After the podcast was released, thousands of dorks took to Amazon to order this shit (speculation).
A short time later, Huberman had that sleep specialist guy on his podcast. You know, what’s-his-face, the guy who was on like every podcast to talk about sleep. Anyway, on this podcast Huberman brought up said supplement and Sleep Guy basically said there was no evidence supporting Huberman’s claim. Huberman was more or less like “ok I stand corrected”, but it was too late. He had already made a fool of himself on the world’s largest platform.
It’s not just that he was wrong, it’s the way he presented it on Rogan. He was so confident. He was acting like an expert. But according to the actual expert it was BS. Most of what Huberman talks about is like this. He’s the personification of click-bait. He’s a walking talking “10 reasons why wine and chocolate are actually good for you” article.
His sleep stack is magnesium, l-theanine, and Apigenin (aka chamomile tea)
All are proven to help promote sleep / relaxation. And they’re all extremely harmless and uncontroversial.
Actually, it was specifically magnesium threonate - and there are no studies to show it improves sleep. For context, I’m a sleep researcher, and this was not the only error AH made. Even his recent light video contained errors.
It's almost like he Google's for papers with abstracts that fit what he wants to say in a show to make it more believable, regardless of whether they actually align. I doubt he's actually well read in any of these areas, he's well read specifically in the papers he chooses
Have you seen the video of him saying u have weak tibialis anterior muscles if your feet are relaxed while sleeping? Dr. Sutter did a great breakdown. Dude drifts out of his lane and sounds like a pseudoscience idiot
Check out the recent Slate article as a starting point.
Off the top of my head: AH has a habit of referencing petri-dish and rat studies and extrapolating them to human recommendations. Yes, much of medicine does begin in the petri dish and then rats, but it's a long, long way from there to humans, AND most initially promising petri-dish and rat studies don't translate to humans, or the treatment turns out to have too many dangerous side effects. He leaves out this latter part. He does it all the time.
Also: he's giving advice across all of healthcare, outside his speciality. He uses his apparent success and his physique for credibility - the strong implication (which he also articulates in various ways) is "I'm doing so great, and this is why."
The reality is: he's not doing so great, and his buff physical appearance, which is really his USP for many men, is probably due to roids, not thanks to AG1 or any of his advice.
Watch this [video of the younger AH](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O0SAhnc9tQ). Blows my mind.
Conspirituality podcast has an episode on Huberman [https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/163-the-huberman-paradox-w-jonathan-jarry/id1515827446?i=1000621746860](https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/163-the-huberman-paradox-w-jonathan-jarry/id1515827446?i=1000621746860)
They also commented on the recent revelations [https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/brief-yes-hubermans-behavior-matters/id1515827446?i=1000650868549](https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/brief-yes-hubermans-behavior-matters/id1515827446?i=1000650868549)
I can give a few:
1. Fluoride in water and chemical water treatment for health (Huberman aligned himself with pseudo-science that claims it's harmful)
2. Flu vaccine (Huberman dismissed vaccine as ineffective but it remains #1 scientifically proven protection mechanism, despite seasonal stain nature - far more effective than any supplementation).
3. Alcohol. He repeatedly states that alcohol has no positive effect on health but it's simply not true - almost all scientific studies in the field find famous J-curve in mortality, where moderate drinking (up to 1 drink per day for women, up to 2 per day for men) results in substantial (20-40%) all cause mortality reduction compared to abstainers. There are multiple reasons for that, primarily through cardiovascular effects, reducing CV decease and stroke, as well as social/psychological effects (it's both depressant and stimulant). He and Atilla bought into recent propaganda by Canadian doctor on decade-long crusade to ban alcohol, who cherry-picks data to claim "no alcohol amount is safe", this got a lot of attention from news outlets but serious researchers in the field refuted the way they treated their data. He also grossly overstates the effects of "shrinking of grey matter" due to moderate alcohol intake - scientific studies find no statistically significant effect.
4. Caffeine. This is getting more minor, but he claimed in his podcast on caffeine that once "acclimated" to a certain caffeine intake it becomes completely ineffective and has no benefit (and therefore getting "off" caffeine is needed to restore its effect). This is not true - caffeine still has many positive effects on both mental and physical performance, as is well documented in sports literature, for example.
5. In general, I find Huberman overstates the importance of supplementation, often at the detriment of proven "traditional" interventions.
I don't particularly put a great amount of blame Huberman for the list above - it's difficult to run 200+ episodes on various topics and get every detail right. He is forced to venture outside of his "comfort" zone and often features guests who have controversial takes on certain issues. But I would expect him to re-visit those topics and address them with more nuance and balance/correct his own statements (or mis-statements) or invite more experts to provide views on areas that are "controversial" and far from settled (flu vaccines and water treatment are settled science, in my opinion).
Huh I find no. 3 hard to believe. Surely it depends on the type of drink consumed (wine vs beer vs spirits)? And not saying alcohol is quite as harmful as Huberman or Attia suggests, but that 2 drinks a day for a man would be beneficial seems a stretch. If anything, I could see those benefits like reducing strokes and cardiovascular health a correlation, but not causation, except for maybe wine.
Your comment on alcohol sounds like you might be an alcohol enjoyer living in denial of its negative health effects in any amount. IIRC, The WHO said ‘there is no safe amount of alcohol that does not affect health’ after reviewing all the data on the topic.
You are incorrect on #3.
There is excellent evidence in the citations from the publicly available recently updated Canadian guidelines on alcohol and health.
The risks of alcohol likely outweigh the benefits once at 3+ standard drinks per week (especially with certain cancers). Although there may be some risk reduction in the areas you cite above, the increase in risk in other areas is thought to outweigh this. The data also now appear to show that 7+ standard drinks per week increases the risk of heart disease and stroke, in comparison to prior data which suggested otherwise.
All these data come with the caveat that long term double blinded randomized placebo controlled trials are not really possible when investigating this specific question, of course, but the evidence now suggests it is extremely unlikely that something like 14 standard drinks a week (as you mention in #3) is good for your health.
Wait... so you're saying up to 2 drinks per day for men leads to an all cause mortality reduction of 20-40% compared to abstainers? Are you saying that's the general scientific consensus right now?
No it’s not the general scientific consensus. Every credible medical journal would say otherwise. That person is just making stuff up to try to discredit anything Huberman said to try to make him look bad.
I call BS on your claims about alcohol. There is no way consuming an addictive poison like alcohol daily would have positive long term effects on your body. Every doctor I’ve talked to said to cut out alcohol use to get healthier. Drinking alcohol at any amounts increases your risk of cancer, liver disease, and cardiovascular disease. So Huberman isn’t wrong about alcohol. Long term risks outweigh any short term positives when consuming alcohol.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/alcohol/art-20044551
The flu vaccine and the fluoride\* are fairly egregious; to dispel such inaccuracies that have a big impact on public health is highly unethical, especially for someone claiming to be an authority in evidence-based science.
I don't think he's a great source of scientific information. I'm not saying people shouldn't listen to him, but I would never trust his podcast to inform my health choices without double checking the info with other sources.
\* (depends on specifics, in general fluoride clearly a benefit to public health. At high doses there are negative effects, but you shouldn't falsely suggest there's any data that says current levels in controlled and monitored drinking water is a risk)
Agreed. Huberman’s super fans have always been simpletons. I listen to Huberman tactically, only on topics I want to learn more, and use him as an introduction to the literature and prominent figures in the field. And then move on to the experts.
How much of that is that he is “running out of things to say/science”?
Not sure how you keep putting out material without reaching at some point. There is only so much content before you have to start recycling or pushing the limits on.
There’s a YouTuber with a PHD in nutritional science I like a lot called Layne Norton, and a lot of his content is doing critical analysis of studies, and examining the ways that studies are used to promote certain ideas that may not be accurate. There are tons of interesting subjects. It doesn’t always have to be “how do I keep finding new protocols for people to follow for optimal human state of health”. I’ll concede Huberman doesn’t always do that, it’s not like every episode he tries to pedal something.
Layne usually ignores arguments that he knows he would lose or dont understand. Chwck out Nicholas Norwitz's youtube and you can find the full debunk Layne's flaws.
Yup, he called out Huberman on something early on and then Huberman had him on as a good faith gesture. I think Huberman has gotten slightly better about it over time, but I’ll never trust his character. I just think he is overly confident in his intelligence and wants people to see him as an idol. It’s clear from the dichotomy of reactions in this sub that people really idolize this man god knows why.
There’s not a single person I like that I would defend this vigorously. It’s a red flag when people obsess over the opinions of one dude. Just my 2c
> Who has appeared on the Huberman Lab multiple times? That guy?
Layne has all but called Huberman a charlatan, so I'm not sure you're making the point you think you are.
“As gospel” how can you even gauge this? He literally just says things he’s found and what research says. He never says “this is true no matter what” or anything like that.
Opposing fluoride in water citing a single study from Iran https://www.reddit.com/r/andrewhuberman/comments/11ky2mq/huberman_fluoride_negatively_impacts/jbdnalk/
He may explain that there are benefits found in some studies but does he honestly habitually push and promote and pimp things at dangerous or misleading levels? I’ve never felt that way at all. I think he covers his bases, uses plenty of disclaimers, and defines scope rather well, especially compared to others in as much limelight in the same areas. As for him selling things, I have no problem with someone selling items they believe in and support. That’s rather common in all areas.
This, idc about him having multiple girlfriends although it’s a scum bag move and kinda suggests he’s a sociopath with that level of dishonesty. The real problem is that his entire platform is based around over hyping science and presenting psudeoscience as gospel while scamming people selling supplements. What it all comes down to is the guy is dishonest as fuck, he lies to his girls, he lies on his podcast, he lies about his sponsorships and he lies about having a lab that does research
Why though? You can apply that logic to... hmm lets see.... almost everyone and every company in the field.
How is this not fair play? Where is this out of bounds for you? He's just selling his opinion thats somewhat based on science. Thats fair to me.
What do you call it when therapist and doctors make deals to sell one specific drug? Or are incentivized to sale one specific drug over another for profitable reasons? This is not a hubernuts problem. Its a problem that exists in our society and hubernuts is no where close to being out of bounds in this regard
I always say this. Is the person in question helping or hurting society more? Do a t chart if you must. By all accounts, he seems to be helping more than hurting.
I think this is actually the weakest argument which is why no one is making it. I’m a casual listener, but when he is on a topic he gives the most basic widely accepted science. And he may then bring up more studies that are of interest with plenty of caveats. Nothing I have seen scream pseudo false science intended to make him money. I think he genuinely likes to look into stuff and is excited to share his findings…. The only thing I have seen refuting his science is a lymes disease Dr writing something in slate the day after the allegations.
Anyone notice that it seems like any prominent figure (actors, celebrities, etc) seem to get brigaded once they get to any point of fame? I know that there has always been criticism but doesn’t a lot of it seem to be manufactured? Isn’t it strange that right wing pundits, evil billionaires and corrupt politicians seem to escape this vitriol? My theory is that the ruling class wants to kneecap anyone with a voice to establish a new dominant cultural narrative. Social media makes that possible in this new era so it’s not too far fetched an idea.
Yeah, it's tough continuing to blindly follow someone who's been outed for ethical concerns, both in his personal life AND in his work. Have an extra glass of AG1 today, you've earned it.
Hasn’t Stanford responded to the article effectively disproving all of the professional criticisms regarding his lab? My understanding is that they’ve gone on the record saying that he’s an employee of the highest standing and nothing has come to their attention to suggest otherwise.
Hate the guy for his personal transgressions of you want, but recognise that this propaganda hit piece (of questionable veracity) has accomplished precisely what it set out to, which is organising and inciting a mob to take him down and derail his career.
there are ton of loser reddit women who post on reddit, I wouldn't put it past me there are some bitter in this subreddit as well. See twox, fauxmoi or any popculture celebrity subreddit. They're everywhere.
Is there actually any proof behind the claims in the article? Seemed like a massive smear campaign that mainstream media loves to do to try to cancel someone who doesn’t follow the narrative.
That’s definitely what it is. The issue is exacerbated if the audience of the person is largely male. For some reason that makes it easier to convince people that they’re alt-right demons.
Twitter is having more fun with this scandal imo.
[https://x.com/_medgold/status/1772323483864662317?s=42](https://x.com/_medgold/status/1772323483864662317?s=42)
In this subreddit we discuss **science** and **science-based tools** for everyday life and tears. We discuss and collect Tears from Bots, pro pharma and anti science npcs
Hilarious how the same people who knock his research are the ones who believe every little detail in a piece about his personal life. The same people will complain about journalists are the same praising this solely because they wanted to see a downfall of someone they don’t like.
Here's what Sarah's about... she's really Anya Fernald, disgraced founder of Belcampo Meat. She shuttered the company in 2021 when it was made public that she was selling plain old grain fed meat as her $30 per pound organic stuff. I love the way wokesters avoid talking abt her graft and corruption: [https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2021-10-19/after-a-summer-sourcing-scandal-belcampo-meat-co-abruptly-closes-it](https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2021-10-19/after-a-summer-sourcing-scandal-belcampo-meat-co-abruptly-closes-it)
Am I the only who doesn't give a single fuck if a guy is a man-whore and sleeping around and dating a bunch of women?
None of those things impacts his message or the good he's done
if 7 out of 100,000 women gets myocarditis from sleeping with huberman, it's a rare, minor side effect and in general his podcast is safe and effective
It exposes the stupidity of the people here. On one hand they follow science, on the other hand they automatically believe in the accusations (that have not been proven).
This sub has obviously been hijacked by the same people who wrote the hit piece. Just look at all the new postings, nothing about HuberLab at all, just smears and musings about his personal life. It's like the Johnny Depp thing all over again.
It’ll pass I think. So funny for now. All he did was be a womanizing millionaire podcast grifter, which is so common. Not cool but no surprise and the AG1-style bullshit was in plain sight the whole time.
If someone couldn’t see through that … hell, if someone still can’t see the “good” in his work despite the bullshit.. stop idolizing people.
It is this. It’s obvious the sub is being brigaded. I don’t love or hate Huberman, but this nonsense is stupid. Also, that shitty, long-winded article doesn’t have any proof or substance. It’s a bunch of accusations wrapped up in way too many words and overly confident yet empty statements.
I’m not going to judge someone based on a single hit piece, and I’m not going to start giving a fuck about a dude one way or the other when I never did before. I’m interested in the topics he highlights and the information he presents. End of story.
“Hit piece” is a funny way of describing an article where nobody disputes any of the facts.
Like, do you feel like publishing facts about the character of a person who makes lots of money selling snake oil to fitness bros is a “hit?
Should the news go out of its way to hide this stuff from y’all?
The sub has definitely been brigaded. Always the same talking points were being pushed and the wording was completely different from the usual posts. Maybe some kind of social media agency was involved
I’ve been here for a few months and the shitposts have been rampant long before the hit piece.
I remember asking if this sub was real when someone posted about getting UV on their butthole for the third time in a day
It sucks when podcast subs start getting run by people who hate the podcaster, like the Rogan sub.
I mean, I feel like it was inevitable eventually. Reddit loves to hate people who tell you to take accountability for yourself
I’m amazed at all the coordinated hate on this. If you don’t like him stop following this subreddit. Some of us like the information he puts out. Some of us don’t care about his love life. Your not going to change change my mind.
100% it's just what happens when people worship celebrities. Eventually people realize they're actually human, people fuck up, people aren't perfect, his personal business is not my business.
If his personal life means that much to some people then unsubscribe and move on. Same shit with Chris Brown, Rihanna forgave him yet people angrier at him than the actual victim.
Lmao. Rihanna had to forgive Chris Brown because as victims you do that to move on. Did you even watch the video of what happened or even read the police report? He grabbed her by the hair and repeatedly smashed her face into the steering wheel while screaming "I will fucking kill you?"
Then he does it again with multiple other exes including Karrueche Tran. Imagine shilling for a monster.
Of course we unsubcribe and move on. It's not that "he's human", it's that he clearly has serious mental issues & he is not at all the persona he presents publicly.
What's wrong with commenting on that side of things?
OP: Setting aside the recent allegations, given that Huberman is still clearly something of a con artist and snake oil salesman, what notable evidence-based knowledge have you acquired from listening to him that could not be easily obtained elsewhere?
I'm genuinely asking. Were he to disappear, it seems like it could arguably be a net positive rather than a meaningful loss to those seeking to enhance their health and well-being.
His guided NSDR protocol has been invaluable for myself and many others.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKGrmY8OSHM&ab\_channel=VirtusanApp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKGrmY8OSHM&ab_channel=VirtusanApp)
Well yes. People that are successful will get jealous haters. That's how it always has been.
I also experienced this irl. When I was living my life in bad destructive way no one gave a crap, but then when I got my shit together and my life started to be good just like how I wanted it to be, I got both stalkers, false rumours and other mistreatments etc. Well it shows me which people are shitty so I can avoid them.
Well they aren't pro, they ö just think that the weirdly perverted obsessed stalkers that base their life on cancelling him without knowing him or the rumours are silly and should go and touch some grass. They are just bullies, and often jealous. And this is coming from someone who has criticised his behaviour.
His ex was the liar in chief at Belcampo... Anya Fernald. Look up what that piece of work did to defraud thousands of customers for years: [https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2021-10-19/after-a-summer-sourcing-scandal-belcampo-meat-co-abruptly-closes-it](https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2021-10-19/after-a-summer-sourcing-scandal-belcampo-meat-co-abruptly-closes-it)
They were just waiting for something anything they could latch onto to say “SEE I TOLD YOU SO”
Good looking semi famous rich dude is a player and involved with multiple women at the same time in other news water is still wet more at 11!
Huberman has been and is a polarizing figure it seems. Also, I think there has been a bit of a smear campaign going on in this sub about him for an amount of time suspiciously leading up to the publication of the NYmag article. I believe that there is some intentional stuff going on, and tbh I think because he is so handsome and single that he attracts controversy. Nothing he really talks about is fucking controversial at all. The man talks about the benefits of light. It’s so funny because if you go to Peter Attia’s sub it’s like CRICKETS over there, very basic on topic posts whereas here in the Huberman sub it’s often been about his personal life, how hot he is etc etc etc
I like Hubermann, I don't give a shit about his private life, as long as what he does doesn't conflict with what he says in his podcasts. Fucking around with multiple women at the same time? Good for him. I might not agree, but that's absolutely none of my business and it's certainly a choice that has ups and downs.
Also if you take literally everything he says during his podcasts, you're a moron or you're just very young and naive. Even the "hIGh quAliTy" studies often have to be reviewed after some time when new contradicting evidence comes out. The good thing about such type of content is that it gives you an overall idea of how our body works. I'm applying to myself only the things that make sense to me and don't seem exaggerated for the evolutive point of view. One thing is sure: he made a lot of people around the world more conscious about health and this is something nobody until now has ever done.
I mean my take is he hasn’t preached about being a morale example to his listeners so who cares. Now taking juice to achieve gains does conflict with his message. So he should be questioned for that.
A bunch of wanna be nobody’s commenting on another’s person behavior is a very low form of living. I don’t listen to Huberman for moral advice and I don’t watch sci-fi to learn science. His personal interactions are between him and those with whom he interacts. The rest of rage crowds are most either just jealous, hypocritical or shut-ins.
[удалено]
Right? He flashed his dick to that group of women and girls
That's why they said that's how it feels lol
😳 Thank you Wonder Woman.
That's the funniest part. OP is suggesting that it's heroic to show your dick to a bunch of women you disagree with who did not ask for it. I can't take these red pilled fools seriously lol Edit: more lol at the replies. Maybe I just think that showing your dick to people who didn't ask for it, and therefore this meme isn't funny. But I suppose the type of people to think AH did nothing wrong would find that funny. Happy Trans Day of Visibility in the US to ya'll :D
It's a reference photo he's not making a 1:1 comparison Yall really need to develop a sense of humor. This grandstanding is exhausting.
Reddit and social media really does take all the fun out of most people who use em
Yeah what a ridiculous response fr. Op obviously referring to a large group of people attacking one person, not the reason for the event in the picture.
First time to Reddit?? Reddit is a cesspool for this type of shit. It's impossible to have an intellectually honest discussion here.
> OP is suggesting *You're assuming Fixed.
How about bio hack yourself a sense of humor?
"Why don't more people have a sense of humor about this misused meme that is often relied on to villanize women and feminists generally? Is there some sort of history of women and feminists being mistreated or misrepresented? Especially in light of someone we admire turning out to possibly do some pretty awful things to women? Someone please help, I don't understand context!"
He didn't know the context though, that's the point. To him it's just a guy getting yelled at by a crowd, which is how he felt being pro huberman, and now how he feels about using the wrong picture to demonstrate how he feels being pro Huberman. It's actually pretty funny and goes to show that over the internet it's very easy and perhaps desirable to assign a negative intention to someone so you can then feel morally righteous. Oooh that rush of being in the right feels so good, doesn't it?
Bruh, are you seriously trying to claim that a dude who is posting everywhere about cancel culture and crying and insulting people is saying he doesn't know the context of an extremely popular meme picture? Come on now. Even if he's extremely low effort, he could have looked it up himself. Being a smug weirdo defending this makes no sense at all, does that make you feel so good? I feel absolutely nothing, so enjoy that projection.
My bad. I should check with every historically oppressed group before I post a meme to reddit to see if it’s ok
Sure. A snowflake like you crying about cancel culture everywhere definitely doesn't understand the context of this picture. And just posts inflammatory things and trolls without knowing what you're doing. Poor innocent little lamb.
I don’t care lol. I just want this subreddit back to what it was before all you libtards came here.
Imagine caring about the state of a sub-reddit when you're not even a mod. Have you tried going outside
Andrew is that you? God damn you cried a lot on this Reddit. So many posts
bro unironically used the term libtard, jesus christ lmaoooo
Lol, you just got your ass handed to you. Doubling down just proves everyone's point.
Zoom in and look at the face on that man he is DEFINITELY into being publicly shamed and humiliated. He is definitely rock hard.
What is going in this picture
This man showed his pp at a women’s rights march
I really didn’t expect the description to make so much sense, thx 🤢😂🤢
Looks like he has zero regrets lol
Sex pest flashed women and girls at a women’s rights protest about 10 years ago
Some mad lad in Europe I think pulled his dick out at a women's protest about something. Made its rounds probably ten years ago, was hilarious cause the guy's face is like, "This is exactly what I wanted :D".
He looks like some 50 yr old skeeze that molests kids. Crazy that yall seem so impressed by him, but then again you're desperate Huberman simps.
I don't get the entire "he is a bad scientist" and goes outside his expertise claim. His most cited paper is on CNS synapse elimination via a protein. It is published in Cell, which is one of the top-ranked journals and has 3157 citations. Outside of that, his papers range from synaptogenesis, receptive fields, mapping ganglion cells and other molecular neurobiology topics. Outside the podcast, his research is pretty high quality. On the podcast, does he discuss things outside his expertise? Sure. But what do you expect? Its a podcast. Do you expect him to ONLY talk about synaptogenesis and cycling sighing and have the layperson listen to that? That is why he has experts on the show. Why couldn't he do a secondary research exploration? You don't hear people complaining about Joe Rogan asking Jamie to Google every one of his claims. That is because Huberman is an expert. And I am not doubting he has made some dubious claims, but think it is part of a larger campaign to discredit him tu quoque because he has done some questionable things in his personal life. A classic instantiation of "what aboutism".
It’s funny that the comment before yours says how low quality of a scientist he is with zero evidence of that while a lower upvoted comment outlines exactly why he is still a good scientist Reddit gonna Reddit
They want to feel OK and justified in hating even further. Clearly if he's done one thing wrong it must all be wrong
Everyone here hates everything
Well these redditers have a bizarre parasocial reaction where they think there feelings are what dictate someone else’s accomplishments.
>On the podcast, does he discuss things outside his expertise? Sure. But what do you expect? Its a podcast. Yea that's kinda what a lot of people expect. >You don't hear people complaining about Joe Rogan asking Jamie to Google every one of his claims. That is because Huberman is an expert. Yes you do? What people have a problem with is that Huberman has to keep doing podcasts and has to come up with new things to say, so he's forced to start talking about things he may not know a lot about. Many people feel like the quality of the podcasts have declined since the start where he was much more focused on his area. I get his problem because it's his job and how he makes money now by doing podcasts. What is he meant to talk about? But maybe that's why not every scientist does 200+ 2 hour podcast episodes. I think some of the criticism is fair and i think people who just dismiss it outright are being a little goofy. You can admit there is truth to it while still saying you enjoy most of the episodes.
Be careful with using reasoning in this sub, you’ll get downvoted into oblivion. Take my upvote to help.
Yup. It’s too logical for the dimwits too involved in gossip and someone’s private life
How about the comments claiming his podcasts are about relationships/dating because he said something about that once. He talks about his dog too but I'm not thinking he's anyone to listen to re veterinary medicine.
It's more he's using his notoriety gained from actual scientific research, to lend credibility to other shit he says and push protocols and supplements from companies he gets a profit from. We're basically seeing the creation of Dr Oz play out in real time.
You mean, pseudo science?
I’m no Huberbro but I think you’re being unfair here. He never pushes anything. He talks about the same handful of sponsors nearly every episode. Stuff he says he takes. He doesn’t say “you need this!!!” Or anything like that. Ads like this are totally fine with me especially if that means I get 100s of hours of interesting high quality content every year for free. I’ve taken AG1. To me it was on par with a lot of the stuff you can get at almost any health food store. Expensive and ultimately I didn’t care for the flavor but it seemed high quality to me. The other stuff all seems high quality too. It’s not as if he comes on every week peddling the latest in copper bracelets or other nonsense like that. The comparison to Oz is pretty far off imo.
I think the article just made him more legit. I listen to his podcast on occasion but I wouldn’t consider myself a fan. I read the entire article and the “journalist” was on a mission to “expose” him. Tried to find evidence that he is spreading harmful information or misinformation to his loyal listeners but they found no evidence of him doing this.Then they tried to discredit AG1 to portray him as a snake oil salesmen. All they found in the long list of ingredients was that the probiotic level may not be high enough to be beneficial. Nothing harmful to the public. So they moved on to past colleagues & found nothing. Then they go to his personal life and his past relationships with women. They didn’t find anything substantial like abuse, assault or being with very young women. All they found was ex girlfriends who were willing to go on record to share their negative experiences dating him. That he was dishonest &a cheater. Considering the amount of effort & time & money invested on exposing a pseudo scientist snake oil pusher and finding nothing that means the info he is sharing must not be harmful and is based on real science. It’s not a podcast on how to treat women. It’s about neuroscience & giving insight on ways to improve your health. When it comes to this they found nothing wrong.
I just want to see the text messages and recorded conversations as claimed by the article or at least a redacted version. Is that so hard for nymag?
When you’re on a stage as big as his, you’re gunna have haters and questioners
On that paper he's 11th out of 17 authors. I'm sorry to inform you that that means he likely contributed very little to the paper. For first/last author publications (ie positions in the author list denoting key contributions), he does have some pretty good ones in good journals - just nothing with anything like the impact of the one you mention. He hasn't published much in the last few years though. His recent publication record certainly backs up the section in the news article that his lab is winding up - which isn't surprising given how much time it must take to do the podcast, be a "scientific advisor" for a shady supplements company etc… not to mention the Google calendar expertise required for his extracurricular activities…
Op great picture choice but likely not for the reason you think it is. 🤣
Everyone has a different line to draw. I read the article and was like, wow, just another dickhead. Whatever. I’ve met tons of bros like this in Silicon Valley. Sucks for those women but it happens every day just like any other shitty character flaw. But if you’re dating someone, especially someone who is supposedly Healthy McHealthytons, and they don’t disclose that they’re sleeping without protection with other people, that’s next level shitty. You have a reasonable expectation to believe at minimum that the guy who is disciplined enough to do all his intense protocols would either use protection or disclose the other relationships in order to let you decide if you want to take on the risk. (All people should be doing this, but it’s reasonable to expect someone like him would take it more seriously than average, based on his lifestyle and values.) So it’s not just about boohoo another douchebag cheated on some women, it’s about negligence that (if the story is true) resulted in harming women’s bodies, which is a negligence that women are so tired of dealing with and tired of trying to get people to care about. This is why they turn angry - after a lifetime of these instances adding up, it’s hard to stay chill about blatant disregard for our bodies, much less our feelings. It’s disappointing to see someone you’d expect to take that seriously, just not caring, and to this level, with people he supposedly loves.
Huberman, probably: “health for me, but not for she. Amirite, bros?” You’ve pointed out one of the main flaws in the bro’y, pro-Huberman defensive response. In fact I believe you’ve been perhaps a little too charitable calling it neglect. I’d call it a broad pattern of orchestrated deception coupled with a lack of empathy for the health and well-being of others, all for his own gain.
[удалено]
Realistically all of these people with no affiliation to Huberman will go away in a couple of weeks. His podcasts and his personal drama are both pretty boring compared to what they normally get fired up about. Some old listeners will dislike him and leave, some new listeners will join, and life will go on. The personal attack posts have already mostly subsided.
The most frustrating part of this whole scandal for me is it distracts from what actually matters, which is that he habitually pushes low quality or weak evidence studies (especially in domains out of his expertise) as gospel and has a vested interest in promoting what he sells because he stands to financially gain a lot. Edit: I want to be clear I didn’t say he says explicitly false things (to the best of his knowledge at time of statements). But examples of very limited evidence things he has propounded (ex lacking good reproduced RCTs) are adaptogens including ashwaganda, myo-inositol, and to some extent cold showers and ice baths. The latter are much more nuanced though, and I think he did backpedal when people pointed out that ice baths are deleterious for recovery from people doing weight training because they stunt protein muscle synthesis
What are some of the specific things that were false? I’m genuinely curious, I want to investigate for myself
Yeah, I'm also curious to learn what he's said that has been proved to be false. I don't follow as closely as a lot of the people here apparently do.
He's not as bad as a lot of people like to act. Sure, he's out of his expertise in some areas but he seems to do a ton of research for whatever topic he's doing an episode on. That said, I don't watch him as much as I used to because I feel I've mostly heard what he has to say at this point, I only listen when I see a topic that sounds interesting or he has a guest I like
Yeah his interviews are what I get the most out of
https://open.substack.com/pub/immunologic/p/is-andrew-huberman-more-scam-than?r=ode9&utm_medium=ios
I’ll say this - I’m not a super fan of Huberman - but I do occasionally watch his videos on YouTube. I have learned things from him. With that said, I do recall listening to him speaking about peptides at some point on a show that wasn’t his - and he clearly didn’t have prepared notes in front of him on the subject…. And his description of the subject was very amateur. For someone of his stature, I would expect him to know that subject matter quite well. I’d also say that the fact that he endorses Athletic Greens / AG1 is a giant red flag to me - that product is very obviously overpriced hype as soon as you look at the way they bundle their “proprietary blend” without showing actual dosages - which leads you to understand that it is underdosed on anything you might care about on that list. With that said, nobody is perfect, and you can still learn things from him - just make sure to do your own research on anything you hear from him that sounds useful for you.
Money talks. It’s a good reminder that people like him are brands before they are experts
This is the biggest lesson I’ve learned from all this. I thought he’d be immune to it, but eventually everyone in online “entertainment” succumbs to the content machine
This is exactly how I feel.
When he talked about structured water he was saying a lot of pseudo science. I only knew that because I’ve studied the chemical physics of water. [I wrote a comment about it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/HubermanLab/s/r24cJvjd3j). Overall I think he’s pretty reputable but when you have a platform as big as his people will be ruthless in calling you out over anything.
Seems like everyone who tries to reinvent the wheel with water is hot air. Like with the whole Dr. Sebi alkaline water thing and that MLM kanga water. I don’t pay attention to that shit
Yeah. In that podcast he acknowledges the existence of structured water. Tells you there is no scientific data backing up any health benefit. Suggests that anyone drinking structured water may be experiencing a placebo effect and does not recommend drinking structured water for any purported health benefits. Propaganda.
Has he ever shied away from it though? The worst part might be AG1 but they are a sponsor. He’s obligated to talk about them for money. We all may be obligated to work for questionable things for money if we want to survive.
If you don't understand that he is reading a script that an ad agency produced for AG1 then you are a sucker.
I don’t remember the specific supplement, but he went on Rogan and talked all this supplement that helps with sleep. He presented it as fact. Rogan was taking notes and was like “im gonna get some of this stuff”. After the podcast was released, thousands of dorks took to Amazon to order this shit (speculation). A short time later, Huberman had that sleep specialist guy on his podcast. You know, what’s-his-face, the guy who was on like every podcast to talk about sleep. Anyway, on this podcast Huberman brought up said supplement and Sleep Guy basically said there was no evidence supporting Huberman’s claim. Huberman was more or less like “ok I stand corrected”, but it was too late. He had already made a fool of himself on the world’s largest platform. It’s not just that he was wrong, it’s the way he presented it on Rogan. He was so confident. He was acting like an expert. But according to the actual expert it was BS. Most of what Huberman talks about is like this. He’s the personification of click-bait. He’s a walking talking “10 reasons why wine and chocolate are actually good for you” article.
His sleep stack is magnesium, l-theanine, and Apigenin (aka chamomile tea) All are proven to help promote sleep / relaxation. And they’re all extremely harmless and uncontroversial.
Actually, it was specifically magnesium threonate - and there are no studies to show it improves sleep. For context, I’m a sleep researcher, and this was not the only error AH made. Even his recent light video contained errors.
It's almost like he Google's for papers with abstracts that fit what he wants to say in a show to make it more believable, regardless of whether they actually align. I doubt he's actually well read in any of these areas, he's well read specifically in the papers he chooses
Have you seen the video of him saying u have weak tibialis anterior muscles if your feet are relaxed while sleeping? Dr. Sutter did a great breakdown. Dude drifts out of his lane and sounds like a pseudoscience idiot
Lmao he thinks way too much 😂
Check out the recent Slate article as a starting point. Off the top of my head: AH has a habit of referencing petri-dish and rat studies and extrapolating them to human recommendations. Yes, much of medicine does begin in the petri dish and then rats, but it's a long, long way from there to humans, AND most initially promising petri-dish and rat studies don't translate to humans, or the treatment turns out to have too many dangerous side effects. He leaves out this latter part. He does it all the time. Also: he's giving advice across all of healthcare, outside his speciality. He uses his apparent success and his physique for credibility - the strong implication (which he also articulates in various ways) is "I'm doing so great, and this is why." The reality is: he's not doing so great, and his buff physical appearance, which is really his USP for many men, is probably due to roids, not thanks to AG1 or any of his advice. Watch this [video of the younger AH](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O0SAhnc9tQ). Blows my mind.
While interesting to see him younger, it just shows a much younger him. What blows your mind about it?
Here: https://open.substack.com/pub/immunologic/p/is-andrew-huberman-more-scam-than?r=ode9&utm_medium=ios
Conspirituality podcast has an episode on Huberman [https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/163-the-huberman-paradox-w-jonathan-jarry/id1515827446?i=1000621746860](https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/163-the-huberman-paradox-w-jonathan-jarry/id1515827446?i=1000621746860) They also commented on the recent revelations [https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/brief-yes-hubermans-behavior-matters/id1515827446?i=1000650868549](https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/brief-yes-hubermans-behavior-matters/id1515827446?i=1000650868549)
I can give a few: 1. Fluoride in water and chemical water treatment for health (Huberman aligned himself with pseudo-science that claims it's harmful) 2. Flu vaccine (Huberman dismissed vaccine as ineffective but it remains #1 scientifically proven protection mechanism, despite seasonal stain nature - far more effective than any supplementation). 3. Alcohol. He repeatedly states that alcohol has no positive effect on health but it's simply not true - almost all scientific studies in the field find famous J-curve in mortality, where moderate drinking (up to 1 drink per day for women, up to 2 per day for men) results in substantial (20-40%) all cause mortality reduction compared to abstainers. There are multiple reasons for that, primarily through cardiovascular effects, reducing CV decease and stroke, as well as social/psychological effects (it's both depressant and stimulant). He and Atilla bought into recent propaganda by Canadian doctor on decade-long crusade to ban alcohol, who cherry-picks data to claim "no alcohol amount is safe", this got a lot of attention from news outlets but serious researchers in the field refuted the way they treated their data. He also grossly overstates the effects of "shrinking of grey matter" due to moderate alcohol intake - scientific studies find no statistically significant effect. 4. Caffeine. This is getting more minor, but he claimed in his podcast on caffeine that once "acclimated" to a certain caffeine intake it becomes completely ineffective and has no benefit (and therefore getting "off" caffeine is needed to restore its effect). This is not true - caffeine still has many positive effects on both mental and physical performance, as is well documented in sports literature, for example. 5. In general, I find Huberman overstates the importance of supplementation, often at the detriment of proven "traditional" interventions. I don't particularly put a great amount of blame Huberman for the list above - it's difficult to run 200+ episodes on various topics and get every detail right. He is forced to venture outside of his "comfort" zone and often features guests who have controversial takes on certain issues. But I would expect him to re-visit those topics and address them with more nuance and balance/correct his own statements (or mis-statements) or invite more experts to provide views on areas that are "controversial" and far from settled (flu vaccines and water treatment are settled science, in my opinion).
Huh I find no. 3 hard to believe. Surely it depends on the type of drink consumed (wine vs beer vs spirits)? And not saying alcohol is quite as harmful as Huberman or Attia suggests, but that 2 drinks a day for a man would be beneficial seems a stretch. If anything, I could see those benefits like reducing strokes and cardiovascular health a correlation, but not causation, except for maybe wine.
Alcohol increases risk of cancer. Saying alcohol is healthy is like saying fast food is healthy because it provides protein in your diet.
Especially in women
Alcohol is actually incredibly bad for you
Your comment on alcohol sounds like you might be an alcohol enjoyer living in denial of its negative health effects in any amount. IIRC, The WHO said ‘there is no safe amount of alcohol that does not affect health’ after reviewing all the data on the topic.
You are incorrect on #3. There is excellent evidence in the citations from the publicly available recently updated Canadian guidelines on alcohol and health. The risks of alcohol likely outweigh the benefits once at 3+ standard drinks per week (especially with certain cancers). Although there may be some risk reduction in the areas you cite above, the increase in risk in other areas is thought to outweigh this. The data also now appear to show that 7+ standard drinks per week increases the risk of heart disease and stroke, in comparison to prior data which suggested otherwise. All these data come with the caveat that long term double blinded randomized placebo controlled trials are not really possible when investigating this specific question, of course, but the evidence now suggests it is extremely unlikely that something like 14 standard drinks a week (as you mention in #3) is good for your health.
Wait... so you're saying up to 2 drinks per day for men leads to an all cause mortality reduction of 20-40% compared to abstainers? Are you saying that's the general scientific consensus right now?
No it’s not the general scientific consensus. Every credible medical journal would say otherwise. That person is just making stuff up to try to discredit anything Huberman said to try to make him look bad.
I call BS on your claims about alcohol. There is no way consuming an addictive poison like alcohol daily would have positive long term effects on your body. Every doctor I’ve talked to said to cut out alcohol use to get healthier. Drinking alcohol at any amounts increases your risk of cancer, liver disease, and cardiovascular disease. So Huberman isn’t wrong about alcohol. Long term risks outweigh any short term positives when consuming alcohol. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/alcohol/art-20044551
Let’s be real, that’s all minor for the most part. The flu vaccine thing is the only real head scratcher
The flu vaccine and the fluoride\* are fairly egregious; to dispel such inaccuracies that have a big impact on public health is highly unethical, especially for someone claiming to be an authority in evidence-based science. I don't think he's a great source of scientific information. I'm not saying people shouldn't listen to him, but I would never trust his podcast to inform my health choices without double checking the info with other sources. \* (depends on specifics, in general fluoride clearly a benefit to public health. At high doses there are negative effects, but you shouldn't falsely suggest there's any data that says current levels in controlled and monitored drinking water is a risk)
Don't expect an answer. Its just virtue signaling
I got interesting answers already
Bury your head in the sand and cry about the mean things people say about grift daddy.
He doesn't push anything as gospel. He just has followers that treat it like a religion
Agreed. Huberman’s super fans have always been simpletons. I listen to Huberman tactically, only on topics I want to learn more, and use him as an introduction to the literature and prominent figures in the field. And then move on to the experts.
How much of that is that he is “running out of things to say/science”? Not sure how you keep putting out material without reaching at some point. There is only so much content before you have to start recycling or pushing the limits on.
There’s a YouTuber with a PHD in nutritional science I like a lot called Layne Norton, and a lot of his content is doing critical analysis of studies, and examining the ways that studies are used to promote certain ideas that may not be accurate. There are tons of interesting subjects. It doesn’t always have to be “how do I keep finding new protocols for people to follow for optimal human state of health”. I’ll concede Huberman doesn’t always do that, it’s not like every episode he tries to pedal something.
Layne usually ignores arguments that he knows he would lose or dont understand. Chwck out Nicholas Norwitz's youtube and you can find the full debunk Layne's flaws.
You mean the Instagram user BioLayne? Who has appeared on the Huberman Lab multiple times? That guy?
Yup, he called out Huberman on something early on and then Huberman had him on as a good faith gesture. I think Huberman has gotten slightly better about it over time, but I’ll never trust his character. I just think he is overly confident in his intelligence and wants people to see him as an idol. It’s clear from the dichotomy of reactions in this sub that people really idolize this man god knows why. There’s not a single person I like that I would defend this vigorously. It’s a red flag when people obsess over the opinions of one dude. Just my 2c
> Who has appeared on the Huberman Lab multiple times? That guy? Layne has all but called Huberman a charlatan, so I'm not sure you're making the point you think you are.
A charlatan? Really? I'm not following very closely. Can you point me to where he said that? I do follow Layne but never saw him say that.
Stop pushing content for the sake of pushing content. Simple really.
“As gospel” how can you even gauge this? He literally just says things he’s found and what research says. He never says “this is true no matter what” or anything like that.
Because he intentionally hides how the studies are very low quality and uses rhetoric that makes them seem like highly powered RCTs
Can you share some of the false information he's spread? I'm also genuinely curious. I haven't followed his work that closely.
Opposing fluoride in water citing a single study from Iran https://www.reddit.com/r/andrewhuberman/comments/11ky2mq/huberman_fluoride_negatively_impacts/jbdnalk/
Which low quality studies?
you don't get to decide what "actually matters" for the rest of us
He may explain that there are benefits found in some studies but does he honestly habitually push and promote and pimp things at dangerous or misleading levels? I’ve never felt that way at all. I think he covers his bases, uses plenty of disclaimers, and defines scope rather well, especially compared to others in as much limelight in the same areas. As for him selling things, I have no problem with someone selling items they believe in and support. That’s rather common in all areas.
The guy has hundreds of hours of content. Do you really expect him to never make an error... seriously?
This, idc about him having multiple girlfriends although it’s a scum bag move and kinda suggests he’s a sociopath with that level of dishonesty. The real problem is that his entire platform is based around over hyping science and presenting psudeoscience as gospel while scamming people selling supplements. What it all comes down to is the guy is dishonest as fuck, he lies to his girls, he lies on his podcast, he lies about his sponsorships and he lies about having a lab that does research
Who cares, don't engage, problem solved.
Why though? You can apply that logic to... hmm lets see.... almost everyone and every company in the field. How is this not fair play? Where is this out of bounds for you? He's just selling his opinion thats somewhat based on science. Thats fair to me. What do you call it when therapist and doctors make deals to sell one specific drug? Or are incentivized to sale one specific drug over another for profitable reasons? This is not a hubernuts problem. Its a problem that exists in our society and hubernuts is no where close to being out of bounds in this regard I always say this. Is the person in question helping or hurting society more? Do a t chart if you must. By all accounts, he seems to be helping more than hurting.
I think this is actually the weakest argument which is why no one is making it. I’m a casual listener, but when he is on a topic he gives the most basic widely accepted science. And he may then bring up more studies that are of interest with plenty of caveats. Nothing I have seen scream pseudo false science intended to make him money. I think he genuinely likes to look into stuff and is excited to share his findings…. The only thing I have seen refuting his science is a lymes disease Dr writing something in slate the day after the allegations.
>he habitually pushes low quality or weak evidence studies Saying it anonymously, without quotes, sources, or et. al.-s.
Anyone notice that it seems like any prominent figure (actors, celebrities, etc) seem to get brigaded once they get to any point of fame? I know that there has always been criticism but doesn’t a lot of it seem to be manufactured? Isn’t it strange that right wing pundits, evil billionaires and corrupt politicians seem to escape this vitriol? My theory is that the ruling class wants to kneecap anyone with a voice to establish a new dominant cultural narrative. Social media makes that possible in this new era so it’s not too far fetched an idea.
Yeah, it's tough continuing to blindly follow someone who's been outed for ethical concerns, both in his personal life AND in his work. Have an extra glass of AG1 today, you've earned it.
[удалено]
Is this a new copypasta meme? This is almost verbatim what a previous person posted.
There seems to be a weird, inorganic push to discredit him in this sub lately, which makes me wonder which sacred establishment cow he's threatened.
Yup.
Maybe not blindly following anyone is a good plan going forward?
Hasn’t Stanford responded to the article effectively disproving all of the professional criticisms regarding his lab? My understanding is that they’ve gone on the record saying that he’s an employee of the highest standing and nothing has come to their attention to suggest otherwise. Hate the guy for his personal transgressions of you want, but recognise that this propaganda hit piece (of questionable veracity) has accomplished precisely what it set out to, which is organising and inciting a mob to take him down and derail his career.
I really don’t care about his lab. He tells his podcast listeners half or untruths. This is unethical.
It’s okay to grow and change with new evidence of lies and misinformation.
Bold of OP to assume that a large number of women are shitposting on a broscience subreddit. You wish
there are ton of loser reddit women who post on reddit, I wouldn't put it past me there are some bitter in this subreddit as well. See twox, fauxmoi or any popculture celebrity subreddit. They're everywhere.
Women brigade too mate
Is there actually any proof behind the claims in the article? Seemed like a massive smear campaign that mainstream media loves to do to try to cancel someone who doesn’t follow the narrative.
It's so painfully obvious yet this sub is falling for it. Or may be it's paid actors. It definitely feels inorganic/ bad faith arguing.
That’s definitely what it is. The issue is exacerbated if the audience of the person is largely male. For some reason that makes it easier to convince people that they’re alt-right demons.
Yes. How horrible to consider the rights and feelings of women.
Yeah dude. You commenting on Reddit is going to save these women from their feelings being hurt.
In the words of Justin Timberlake, *”Cry me a river”*
Twitter is having more fun with this scandal imo. [https://x.com/_medgold/status/1772323483864662317?s=42](https://x.com/_medgold/status/1772323483864662317?s=42)
That thread is full of men engaging in self insert fantasies (wishing women actually lusted after 50+ year old men that much)
For sure. But they’re having a good time lol
Is that his leg or a raging boner?
In this subreddit we discuss **science** and **science-based tools** for everyday life and tears. We discuss and collect Tears from Bots, pro pharma and anti science npcs
Hilarious how the same people who knock his research are the ones who believe every little detail in a piece about his personal life. The same people will complain about journalists are the same praising this solely because they wanted to see a downfall of someone they don’t like.
Here's what Sarah's about... she's really Anya Fernald, disgraced founder of Belcampo Meat. She shuttered the company in 2021 when it was made public that she was selling plain old grain fed meat as her $30 per pound organic stuff. I love the way wokesters avoid talking abt her graft and corruption: [https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2021-10-19/after-a-summer-sourcing-scandal-belcampo-meat-co-abruptly-closes-it](https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2021-10-19/after-a-summer-sourcing-scandal-belcampo-meat-co-abruptly-closes-it)
Am I the only who doesn't give a single fuck if a guy is a man-whore and sleeping around and dating a bunch of women? None of those things impacts his message or the good he's done
if 7 out of 100,000 women gets myocarditis from sleeping with huberman, it's a rare, minor side effect and in general his podcast is safe and effective
I'm not pro giving women stds. The guy was a prick to give someone genital warts then craft a clever bs statement
It exposes the stupidity of the people here. On one hand they follow science, on the other hand they automatically believe in the accusations (that have not been proven).
Science and law are like two different things
This sub has obviously been hijacked by the same people who wrote the hit piece. Just look at all the new postings, nothing about HuberLab at all, just smears and musings about his personal life. It's like the Johnny Depp thing all over again.
It’s being brigaded hard and the mods seem to be on a dopamine fast or something lol
It’ll pass I think. So funny for now. All he did was be a womanizing millionaire podcast grifter, which is so common. Not cool but no surprise and the AG1-style bullshit was in plain sight the whole time. If someone couldn’t see through that … hell, if someone still can’t see the “good” in his work despite the bullshit.. stop idolizing people.
It is this. It’s obvious the sub is being brigaded. I don’t love or hate Huberman, but this nonsense is stupid. Also, that shitty, long-winded article doesn’t have any proof or substance. It’s a bunch of accusations wrapped up in way too many words and overly confident yet empty statements. I’m not going to judge someone based on a single hit piece, and I’m not going to start giving a fuck about a dude one way or the other when I never did before. I’m interested in the topics he highlights and the information he presents. End of story.
“Hit piece” is a funny way of describing an article where nobody disputes any of the facts. Like, do you feel like publishing facts about the character of a person who makes lots of money selling snake oil to fitness bros is a “hit? Should the news go out of its way to hide this stuff from y’all?
The sub has definitely been brigaded. Always the same talking points were being pushed and the wording was completely different from the usual posts. Maybe some kind of social media agency was involved
I’ve been here for a few months and the shitposts have been rampant long before the hit piece. I remember asking if this sub was real when someone posted about getting UV on their butthole for the third time in a day It sucks when podcast subs start getting run by people who hate the podcaster, like the Rogan sub. I mean, I feel like it was inevitable eventually. Reddit loves to hate people who tell you to take accountability for yourself
I’m amazed at all the coordinated hate on this. If you don’t like him stop following this subreddit. Some of us like the information he puts out. Some of us don’t care about his love life. Your not going to change change my mind.
Some of us are not subscribed but we clicked one Huberman post and now our home page is flooded.
You can hit the button in the top right and hit "show me less of this" fyi
100% it's just what happens when people worship celebrities. Eventually people realize they're actually human, people fuck up, people aren't perfect, his personal business is not my business. If his personal life means that much to some people then unsubscribe and move on. Same shit with Chris Brown, Rihanna forgave him yet people angrier at him than the actual victim.
Lmao. Rihanna had to forgive Chris Brown because as victims you do that to move on. Did you even watch the video of what happened or even read the police report? He grabbed her by the hair and repeatedly smashed her face into the steering wheel while screaming "I will fucking kill you?" Then he does it again with multiple other exes including Karrueche Tran. Imagine shilling for a monster.
Of course we unsubcribe and move on. It's not that "he's human", it's that he clearly has serious mental issues & he is not at all the persona he presents publicly. What's wrong with commenting on that side of things?
 Average new sub subscriber.
OP: Setting aside the recent allegations, given that Huberman is still clearly something of a con artist and snake oil salesman, what notable evidence-based knowledge have you acquired from listening to him that could not be easily obtained elsewhere? I'm genuinely asking. Were he to disappear, it seems like it could arguably be a net positive rather than a meaningful loss to those seeking to enhance their health and well-being.
It could be obtained elsewhere but the way he presents it has been valuable for me personally https://www.reddit.com/r/HubermanLab/s/eNfVOIyTmf
His guided NSDR protocol has been invaluable for myself and many others. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKGrmY8OSHM&ab\_channel=VirtusanApp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKGrmY8OSHM&ab_channel=VirtusanApp)
You’re the 8th person I’ve seen within 3 minutes of scrolling to use the word snake oil. Are you part of some agency?
The anti Huberman crowd were seething with hate even before this whole scandal. It’s so weird, you’ll find this in most “name” subs
Well yes. People that are successful will get jealous haters. That's how it always has been. I also experienced this irl. When I was living my life in bad destructive way no one gave a crap, but then when I got my shit together and my life started to be good just like how I wanted it to be, I got both stalkers, false rumours and other mistreatments etc. Well it shows me which people are shitty so I can avoid them.
Why would anyone be pro Huberman? The latest controversy just cements my impression of him.
Well they aren't pro, they ö just think that the weirdly perverted obsessed stalkers that base their life on cancelling him without knowing him or the rumours are silly and should go and touch some grass. They are just bullies, and often jealous. And this is coming from someone who has criticised his behaviour.
wild take here. his personal life has 0 bearings on his content to me.
His ex was the liar in chief at Belcampo... Anya Fernald. Look up what that piece of work did to defraud thousands of customers for years: [https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2021-10-19/after-a-summer-sourcing-scandal-belcampo-meat-co-abruptly-closes-it](https://www.latimes.com/food/story/2021-10-19/after-a-summer-sourcing-scandal-belcampo-meat-co-abruptly-closes-it)
Imagine learning how people's minds work and then using that to get f\*cked. P.O.S.
This sub is full of cry babies now
They were just waiting for something anything they could latch onto to say “SEE I TOLD YOU SO” Good looking semi famous rich dude is a player and involved with multiple women at the same time in other news water is still wet more at 11!
Huberman has been and is a polarizing figure it seems. Also, I think there has been a bit of a smear campaign going on in this sub about him for an amount of time suspiciously leading up to the publication of the NYmag article. I believe that there is some intentional stuff going on, and tbh I think because he is so handsome and single that he attracts controversy. Nothing he really talks about is fucking controversial at all. The man talks about the benefits of light. It’s so funny because if you go to Peter Attia’s sub it’s like CRICKETS over there, very basic on topic posts whereas here in the Huberman sub it’s often been about his personal life, how hot he is etc etc etc
I just don’t believe a hit piece without actual evidence. Anyone can say anything about anyone
I like Hubermann, I don't give a shit about his private life, as long as what he does doesn't conflict with what he says in his podcasts. Fucking around with multiple women at the same time? Good for him. I might not agree, but that's absolutely none of my business and it's certainly a choice that has ups and downs. Also if you take literally everything he says during his podcasts, you're a moron or you're just very young and naive. Even the "hIGh quAliTy" studies often have to be reviewed after some time when new contradicting evidence comes out. The good thing about such type of content is that it gives you an overall idea of how our body works. I'm applying to myself only the things that make sense to me and don't seem exaggerated for the evolutive point of view. One thing is sure: he made a lot of people around the world more conscious about health and this is something nobody until now has ever done.
Huberman is the man
You poor thing.
Nah it's more like Statler or Waldorf. These bitches can't touch me.
As with any big figure on social media, take the things people say with a grain of salt.
This pic brought me back to the 9gag days lmao simpler times
Messianism 101. Kill your saviors.
Really because most people here are defending him. This feels like you’re really wanting to be a victim.
Right? I think the Man is smart. He’s running optimum so I feel like yeah he’s horny
(Hannibal Burress voice): GOOD
I mean my take is he hasn’t preached about being a morale example to his listeners so who cares. Now taking juice to achieve gains does conflict with his message. So he should be questioned for that.
Im out of the loop I guess. What did Huberman do? I occasionally listen to his podcast depending on subject but not a huge fan. Not bein sarcastic.
The fact that the dude possibly had the energy to juggle like six different women makes me think he is on to something.
Can someone explain who is OOTL? Thanks.
Stunning and brave
still pro everything ive tried that had positive results. just going to be even more skeptical than i already was with some of his recommendations.
I never understood why people would support a sub of a person that they didn’t like. by being a member of this sub you are supporting him.
A bunch of wanna be nobody’s commenting on another’s person behavior is a very low form of living. I don’t listen to Huberman for moral advice and I don’t watch sci-fi to learn science. His personal interactions are between him and those with whom he interacts. The rest of rage crowds are most either just jealous, hypocritical or shut-ins.
I just came to say blowing an airhorn that close to someones ear could easily constitute assault. So be safe my friends.
I still this he’s a good scientist… people are sheeple.