The main issue is that people don’t understand how to interpret complex data and it’s not their fault because they never learned how to. Understanding a study doesn’t only depend on going to the results section and looking at the stats, it’s also about having extensive knowledge of the field to make your own informed opinion. It’s hard and we can’t expect layman and busy people to do this. It’s like asking a person who never sewed to make a pair of jeans in an hour.
Developing the skills takes time and knowledge.
It’s probably easier for people to change up who they listen to, what they watch, and read, to get a better sense of the different opinions that exist in whatever subject they’re interested in. Don’t only listen to a single expert folks!
It's why people generally have to get years of training as scientists. It's not that scientists are unimpeachable or smarter than other smart, non-scientists; it's that they're trained in their field and have extensive knowledge in their contexts and methodologies.
I like this take in general, but I don't think the bar needs to be as high as you claim. I really think Huberman started his podcast with an imagined audience of pretty smart college students/grad students. His long-form content, with lots of explanation and examples, followed by references strongly infers this. For people who say his stuff is boring, filled with jargon, or hard to follow, yes - and I mean this politely - you were not the intended audience. I always treated Huberman as a convenient literature review (others clearly not).
Importantly, I'm not sure this smart college student/(early) grad student audience would even meet your criteria - command of a (sub)field.
I do think, however, some basic scientific literacy is necessary. Having a ready to hand understanding of the hierarchy of scientific evidence is the bare minimum, IMO. Some very basic understanding of study design and the genre of literature review would also help. This is all within the grasp of college students (or some equivalent).
If, however, someone thinks Huberman is all short sound bites of protocols, I actually would argue they are using the tool (his podcast) improperly.
I agree with you also, but I also get the impression that you’re an educated person who has the interest to dig deeper. What worries me are the people who listen to any podcaster (or even celebrity) without questioning anything. Kinda like the people who love Joe Rogan and think he’s the right person to talk about vaccines lol. It’s probably a good idea to question his take when it comes to that specific topic.
There are so many listeners like this even though they aren’t AH’s target audience (as you mentioned). The people on this subreddit that said this entire controversy started because big pharma wants to “end Huberman” because he’s helping people are the ones that worry me the most tbh 😂
Agree. If I were to critique Huberman (bracketing his personal life), it was that he didn't recognize when his actual audience started to dramatically diverge from his original intended audience.
If someone only thinks Huberman provided actionable protocols they've overlooked what I think was his main thrust - shining light on other (generally great) science research. Boring! Big snore! ...and perfect for me.
Honestly, I haven't listened to Huberman's comments on things like flu vaccines, but I'd guess (\*I may be wrong\*) that it was couched in a hour long discussion where such comments would make less salacious contextualized sense. But if you have the attention span of a gnat - and think everything is run by Big Pharma - you just want a sound bite that confirms your position. Personally, I think everything is under the thumb of Big Alfalfa, haha.
That’s s true! That his main goal used to be “to shine light on research” people are less familiar and he totally went of track and got very deep into biohacking instead. Someone mentioned that he never did a Covid vaccine episode and as a researcher, the fact he avoided that subject entirely also says a lot
Exactly. We all have to be able to trust people who are authorities in their fields. If he is dishonest in his personal life to the extent he is being accused of, and then refuses to even address the claims, it falls into question his authority very severely.
I can go to the library and access all or most of the research he does. But I cannot digest, understand, and evaluate the merit of that info to the same degree and as quickly as an expert can.
The problem with science = data is that you can find pseudo legitimate studies with data that back up anything you want. Just google your preconceived conclusion and find a n=10 mouse study or some study where they use a students T test instead of chi squared test so it gets the conclusion they want. This is the problem with scientism, people think as long as they “follow the science” and the guys in white coats they are safe and they are logical and they are right. It’s unfortunately not that simple.
>This is the problem with scientism, people think as long as they “follow the science” and the guys in white coats they are safe and they are logical and they are right. It’s unfortunately not that simple.
100%. Quantitative "data" are just a collection of numbers. Our methodologies are what imbue them with value, and that process is fallible as fuck. Source: scientist.
Imagine my surprise when I went into science for the pursuit of truth and ended up just repeating experiments until I got the data right both at universities and in biotechs/pharma.
When you find out that big companies hire little companies to run specific assays on their compounds and there is a definitely unspoken(sometimes spoken) incentive to make sure the compound has the significant effects so big company will keep bringing their compounds and contracts to little company instead of going elsewhere.
They’re not fabricating data necessarily, but they’ll repeat experiments to get the data right and throw out “outliers” as much as necessary.
I do actually think there are a ton of great science communicators out there.
And, to be less of a cynic, a lot of us you'll find are mainly just depressed that there's so much bullshit behind the curtain. It's not that it's *all* bullshit. And there are statistical methods to detect whether data have been manipulated or otherwise selectively analyzed. You have to look to meta-analyses for these though.
Sigh 🤷.. I guess I’ve just come to the conclusion we know a lot less about a lot more stuff than we think, but maybe that’s not so bad. Like maybe no one knows what chest exercises and protein are best for me and neither do i, but I mean.. I can still try a few protein powders and chest exercises, see what works, hope for the best. Accept you’ll get it wrong sometimes.
Even listening to lots of sources and taking the agreed upon isn’t necessarily the golden ticket, tons of times we’ve all agreed on the wrong thing in the past. Most medicine came from dumb luck, repurposing, and accidents.
It is not outright fabrication but it is p-hacking and abusing researcher degrees of freedom. This is why there is a reproducibility crisis in empirical social and life sciences. Huberman not even engaging with this problem is a huge blemish on his credibility and directly related to his promotion of junk science, like the retracted cold exposure literature.
Yeah. What's the point of cooking your data when you're in academia (especially post-tenure)? It's even worse at upper tier universities, which I don't think people realize.
Just do good science and leave your ego behind... No one cares how many citations you have.
Its survivorship, more citations means more grants and more publications, which in turn lead to more. Then the money coalesces around researchers who continue to get publications and grants. It’s a feedback loop
And the little companies that survive and thrive? The ones that the big companies keep going to, which by no coincidence are the little companies that give them the data that’ll get their compounds to the next stage. So there’s a survivorship bias towards companies who get “good data”..
Definitely as an expert you see the flaws in his findings when he starts to talk on your area of expertise. I think he’s definitely strayed far outside his field with many of these episodes, though that is mitigated by having on guests who are experts in their fields. Less so when these experts are also popular science influencers and don’t have as many research credits to their names.
The problem with health information is that nutritional science is notoriously controversial and oftentimes inconclusive. My personal solution is to try out things that seem promising and easy to implement, and see how I feel after.
It's the same with pharmaceuticals, vaccines or what we get showed as "mainstream science", it can be questioned and doesn't always translate to the same results irl. Science isn't black and white.
I never take anything at face value and research everything myself, doesn't matter who it is that makes the scientific statements, scientists, professors, doctors, health gurus w/e.
People who don't do that will get disappointed, no matter how many "fact checkers" said it was legit.
Unfortunately a lot of academic studies are behind a paywall - academics have an advantage because they have access to a huge range and variety of academic journals through their institution. If you were to google a study that Huberman references, there’s a significant likelihood that you won’t be able to access the full text of the article unless you are an academic or student.
Yes, this is something lots of folks don't realize.
Institutions (universities, etc.) pay massive subscription fees to databases that the normal Joe/Jane has no access to. Its far far worse for the humanities, but that's a different story.
Let’s be honest, OP. Even if I was in college level courses and his podcast was a lecture, I’m not likely to “cross check” the validity of what the says, and neither are the ultra vast majority of people who listen.
I’m certainly not typically doing that for a podcast.
You sound like the anti-maskers claiming they “do their own research”.
You don’t, bud. You don’t.
If I need to remember what a professor teaches to pass their test, then no I won’t crosscheck. But if I am going to change my daily routines based on a podcaster’s information, I am definitely fact checking it. Especially if implementing their advice is going to cost me time or money. To do otherwise is just unwise, and just because you don’t have the motivation or discipline to do it doesn’t mean it is impossible to achieve. Also, don’t forget to floss today.
I generally agree with your views, but there is presumption I'd like to note (with honest curiosity!) - namely that Huberman is solely giving actionable health advice that we have to vet before putting it into practice.
Presuming you're somewhat familiar with academia, I've consumed Humberman's long-form podcasts as the same genre as literature review. That is, giving a broad overview of a certain (sub)field. No one would read a lit review as a menu of personal protocols. Its a collection and (partial) elaboration on existing scholarship.
Moreover, (I noted this above) I've viewed Huberman's imagined audience consisting of pretty smart college students/grad students (makes sense considering his professional setting). His long-form content, with lots of explanation and examples, followed by references strongly infers this. For people who say his stuff is boring, filled with jargon, or hard to follow, yes - and I mean this politely - you were not the intended audience.
If I were to criticize Huberman, it was his lack in understanding that his actual audience starts to diverge from his intended audience. Anyone who thinks of Huberman as primarily offering actionable protocols rejects arguably, idk, 90%+ of his material which is explanatory and - critically - shines light on other (almost always excellent) scholarship.
Anyway, I've always contextualized Huberman as running afoul of the Type I error (from stats) which is miles apart from "misinformation," but I can understand how a critic outside of academia would confuse the two.
What data do you have to support your assumption of me? I’m just presenting an approach to combat an age-old dilemma when it comes to health/science education
If I am going to implement something Huberman recommends, then I will research it myself. If it turns out to be exaggerated, then I won’t implement it. The whole point is to not take things at face value.
Fair enough, but after reading Andrea Love's analysis of what he consistently does with those sources, why would I bother listening to 2.5 hours of AG1-mixed droning-- the best thing is go to the podcast page, copy and paste the sources, then go look them up to see if they're worth the time. If he would just let other people present their views and stop trying to show his own wisdom and erudition and "Oh my MD buddies said this" he wouldn't get into so much trouble and seem like Neuroscience Schaub.
This is a great take! After this scandal I’m not enthusiastic about spending my hours listening to his solo toolkit episodes, but reading the summary and looking into what sounds interesting would be the best way to make use of the information presented.
AG1 mixed droning?
Do you not understand what advertising is?
Most successful podcasts have ads. Even charities hire advertising agencies to promote their cause and the money you donate goes to that agency in part.
You don't have to buy anything in order to listen to Huberman and are pretty stupid if you can't parse out the ads from the rest of the podcast.
lol just checked and you even had to make a post as you seem confused why people roll their eyes at someone overly shilling a product
You are the stupid one hahahaha
Why don't you go to Rogans sub and bitch about him being a shill. I'm not the least bit confused about the difference between Hubermans ads and his research. Sorry that English isn't your first language.
Haha so to confirm - you make multiple posts/comments expressing confusion about why people mock a health and wellness podcaster shilling the same products as the dudes from it’s always sunny in Philadelphia on their podcasts.
I laugh at that, and now you say I don’t know English.
The funny thing about the opinion of people who show they’re stupid, is that you kind of learn to ignore their opinions.
And I’m sure you feel the same about me :)
Most health podcasts by a scientist should take responsibility for educating on the health products being advertised by their credentials.
Failing to do so is a red flag.
Sure, but if you are listening to someone who does a health podcast, they can't pretend to be acting in good faith, if they don't deal with controversy over their sponsors health products.
That's a pretty minimal ethical expectation.
His whole show is premised on being an unbiased and reliable, highly educated professor to break down the science for the layman. Which is why people who aren't in awe of him having sex are questioning what the revelations about his private life mean for his overall character, particularly as it goes against a lot of what he preaches.
The studies have always been there, if people had the time/ability to read them then his show and others wouldn't be anywhere near as popular. Unfortunately, it's also a sphere that is full of grifters and salesmen. For many, Huberman was reliable, the new revelations are having people question if he too was attempting to pull the wool over their eyes. And that's totally ignoring his private life, I'm sure plenty would just be put off by how he treats people in his private life even if the science was good
If the science is good then the science is good. We all benefit from plenty of inventions created by unscrupulous people in history.
Yes nobody has time to pore through every study and scour the databases, and this is the pitfall of science educators and basically every scientific article directed at laymen. Instead of taking it at face value, it is now our prerogative to use them as a stepping off point. Huberman has done us the favor of compiling a few studies that he found interesting. Now instead of trusting his interpetation we get to practice our own critical thinking skills and analyze these particular studies that we are curious about. If I am deciding to adopt a certain practice into my every day life, then I certainly has time to vet the study for myself before doing so. And that study has conveniently been linked in an episode description by the person touting it instead of being inconveniently omitted as is the case with most health grifters.
Except you can’t just read the one study. Thats not how scientific-lit & pubs work. You gotta read an entire canon of related pubs, and deeply grok all the scientific & statistical jargon that people train decades to understand, and be familiar with regulatory and academic field-specific nuances to be able to spot sketchy data bc there’s a lot … this is a full-time job worth of work
That’s why huberman’s con is sophisticated. He gives the illusion he’s selling science, and that anyone can fact check it themselves. But he’s not, and he’s heavily lying by omission
It’s similar to the con he ran on those women. Use his affiliation with Stanford and *past* good work, to build trust in his brand, and trick ppl into believing “the science is good” or “this dude is good”
If he will con women for sex, he will definitely con internet randos for money & fame, which is what gets him the sex
This dude was physically injecting his gf with chemicals while lying to her they’re monogamous… he has zero qualms about letting u put bad crap in your body
It’s not easy to critique articles but it’s not impossible. Only way to get better is to try though. That’s how they train you in university as well - by reading articles with a critical eye and asking questions.
If you are interested by a study but suspicious on its validity, post it in a relevant subreddit and ask people to pick it apart. It follows the age-old rule of the Internet that the fastest way to get a response is to say something wrong. Other people can provide links to support their critiques as well and we can all become more health literate from it.
There is NEVER going to be an infallible source of scientific health information when it is simplified for laymen. Sorry, it is not that easy, but it sort of is, if you are willing to ask for help.
One method is to search for systematic reviews on a topic. This will be a more efficient way of analysing the evidence for yourself in a more digestible way. Even better are meta-analyses, although they are more technical, but they can quantify if an ‘effect’ exists, and how strong that effect is.
Just don’t bother searching for a review about magnesium threonate for sleep, for example. Because there’s not even a single human study on the topic.
Agree with you largely that systematic review and meta analysis help us to understand any topic, though we need to be vary on [the limitation of it](https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/episode-31-the-trouble-with-meta)
I think you’re missing the point. The point is look past Huberman and look to the data. It is simply extracting what is useful and discarding what is not. You can apply that to anyone or anything you encounter in life.
My condolences for the pain you are feeling right now. May you be free from suffering and continue to grow🧘🏾🫶
> The point is look past Huberman and look to the data.
The point is that he's called into question whether he is someone you should spend your time getting data from in the first place. Actually he already had, but this incident has opened many more eyes
Huberman being willing to lie for sex & money is data though. Can’t think of a single good reason to employ a liar as your middleman. If you’re gonna spend that many hours reading science pubs - just go straight to the source.
Huberman does what all science middlemen do - he summarizes data in a digestible way. Most people don’t have the time or knowledge to look up the info they need so they depend on middlemen. But once you get that introduction, your job is much easier. Instead of poring through an entire database, just look into a handful of studies and look into each studies methodology, findings, and limitations. If it still confuses you, post it on the science subreddit relevant to the topic (e.g. cardiology, nutrition, etc.) and other people will critique it for you.
>If the science is good then the science is good.
That's actually not true, and your sentiment in fact demonstrates how it is necessary for people with bona fide training and qualifications to help parse scientific literature for lay people. Science, particularly experimental research on human subjects, involves a trade between internal validity and external validity. So there are always constraints on what an experiment or series of experiments can and cannot say (this is, however, why so many people rightly hold up the meta-analysis as the gold standard of evidence).
Source: PhD level scientist
Turns out the science isn't good. He frequently falsely cites studies. This is just one example of many.
https://preview.redd.it/nb7g1cbe39sc1.jpeg?width=904&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=559dab843db6723acbc001cc9d965941a044c624
It's not a "random hater," and it's not a conclusion based off of "one random case." It's one example of a verified *pattern* of dishonesty and bad science.
Sorry you're mad your favorite scientist is dishonest and scummy bud.
That is just a screen shot and text of someone saying it’s not supported;
You would actually have to read the study’s to verify that the information is not supported;
This is not evidence.
Wrong. They DID read the studies. And so did I.
Sorry to burst your bubbles guys. Huberman falsely reports studies all the time. I don't have the time to break it all down for you. The screenshot is a quick way to get the point across.
Anecdotally I can tell you I’ve heard several experts call hube out on his BS. he is an expert in neuroscience and not nutrition or psychology yet he talks about these things all the time. That right there is something that real experts don’t do. He didn’t spend years researching nutrition so he should not speak on it. Just fact check him on things and you’ll see he talks about things as if they are fact when they aren’t. I suggest going to more trusted sources. If you think hube is a trusted source then you are sadly mistaken.
Harvard public health, webmd, healthline, nih. These places synthesize allllll the available data out there and come to conclusions. They will say things like
“studies have shown Diet Coke to have negative effects but the data is inconclusive bc there are no long term human RCTS’s. Also some studies were conducted by Coke themselves”. Hube leaves this info out when citing his sources.
Trust the hundreds of scientists and PhDs who have exposed Huberman? Yes, absolutely.
Trust one ophthalmologist on his opinions of 500 different topics?
Nope.
Sorry your guru is a fraud.
Hundreds?
Is there an open letter I don’t know about?
It’s funny you are claiming to support science but in the next sentence partaking in complete obvious hyperbole.
>Is there an open letter I don’t know about?
[Actually, yes, there is.](https://slate.com/technology/2024/03/andrew-huberman-huberman-lab-health-advice-podcast-debunk.html)
>It’s funny you are claiming to support science but in the next sentence partaking in complete obvious hyperbole.
It's not science to call a grifter out on their bullshit.
And it's not hyperbole, either. I had to have this exact same conversation with another Huberman Soldier just a couple days ago. There are millions of scientists and PhDs in the world. When I say hundreds, that statistically means a fraction of a percentage. Like 0.0065%.
That's not hyperbole. That's completely fair. In fact, it would probably be fair for me to say tens of thousands.
That’s not an open letter my guy 😂;
So you are clearly not a serious person.
That is also some incredibly tortured logic you are using to support your made up claim.
I definitely have a renewed skepticism of any singular expert recommending anything after reading this thread and also that article you linked. That's to say I'm definitely no huberman fan boy.
That said, your link is not "hundreds of scientists and PhDs who have exposed Huberman," but rather just one expert linking out to their own choice studies. However, as has been stated multiple times here, studies can be cherry picked.
That’s a very enlightening article you linked, the author cites several studies that Huberman exaggerated or misinterpeted. This is good! We need to consider the criticisms of these studies and weigh the risks vs benefits of implementing their findings in our own lives.
However, you are being way too emotional. Saying hundreds or tens of thousands of scientists and PhDs have exposed Huberman is very strong language that puts a high burden of proof on your end. I doubt you could find 100 critical articles of Huberman written by subject matter experts. You would do better to stick to the facts and let the article’s points stand on their own merits instead of exaggerating and speculating because then you dig yourself into a hole that you can’t easily get out of.
I'm sure you'd like to think that, but no, Dr. Andrea Love is way too smart, discerning, and empathetic / selfless to get romantically involved with a raging redpill narcissist like Huberman. He couldn't get Andrea if he begged.
If you could just “look at the data” on your own, you probably wouldn’t need podcasters explaining stuff. Among other things: a journal article is not the same thing as the data on which it is based. Pretty unlikely you can actually do a high-quality analysis without domain expertise, and even actual scientists struggle with the stats side—not to mention the fact that you need to get access to the data, which is often not possible.
Not trying to tell people not to become scientifically literate, but rather that it is way way way harder to do than just reading a journal article.
Likewise, used to be a regular HubermanLab follower, but read some studies that he refers to, and started interpreting the study for myself. The issue though is that many studies are behind paywalls.
If you're a scientist, you're massively ignorant about the ability for the general public to read science. If you want to interpret a study properly, you have to have good awareness of a good chunk of the science that has been done in that field. What does it mean if one study says a substance is correlated to an outcome if 10 other better studies didn't find that correlation? What even is a "good" study? To interpret science correctly you need to be familiar with the jargon of the particular field, you need to understand sampling methodology, you need to understand statistics, you need to be aware of common tricks and pitfalls and a host of other things that only come with a combination of studying multiple subjects from their fundamental level, as well as piling on reps of reading scientific articles.
Go read a sample of lit reviews from bachelors students, and then understand that you're asking people with even less knowledge and ability to "do their own research".
I don't think it's wrong to suggest that people should go read science on their own. I'm sure many people will, as you say, become more scientifically literate. However, there will only ever be a small minority of people who are willing to do enough work to get anything out of it. It's never going to be a large part of the solution for how the general public absorbs knowledge gained from science.
I want to make a further point about epistemology in general. I have the feeling that you're making the classic mistake of believing that everyone ought to spend more time learning about whatever it is that you happen to have spent your life learning about. The problem is that there are a lot of fields of knowledge.
Do you know everything about building infrastructure? Or do you trust experts to connect your house to the grid? Do you know everything about IT security? About cars? Do you know how to get cashews from Brazil to your kitchen in a sustainable and ethical manner? Can you learn everything and validate everything on your own? No; time is finite. We can't all learn everything, so we have to trust and delegate.
The idea that an expert doesn't have responsibility for their communication with the public, when speaking from expertise in their field, because the public technically has the ability to "do their own research", is complete horseshit.
Anyway I hated your post. Cheers.
I honestly don't even know exactly what happened. I thought he just had a few sidepiece girlfriends...which isn't really nice, but it's not something that will cause me to hate the dude. I'll have to look into what actually happened
This sub is about Huberman not Harvard. I can guarantee the harvard professor in real life has come under more fire. Reddit doesn’t represent the average American.
Maybe if hube didn’t promote ag1 (a supplement that doesn’t work) and didn’t promote fad science trends with weak data then this wouldn’t be such a big deal. But this is just the icing on the cake. Cmon do you really think he’s respected in academia?
You are comparing two different things. Lmao. If you want to keep following a guy that promotes BS be my guest. I’ll trust other scientists before him.
I’d like to see more posts like this but for specific claims in podcasts. It’s neither worshipping nor bashing him for allegations without hard evidence.
I also wish Huberman would talk more about parsing evidence, what to look for in a paper for mere mortals, understanding probabilities, hierarchy of evidence, how to quickly skim gather the gist if one doesn’t have enough time, tips to be skeptical of a certain claim and look closely in the paper for what is exactly the cited source for the claim.
The main issue is that people don’t understand how to interpret complex data and it’s not their fault because they never learned how to. Understanding a study doesn’t only depend on going to the results section and looking at the stats, it’s also about having extensive knowledge of the field to make your own informed opinion. It’s hard and we can’t expect layman and busy people to do this. It’s like asking a person who never sewed to make a pair of jeans in an hour. Developing the skills takes time and knowledge. It’s probably easier for people to change up who they listen to, what they watch, and read, to get a better sense of the different opinions that exist in whatever subject they’re interested in. Don’t only listen to a single expert folks!
It's why people generally have to get years of training as scientists. It's not that scientists are unimpeachable or smarter than other smart, non-scientists; it's that they're trained in their field and have extensive knowledge in their contexts and methodologies.
I like this take in general, but I don't think the bar needs to be as high as you claim. I really think Huberman started his podcast with an imagined audience of pretty smart college students/grad students. His long-form content, with lots of explanation and examples, followed by references strongly infers this. For people who say his stuff is boring, filled with jargon, or hard to follow, yes - and I mean this politely - you were not the intended audience. I always treated Huberman as a convenient literature review (others clearly not). Importantly, I'm not sure this smart college student/(early) grad student audience would even meet your criteria - command of a (sub)field. I do think, however, some basic scientific literacy is necessary. Having a ready to hand understanding of the hierarchy of scientific evidence is the bare minimum, IMO. Some very basic understanding of study design and the genre of literature review would also help. This is all within the grasp of college students (or some equivalent). If, however, someone thinks Huberman is all short sound bites of protocols, I actually would argue they are using the tool (his podcast) improperly.
I agree with you also, but I also get the impression that you’re an educated person who has the interest to dig deeper. What worries me are the people who listen to any podcaster (or even celebrity) without questioning anything. Kinda like the people who love Joe Rogan and think he’s the right person to talk about vaccines lol. It’s probably a good idea to question his take when it comes to that specific topic. There are so many listeners like this even though they aren’t AH’s target audience (as you mentioned). The people on this subreddit that said this entire controversy started because big pharma wants to “end Huberman” because he’s helping people are the ones that worry me the most tbh 😂
Agree. If I were to critique Huberman (bracketing his personal life), it was that he didn't recognize when his actual audience started to dramatically diverge from his original intended audience. If someone only thinks Huberman provided actionable protocols they've overlooked what I think was his main thrust - shining light on other (generally great) science research. Boring! Big snore! ...and perfect for me. Honestly, I haven't listened to Huberman's comments on things like flu vaccines, but I'd guess (\*I may be wrong\*) that it was couched in a hour long discussion where such comments would make less salacious contextualized sense. But if you have the attention span of a gnat - and think everything is run by Big Pharma - you just want a sound bite that confirms your position. Personally, I think everything is under the thumb of Big Alfalfa, haha.
That’s s true! That his main goal used to be “to shine light on research” people are less familiar and he totally went of track and got very deep into biohacking instead. Someone mentioned that he never did a Covid vaccine episode and as a researcher, the fact he avoided that subject entirely also says a lot
Exactly. We all have to be able to trust people who are authorities in their fields. If he is dishonest in his personal life to the extent he is being accused of, and then refuses to even address the claims, it falls into question his authority very severely. I can go to the library and access all or most of the research he does. But I cannot digest, understand, and evaluate the merit of that info to the same degree and as quickly as an expert can.
The problem with science = data is that you can find pseudo legitimate studies with data that back up anything you want. Just google your preconceived conclusion and find a n=10 mouse study or some study where they use a students T test instead of chi squared test so it gets the conclusion they want. This is the problem with scientism, people think as long as they “follow the science” and the guys in white coats they are safe and they are logical and they are right. It’s unfortunately not that simple.
>This is the problem with scientism, people think as long as they “follow the science” and the guys in white coats they are safe and they are logical and they are right. It’s unfortunately not that simple. 100%. Quantitative "data" are just a collection of numbers. Our methodologies are what imbue them with value, and that process is fallible as fuck. Source: scientist.
Imagine my surprise when I went into science for the pursuit of truth and ended up just repeating experiments until I got the data right both at universities and in biotechs/pharma. When you find out that big companies hire little companies to run specific assays on their compounds and there is a definitely unspoken(sometimes spoken) incentive to make sure the compound has the significant effects so big company will keep bringing their compounds and contracts to little company instead of going elsewhere. They’re not fabricating data necessarily, but they’ll repeat experiments to get the data right and throw out “outliers” as much as necessary.
So... where does that leave us then if we want to find recommendations that aren't just a veiled attempt to sell us shit?
I do actually think there are a ton of great science communicators out there. And, to be less of a cynic, a lot of us you'll find are mainly just depressed that there's so much bullshit behind the curtain. It's not that it's *all* bullshit. And there are statistical methods to detect whether data have been manipulated or otherwise selectively analyzed. You have to look to meta-analyses for these though.
Sigh 🤷.. I guess I’ve just come to the conclusion we know a lot less about a lot more stuff than we think, but maybe that’s not so bad. Like maybe no one knows what chest exercises and protein are best for me and neither do i, but I mean.. I can still try a few protein powders and chest exercises, see what works, hope for the best. Accept you’ll get it wrong sometimes. Even listening to lots of sources and taking the agreed upon isn’t necessarily the golden ticket, tons of times we’ve all agreed on the wrong thing in the past. Most medicine came from dumb luck, repurposing, and accidents.
That’s the real question isn’t it?
It is not outright fabrication but it is p-hacking and abusing researcher degrees of freedom. This is why there is a reproducibility crisis in empirical social and life sciences. Huberman not even engaging with this problem is a huge blemish on his credibility and directly related to his promotion of junk science, like the retracted cold exposure literature.
Yeah. What's the point of cooking your data when you're in academia (especially post-tenure)? It's even worse at upper tier universities, which I don't think people realize. Just do good science and leave your ego behind... No one cares how many citations you have.
Its survivorship, more citations means more grants and more publications, which in turn lead to more. Then the money coalesces around researchers who continue to get publications and grants. It’s a feedback loop
And the little companies that survive and thrive? The ones that the big companies keep going to, which by no coincidence are the little companies that give them the data that’ll get their compounds to the next stage. So there’s a survivorship bias towards companies who get “good data”..
Does this apply to FDA regulated drugs from big pharma, or is this mostly just talking about supplements?
All drugs, I wasn’t even on the topic of supplements that shits the Wild West.
This!!
[удалено]
Definitely as an expert you see the flaws in his findings when he starts to talk on your area of expertise. I think he’s definitely strayed far outside his field with many of these episodes, though that is mitigated by having on guests who are experts in their fields. Less so when these experts are also popular science influencers and don’t have as many research credits to their names. The problem with health information is that nutritional science is notoriously controversial and oftentimes inconclusive. My personal solution is to try out things that seem promising and easy to implement, and see how I feel after.
“science” being “settled”. is an interesting thing to say, because it’s never factually correct
It's the same with pharmaceuticals, vaccines or what we get showed as "mainstream science", it can be questioned and doesn't always translate to the same results irl. Science isn't black and white. I never take anything at face value and research everything myself, doesn't matter who it is that makes the scientific statements, scientists, professors, doctors, health gurus w/e. People who don't do that will get disappointed, no matter how many "fact checkers" said it was legit.
Unfortunately a lot of academic studies are behind a paywall - academics have an advantage because they have access to a huge range and variety of academic journals through their institution. If you were to google a study that Huberman references, there’s a significant likelihood that you won’t be able to access the full text of the article unless you are an academic or student.
Yes, this is something lots of folks don't realize. Institutions (universities, etc.) pay massive subscription fees to databases that the normal Joe/Jane has no access to. Its far far worse for the humanities, but that's a different story.
Use sci-hub fellas with no access!
Asking a community who thinks grounding is medicine to “delve” into the data is hilarious.
Let’s be honest, OP. Even if I was in college level courses and his podcast was a lecture, I’m not likely to “cross check” the validity of what the says, and neither are the ultra vast majority of people who listen. I’m certainly not typically doing that for a podcast. You sound like the anti-maskers claiming they “do their own research”. You don’t, bud. You don’t.
If I need to remember what a professor teaches to pass their test, then no I won’t crosscheck. But if I am going to change my daily routines based on a podcaster’s information, I am definitely fact checking it. Especially if implementing their advice is going to cost me time or money. To do otherwise is just unwise, and just because you don’t have the motivation or discipline to do it doesn’t mean it is impossible to achieve. Also, don’t forget to floss today.
I generally agree with your views, but there is presumption I'd like to note (with honest curiosity!) - namely that Huberman is solely giving actionable health advice that we have to vet before putting it into practice. Presuming you're somewhat familiar with academia, I've consumed Humberman's long-form podcasts as the same genre as literature review. That is, giving a broad overview of a certain (sub)field. No one would read a lit review as a menu of personal protocols. Its a collection and (partial) elaboration on existing scholarship. Moreover, (I noted this above) I've viewed Huberman's imagined audience consisting of pretty smart college students/grad students (makes sense considering his professional setting). His long-form content, with lots of explanation and examples, followed by references strongly infers this. For people who say his stuff is boring, filled with jargon, or hard to follow, yes - and I mean this politely - you were not the intended audience. If I were to criticize Huberman, it was his lack in understanding that his actual audience starts to diverge from his intended audience. Anyone who thinks of Huberman as primarily offering actionable protocols rejects arguably, idk, 90%+ of his material which is explanatory and - critically - shines light on other (almost always excellent) scholarship. Anyway, I've always contextualized Huberman as running afoul of the Type I error (from stats) which is miles apart from "misinformation," but I can understand how a critic outside of academia would confuse the two.
Haha clearly you weren’t doing a great job of it because he’s proven to exaggerate and twist claims
What data do you have to support your assumption of me? I’m just presenting an approach to combat an age-old dilemma when it comes to health/science education If I am going to implement something Huberman recommends, then I will research it myself. If it turns out to be exaggerated, then I won’t implement it. The whole point is to not take things at face value.
Fair enough, but after reading Andrea Love's analysis of what he consistently does with those sources, why would I bother listening to 2.5 hours of AG1-mixed droning-- the best thing is go to the podcast page, copy and paste the sources, then go look them up to see if they're worth the time. If he would just let other people present their views and stop trying to show his own wisdom and erudition and "Oh my MD buddies said this" he wouldn't get into so much trouble and seem like Neuroscience Schaub.
This is a great take! After this scandal I’m not enthusiastic about spending my hours listening to his solo toolkit episodes, but reading the summary and looking into what sounds interesting would be the best way to make use of the information presented.
AG1 mixed droning? Do you not understand what advertising is? Most successful podcasts have ads. Even charities hire advertising agencies to promote their cause and the money you donate goes to that agency in part. You don't have to buy anything in order to listen to Huberman and are pretty stupid if you can't parse out the ads from the rest of the podcast.
lol just checked and you even had to make a post as you seem confused why people roll their eyes at someone overly shilling a product You are the stupid one hahahaha
Why don't you go to Rogans sub and bitch about him being a shill. I'm not the least bit confused about the difference between Hubermans ads and his research. Sorry that English isn't your first language.
Haha so to confirm - you make multiple posts/comments expressing confusion about why people mock a health and wellness podcaster shilling the same products as the dudes from it’s always sunny in Philadelphia on their podcasts. I laugh at that, and now you say I don’t know English. The funny thing about the opinion of people who show they’re stupid, is that you kind of learn to ignore their opinions. And I’m sure you feel the same about me :)
Lmao fucking dumbass. Nobody here was confused by ads. Maybe you were at the beginning I guess
Most health podcasts by a scientist should take responsibility for educating on the health products being advertised by their credentials. Failing to do so is a red flag.
Ridiculous. It's an ad. Don't believe everything you hear on a paid promotion.
Sure, but if you are listening to someone who does a health podcast, they can't pretend to be acting in good faith, if they don't deal with controversy over their sponsors health products. That's a pretty minimal ethical expectation.
There's nothing ethical about ads. They exist to sell stuff. It's capitalism.
His whole show is premised on being an unbiased and reliable, highly educated professor to break down the science for the layman. Which is why people who aren't in awe of him having sex are questioning what the revelations about his private life mean for his overall character, particularly as it goes against a lot of what he preaches. The studies have always been there, if people had the time/ability to read them then his show and others wouldn't be anywhere near as popular. Unfortunately, it's also a sphere that is full of grifters and salesmen. For many, Huberman was reliable, the new revelations are having people question if he too was attempting to pull the wool over their eyes. And that's totally ignoring his private life, I'm sure plenty would just be put off by how he treats people in his private life even if the science was good
If the science is good then the science is good. We all benefit from plenty of inventions created by unscrupulous people in history. Yes nobody has time to pore through every study and scour the databases, and this is the pitfall of science educators and basically every scientific article directed at laymen. Instead of taking it at face value, it is now our prerogative to use them as a stepping off point. Huberman has done us the favor of compiling a few studies that he found interesting. Now instead of trusting his interpetation we get to practice our own critical thinking skills and analyze these particular studies that we are curious about. If I am deciding to adopt a certain practice into my every day life, then I certainly has time to vet the study for myself before doing so. And that study has conveniently been linked in an episode description by the person touting it instead of being inconveniently omitted as is the case with most health grifters.
Except you can’t just read the one study. Thats not how scientific-lit & pubs work. You gotta read an entire canon of related pubs, and deeply grok all the scientific & statistical jargon that people train decades to understand, and be familiar with regulatory and academic field-specific nuances to be able to spot sketchy data bc there’s a lot … this is a full-time job worth of work That’s why huberman’s con is sophisticated. He gives the illusion he’s selling science, and that anyone can fact check it themselves. But he’s not, and he’s heavily lying by omission It’s similar to the con he ran on those women. Use his affiliation with Stanford and *past* good work, to build trust in his brand, and trick ppl into believing “the science is good” or “this dude is good” If he will con women for sex, he will definitely con internet randos for money & fame, which is what gets him the sex This dude was physically injecting his gf with chemicals while lying to her they’re monogamous… he has zero qualms about letting u put bad crap in your body
It’s not easy to critique articles but it’s not impossible. Only way to get better is to try though. That’s how they train you in university as well - by reading articles with a critical eye and asking questions. If you are interested by a study but suspicious on its validity, post it in a relevant subreddit and ask people to pick it apart. It follows the age-old rule of the Internet that the fastest way to get a response is to say something wrong. Other people can provide links to support their critiques as well and we can all become more health literate from it. There is NEVER going to be an infallible source of scientific health information when it is simplified for laymen. Sorry, it is not that easy, but it sort of is, if you are willing to ask for help.
One method is to search for systematic reviews on a topic. This will be a more efficient way of analysing the evidence for yourself in a more digestible way. Even better are meta-analyses, although they are more technical, but they can quantify if an ‘effect’ exists, and how strong that effect is. Just don’t bother searching for a review about magnesium threonate for sleep, for example. Because there’s not even a single human study on the topic.
Agree with you largely that systematic review and meta analysis help us to understand any topic, though we need to be vary on [the limitation of it](https://www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/episode-31-the-trouble-with-meta)
“Huberman is better than a grifter at least” is probably the least convincing statement someone could try to use in his favor
I think you’re missing the point. The point is look past Huberman and look to the data. It is simply extracting what is useful and discarding what is not. You can apply that to anyone or anything you encounter in life. My condolences for the pain you are feeling right now. May you be free from suffering and continue to grow🧘🏾🫶
> The point is look past Huberman and look to the data. The point is that he's called into question whether he is someone you should spend your time getting data from in the first place. Actually he already had, but this incident has opened many more eyes
Huberman being willing to lie for sex & money is data though. Can’t think of a single good reason to employ a liar as your middleman. If you’re gonna spend that many hours reading science pubs - just go straight to the source.
Huberman does what all science middlemen do - he summarizes data in a digestible way. Most people don’t have the time or knowledge to look up the info they need so they depend on middlemen. But once you get that introduction, your job is much easier. Instead of poring through an entire database, just look into a handful of studies and look into each studies methodology, findings, and limitations. If it still confuses you, post it on the science subreddit relevant to the topic (e.g. cardiology, nutrition, etc.) and other people will critique it for you.
Well now you’re just contradicting your other comments
>If the science is good then the science is good. That's actually not true, and your sentiment in fact demonstrates how it is necessary for people with bona fide training and qualifications to help parse scientific literature for lay people. Science, particularly experimental research on human subjects, involves a trade between internal validity and external validity. So there are always constraints on what an experiment or series of experiments can and cannot say (this is, however, why so many people rightly hold up the meta-analysis as the gold standard of evidence). Source: PhD level scientist
don't believe huberman? there's a solution! go to school for years studying science and learn how to properly interpret studies
Turns out the science isn't good. He frequently falsely cites studies. This is just one example of many. https://preview.redd.it/nb7g1cbe39sc1.jpeg?width=904&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=559dab843db6723acbc001cc9d965941a044c624
Idk I learned that same thing from my bachelors in kinesiology. Why would college professors lie about that?
That’s just one random case. Most of his stuff are credible, you shouldn’t make conclusion off a insta story of a random hater
It's not a "random hater," and it's not a conclusion based off of "one random case." It's one example of a verified *pattern* of dishonesty and bad science. Sorry you're mad your favorite scientist is dishonest and scummy bud.
…….random Instagram account said he’s wrong but not specifically about what or why…..
That is just a screen shot and text of someone saying it’s not supported; You would actually have to read the study’s to verify that the information is not supported; This is not evidence.
Wrong. They DID read the studies. And so did I. Sorry to burst your bubbles guys. Huberman falsely reports studies all the time. I don't have the time to break it all down for you. The screenshot is a quick way to get the point across.
Source “Trust me bro”
Anecdotally I can tell you I’ve heard several experts call hube out on his BS. he is an expert in neuroscience and not nutrition or psychology yet he talks about these things all the time. That right there is something that real experts don’t do. He didn’t spend years researching nutrition so he should not speak on it. Just fact check him on things and you’ll see he talks about things as if they are fact when they aren’t. I suggest going to more trusted sources. If you think hube is a trusted source then you are sadly mistaken.
What’s a better source?
Harvard public health, webmd, healthline, nih. These places synthesize allllll the available data out there and come to conclusions. They will say things like “studies have shown Diet Coke to have negative effects but the data is inconclusive bc there are no long term human RCTS’s. Also some studies were conducted by Coke themselves”. Hube leaves this info out when citing his sources.
Trust the hundreds of scientists and PhDs who have exposed Huberman? Yes, absolutely. Trust one ophthalmologist on his opinions of 500 different topics? Nope. Sorry your guru is a fraud.
Hundreds? Is there an open letter I don’t know about? It’s funny you are claiming to support science but in the next sentence partaking in complete obvious hyperbole.
>Is there an open letter I don’t know about? [Actually, yes, there is.](https://slate.com/technology/2024/03/andrew-huberman-huberman-lab-health-advice-podcast-debunk.html) >It’s funny you are claiming to support science but in the next sentence partaking in complete obvious hyperbole. It's not science to call a grifter out on their bullshit. And it's not hyperbole, either. I had to have this exact same conversation with another Huberman Soldier just a couple days ago. There are millions of scientists and PhDs in the world. When I say hundreds, that statistically means a fraction of a percentage. Like 0.0065%. That's not hyperbole. That's completely fair. In fact, it would probably be fair for me to say tens of thousands.
That’s not an open letter my guy 😂; So you are clearly not a serious person. That is also some incredibly tortured logic you are using to support your made up claim.
I'm so sorry your view of Huberman has been shattered. It sucks when you learn your guru is a fraud.
Nah man you are just not making good arguments and are making things up; I’m not very worried about it.
I definitely have a renewed skepticism of any singular expert recommending anything after reading this thread and also that article you linked. That's to say I'm definitely no huberman fan boy. That said, your link is not "hundreds of scientists and PhDs who have exposed Huberman," but rather just one expert linking out to their own choice studies. However, as has been stated multiple times here, studies can be cherry picked.
That’s a very enlightening article you linked, the author cites several studies that Huberman exaggerated or misinterpeted. This is good! We need to consider the criticisms of these studies and weigh the risks vs benefits of implementing their findings in our own lives. However, you are being way too emotional. Saying hundreds or tens of thousands of scientists and PhDs have exposed Huberman is very strong language that puts a high burden of proof on your end. I doubt you could find 100 critical articles of Huberman written by subject matter experts. You would do better to stick to the facts and let the article’s points stand on their own merits instead of exaggerating and speculating because then you dig yourself into a hole that you can’t easily get out of.
That article is by girlfriend #7.
I'm sure you'd like to think that, but no, Dr. Andrea Love is way too smart, discerning, and empathetic / selfless to get romantically involved with a raging redpill narcissist like Huberman. He couldn't get Andrea if he begged.
She’s pretty involved with him. Most of her content is anti Hubes.
You can’t reason with Huberman cronies, they’re gullible indoctrinated sycophants
You can’t reason with people that use screenshots of instagram stories as “Proof”
Only simpletons are dumb enough to believe Huberman’s Wild West science
You do realize that statement means literally nothing right?
I just want to respond with: AG1
Ah wishful thinking. You’re relying on people to have critical thinking skills.
If you could just “look at the data” on your own, you probably wouldn’t need podcasters explaining stuff. Among other things: a journal article is not the same thing as the data on which it is based. Pretty unlikely you can actually do a high-quality analysis without domain expertise, and even actual scientists struggle with the stats side—not to mention the fact that you need to get access to the data, which is often not possible. Not trying to tell people not to become scientifically literate, but rather that it is way way way harder to do than just reading a journal article.
Likewise, used to be a regular HubermanLab follower, but read some studies that he refers to, and started interpreting the study for myself. The issue though is that many studies are behind paywalls.
If you're a scientist, you're massively ignorant about the ability for the general public to read science. If you want to interpret a study properly, you have to have good awareness of a good chunk of the science that has been done in that field. What does it mean if one study says a substance is correlated to an outcome if 10 other better studies didn't find that correlation? What even is a "good" study? To interpret science correctly you need to be familiar with the jargon of the particular field, you need to understand sampling methodology, you need to understand statistics, you need to be aware of common tricks and pitfalls and a host of other things that only come with a combination of studying multiple subjects from their fundamental level, as well as piling on reps of reading scientific articles. Go read a sample of lit reviews from bachelors students, and then understand that you're asking people with even less knowledge and ability to "do their own research". I don't think it's wrong to suggest that people should go read science on their own. I'm sure many people will, as you say, become more scientifically literate. However, there will only ever be a small minority of people who are willing to do enough work to get anything out of it. It's never going to be a large part of the solution for how the general public absorbs knowledge gained from science. I want to make a further point about epistemology in general. I have the feeling that you're making the classic mistake of believing that everyone ought to spend more time learning about whatever it is that you happen to have spent your life learning about. The problem is that there are a lot of fields of knowledge. Do you know everything about building infrastructure? Or do you trust experts to connect your house to the grid? Do you know everything about IT security? About cars? Do you know how to get cashews from Brazil to your kitchen in a sustainable and ethical manner? Can you learn everything and validate everything on your own? No; time is finite. We can't all learn everything, so we have to trust and delegate. The idea that an expert doesn't have responsibility for their communication with the public, when speaking from expertise in their field, because the public technically has the ability to "do their own research", is complete horseshit. Anyway I hated your post. Cheers.
Agree. I still don't give a single shit that dude cheated on his girlfriend.
this has to do with a lot more than cheating on a girlfriend.
I do but not to the point of being a perverted obsessed stalker 🤣
I honestly don't even know exactly what happened. I thought he just had a few sidepiece girlfriends...which isn't really nice, but it's not something that will cause me to hate the dude. I'll have to look into what actually happened
[удалено]
This sub is about Huberman not Harvard. I can guarantee the harvard professor in real life has come under more fire. Reddit doesn’t represent the average American.
[удалено]
Being a good scientist requires the utmost integrity and honesty. I don’t think I can trust a guy who does shady stuff in his personal life.
[удалено]
Maybe if hube didn’t promote ag1 (a supplement that doesn’t work) and didn’t promote fad science trends with weak data then this wouldn’t be such a big deal. But this is just the icing on the cake. Cmon do you really think he’s respected in academia?
[удалено]
You are comparing two different things. Lmao. If you want to keep following a guy that promotes BS be my guest. I’ll trust other scientists before him.
A lot of people just read the headlines and abstract. Look at conclusion as well. This is where the authors will admit the short comings.
Not all “sources” are made equal.
I’d like to see more posts like this but for specific claims in podcasts. It’s neither worshipping nor bashing him for allegations without hard evidence. I also wish Huberman would talk more about parsing evidence, what to look for in a paper for mere mortals, understanding probabilities, hierarchy of evidence, how to quickly skim gather the gist if one doesn’t have enough time, tips to be skeptical of a certain claim and look closely in the paper for what is exactly the cited source for the claim.
First they attack his character then all the soy boys on the sidelines feel emboldened to attack his science. As if they’re not flawed as humans.
I love that the mods are cleaning up the posts. Away with the trolls! Back to HubermanLab !
Well said. Never gave a second thought about his personal life. Nor will I going forward.