Dissecting the Dietary Doctrines of a Neuroscience Icon

Embark on a journey of discernment as I, Simon DeVere, dissect the widespread health and fitness ideologies of Andrew Huberman, renowned neuroscientist and host of the Huberman Lab podcast. While the recent exposé on his personal life has sparked much chatter, our spotlight today shines unwaveringly on the influence of his teachings in the wellness realm. Discover the depths of Andrew's academic prowess and the profound impact of his protocols that now resonate in everyday health conversations, from academic corridors to the buzzing streets of Venice Beach. Together with guest Robert Lustig, we delve into the heart of the matter, separating nutritional facts from fiction, and examining the intricate relationship between scientific evidence, societal health beliefs, and the ever-evolving anti-vaccine discourse.

Today's discussion steers into the murky waters of nutritional supplements and their promotion amidst the fitness community. With a critical eye, I examine the potential biases introduced by sponsorship deals and the implications for the health guidance distributed to Huberman's audience. We explore the controversial alignment of processed supplements alongside anti-processed food narratives and the possible discrepancies that arise. As we wade through these complexities, we'll confront the misuse of scientific credibility in marketing, the challenges of navigating the supplement industry, and the broader sociopolitical shifts affecting public health perspectives.

To round off our conversation, I reveal my personal reflections on Andrew Huberman's content, acknowledging the areas where admiration meets critique. I invite you to join this ongoing dialogue, recognizing the necessity for continued learning and growth—both mental and physical—in our collective pursuit of wellness. Together, let's forge a path that prioritizes foundational health practices and cultivates a discerning mindset towards the health advice we encounter in the digital age.

Producer: Thor Benander
Editor: Luke Morey
Intro Theme: Ajax Benander
Intro: Timothy Durant

For more, visit Simon at The Antagonist

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to the Mind Muscle Podcast.
Here's your host, simon DeVere,and welcome back to Mind Muscle
, the place we study the history, science and philosophy behind
everything in health and fitness.

(00:25):
Today I am Simon Devere andthere is nothing new except all
that has been forgotten.
All right, today we're going totouch on the news cycle again.
So, yeah, admittedly I wasalready kind of starting to prep
up a series on at least what Iconsider the modern day gurus.

(00:49):
We already hit on oprah, Ialready had this one in the
works, and then a news storypopped that uh, made it a little
more timely, so I rushed up,finished up, but I actually want
to take a deep dive into andrewhuberman of a huberman lab,
officially the most popularpodcast in the health and

(01:12):
fitness space today, uh,currently, right now, um, but
yeah, so there there was a newyork magazine piece that um
dropped within the week and it'smostly focusing on, I guess,

(01:32):
huberman's dating life, if youwill.
So again, even though that ishighly available, we will
discuss it somewhat, butadmittedly, that's the part that
I have prepped the least for.
So, anyway, I am trying to ridethe coattails of the SEO

(01:56):
relevance of the topic, somethings that are probably not
being discussed in the piecethat has made Huberman arguably
the main character of theinternet for a few days.
I actually want to focus moreon the aspects that I'm at least

(02:18):
somewhat qualified to speak on,which are going to be some of
the health and fitness advicethat Huberman has given through
his podcast.
But anyway, I know that forpeople in the health and fitness
space, this is a household name, but there's actually a pretty
good chance that you know atleast some people still have no

(02:39):
idea who I'm even talking about,so you know.
Probably a little bit ofbackground warranted before we
dive all the way in.
But yeah, I guess, if you don'tknow who Andrew Huberman is, as
I mentioned at the top, hecurrently has the most popular
podcast.
Spotify just put out rankingsof the top 10.
And he's first in the healthand fitness space.

(03:02):
Almost 4 million listeners, Iguess, is that what they call
them.
But yeah, so he objectively hasan incredibly successful health
and fitness podcast.
He got his PhD in neurosciencefrom UC Davis, go Aggies.

(03:25):
I got a few close to me in mylife, so that's cool.
I like folks from Davis, Iactually lived there myself at
one point and then, yeah, he isan assistant professor at
Stanford.
We'll touch on that later, eventhough I'm introducing that as
a fact in his bio.
That's slightly contested butwe don't have good sources on

(03:48):
either end of that one.
And yeah, also alluded to atthe top a piece about his dating
life.
He's got what like five or sixdifferent girlfriends, something

(04:11):
like that, but that has madehim the main character of the
internet for a few days and, asI mentioned, I have been
prepping to cover him justbecause he is one of the most
popular health influencers rightnow.
So it would be well, you kindof have to cover it right
Because he is one of the biggestnames out there.
You kind of have to cover itright Because he is one of the
biggest names out there.
But yeah, actually I was hangingout in Venice Beach recently

(04:31):
and just meeting some new folksand we were talking about we're
actually meeting over somecoffee, so everybody's
discussing their favorite coffeedrinks, stuff like that.
But then it turns to themorning routines and this is a
very subtle, admittedlyunscientific, metric.

(04:51):
That kind of signals to me whenideas are reaching peak
salience would be a nice way tosay it Jumping the shark,
perhaps, to use a term from myadopted hometown of Hollywood.
But yeah, just as I was talkingto some folks that and I'm

(05:12):
going to say some things, like Ialways do, but no judgment,
it's just an observation Peoplethat were not considered fit in
my estimation were telling meall about their cold plunging
and their morning routines,because I have been observing
this space for many years and Iknow what most people are saying

(05:35):
at any given time.
It was pretty obvious to methese were some Huberman
protocols that these people weretrying to teach me about, and
anyway, I'm a bit of a fitnesshipster and whatever guilty as
charged.
But as a trainer who also has aninterest in finance, when

(05:57):
people that I don't consider fitstart lecturing me or giving me
unsolicited advice on fitnesshacks that I could do to improve
my fitness, it actually remindsme of a famous anecdote from
Joseph Kennedy, and he famouslysaid that if the shoeshine boys
are given stock tips, then it'stime to get out of the market,

(06:18):
and so part of me felt that, inthat vein, it was time to start
exploring the work and advice ofAndrew Huberman, as his voice
is becoming the voice of theunsolicited health and fitness
advice that I am hearing.
If this was finance and I couldsomehow short those positions,

(06:46):
I would, because my time infinance has taught me, when
things reach that peak, the edgeis gone.
Once it's trickled into certainpopulations, it's time to, as
Kennedy said, get out of themarket.
But in truth, I also want tobring up that, yeah, I'm going

(07:07):
to say some critical things, butI just want to highlight
upfront and throughout, whereverit's warranted.
I actually think there's goingto be a lot that Andrew Huberman
and I agree on.
A number of my clients listento the show.
I've already had manysimilarities in the things we

(07:27):
discussed cited to me.
So, yeah, I don't want this toeven come off like a hit piece
by any stretch.
Again, I'm not going to bediscussing anything that was in
New York Magazine.
Going to be discussing anythingthat was in New York Magazine.
I'm mostly going to bediscussing ideas that he has

(07:50):
promoted on his podcast and,yeah, we're just going to talk
mostly about those things.
So most of my disagreements Ithink I'm going to be able to
justify.
And, yeah, I also don't wantthis to seem in any way
contentious or that I don't likehim.
I don't.

(08:10):
I don't know him, but heactually works out in a
neighborhood I train in, reallygood chance I could actually
just cross paths with him inreal life.
So again, not a hit piece, notdoing that, just different
perspective.
And yeah, there is a fair bitof overlap and actually let's

(08:31):
just keep that going, let's keepthe kumbaya, the good vibes
going and we'll open up on whereHuberman and I agree and
actually a couple of thesethings I can admit that I even
learned a little bit from him on.
So yeah, first we'll startthere.
One that I would actually creditHuberman with opening my eyes

(08:53):
to is don't have caffeine rightwhen you wake up.
We both share is sort ofsyncing up our routines with
circadian rhythms.
In that vein, he was reallypromoting the idea that you
shouldn't wake up andimmediately drink coffee.

(09:14):
His justification there wasthat obviously what wakes you up
out of bed is a shot ofcortisol.
When you drink your coffee,you're getting another shot that
you don't actually need at thattime.
In addition, you haven't hadany water in the last six to
eight hours, depending on howlong you were sleeping, assuming
you don't sleepwalk andanything like that.
But yeah, it's actually justnot the ideal time to get the

(09:39):
most out of your caffeine, for alot of reasons, contributes to
dehydration.
You should maybe starthydrating first thing, instead
of taking down a diuretic andgetting another shot of cortisol
when you don't need one.
So anyway, yeah, credit toHuberman there for helping me
adopt that as a general practice.

(09:59):
I'm not immediately hitting thecoffee.
I don't know if I wait the 90minutes to two hours immediately
hitting the coffee.
I don't know if I wait the 90minutes to two hours, but it
ain't first thing in the morninganymore.
Big one that we also and Ithink this is what my clients
notice If you listen to Hubermanor you listen to myself, it's
become clear that neither one ofus is a big fan of drinking.

(10:25):
I think there are a lot ofpeople that have a very
favorable opinion of Huberman.
He might be the person whoconvinced them to stop drinking.
Lots of accounts of Hubermanchanging people's lives and of
the advice that I see him giving.
This is the one that I wouldsay has the most potential to

(10:46):
really do that, and why Iunderstand that comment of some
of his listeners, particularlyas they have seen him getting
criticized this week that'ssomething that they keep
reminding is that actuallylistening to this podcast has
created actual, real positivechange in my life to this

(11:07):
podcast has created actual, realpositive change in my life and
because I have seen himconsistently speak on that, I
don't doubt that for one second.
That's something that we justflat out completely agree on and
I've said it again or I've saidit many times, I will say it
again Just in doing what I dofor years and you hear people

(11:30):
telling you what their healthissues are and what their diets,
what their routines look like,that really has become my least
common denominator.
90% of the problems peoplecomplain to you about if you're
a trainer can be directlyimproved by not drinking.
I'm not a teetotaler.
Of the problems people complainto you about if you're a
trainer can be directly improvedby not drinking.
I'm not a teetotaler.
I'm not a priest or a moralauthority on anything, so I'm

(11:53):
not coming at it from that angle.
I really am just coming at itfrom that angle of your trainer
and I'm down to listen.
I really am.
I don't want to sound like I'mimpatient or anything, but when
somebody keeps talking about thesame problems and they don't
stop with what's actuallycausing them, there's a bit of

(12:14):
frustration.
And again, in the health andfitness space.
I've also seen how there hasbeen a lot of justification for
people to continue drinking,where those studies,
particularly like red wine isgood for your heart.
We've done this separately, butthat one was debunked but the
results were too good, meaningthat people liked the results so
they just didn't do away withit for so long.
That, again, the reason I bangon about it so much is it's

(12:37):
probably the single biggestthing I see that people will
think is consistent with healthylifestyles.
That, in my experience as beingpeople's trainer and scouring
the literature as I doperiodically, is really really
hard for me to believe.
But yeah, there's a slightlittle hipster in me that is

(13:01):
going to come out a few timesthis episode, but I've been
talking about this for a longtime.
So I hey, if Huberman Lab gotyou to stop drinking, honestly
that's great and I'm thankfulactually that somebody with the
power or a platform that largeis using it for something good
that can actually improvepeople's lives.

(13:21):
But there is that annoyinghipster that in me who has been
doing this for a long time withno fame, no flowers thrown my
way for doing it, mostlyresistance actually and anger.
So, um, yeah, anyway, there's aslightly annoyed hipster who
has gotten a lot of resistancefor saying the same thing, who

(13:43):
never got the type of flowersand cool testimonials he's
getting for saying the samething I've done for decades.
But anyway, leave that aside.
We arrived at the same point.
It's not his fault.
Nobody gave me credit forsaying it all that time.
Another one that Huberman big ongo outside.
I love telling people to touchgrass.
Aside from alcohol, that mightbe the number two amendment they

(14:08):
could do to just immediatelyimprove their life.
Yeah, so he is obviously big onthat.
That also ties in the circadianrhythm.
He wants people gettingsunlight early in the morning.
That's going to correlate withsleep.
Health, which is also anotherthing that Huberman talks a lot
about, is basically that sleepis important.
That really comes across with alot of his podcasts and yeah,

(14:35):
so there are some distinctions.
I think they're going to comeup later with that.
You know that after acceptingthose facts, we may do some
different things, but again,that's actually a pretty good
list of things that we agree on,because now I am going to start
questioning and being criticaland I just know how those things

(14:58):
go.
This isn't a hit.
I don't hate the guy.
We got a lot in common in moreways than one.
We're both dudes who were bornin Central California and live
in Southern California right now, work in health and fitness and
talk about a lot of the samethings.
So, anyway, we're about to getinto the critical portion.
But no, I imagine we probablyhave some people listening that,

(15:20):
like myself, were also HubermanLab listeners.
So I just don't want whatfollows to be seen as being
contentious or trying to pile on.
These are distinctions andissues that I've had for a while
that I just felt this was maybethe time to finally bring them
up.
So, anyway and this one shouldactually come as no surprise

(15:47):
I've been very, very consistenton this, but obviously I'm not a
big fan of nutritionsupplements.
To me, one of the questionablepositions that Huberman has with
his show and his platform isactually having so many paid
sponsors that are in thesupplement industry.

(16:08):
In fairness, again, I want tokeep this a good faith
discussion.
Having a paid sponsor obviouslyin and of itself is not a
disqualifier.
I'd take one, not going to lie.
So, yeah, I'm not going to comeout and be like, oh, because
you have a paid sponsor, youmust be full of shit.

(16:29):
No, but it certainly does bringin conflicts of interest and it
might even dictate some of thecontent that one chooses to look
at.
I do think actually there is astrong argument to be made that
Huberman has let some of thoseaffiliations dictate the advice

(16:51):
he gives.
Um, and yeah, let's just notspeak in generalities, let's be
specific, um.
So again, the, the number onesponsor of his show is Athletic
Greens.
And again, good faith, he'scertainly not the only show
sponsored by Athletic Greens.
They sponsor a lot of shows.

(17:11):
He's definitely not shy aboutthat.
I think he's been relativelytransparent.
He says that he takes it.
I've taken it at some point, sothat's not a big deal to me
either.
It at some point.
So that's not a big deal to meeither.

(17:31):
But I'm going to also be honestand don't get mad.
I got the AG1 mixer in mypantry right now.
So I'm just telling you I mightbe projecting here, but no,
just like the guy in Venicetelling me about his cold
plunging morning routine.
Ag1 and even that little mixerbottle that they send you,
that's got the little metallictop and it's clear that for me,

(17:52):
right there is almost becoming asign, or a signal of somebody
who is really into health andwellness.
Remember I got one in my closettoo, health and wellness
Remember I got one in my closettoo.
But, as I mentioned, I've had amixed relationship with green

(18:13):
powders over the years.
We talked about it here before.
To me, the green powder is likethe modern multivitamin and
there's a litany of scientificliterature talking about the
ineffectiveness and just lack ofefficacy of multivitamins.
Yet I actually find the logicof multivitamins to make a lot

(18:34):
of intuitive sense, and it madesense to me for a long time.
But actually just when I wasputting this together it finally
all kind of came together andso, full disclosure, I'm not
actually drinking a green powderright now.
Maybe I'll fall prey to the samethinking that I have many times

(18:55):
in the past and fall back, goback into old patterns, but no,
finally, I actually saw themultivitamin logic as actually
quite simple or quite similar,rather, to Pascal's wager.
So for you guys who are notphilosophy nerds in the audience
, pascal's wager was basicallythis idea that well, you can't

(19:20):
know if God exists or doesn't.
You can't know if God exists ordoesn't.
So strategically, it's just agood idea to say you believe in
him, just in case he is real,then you get to go to heaven.

(19:40):
And then, if you were wrong andhe wasn't real, no downside.
Actually quite similar to thelogic behind multivitamins Even
though we have no evidence oftheir efficacy, we still use
them in the hope that they aregoing to cover gaps, gaps which
haven't been identified or notedin any study, but the kind of
just-in-case principle, just incase those things exist, then

(20:07):
taking the multivitamin mightoffer some health benefits, you
know, just in case.
And then, if not, well, no harm,no foul.
There's, yeah, and again, moreand more.

(20:41):
I'm not really sure of theefficacy of notonent, of
athletic greens, which isobviously a highly processed
food-like product.
But yeah, any supplement isobviously incredibly highly
processed.
So, yeah, you just got to becareful with how you're running

(21:04):
all that down.
And again, not be careful withhow you run it down.
But his justification for whyyou shouldn't eat processed
foods would also actually knockout the athletic greens, which
again just makes me think thathis advice probably has a little
bit more to do with the factthat they paid to sponsor the
show than the fact that heactually thinks that it has

(21:27):
efficacy for people using it.
The data on supplements ingeneral is very small short
studies, numbers of limitationsbut the evidence really isn't
strong.
And again, I'm not doing a hitpiece here.
I don't actually think AndrewHuberman is stupid.

(21:50):
You listen to his show.
I think you'll come to theopposite conclusion, which
actually makes me think thathe's well aware of the
limitations of some of thethings that he is advocating,
and he's just not sharing hishonest feeling with his audience
.
I don't know that to be true,but a man with his education and

(22:14):
how well versed he is on anumber of topics, it is hard to
believe that he would actuallythink that supplements are
extremely efficacious.
Another one that he is actuallypromoting now is Ashwagandha,
and I actually went back toGoogle Trends and you can do

(22:35):
this yourself.
Go to Google Trends, type inAshwagandha and you'll see that
nobody was talking or thinkingabout Ashwagandha for over a
decade, until about June of 2021, which is exactly when he
dropped his episode on it.
But a little backgroundashwagandha has been used since
about 6,000 BC and this is notits first moment in the sun in

(22:58):
my lifetime.
So back when I was in my early20s, there were very, very
similar arguments slightlydifferent but very similar
arguments being made forimproving testosterone by using
ashwagandha and yours truly atethat up hook line and sinker

(23:20):
like a fucking trout in thoselakes.
I used to fish in Montana.
Never seen anything.
I just bit every shiny objectwhen I was like 18 to 25.
And so, honestly, I've seen theliterature.
We're going to get into that.
But my first thing on like whyI'm saying ashwagandha doesn't
work comes from using it myself,getting into biohacking as I

(23:42):
was back then, and attempting tomove the needle with my
training.
Anecdotal, but in my experienceI had really expensive piss.
I'd probably give it one starand I have never recommended it
to anybody.
Um, it's one of those thingsyou almost pretend like.

(24:05):
Like when I was alsosupplementing with tribulus
around the same time.
You kind of pretend that youdidn't do because you see all
the well it doesn't work.
You waste your money on it, youfeel embarrassed and you just
pretend like it didn't happen.
Um, so part of me is actuallywilling to bet that nobody who
is this thing to record levelsof search relevance and trending

(24:28):
was partaking in the adoptioncycle that I took part in,
because that's a big reason whythe pitch isn't working on me
this time around is I alreadytried it and it didn't work for
me.
So, yeah, some of the specificclaims that Huberman has made
about ashwagandha that it canprompt multiple knock-on effects

(24:51):
improving vision,cardiovascular health, sleep,
memory that again, a lot oftimes, on face value, is a red
flag just when it's improvingeverything, and some of these
are going to be kind of nebulouslike memory.
How many of you are actuallygoing to be submitting yourself
to controlled trials?
Or are you just going to bewriting back six weeks later and

(25:12):
saying, yeah, yeah, I feelsharper, I feel most of that's
going to come down to surveysand self-perception, which I
don't much believe in.
A meta-analysis of fiverandomized controlled trials
concluded that it may aid insleep, especially people with

(25:34):
insomnia, but found nosignificant effect on quality of
life.
There's evidence of thesupplement causing liver damage.
This was a study that was donein 2020, looking at five cases
of liver injury attributed toashwagandha supplements.
All patients in there haddeveloped jaundice symptoms such

(25:57):
as nausea, lethargy, severeitching, severe itching.
And again, huberman haspromoted its benefits multiple
times.
Another episode that was titledUsing Cortisol and Adrenaline to
Boost Our Energy and ImmuneSystem Function.
It also promoted anotherashwagandha supplement made from

(26:18):
an evergreen shrub and had aprofound effect on anxiety,
reducing stress, cortisol andeven depression.
At least that's the claim.
And again, I understand whypeople that are suffering from
any condition like that is goingto want an answer or something.
I just don't think that this isgoing to be your best play.

(26:43):
The results that we have arenot as good as was said on
Huberman's podcast.
They're mixed, small and,frankly, the results aren't that
good.
Egregious exaggeration of what,at least what I'm seeing in the

(27:09):
literature In general.
This is going to be one of thespaces where I think he and I
would differ the most, and thatwould just be.
We'll wrap up this section onthis.
But use of supplements Said itagain and again, but dietary
supplements are not regulated.
The labels are consistently notwhat is actually in there,
they're not studied and therewas actually a bit of

(27:31):
legislation that was coming outof a senator from Utah many
years back that opened up thiswhole paradigm where people can
come out with products, printhealth claims on it and they
don't actually have to be true.
They're treated more like adsthan health statements.
So almost every singlesupplement you see falls prey to

(27:52):
this and, yep, even the onesthat currently America's
favorite doctor right now ispromoting.
Promoting Not good.
At least the actual literatureon it is really not good.

(28:17):
So now this one's a little bittouchier because in a sense,
actually Huberman is the expertin this.
I am not, he's a PhD.
He should be well-versed in howto use science as a tool.
I'm not a PhD, but I'msophisticated enough to know
that he is actually misusing hiscredentials and the tool of

(28:37):
science heavily on hisaffiliation with an elite
university to bolster hiscredibility, while, at least in
my estimation, misusing a lot ofaspects of science and, frankly
, his position.

(28:58):
Most people in science aretypically wary, very wary, of
overpromising.
They're almost always like soft, peddling their findings with
words like might or may andcould.
Perhaps they don't really likeusing a lot of definitive
language, and you'll notice thatthat's not how Huberman speaks

(29:19):
on his podcast.
Speaks on his podcast.
In fairness, again, I do thinkHuberman does a decent job.
There's a section that's inevery episode, that's kind of
like a disclaimer, where he'sconstantly adding context and
caveats.
But it's almost like whenyou're listening to a financial
podcast and they're obligated bylaw to tell you like hey, this

(29:43):
is not financial advice.
Basically, if you go act onthis and go, fuck yourself up.
We're not responsible.
So, admittedly, that is how Iread that disclaimer, if you
will, and I guess the reason Isay that is because there's
actually a pattern that heexhibits when discussing
scientific issues where I dothink he's actually misusing his

(30:11):
mandate, if you will.
So one device that I do notice alot is he'll start with a
widely held generalization likesleep is important, or exercise
is beneficial, or going outsideis good.
So if you agree with the firstpart, which is almost so banal
and obvious that you couldn'tnot agree with it, why not agree

(30:32):
with everything that comes next?
And so, specifically on that,there was one where he was
promoting how going outdoors wasgood and obviously no argument
here, completely agree.
But then he jumps into somestudy about how people who spent
three to seven days nearrunning water had all of these
better outcomes.
And again, going outside isgood.

(30:57):
That's not in question to me,but that study just sounds like
a load of crap.
Well, not a load of crap, butyou can pretty quickly tease out
that a study like that wasactually more testing wealth
than anything else.
It's not like you're going toget to a direct mechanism in the
outdoor environment that makespeople healthy.
What you're looking at ispeople who have the time to have

(31:18):
three to seven days to be nearrunning water and then, yeah,
just again to kind of paint how.
That's actually not as good asan example as it got painted on
the show and then actually heused it to go and promote an
ionization product because theions outdoors were similar.
But I grew up in Montana.
You know that I mentioned itall the time, but when you live

(31:39):
on an Indian reservation inMontana, the truth is that
there's some kids that grew upon the Indian reservation.
They've been outdoors theirwhole life.
Don't trust me.
Go check the health stats on.
If you were born on an Indianreservation, how does that go?
Flip it around and now you'relike a Californian, like
Huberman or me, and you move upto Montana later in life when

(32:00):
you got a little bit of money inyour pocket, get you like a
nice little lake house At leastthat's what we did.
Do you think your aggregatehealth stats are going to mirror
the people that have actuallybeen living outdoors the whole
life?
Because obviously the seasonalcrowd up in Montana they like to
spend time outdoors, just likethe people who live there year
round, but you're going to findthe seasonal people do better on

(32:22):
education, health, a wholebunch of other things.
And it's not the ions, it's notthe water, it's not the artesian
wells, it's the money in theirbank accounts.
So anyway, I get what he wasdoing.
There is he had an ionizingproduct that he wanted to push,
so he used a study about beingnear running water to try to get
around to making that pitch.
I obviously didn't find it thatconvincing and again, it just.

(32:46):
It shows this pattern of how hewill use scientific literature
in order to promote products.
Another pattern I noticed isthat he will frequently support
his assertions by saying thingslike supported by peer review
research or quote science backed.
And there are links to thepapers in the show notes.
But, like we've talked about,it's important to know that not

(33:08):
all studies are created equal.
Some studies are done in cellsin a Petri dish in vitro or in
animals in vivo, and otherscientists again ask people to
fill out surveys.
You know how I feel about thosestudies and so oftentimes, just
because it's said in the bodyof the show that it's a good

(33:33):
meta-analysis, if you actuallygo follow the studies, a lot of
times that's not actually whatwas included in the show.
Additionally, you will oftennotice if you actually go and
look in the show links and doall of that stuff.
I almost think in a way, peoplesay that, almost daring you not

(33:53):
to do it, because it's like, ohwell, I said it.
So they're just going to thinkI'm telling the truth and they
won't check, because I'vedeployed that verbal device a
few times.
I want you to know.
I actually mean go check me.
I'm not saying that to try toappear above it, because, yeah,
I see that in other folks and Iknow that I've used that.
So literally, don't take myword for it.

(34:15):
Actually, go research it.
I literally mean that, but no,so just one other thing.
I've seen how he uses studies.
At times he often extrapolatesfrom a non-human data to people,
um, using an in vitro study oran in vivo study on non-human
animals to make prescriptiverecommendations or lifestyle
changes in humans.

(34:37):
Um, cherry picking weaker orrelevant studies, discarding
bigger, more robust ones thatdemonstrate a different point
than the one that he is tryingto make.
These are just some of theissues that I have seen him in
reporting on the studies that hecites in his show and brings up

(34:58):
in the body of his show.
Again, I don't think that thisis a stupid person.
I think this is a person who'scapable of telling you
absolutely everything.
I just said.
I have no indication that hewould not be able to do that.
One other subtle issue I havewith how he even uses science on
the show and yeah, not that I'mperfect, by the way, way, I

(35:23):
actually even in writing thisdown and thinking about it, um,
for me, this actually ishighlighting things I can
probably do better.
And and, yeah, I I think that Iadmittedly have probably
mimicked the styles that arepopular in in, you know, citing
studies and things.
And anyway, I, I just want tomake sure that I, I hold myself
to that same standard.

(35:43):
I don't think I've been perfectin the past.
There's room for improvement onmy own part there as well.
But Heberman pushes this ideathat a reason he brings these
scientists to come and discussthe latest findings is that now
they can have an open discussionamong experts about the latest
and greatest studies.
I think that that idea makesintuitive sense, but I actually

(36:07):
think that there is a bigproblem with the practice, and
once somebody gets famous for anidea, then they start lobbying
or fighting for it.
So I actually just think thatthere is a bad alignment of
incentives when and I still wantpeople rewarded and motivated

(36:28):
to do their work.
But once you become famous foran idea, your actions start to
become antithetical to goodscience.
Because if your idea getsoverturned, so does your
celebrity and so does yourrelevance.
And there are countlessinstances of scientists who were
famous for breakthroughs, whothe field moved beyond their

(36:48):
breakthrough and they continuedarguing and lobbying for the
idea.
And again, they were probablyintelligent enough to move on.
But if they move on, they alsomove on from their celebrity and
whatever fringe benefits comewith that.
So one recent example that Ithink fits the bill countless

(37:10):
others, but you guys rememberpower posing.
There was a TED Talk on that awhile back, how you're supposed
to stand in a certain way andincrease your testosterone.
Well, yeah, they followed up onthat and not so much.
But you'll notice, I don't evenremember the researcher's name,

(37:57):
but she's still out therepromoting power posing and I
don't think had she not gottento grace the TED stage and build
some online fame and celebritywith that.
I don't know if a slightlydifferent case, but Dr Gundry
with his case on lectins, hispopular book Plant Paradox.
Again, I read that and feltlike I had to run vegetables out
of my diet.
But I don't think that it'sactually coming from reviewing
the literature.
I think it's because he gotfamous for that idea and now he
kind of has to keep lobbying forit.
So, anyway, I do like havingaccess to scientists, getting to

(38:17):
hear what they discuss, but Ithink there can be a
misalignment of incentives whenresearchers and people that
should be kind of beyond or notconcerned with that fray when
those incentives start playinginto their work, I think it
actually deeply compromises them.
The practice of interviewingexperts on the latest studies it

(38:38):
creates a lot of problems forthe incentives to do good
science and it also adds to thesense that these fields are
constantly flipping on theirheads when we're discussing all
these new studies, when actuallymost of these fields are
actually quite stable.
Like nutrition, science, asI've said many times, is
actually quite stable.
If you're always listening tothe latest studies every single

(39:02):
week, you're going to think thisis a field that is just
spinning like a top and thatactually isn't the way it is.
There are so many reasons whytrust in science is low, but I
don't think that this helps.
And because Huberman has gottena lot of credit for kind of
reviving interest in science,I'm going to dive deeper into my

(39:23):
feelings on that later.
I actually want to point outthat I actually think things
like this can actually underminetrust in science long run.
Just like I mentioned it withmy ashwagandha experience
earlier, if you have theexperience of a trusted expert
telling you something works andthen it doesn't, the likelihood

(39:45):
that you're going to believethem in the future just gets a
little bit lower.
Um, so I do value that he.
He does bring on, you know,researchers, but there's, I do
think that they need to be alittle bit more careful with
some of the discussions and howthey conduct it.
Um, so, yeah, actually one thatyou thought this one would have

(40:06):
been in the agree section, butyes, huberman came out against
processed food, and obviously Isay that all the time, but the
part where I kind of can't agreeis that he went down the rabbit
hole of calling it toxic, andno, it's not.

(40:26):
That's actually one of thismight be the dumbest thing he's
said, and I really have tried tokeep this good faith
respectable.
The whole toxins thing, though,and detox and all of that.
There's absolutely no goodevidence on that.
And even foods that are bad,like sugar.
I'm not saying you should goeat sugar, but it's not toxic.
That's not the reason that youshouldn't eat sugar.

(40:48):
That's a bad argument that Ithink is going to open up worse
cans of worms later.
But yeah, in an episode, hubertwas joined by Robert Lustig, a
pediatric oncologist with ahistory of hyperbolic claims on
nutrition, and he did.
He called sugar poison and thenclaimed that ultra-processed
food consumption inhibits bonegrowth.

(41:09):
Huberman actually followed upasked was this in vitro or in
vivo?
Lustig replied in vivo, and soHuberman asked so these are
people that are eating highamounts of processed food.
Exactly how did the researcherfind those?
In the Middle East?
And then Lustig answered inIsrael to process food.
Exactly how did the researcherfind those in the Middle East?
And then Lustig answered inIsrael?
Problem was, the study wasactually done in animals.

(41:29):
At least the one that Lustigwas referring to was done in
rats.
So the entire discussion wasnot based on a human study.
It was based on a study in rats.
And again, food is not toxic.
All single nutrientexplanations for everything
wrong with human health arewrong, sorry, um, you know.

(41:54):
One other that I did flag isthat he hasn't actually come out
as like full-blown anti-vax um,but he has consistently cast
doubt on the efficacy of flushots.
He, in a semi-recent episode,was dismissing legitimate data
on or at least he was dismissingCDC data on the flu to promote

(42:22):
the idea that the flu shot iscompletely ineffective at
combating any other forms of theflu virus, colds or any other
types of upper respiratoryinfections.
That's a Huberman quote.
So the CDC is in directcontradiction to that, saying
that the flu jab may offer someprotection, while oh and then

(42:46):
you know sorry getting my notesmixed up here, but so we have
about up to 51,000 Americans dieevery year of the flu.
It's estimated that about 1,100lives are saved via flu shots
and honestly, I've tried to stayaway from this one because the

(43:09):
health and wellness space wasactually pretty well split over
COVID.
We got a lot of folks in thisspace that are into alternative
medicine and obviously didn'twant to go the vaxxing route.
But no, I just wanted to pointthis out because during COVID I
do feel like anti-vaxxing didbecome political.
So hear me out, don't turn meoff yet if you're an anti-vaxxer

(43:29):
.
No, I just wanted to point outthat the landscape of
anti-vaxxing shifted a lotduring COVID.
Prior to COVID, anti-vaxxing wasfirst really being pushed from
the work of a no longer doctor,but at the time Dr Andrew
Wakefield.
He was contacted by a lawyerbecause in England they did have

(43:56):
a fund set up for anybody whohad side effects from the MMR
vaccine.
There are side effects tovaccines.
They're small.
But the British government saidif you had a side effect, we
want to pay you, we want to makesure to compensate you for
those damages.
So this lawyer comes up withthis idea that he wants to raid
that fund.
So he goes to Wakefield toactually reverse engineer a test

(44:19):
that he can basically say theseare subjects who had side
effects.
As you know, that's not howscience works.
You don't work back from theconclusion you want to be true.
So Wakefield got his stuffaccepted.
They won a settlement.
After they won that settlementhe comes out to Silicon Valley.
His goal was actually to launcha replacement for the MMR
vaccine.

(44:39):
We've covered that history alittle bit, but the part I
wanted to point out was that heagain arrives in Silicon Valley.
If you go back to the earlyadopters of anti-vaxxing.
These were actually mostlywealthy, college-educated people
in coastal California, mostlyMarin County and the west side
of Los Angeles.
These were the first places tobring measles back.

(45:02):
Covid actually flipped thepolitical orientation of
anti-vaxxing that used to bepre-COVID, a unique property of
the quite well off coastaleducated left Jokingly I call it
the kale crowd.
And one other that I actuallycame across to kind of

(45:25):
demonstrate how quickly peoplehave flipped on this one, joe
Rogan, four days before theCOVID shutdown.
This was from an episode he hadwith an epidemiologist at the
time.
But yeah, four days before wegot closed down, rogan was

(45:47):
saying I hope this wakes peopleup to the value of vaccines too.
So many wackos out there thatthink vaccines are a scam or
they're dangerous.
There's so many people outthere that won't vaccinate their
children, and his guestcouldn't agree more.
I think it's a really importantpoint that we get to this idea
that vaccines can be lifesaving.
If we had one right now, thinkhow different the situation that
we're in would be.
And then back to Rogan.

(46:07):
It would be radically different.
See the measles making acomeback, directly attributed to
lack of vaccines.
So many people are paranoid anddelusional.
They want it all to be aconspiracy.
There's an amazing medicalinnovation in human culture and
that's vaccines.
It's amazing what is done.
Have there been adverse effectson people?
Of course, everything thatpeople do, there's some people

(46:28):
that are going to react in a badway.
It doesn't mean it's not apositive thing.
There's a reason why cases ofpolio are so tiny.
There's a reason why smallpoxwent away.
It's because of vaccines, whensomething like this can be
prevented.
And the reason why people don'tdo it is because they're
paranoid of vaccines and theyget that information from some
wacko website or from someperson who really has no
business talking about it.

(46:48):
Whether it's the people outthere that think it causes
diseases or a government plot,or that it's a medical scam
because it's just trying toraise money, it's just all of it
.
It's very disturbing.
It's part of the people, humanbeings, for whatever reason.
There's a percentage of us thatlean towards conspiratorial
thinking.
They lean towards thinking thatthere's some sort of plot
against them or the government'sagainst them.

(47:09):
It's just.
You got to listen to themedical experts.
So remember, all of that wasnot Simon, that was Joe Rogan,
march 9th 2020.
So Joe Rogan actually has a morepopular podcast than Andrew
Huberman, which is hard to do.
Rogan's number one, I think.
Huberman's number three, numberone in the fitness space, but

(47:29):
Rogan has five times theaudience that Huberman does, so
those two guys are often notthrown into the mainstream
discussion.
In terms of popularity,salience, availability, there is
nothing more mainstream thanthe advice being given by
Huberman and Rogan and again onthis issue, even though it's not

(47:53):
popular to say with some, Ithink they were allowing the
incentives of their audience todictate the content that they're
producing.
Joe Rogan's quote in March 9thmakes it very clear that he
doesn't believe most of whathe's saying today.
It's hard to believe, withHuberman's training, that he
would believe what he's sayingtoday.
I think what both of themfigured out is that there's

(48:17):
actually a lot of money inappealing to those conspiracy
theories.
So that's the differencebetween Joe Rogan, march 9, 2020
and 2024 is he's actuallylearned that there's a lot of
money in saying theseconspiratorial things that are
not actually taboo, forbiddenthought crimes.

(48:39):
There's actually a big audiencethat wants to hear that and,
yeah, it's actually going to bea lot less popular to not
indulge quick tricks,conspiracies, fantasies, stuff
like that.
That's actually probably themore taboo space, believe it or
not, but anyway, all this, wecovered a lot so far, but do the

(49:04):
revelations in the New YorkMagazine piece matter at all?
So now I'm getting away fromthe science issues I brought up
and let's be honest, being a badboyfriend actually isn't a
crime, and I don't even know ifit warrants a 5,000 word cover
page and piece in a magazine.
If his podcast is useful to some, like people that I've talked

(49:27):
to that have absolutely improvedtheir lives through listening
to the show, does any of thismatter?
And I've actually even beenasking friends Before I ever
even wrote down my thoughts, Iasked people that I know listen
to show.
How did they feel about this?
One popular sentiment and jokeI heard a lot was actually his
cheating is proof that theprotocols work.

(49:49):
I mean, come on, man, jugglingsix different girlfriends, that
takes a lot of energy.
You need superhuman levels.
Maybe they do work.
And other people have actuallygone the route of saying that
the New York Magazine story wasjust a personal attack.
That's the direction that LexFriedman, another popular

(50:09):
podcaster, took.
What did he say?
Here we go.
It's heartbreaking to see a hitpiece reading about my friend
andrew huberman.
Uh, hit piece attacks like thisare simply trash clickbait
journalism, desperately clingingon to relevance.
Andrew should be celebrated,period.
His podcast has helped millionsof people, including me, lead
healthier lives.

(50:30):
Keep going, brother.
Um, quick one on lex.
He also says that he's an MITresearcher and people at MIT
question that.
So I doubt Lex likes the hitpiece, particularly on Huberman
possibly stretching hisrelationship with Stanford.
But all right, now we'regetting into my own thoughts.

(50:52):
Admittedly, I didn't even finishthe piece.
As you know, I'm moreinterested in the science advice
sorry, the health and fitnessadvice that Huberman gives and
his use of science.
There wasn't a lot in thearticle that I actually even
found interesting or relevant tomy concerns.
That being said, though, I'mgoing to make an argument that
the piece isn't really aboutHuberman's relationship with

(51:15):
women.
I actually think that the linethat really more comes out of it
is more Huberman's relationshipwith facts.
So I am going to go againstwhat most of my clients have
told me and most of theconversations I've had, and I'm
going to say actually, yes, thatthis does matter.
Huberman's not just some dudewith a podcast.
He has a huge audience, um, andhe has massive influence over

(51:39):
people's daily routines.
Um, his public image, the onethat he has put out there is
vastly at odds with his privatelife.
Um, he styles himself as likean aesthetic who controls every
aspect of his life.
Meanwhile the piece paints avery different picture.
And then you know real quick,actually, just because we're on

(52:03):
there, there's nothing about hisdating life.
That's even shocking to me.
I just got off a call with mybrother.
Lives in the Bay Area, actuallyOakland, where Huberman used to
live.
Scott Carney was meeting himthere in that piece and, yeah,
didn't talk about this with mybrother, but unsolicited, my
brother offered to me that well,he's polyamorous, he's dating a
whole bunch of people, and so Ijust want to point out that

(52:24):
there's literally nothingshocking in that story to me.
I know people who live a lot ofdifferent lifestyles and it's
almost going to be a dating adfor my brother.
If you're looking to date apolyamorous guy in the Bay Area,
my brother won't lie and tellyou that he's only dating one
person.
He'll tell you up front howmany people he's dating, all of

(52:45):
that.
So yeah, I don't have anyqualms with Huberman's lifestyle
, it's just the relationship tothe truth.
That, I think, is a pattern thatagain flagged what I saw on the
show and apparently these womenhe's dated maybe have a similar
experience in a differentdomain is a little bit sketchy.

(53:15):
You know my parents are collegeprofessors so he's supposed to
be an associate professor, but Iactually see him down in Venice
.
Well, I don't see him.
I talk to people who see him.
I know he's down there workingout at Gold's in Venice.
I don't know a lot of associateprofessors when my parents were
in school that lived in anothercity and were still affiliated
with the university.
Things have changed.
I don't know how that works.
Still affiliated with theuniversity.

(53:37):
Things have changed.
I don't know how that works,but there's a little bit of
smoke there.
I'm not sure how much theuniversity is doing with the lab
.
Some people say it doesn'texist, other people say it does.
I do think we need moreinformation.
But since the piece had himmoving to Topanga and all my
friends see him down in Venice,and since the piece had him

(54:07):
moving to Topanga and all myfriends see him down in Venice,
I know he's not around theStanford campus that often right
now.
So whatever the New YorkMagazine piece came out, there
were already plenty of Hubermanskeptics, who were mostly coming
actually from the scientificcommunity, accusing him of
cherry picking data, againextrapolating from animal

(54:27):
research into humans, and thathe misuses his expertise and
credentials toward the end ofpushing the products he's
talking about, misuses hisexpertise and credentials toward
the end of pushing the productshe's talking about.
In general, all of his episodesare going to contain grains of
truth, but then those grains areexaggerated beyond a point of
usefulness, even leading so faras to move away from the truth.

(54:48):
I think, objectively, it's fairto say that he steers his
listeners into the unregulatedworld of supplements, and I do
think that's bad.
At best, most supplements donothing.
At worst they can be harmful.
Obviously, supplements, thanksto just fun legal loopholes, can
be sold without the burden ofsafety that food and anything

(55:10):
else has to be sold with.
So, yeah, aside from likespecial instances where, like, a
specific supplement wasrecommended by a doctor for a
specific specific medical issue,I don't think there's any body
of evidence to support broadlyadvocating them to random people
listening on a podcast.
Uh, I honestly don't think anycredible scientists should tell

(55:33):
you to buy and consume magicpills.
And, yeah, huberman hasimproved some lives, I think,
with that, the broad advicenobody would disagree with, but
I think he also has a potentialto do a lot more than he
currently is.
I actually think that he isintelligent and is capable of

(55:54):
more, but it seems more likehe's going down the Dr Oz path
of creating a big global marketof products and things built on
misinformation.
I'm not sure he actuallybelieves Then this will be had
you a from us now.
So let me go ahead and finish upon just this one point.

(56:14):
So a Time Magazine piece awhile back said the man who got
America to care about scienceand I actually think a little
bit too much credit is beinggiven and where's the evidence
that he is doing good science?
In reality?
His podcast is focused onpseudoscience.

(56:35):
He often makes the claimsappear scientific, but they lack
evidence, plausibility orvalidity.
He's constantly presentingunsubstantiated conclusions that
then kind of become hard todistinguish from.
The evidence that he lays downas to why these conclusions are
true Again contains grains oftruth, but I think it gets a

(56:59):
little bit exaggerated.
The appeal of Huberman to me isobvious he's credentialed, he's
qualified, he's intelligent andhe's speaking to having control
over our health when it can feelthat we have none.
People want answers, peoplewant to feel smart and listening

(57:24):
to a smart person talk aboutthings certainly accomplishes
that.
Again, in fairness, I do thinkthere are some great takeaways
that a lot of people havealready taken from the show.
I want to be very specific inhis over-the-top, always
seductive promises of whatsupplements can do.

(57:45):
I think that's my issue is thatit's often going to mislead
people to do things that areineffective or potentially
harmful and then also,amplifying those behaviors in a
roundabout way, actuallydiscourages them from doing the
big, important things.

(58:08):
Biology is complex.
We don't have every answer toeverything and there's a lot of
issues with our currenthealthcare system which compound
, create frustration,desperation.
But wellness products andsupplements are not a solution.
They're part of theexploitation.
And, though he's a PhD,wellness influencers like

(58:29):
Huberman pit their solutionsagainst conventional science and
medicine to sell unproveninterventions that are expensive
, have no benefit, might delayyou from getting the right
treatment or doing the rightthings, or could even be
actively harmful.
No easy fix.
We got to shift the paradigm.
We're trying to do that here inour own small way.

(58:51):
But too many people confusecelebrity with expertise small
way.
But too many people confusecelebrity with expertise, and
that's not new.
Rebuilding trust in science isgoing to be an ongoing effort,
but I'm going to disagree withTime Magazine.
I don't think we're on thatpath right now.
And then I did look aroundbecause I wanted to see if

(59:12):
Huberman had responded to any ofthis, and I read a number of
articles prepping up for thisand I didn't see him commenting
to anyone critical of any of hisfindings or on this particular
issue.
I would like to hear from himbecause a lot of this is coming
secondhand, but admittedly hehas enough time for really long

(59:34):
podcasts and like sixgirlfriends.
So the failure to comment onthis um could be a lack of time.
He's busy, I got that, but um,no, it doesn't seem like he has
a hard time getting his hisvoice out there when, when he
wants to.
So, um, yeah, at least now thefact that he hasn't addressed

(59:56):
any of these claims is a littlebit problematic for where I'm
sitting.
But anyway, guys, I hope I dida good job breaking this down.
I know that there's going to beoverlap in our listeners.
I'm a Huberman Lab listenermyself.
I don't catch every episode,but I've definitely caught
plenty in my time.
There's a great deal that Iagree with Andrew Huberman on in

(01:00:18):
more ways than one.
I hate to say it, but he'ssomeone I'm trying not to be
with my much, much smallerplatform.
In those disclaimers andqualifiers that he does on the
importance of what we call herethe big rocks, I appreciate that
he talks about that.
However, he's a little bit tooquick to offer easy fixes and

(01:00:39):
products to fill the void and Iguess almost.
I know we have a lot of overlap, but my big push here at
MindMuscle has been to get youto focus on the Big Rocks.
I kind of feel like what theydo over at Huberman Lab is get
you to major in the minors.
As I often say here, I do reallyhope that I did a good job

(01:01:00):
presenting a balanced version ora balanced critique of his work
.
As I mentioned, a number of myclients are fans.
I'm a listener myself, so Idon't want this to come off.
I'm not passing judgment onlisteners, god knows.
I am one Passing a little bitof judgment on Huberman because

(01:01:22):
of his expertise, hisintelligence, and I don't think
he is doing the best that he'scapable of.
That probably means nothingcoming from a guy with a much
smaller podcast, but I actuallythink that he could actually
improve people's health.
I think he could do more thanjust pushing products and
supplements that I'm almostcertain he knows have no value.

(01:01:43):
Last time I'll say it, but Ihope this didn't come off as a
hit piece.
Yeah, honestly, great chance Iactually brush elbows with this
guy at some point.
So, honest to God, I honestlyfeel like everything I said here
I could defend over a cup ofcoffee if that were to ever

(01:02:05):
happen.
Please don't feel attacked inanything that I laid down here
today.
Admittedly, I don't even knowwho's actually right.
I would be willing, though, toset a calendar reminder for five

(01:02:27):
years and then call me up andsee if any of these supplements
that we're promoting today havebeen adopted as good health
practices, or if we've moved onto a set of supplements nobody
is talking or thinking aboutcurrently, right now.
So yeah, admittedly, I wouldactually like to see that.
So if anybody wants to do that,set a little reminder.
Let's see who's right in a fewyears.

(01:02:48):
I'm still going to hammer downon focus on the big rocks, don't
major in the minors.
Most of these supplementsquestionable value, if any.
I think that is the heart ofwhere I find my disagreement
with Andrew Huberman.
But no, I do.
I like the show.
I listen to it at times andyeah, so in a way I doubt he's

(01:03:12):
going to take the time to listento somebody like me.
But yeah, a kind of casual fanis just kind of wishing he would
just do a little bit better,and I absolutely think he can.
But anyway, I'm just one person.
You guys know what I think.
Anyway, if you disagree withanything I laid down, let me
know what you guys think in thecomments.

(01:03:32):
I actually want to hear that.
Yeah, and anyway, guys, Iappreciate your time.
Remember mind and muscle areinseparably intertwined.
There are no gains withoutbrains.
Keep lifting and learning.
I'll do the same.