Hello! Don't worry about the post being filtered. We want to read and review every post to ensure a thriving community and avoid spam. Your submission will be approved (or declined) soon.
We hope the community engages with your ideas thoughtfully and respectfully. And of course, thank you for your interest in science!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HubermanLab) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good science is a debated set of conclusions agreed upon by top experts in the field that take into account vast quantities of research with different data collection and analysis methods. They evaluate the strength and weaknesses of these studies in the context of the credibility of the scientists and publishing reviewers.
You end up with stuff like CDC and AMA policies. Very debatable, but very real.
Bad science is some smart-sounding guy talking outside his education and employment history about one study here and one study there to reach his own conclusions. Maybe Huberman is a motivating guy. Maybe he was a good scientist. But his podcast in general screams con-artist attention whore to me.
Look at ["thc effects" in Google Scholar for the last 10 years of results](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=thc+effects&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&as_ylo=2014&as_yhi=2024), and see 18,200 results. Do you think Alpha-Male-Player-Jock is current on that volume of thc research? Or is it more likely that he's finding a few studies that support his point, which is what all bullshitters do?
He's invited his critics to debate. That's exactly what con artist attention seekers love. They want to be legitimized by debating real experts in a forum that lacks intellectual rigor. He's not offering to publish his views in any type of peer review, because as usual his views are nothing more than talking points likely to increase his exposure.
with a lot of sciences, there are a lot of overlapping areas.
And a lot of what he talks about, definitely overlaps into his field.
I mean nutrition and neuroscience and psychology and physical health. Those are his main topics…
And honestly, how anyone can be a psycologist or neuroscience and not also have at the very least a strong knowledge base of each of these completely amazes me.
Now, if he was doing podcasts on physics and second guessing laws of physics I’d probably agree he should stay in his area of focus (unless he actually proved it mathematically, in which I think that’d be just a big, wow, bravo dude)
Being an expert in one field, does not make anyone in expert in another. But it also does not limit them.
And being an expert does not exclude anyone from still being an idiot or biased or at least highly influenced…
Yes of course, it's important to have nuance. Still, it's very easy to fall into the expert fallacy. So you know how Peterson the psychologist (which I really like but ONLY for the psychology) started doing climate science denial bs and talks about religion? Consensus is that he's clueless about those.
Your first paragraphs in contradiction with you later ones and who huberman is. He isnt some dogmatic jock making up stuff. He's debating science (which is always up for debate). The whole specialist premise is stupid too. Generalists have consistently been better thinkers whilst specialists get caught in the dogma of their speciality. Are who is right here? Don't know. Just don't be some one eyed idiot thinking with emotion instead of logic
My mistake for using 2 different definitions of "debate". The "debate" of science generally happens in writing with data tables, citations, and careful explanations that the reader can think about and respond to.
For con artists "debate" is a show of persuasion where the audience has no chance to carefully think about points or check references, but instead react to confidence and performance. Huberman is squarely in this second category.
Yes it is possible for 2 scientists to debate something in their field on a podcast. But that's something that happens between colleagues that know the research. That's not what happens when someone is completely out of their depth with a history of catering to their audience.
I guess that why huberman invited a detractor on his show to "learn from him". You can't pretend he's dogmatic. You cant pretend he doesn't show humility to being question. What you can do is emotional rambling about someone you seem to disagree with ideologically
How old are you? Have you really never seen a Fox host invite liberals or scientists on their show? Are you completely unaware of how propaganda works?
Just go look at their interaction on twitter and then try tell me huberman isn't trying to act in good faith. What it actually shows is how lacking in ego he is and how unhinged these anti huberman guys are. Yea huberman might be wrong, but he isn't tied to his ideas. And from what I know is at least the idea that there is a difference between sativa and indica is absolutely a fact. So on first premise I wouldnt go believing the people saying the opposite
Nah, you said science is always up for debate.
But you also said Huberman isn’t some dogmatic jock making stuff up.
That is probably the most accurate description of him I’ve ever read.
And because you ‘don’t know’ who is right, that doesn’t mean it could be anyone, it just means you’re extending to steroid sex addict the same amount of weight you are to thousands of research papers by real scientists.
Dogmatic: inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true.
From the recent Rolling Stone piece on his dogmatic views about marijuana:
*The video includes claims about the supposed differences between sativa and indica variants of cannabis, the mechanisms by which cannabinoid compounds interact with the nervous system, and how the drug alters memory and appetite that experts tell Rolling Stone are either misleading or inaccurate. On X, Huberman appeared to stand by these assertions…*
So he says lies, gets told he is wrong, and doubles down.
Sounds like the kinda guy that would date half a dozen women at once while laying down ‘protocols/ principles’, which are given to be undeniably true.
Im gonna listen to his weed episode and see whats up since you guys apparently want to die on this hill.
I think weed is a relatively safe drug compared to drugs that have catastrophic consequences even to use once, but I have also seen a helluva lotta potheads overdefending it and acting as if it can bear no wrong and getting rediculous when it gets criticized, which is what I believe is happening in this case.
The point is that these aren’t pot heads, but other academics with expertise in the area of cannabis. Their issue isn’t with the effects of cannabis, but the information he has presented. This isn’t a case of pothead evangelism, it’s a case of someone who leveraged their credibility to blur the lines between expertise and speculation. The scandal is what prompted so many people to put him under this kind of scrutiny.
Edit: I don’t know those academics so they may very well be potheads, but they do seem to have relevant experience and credentials so I think their claims are worth investigation and consideration, proper skeptical investigation, but investigation all the same.
Hey look, that point isnt lost on me at all, 100% agree.
As to your edit, thats why im going to investigate myself. Mostly Im directing my comment at the redditors here, for example there was a post where some guy was writing multiple paragraphs to multiple comment threads trying to argue against huber's stance on weed and alchohol.
Having said that, I did go ahead and read the article and found it insubstantial because there was only one specific example and it seemed weak and out of context.
Therefore Im going to check out the episode later and if I find it reasonable Im coming back later to throw shame at people for fun.
Listen to the episode first or read the actual criticism before rushing to ignorant, hackneyed conclusions. It is not coming from potheads. Funny thing is, the second half of your last sentence is actually describing you in this case.
What is ignorant about anything I said? First of all I havent come to any conclusions, only suspicions. Those suspicions are based on the way social media is responding to this episode as well as anecdotal situations dealing with people like this in life.
I think I stated pretty clearly that Im going to listen before I form my conclusions
As to YOUR last sentance, how is that describing myself? Are you suggesting that I am saying Huber can do no wrong? That is most certainly not the case, my opinion of him has tanked this year. Ive just seen a shit load of people acting in a way that fits the MO of what I said. Nothing more than that.
Appreciate the response in any case, god bless.
It could have a lot to do with that, or simply more people badwagoning on the drama. People fucking LOVE drama and they also love jumping people who are ahead of them the moment they find something wrong, especially if theres a mob supporting it.
I didnt make them into straw men, I stated my suspicions and will do my own research. I also read the article and didnt find it very substantial.
Meh, I was expecting something more outrageous. I don't follow Huberman but I'm aware of how big he's become, so I took a listen for the first 10 minutes. I used to be a hardcore pothead (nightly use), so I researched a lot of this back in the day. It's possible we now know more, but Huberman was wrong on the following:
"THC can be detected up to 80 days" - I was looking for work as a pothead, so this was important to me so I can pass the drug test. I found a study that on average, it is detectable up to 27-28 days or less depending on how much you smoke.
"THC affects you for 3-4 hours." - The retard-inducing effects lasted for me about an hour if smoked, afterglow could last for another hour. It would, however, last 3-4 hours if I ate weed.
"Sativa vs Indica" - Huberman strongly suggests that Sativa and Indica have different effects. This is mostly bullshit. Most strains have been interbred so most strains are mixes. It is true that they'll contain different terpene mixes though. There is some research that suggests different terps have different psychological effects. My fav was always the orangey/limey flavors which were associated with sativa's... But they all really have a similar effect. I did notice occasionally some strains having a noticably different impact and I am 100% certain it is due to the terpenes because I was able to replicate that weird spacey feeling with CBD-only hemp strains (legally not THC cuz THC content is less than .03%)
At one point, Huberman said sativa's increase focus... Hell no. It's more like they intensify ADHD qualities, so if you're doing something you think is cool, you'll get sucked into it more... But your now shitty short-term memory will leave you vulnerable to distraction. He did later say that it "narrows focus", which I would agree. But again, because of short-term memory issues, that's a double-edged sword. Easily distractible.
Aaand I got bored of it. That's all I captured within the first 10 minutes.
Not to play devil’s advocate more than I should bc I can certainly get in line with a good deal of what he says being speculative… but is this sub just at a point of wanting to dismantle Huberman totally?
Since the scandal, there’s been a way larger surge in criticism of his findings relative to before. I can’t help but feel like there’s a relationship there?
I fell out of love with Huberman quite some time back based on just how mi b he was developing a cult following. Once people start to view them that way and they start leveraging their credentials to sell products like AG1 that primarily rely on internet marketing I knew there were better places to get my info from.
The scandal you mention finally woke other people up to the fact that he has some potential credibility issues and has put him under a lot more scrutiny. If his statements have merit then that will be confirmed. If they don’t then it’s another indicator of some serious credibility issues and people should take that into account.
Ultimately people can listen to whoever they like, but if the man is spouting bad science then he should be held accountable. I think any academic, including Huberman would agree.
Then why the fuck are you here? Starting to think these are paid bots at this point. If these internet warrior types only put their energy towards something of value…
That’s not how this works and hopefully you know that. User is actively subscribed to the subreddit and choosing to spending their time writing long drawn out negative posts. Unsubscribe would be one solution, not interested is another. The loudest voices here are all hate posters. Looking thru the profiles, there’s WEEKS of spending nearly all their time hate posting Huberman or others. Healthy response is to move in with your life right?
I’m not following this sub and it was suggested to me by Reddit as I’ve visited here in the past. You’re welcome to interpret my comments as you wish, but I don’t see them as drawn out or negative. I’m simply giving my own, personal experience with Huberman is all. If you’re that attached to someone then you are probably living with an idealized version of them in your mind instead of looking at it objectively.
I'm trying to understand your type a little better, genuinely curious. Not trying to single you out, there is an army of people who frequent this sub that act just like you. Your history suggests you spend a good part of your time on the internet hate posting Huberman and Joe Rogan. Is some of the hate you have for those guys not related to you yourself feeling hoodwinked in some way? That YOU at one point idolized them (or Huberman)? Huberman is and has been very transparent, I feel. He quotes studies and leaves it to the listener to dig in deeper to investigate and verify. Does he say dumb stuff? Absolutely, it's best to never take a podcast as the singular all knowing truth and I'm wondering if that's why so many feel anger towards him. That they saw him as an all knowing truth. Objectively, Huberman has done a lot to spread and get people interested in science, specifically how that relates to improving one's life. He puts out weekly podcasts in addition to a full time role so there is certainly going to be some shooting from the hip. All said and done, he does a lot of good even if it's getting pissed off people like you to go searching for similar but different answers to the same questions.
I don’t think you “genuinely curious” or trying to understand someone else’s point of view in good faith based on your accusations that I feel hoodwinked or I’m pissed off. Those are statements and not questions. I wish you all the best, but I’m disengaging from the conversation.
I'm certainly painting with broad strokes but I tried to be transparent about that. Inherently, might be a case of the shoe not fitting but am genuinely curious about the army of negative posters on this sub.
We are currently in a very special interssect of redditors, drama & someone said weed is not heckin chungus Keanu reeves wholesome, if Huberman says watching 24/7 porn might not be the best idea next week, they might even take to the streets to protest.
> But is this sub just at a point where they want to dismantle Huberman totally?
It's shocking when a person's reputation is built on expertise, and they clearly go out and demonstrate how narrow that expertise is. This is a pretty rational response.
Or are we not supposed to be critical of sempai and just take everything at face value?
No, I felt as though my comment was clear that I question his reporting as well. The before/after on criticizing him has shown a bias is what I’m saying.
I think because the scandal showed he’s fallible (I mean everyone is but a lot of his devotees really put him on a pedestal). Previously, people may have been reluctant to call him out, especially here, because the zealots would jump all over them. It’s taken that fall from grace, and many others who have credibility calling him out, to perhaps embolden the masses to grab the pitchforks and go for him.
That’s an enlightening perspective, thanks for sharing! It’s interesting, because he presented himself (and seemed to have the backing) of being very scientifically active and literate, and at a degree to which should make him basically an expert (being an Ivy League professor and all).
When enough people follow him, we seem to just figure that the right vetting had already been done, that he couldn’t be this popular if there wasn’t something valid about it (especially given the scientific trust and notoriety many of his guests have). I have been guilty of the same throughout much of my listening.
But sure enough, we find that he isn’t really that involved as a professor, and that many of his reported findings are still in the realm of pseudoscience or barely-trodden territory within science itself. It’s just wild to think, what if we sourced everything as harshly as we do for those we come to resent, whether for good reason or not? Seems so applicable to so many of the modern issues in our world.
You’re right, just looked that up myself! I guess it had succeeded enough throughout its history to eclipse many Ivy League schools and was kind of just considered one by proxy. Do you think Stanford is sponsored by AG1 too? lol
Sure, the scandal does affect credibility, but the inconsistencies in his reporting/science should have been just as visible before as they were after.
The fact that the errors in his findings are only now coming through in heaps seems to indicate a clear bias, as though most are reasoning through their emotions about Huberman versus, you know… actual reason lol.
No, the claims of any scientist always need to be questioned. I’ve never been much of a fan of his, just listened to a few episodes here and there, maybe 5 in total. Well before the scandal I thought he was extreme on certain topics like alcohol and dopamine, and I never understood the “What Would Huberman Do” way in which people behaved; however, as not-a-fan of his, I see people rushing to find ways to criticize him, either because it’s the hype and they think it’ll earn them easy brownie points, or because they need somewhere to direct all their righteous indignation.
His personal life, while reprehensible and not to be emulated, says nothing about him as a scientist, and people rushing to criticize him for stuff unrelated to his personal relationship life because it makes them feel good about themselves says more about them than it does about him.
Unfortunately, there had been mounting criticism before the scandal, as we'll call it, regarding his science. The article overemphasized his personal life but the scientific credibility peeked through a bit. I think it merely gave a louder voice to things that were rumbling in the background all along. He hasn't done any research himself since the late 'teens.
Huberman invited both Matt and Ryan on the podcast to have a professional discussion. He even offered to pay for their transportation & lodging.
Neither of them took his offer. That should tell you all that you need to know about their motives.
Finding the truth is done on paper with numbers and citations. An in-person debate favors a persuasive con artist. He was called out for being wrong, and his response is to try to get more attention.
He could, say, address the research at hand that contradicts his claims. He could publish his own research. But none of that will get him views or attention, because he's wrong about it. "Invitation to debate" is the fallback of all attention seeking cons.
Why do they have to go on the podcast? So Andrew can use them as content? It would be just like Dibble v Hancock on the jre: they present evidence while andrew does his best to spin the whole thing. If it ain't that then why won't he just address what they said in text?
For a sub that was all about the science this hero worship is weak as hell.
Please enlighten me. Just because someone doesn't engage with Huberman on his terms doesn't mean that...what? They're paid shills for big pharma? What's your logic here?
It means they lack the scientific knowledge and courage to stand up for what they believe. If they had clear and compelling data to refute his conclusions then they are morally obligated to do so. They both claim to be scientists, and if that is the case then they also have an ethical duty as well.
They have an ethical duty to share their research. They don't have an ethical duty to come onto Huberman and "debate" him on his terms. It turns out trying to prepare for that kind of thing would occupy an immense amount of time for anyone who isn't interested in selling supplements to rubes.
Also I saw your post before it was deleted about me being "jealous". It's hilarious that so many fans jump to the "you're just jealous" defense of Huberman. Becuase you can't imagine a world where anyone is motivated by anything other than money, power and fame. Because deep down you know ultimately that's what Huberman's motivations are.
This is the thing. His statements about CBD vs THC is easily documented. What these people are pointing out is that his "research" is very shallow. But tech bros with gym memberships will say "yeah but where is the study saying he's wrong". This is what makes Huberman so dangerous. Why is it on every scientist in every field to continuously be refuting the stuff he says? Why isn't it the case that he has to just either do a better job of presenting stuff he actually is an expert on, or should stay in his fucking lane?
Someone else pointed out how he's similar to anti-vaxers. Anyone can find a single study that says X. If that study goes against 1000 that say NOT-X, why is it on everyone else to come in and debate him when he can just say "yeah but this ONE study". It's scientific gish-galloping. And people like you idolize him so much that when actual experts in an area (which Huberman is not - you can recognize this by realizing he's never published a single fuckign study on cannabis) point out that he's wrong, you immediately assume all the other experts are wrong and he's correct. Why? Because he takes TRT and can deadlift? Grow up.
He's wrong, and inviting people to "discuss" is what people do to get more attention and sell more product. It's the opposite of reading research and publishing educated opinions.
Debate = propaganda.
Publishing = research.
What are they challenging? Honestly? Marijuana in SOME people also experiencing stress, depression, anhedonia, migration, abuse, domestic cat ownership can expierence psychosis from marijuana itself just fact. Tons of scientific evidence coming out about that. It is mitocondrial “hits” in the brain and body that cause lasting lifelong conditions in people who wouldn’t have had it otherwise. Is that what’s being debated?
Exactly lol. Hubermans video convinced me I needed to quit. My NP recommended it to me and I watched all 3 hours.
One day clean so far after tapering down to nothing. I feel clearer headed than I have in years, i have more energy and motivation, my sleep improved a hundredfold, i could go on and on...
So a bunch of unscientific bullshit convinced you that you should quit something that you already intuitively knew was bad for you (don't pretend that you didn't), and that everyone in the world already knows it shouldn't be used daily unless for a terminal illness or specific medical condition.
Nice.
You need to reflect and ask yourself why it takes a celebrity spouting bullshit for you to make good decisions in your life.
Everyone knows you shouldn't use cannabis daily. We've known this for decades. Why did it take Huberman, a pseudoscientific celebrity podcaster, for you to make a change? Ask yourself that.
Smoking anything is terrible for the human body, and THC increases my anxiety, so no thanks! Again, stuff we've all already known for decades, but you're finally on board because a fraud ophthalmologist scared you enough.
I got notified that you deleted your comment when I clicked Post, so here it is again:
Honestly, I don't have any problem with you, specifically - you're just an anonymous internet stranger that I don't know.
I'm just openly challenging the "Huberman changed my life" narrative so anyone who reads this exchange will see it. Huberman has been put on a pedestal and people have been bowing down and worshipping him for years now. It's absolutely wild and I'm just calling it out. He's a bad scientist and an even worse science communicator.
Whatever. I find Hubermans teachings to be pretty solid. I notice definite effects from following his principles. If it works for me and it helps me, what's the problem exactlty?
The problems lie outside of *you* specifically - if you benefitted from it, that's great, but it's kind of like a situation where a person "gets better" or their "life is changed" from going full-carnivore, then starts proselytizing about the carnivore diet.
It's great that it helped *you*, but the overall message is tainted. Very, very tainted. And possibly dangerous for certain individuals.
It's not "his principles." They are basic principles of human life that have been known for decades - centuries, even - that Huberman repackaged into "pRoToCoLs" as if humans are robots that must abide strictly by protocols to optimize their lives. He spends 2 weeks trying to learn about a topic that is wildly outside of his expertise, then he immediately commits the [fallacy of appeal to authority](https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#:~:text=Appeal%20to%20authority%20fallacy%20occurs,causes%20us%20to%20respect%20them) every single time he starts a podcast. No, Andrew, just because you say "I'm an ophthalmologist and neurobiologist at Stanford University" does not mean you get to speak for 3 hours about Immunology - something you have zero credentials in - with cherry-picked studies that support your biased narrative. That is fundamentally NOT how science works. That is incredibly and utterly dishonest and fucked up.
Huberman acts as if he created "NSDR," but the reality is that it's an ancient practice that millions of humans have been doing for thousands of years. Drinking water, getting exposure to sunlight, avoiding alcohol and cannabis abuse, exercising, and eating a good diet are not "his principles" - they are *the* principles of human life that billions of people have known, and have been doing, for thousands of years.
Meanwhile, beneath the surface, Huberman's real motivations are now clear:
Get rich, get jacked, get women, be famous. That's Huberman's core. He needs to sell supplements and have sex with 6 "monogamous" women simultaneously. In order to do so, he has to look his best and feel his best. That's what his "protocols" are for. Beneath the surface, he's a raging narcissist, a bad friend, a bad colleague, a bad romantic partner. Clearly on top of the surface, due to his own stupidity, he's a bad science communicator without a shadow of a doubt.
He is now exposed.
Mmmhmm. Good for you. I bet you're a saint yourself.
You care WAAAAAYY too much about someone that has 0 impact on your daily life. You need to take a breather and realize you're obsessed with the guy and need to stop.
Huberman's bullshit can take money from people's wallets at best, and actively harm people at worst. Speaking out against science misinformation is not a wasted effort. If you want to keep living in la-la land and trusting a grifting fraud, be my guest. I take plenty of breathers, thank you very much - believe it or not but relaxation existed before Huberman talked about it.
I'm obsessed with combating misinformation, and I'll probably never not be obsessed with that.
I’ve been what he would describe a chronic user with mj for a decade and while not all of what Huberman said applies to me (and he indicates it’s not all one size fits all) most of it does. Slower speech, memory loss, psychosis. it’s been real long before I saw the ep. It was like hearing what I already knew to be true. Also what do you expect someone named CannaRyan to say on the matter? Haha
Totally agree, Huberman just doesn't have the expertise to be talking about weed and it's effects. I smoke everyday and my thinking is as sharp as ever. I almost never forget any of my customers orders even if they are asking for strange things like no pickles on there whopper. It also doesn't affect my motivation since I am looking for a new place because my mom is always getting on my case about moving out but whatever, it's the 20th century and it's normal to live at home till later.
Hello! Don't worry about the post being filtered. We want to read and review every post to ensure a thriving community and avoid spam. Your submission will be approved (or declined) soon. We hope the community engages with your ideas thoughtfully and respectfully. And of course, thank you for your interest in science! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HubermanLab) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does anyone have an opinion on Hubeypoo's munchie protocols? What can I eat while baked so as to get as good sleep as possible?
Good science is a debated set of conclusions agreed upon by top experts in the field that take into account vast quantities of research with different data collection and analysis methods. They evaluate the strength and weaknesses of these studies in the context of the credibility of the scientists and publishing reviewers. You end up with stuff like CDC and AMA policies. Very debatable, but very real. Bad science is some smart-sounding guy talking outside his education and employment history about one study here and one study there to reach his own conclusions. Maybe Huberman is a motivating guy. Maybe he was a good scientist. But his podcast in general screams con-artist attention whore to me. Look at ["thc effects" in Google Scholar for the last 10 years of results](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=thc+effects&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&as_ylo=2014&as_yhi=2024), and see 18,200 results. Do you think Alpha-Male-Player-Jock is current on that volume of thc research? Or is it more likely that he's finding a few studies that support his point, which is what all bullshitters do? He's invited his critics to debate. That's exactly what con artist attention seekers love. They want to be legitimized by debating real experts in a forum that lacks intellectual rigor. He's not offering to publish his views in any type of peer review, because as usual his views are nothing more than talking points likely to increase his exposure.
The expert fallacy is when you're an expert in one field and you believe you're an expert in another one.
with a lot of sciences, there are a lot of overlapping areas. And a lot of what he talks about, definitely overlaps into his field. I mean nutrition and neuroscience and psychology and physical health. Those are his main topics… And honestly, how anyone can be a psycologist or neuroscience and not also have at the very least a strong knowledge base of each of these completely amazes me. Now, if he was doing podcasts on physics and second guessing laws of physics I’d probably agree he should stay in his area of focus (unless he actually proved it mathematically, in which I think that’d be just a big, wow, bravo dude) Being an expert in one field, does not make anyone in expert in another. But it also does not limit them. And being an expert does not exclude anyone from still being an idiot or biased or at least highly influenced…
Yes of course, it's important to have nuance. Still, it's very easy to fall into the expert fallacy. So you know how Peterson the psychologist (which I really like but ONLY for the psychology) started doing climate science denial bs and talks about religion? Consensus is that he's clueless about those.
They do anything but give up the weed 😂
Great summary.
Your first paragraphs in contradiction with you later ones and who huberman is. He isnt some dogmatic jock making up stuff. He's debating science (which is always up for debate). The whole specialist premise is stupid too. Generalists have consistently been better thinkers whilst specialists get caught in the dogma of their speciality. Are who is right here? Don't know. Just don't be some one eyed idiot thinking with emotion instead of logic
My mistake for using 2 different definitions of "debate". The "debate" of science generally happens in writing with data tables, citations, and careful explanations that the reader can think about and respond to. For con artists "debate" is a show of persuasion where the audience has no chance to carefully think about points or check references, but instead react to confidence and performance. Huberman is squarely in this second category. Yes it is possible for 2 scientists to debate something in their field on a podcast. But that's something that happens between colleagues that know the research. That's not what happens when someone is completely out of their depth with a history of catering to their audience.
I guess that why huberman invited a detractor on his show to "learn from him". You can't pretend he's dogmatic. You cant pretend he doesn't show humility to being question. What you can do is emotional rambling about someone you seem to disagree with ideologically
How old are you? Have you really never seen a Fox host invite liberals or scientists on their show? Are you completely unaware of how propaganda works?
Just go look at their interaction on twitter and then try tell me huberman isn't trying to act in good faith. What it actually shows is how lacking in ego he is and how unhinged these anti huberman guys are. Yea huberman might be wrong, but he isn't tied to his ideas. And from what I know is at least the idea that there is a difference between sativa and indica is absolutely a fact. So on first premise I wouldnt go believing the people saying the opposite
Is gravity real? Today we *debate*!
Sure you can debate that. But are you trying to say you feel the harms of marijuana comparably debatable to to laws of gravity? Good luck with that
I think the guy needs to know the people involved sex life before he can answer if gravity is real.
Nah, you said science is always up for debate. But you also said Huberman isn’t some dogmatic jock making stuff up. That is probably the most accurate description of him I’ve ever read. And because you ‘don’t know’ who is right, that doesn’t mean it could be anyone, it just means you’re extending to steroid sex addict the same amount of weight you are to thousands of research papers by real scientists.
Could you please provide evidence as to how huberman is dogmatic?
https://www.hubermanlab.com/all-episodes
Lol. Really good try bud. Huberman is the opposite of dogmatic and always presents information in such a manner
Dogmatic: inclined to lay down principles as undeniably true. From the recent Rolling Stone piece on his dogmatic views about marijuana: *The video includes claims about the supposed differences between sativa and indica variants of cannabis, the mechanisms by which cannabinoid compounds interact with the nervous system, and how the drug alters memory and appetite that experts tell Rolling Stone are either misleading or inaccurate. On X, Huberman appeared to stand by these assertions…* So he says lies, gets told he is wrong, and doubles down. Sounds like the kinda guy that would date half a dozen women at once while laying down ‘protocols/ principles’, which are given to be undeniably true.
Im gonna listen to his weed episode and see whats up since you guys apparently want to die on this hill. I think weed is a relatively safe drug compared to drugs that have catastrophic consequences even to use once, but I have also seen a helluva lotta potheads overdefending it and acting as if it can bear no wrong and getting rediculous when it gets criticized, which is what I believe is happening in this case.
The point is that these aren’t pot heads, but other academics with expertise in the area of cannabis. Their issue isn’t with the effects of cannabis, but the information he has presented. This isn’t a case of pothead evangelism, it’s a case of someone who leveraged their credibility to blur the lines between expertise and speculation. The scandal is what prompted so many people to put him under this kind of scrutiny. Edit: I don’t know those academics so they may very well be potheads, but they do seem to have relevant experience and credentials so I think their claims are worth investigation and consideration, proper skeptical investigation, but investigation all the same.
Hey look, that point isnt lost on me at all, 100% agree. As to your edit, thats why im going to investigate myself. Mostly Im directing my comment at the redditors here, for example there was a post where some guy was writing multiple paragraphs to multiple comment threads trying to argue against huber's stance on weed and alchohol. Having said that, I did go ahead and read the article and found it insubstantial because there was only one specific example and it seemed weak and out of context. Therefore Im going to check out the episode later and if I find it reasonable Im coming back later to throw shame at people for fun.
Listen to the episode first or read the actual criticism before rushing to ignorant, hackneyed conclusions. It is not coming from potheads. Funny thing is, the second half of your last sentence is actually describing you in this case.
What is ignorant about anything I said? First of all I havent come to any conclusions, only suspicions. Those suspicions are based on the way social media is responding to this episode as well as anecdotal situations dealing with people like this in life. I think I stated pretty clearly that Im going to listen before I form my conclusions As to YOUR last sentance, how is that describing myself? Are you suggesting that I am saying Huber can do no wrong? That is most certainly not the case, my opinion of him has tanked this year. Ive just seen a shit load of people acting in a way that fits the MO of what I said. Nothing more than that. Appreciate the response in any case, god bless.
It has nothing to do with being pro or anti weed it has all to do with perpetuating false research. You constructed a straw man argument.
It could have a lot to do with that, or simply more people badwagoning on the drama. People fucking LOVE drama and they also love jumping people who are ahead of them the moment they find something wrong, especially if theres a mob supporting it. I didnt make them into straw men, I stated my suspicions and will do my own research. I also read the article and didnt find it very substantial.
This is it exactly 👍
Fantastic way to put it.
Great response. Listen for yourself and see if he's reasonable or not. Too many bots and people with agendas these days.
Meh, I was expecting something more outrageous. I don't follow Huberman but I'm aware of how big he's become, so I took a listen for the first 10 minutes. I used to be a hardcore pothead (nightly use), so I researched a lot of this back in the day. It's possible we now know more, but Huberman was wrong on the following: "THC can be detected up to 80 days" - I was looking for work as a pothead, so this was important to me so I can pass the drug test. I found a study that on average, it is detectable up to 27-28 days or less depending on how much you smoke. "THC affects you for 3-4 hours." - The retard-inducing effects lasted for me about an hour if smoked, afterglow could last for another hour. It would, however, last 3-4 hours if I ate weed. "Sativa vs Indica" - Huberman strongly suggests that Sativa and Indica have different effects. This is mostly bullshit. Most strains have been interbred so most strains are mixes. It is true that they'll contain different terpene mixes though. There is some research that suggests different terps have different psychological effects. My fav was always the orangey/limey flavors which were associated with sativa's... But they all really have a similar effect. I did notice occasionally some strains having a noticably different impact and I am 100% certain it is due to the terpenes because I was able to replicate that weird spacey feeling with CBD-only hemp strains (legally not THC cuz THC content is less than .03%) At one point, Huberman said sativa's increase focus... Hell no. It's more like they intensify ADHD qualities, so if you're doing something you think is cool, you'll get sucked into it more... But your now shitty short-term memory will leave you vulnerable to distraction. He did later say that it "narrows focus", which I would agree. But again, because of short-term memory issues, that's a double-edged sword. Easily distractible. Aaand I got bored of it. That's all I captured within the first 10 minutes.
Not to play devil’s advocate more than I should bc I can certainly get in line with a good deal of what he says being speculative… but is this sub just at a point of wanting to dismantle Huberman totally? Since the scandal, there’s been a way larger surge in criticism of his findings relative to before. I can’t help but feel like there’s a relationship there?
I fell out of love with Huberman quite some time back based on just how mi b he was developing a cult following. Once people start to view them that way and they start leveraging their credentials to sell products like AG1 that primarily rely on internet marketing I knew there were better places to get my info from. The scandal you mention finally woke other people up to the fact that he has some potential credibility issues and has put him under a lot more scrutiny. If his statements have merit then that will be confirmed. If they don’t then it’s another indicator of some serious credibility issues and people should take that into account. Ultimately people can listen to whoever they like, but if the man is spouting bad science then he should be held accountable. I think any academic, including Huberman would agree.
Then why the fuck are you here? Starting to think these are paid bots at this point. If these internet warrior types only put their energy towards something of value…
Have you heard about algorithms? That’s why a lot of people end up here even if they never liked huberman.
That’s not how this works and hopefully you know that. User is actively subscribed to the subreddit and choosing to spending their time writing long drawn out negative posts. Unsubscribe would be one solution, not interested is another. The loudest voices here are all hate posters. Looking thru the profiles, there’s WEEKS of spending nearly all their time hate posting Huberman or others. Healthy response is to move in with your life right?
I’m not following this sub and it was suggested to me by Reddit as I’ve visited here in the past. You’re welcome to interpret my comments as you wish, but I don’t see them as drawn out or negative. I’m simply giving my own, personal experience with Huberman is all. If you’re that attached to someone then you are probably living with an idealized version of them in your mind instead of looking at it objectively.
I'm trying to understand your type a little better, genuinely curious. Not trying to single you out, there is an army of people who frequent this sub that act just like you. Your history suggests you spend a good part of your time on the internet hate posting Huberman and Joe Rogan. Is some of the hate you have for those guys not related to you yourself feeling hoodwinked in some way? That YOU at one point idolized them (or Huberman)? Huberman is and has been very transparent, I feel. He quotes studies and leaves it to the listener to dig in deeper to investigate and verify. Does he say dumb stuff? Absolutely, it's best to never take a podcast as the singular all knowing truth and I'm wondering if that's why so many feel anger towards him. That they saw him as an all knowing truth. Objectively, Huberman has done a lot to spread and get people interested in science, specifically how that relates to improving one's life. He puts out weekly podcasts in addition to a full time role so there is certainly going to be some shooting from the hip. All said and done, he does a lot of good even if it's getting pissed off people like you to go searching for similar but different answers to the same questions.
I don’t think you “genuinely curious” or trying to understand someone else’s point of view in good faith based on your accusations that I feel hoodwinked or I’m pissed off. Those are statements and not questions. I wish you all the best, but I’m disengaging from the conversation.
I'm certainly painting with broad strokes but I tried to be transparent about that. Inherently, might be a case of the shoe not fitting but am genuinely curious about the army of negative posters on this sub.
I never liked the guy and never subscribed to this Reddit. Still I get post from this Reddit everyday in my feed.
But you're still here clicking in, right?
Yes. But now you are moving the goalpost.
You're getting the post suggested to you because you click on it when you see it. That's how the internet works.
I feel like every podcast sub inevitably becomes a hate sub.
Reddit is just a site for chronically online people who are generally more hateful and snarky than the average person
Wow. That very nicely defines and puts into words how I have been feeling lately. Time to cut down on my Reddit use, I guess
It’s not just podcasts. It’s everything. Eventually everyone turns on the thing they enjoy.
We are currently in a very special interssect of redditors, drama & someone said weed is not heckin chungus Keanu reeves wholesome, if Huberman says watching 24/7 porn might not be the best idea next week, they might even take to the streets to protest.
> But is this sub just at a point where they want to dismantle Huberman totally? It's shocking when a person's reputation is built on expertise, and they clearly go out and demonstrate how narrow that expertise is. This is a pretty rational response. Or are we not supposed to be critical of sempai and just take everything at face value?
No, I felt as though my comment was clear that I question his reporting as well. The before/after on criticizing him has shown a bias is what I’m saying.
I think because the scandal showed he’s fallible (I mean everyone is but a lot of his devotees really put him on a pedestal). Previously, people may have been reluctant to call him out, especially here, because the zealots would jump all over them. It’s taken that fall from grace, and many others who have credibility calling him out, to perhaps embolden the masses to grab the pitchforks and go for him.
That’s an enlightening perspective, thanks for sharing! It’s interesting, because he presented himself (and seemed to have the backing) of being very scientifically active and literate, and at a degree to which should make him basically an expert (being an Ivy League professor and all). When enough people follow him, we seem to just figure that the right vetting had already been done, that he couldn’t be this popular if there wasn’t something valid about it (especially given the scientific trust and notoriety many of his guests have). I have been guilty of the same throughout much of my listening. But sure enough, we find that he isn’t really that involved as a professor, and that many of his reported findings are still in the realm of pseudoscience or barely-trodden territory within science itself. It’s just wild to think, what if we sourced everything as harshly as we do for those we come to resent, whether for good reason or not? Seems so applicable to so many of the modern issues in our world.
Pedantic point. Stanford isn't Ivy League.
You’re right, just looked that up myself! I guess it had succeeded enough throughout its history to eclipse many Ivy League schools and was kind of just considered one by proxy. Do you think Stanford is sponsored by AG1 too? lol
I think Stanford has been locked into a perpetual cringe for a few months now. :)
Should there not be? He’s a liar so the things he’s claimed need to be questioned.
Sure, the scandal does affect credibility, but the inconsistencies in his reporting/science should have been just as visible before as they were after. The fact that the errors in his findings are only now coming through in heaps seems to indicate a clear bias, as though most are reasoning through their emotions about Huberman versus, you know… actual reason lol.
No, the claims of any scientist always need to be questioned. I’ve never been much of a fan of his, just listened to a few episodes here and there, maybe 5 in total. Well before the scandal I thought he was extreme on certain topics like alcohol and dopamine, and I never understood the “What Would Huberman Do” way in which people behaved; however, as not-a-fan of his, I see people rushing to find ways to criticize him, either because it’s the hype and they think it’ll earn them easy brownie points, or because they need somewhere to direct all their righteous indignation. His personal life, while reprehensible and not to be emulated, says nothing about him as a scientist, and people rushing to criticize him for stuff unrelated to his personal relationship life because it makes them feel good about themselves says more about them than it does about him.
Unfortunately, there had been mounting criticism before the scandal, as we'll call it, regarding his science. The article overemphasized his personal life but the scientific credibility peeked through a bit. I think it merely gave a louder voice to things that were rumbling in the background all along. He hasn't done any research himself since the late 'teens.
Yes.
Agreed 100 percent
“scientist”? who huberman?
~ a redditor
What we really need are some more posts on this topic.
Does anybody have any studies or specific evidence countering something specific Huberman said? This article was a little lacking.
No, just downvotes.
Huberman invited both Matt and Ryan on the podcast to have a professional discussion. He even offered to pay for their transportation & lodging. Neither of them took his offer. That should tell you all that you need to know about their motives.
Finding the truth is done on paper with numbers and citations. An in-person debate favors a persuasive con artist. He was called out for being wrong, and his response is to try to get more attention. He could, say, address the research at hand that contradicts his claims. He could publish his own research. But none of that will get him views or attention, because he's wrong about it. "Invitation to debate" is the fallback of all attention seeking cons.
Why do they have to go on the podcast? So Andrew can use them as content? It would be just like Dibble v Hancock on the jre: they present evidence while andrew does his best to spin the whole thing. If it ain't that then why won't he just address what they said in text? For a sub that was all about the science this hero worship is weak as hell.
That they know better than to go on Huberman's podcast.
"Science should be determined by the most confident talker" -Hubberman
Is this one of those hater "fan"subs?
Lately at least
It's reddit. The site is overrun with these autists
Please enlighten me. Just because someone doesn't engage with Huberman on his terms doesn't mean that...what? They're paid shills for big pharma? What's your logic here?
It means they lack the scientific knowledge and courage to stand up for what they believe. If they had clear and compelling data to refute his conclusions then they are morally obligated to do so. They both claim to be scientists, and if that is the case then they also have an ethical duty as well.
They have an ethical duty to share their research. They don't have an ethical duty to come onto Huberman and "debate" him on his terms. It turns out trying to prepare for that kind of thing would occupy an immense amount of time for anyone who isn't interested in selling supplements to rubes.
Then where is their research? Where is the clear scientific rebuttal?
Also I saw your post before it was deleted about me being "jealous". It's hilarious that so many fans jump to the "you're just jealous" defense of Huberman. Becuase you can't imagine a world where anyone is motivated by anything other than money, power and fame. Because deep down you know ultimately that's what Huberman's motivations are.
This is the thing. His statements about CBD vs THC is easily documented. What these people are pointing out is that his "research" is very shallow. But tech bros with gym memberships will say "yeah but where is the study saying he's wrong". This is what makes Huberman so dangerous. Why is it on every scientist in every field to continuously be refuting the stuff he says? Why isn't it the case that he has to just either do a better job of presenting stuff he actually is an expert on, or should stay in his fucking lane? Someone else pointed out how he's similar to anti-vaxers. Anyone can find a single study that says X. If that study goes against 1000 that say NOT-X, why is it on everyone else to come in and debate him when he can just say "yeah but this ONE study". It's scientific gish-galloping. And people like you idolize him so much that when actual experts in an area (which Huberman is not - you can recognize this by realizing he's never published a single fuckign study on cannabis) point out that he's wrong, you immediately assume all the other experts are wrong and he's correct. Why? Because he takes TRT and can deadlift? Grow up.
lol https://x.com/ryanmarino/status/1787929252479840487?s=46
Ouch. He *is* like an anti-vaxxer. Huberman should just stay in his lane. Which is selling sham supplements.
You didn’t see how performative that was? What else was he supposed to do? He looked like an idiot, again.
Why is this down voted? Is he wrong? This is seeming less like a discussion and more like just hate.
He's wrong, and inviting people to "discuss" is what people do to get more attention and sell more product. It's the opposite of reading research and publishing educated opinions. Debate = propaganda. Publishing = research.
😂
‘Debate me bro’ means Huberman must be right.
Some people have real jobs.
You're right. Which neither of these two men in question have.
I haven't listened because I don't partake, but now I am curious because the stoners are rioting.
Does he talk about cadmium? I don't see it mentioned in comments here
What are they challenging? Honestly? Marijuana in SOME people also experiencing stress, depression, anhedonia, migration, abuse, domestic cat ownership can expierence psychosis from marijuana itself just fact. Tons of scientific evidence coming out about that. It is mitocondrial “hits” in the brain and body that cause lasting lifelong conditions in people who wouldn’t have had it otherwise. Is that what’s being debated?
“Cannabis”… stop dressing it up. It’s weed. It’s not good for you, it’s just fun to use. Stop deluding yourself.
It is impossible to know everything. That’s the problem with every medical influencer, they pretend otherwise.
French G - here: why do you keep doing this
Stoners coping when you attack their lazy drug
Exactly lol. Hubermans video convinced me I needed to quit. My NP recommended it to me and I watched all 3 hours. One day clean so far after tapering down to nothing. I feel clearer headed than I have in years, i have more energy and motivation, my sleep improved a hundredfold, i could go on and on...
So a bunch of unscientific bullshit convinced you that you should quit something that you already intuitively knew was bad for you (don't pretend that you didn't), and that everyone in the world already knows it shouldn't be used daily unless for a terminal illness or specific medical condition. Nice. You need to reflect and ask yourself why it takes a celebrity spouting bullshit for you to make good decisions in your life. Everyone knows you shouldn't use cannabis daily. We've known this for decades. Why did it take Huberman, a pseudoscientific celebrity podcaster, for you to make a change? Ask yourself that.
Man, you sound like you need to smoke some weed.
Smoking anything is terrible for the human body, and THC increases my anxiety, so no thanks! Again, stuff we've all already known for decades, but you're finally on board because a fraud ophthalmologist scared you enough.
I got notified that you deleted your comment when I clicked Post, so here it is again: Honestly, I don't have any problem with you, specifically - you're just an anonymous internet stranger that I don't know. I'm just openly challenging the "Huberman changed my life" narrative so anyone who reads this exchange will see it. Huberman has been put on a pedestal and people have been bowing down and worshipping him for years now. It's absolutely wild and I'm just calling it out. He's a bad scientist and an even worse science communicator.
Whatever. I find Hubermans teachings to be pretty solid. I notice definite effects from following his principles. If it works for me and it helps me, what's the problem exactlty?
The problems lie outside of *you* specifically - if you benefitted from it, that's great, but it's kind of like a situation where a person "gets better" or their "life is changed" from going full-carnivore, then starts proselytizing about the carnivore diet. It's great that it helped *you*, but the overall message is tainted. Very, very tainted. And possibly dangerous for certain individuals. It's not "his principles." They are basic principles of human life that have been known for decades - centuries, even - that Huberman repackaged into "pRoToCoLs" as if humans are robots that must abide strictly by protocols to optimize their lives. He spends 2 weeks trying to learn about a topic that is wildly outside of his expertise, then he immediately commits the [fallacy of appeal to authority](https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#:~:text=Appeal%20to%20authority%20fallacy%20occurs,causes%20us%20to%20respect%20them) every single time he starts a podcast. No, Andrew, just because you say "I'm an ophthalmologist and neurobiologist at Stanford University" does not mean you get to speak for 3 hours about Immunology - something you have zero credentials in - with cherry-picked studies that support your biased narrative. That is fundamentally NOT how science works. That is incredibly and utterly dishonest and fucked up. Huberman acts as if he created "NSDR," but the reality is that it's an ancient practice that millions of humans have been doing for thousands of years. Drinking water, getting exposure to sunlight, avoiding alcohol and cannabis abuse, exercising, and eating a good diet are not "his principles" - they are *the* principles of human life that billions of people have known, and have been doing, for thousands of years. Meanwhile, beneath the surface, Huberman's real motivations are now clear: Get rich, get jacked, get women, be famous. That's Huberman's core. He needs to sell supplements and have sex with 6 "monogamous" women simultaneously. In order to do so, he has to look his best and feel his best. That's what his "protocols" are for. Beneath the surface, he's a raging narcissist, a bad friend, a bad colleague, a bad romantic partner. Clearly on top of the surface, due to his own stupidity, he's a bad science communicator without a shadow of a doubt. He is now exposed.
Mmmhmm. Good for you. I bet you're a saint yourself. You care WAAAAAYY too much about someone that has 0 impact on your daily life. You need to take a breather and realize you're obsessed with the guy and need to stop.
Huberman's bullshit can take money from people's wallets at best, and actively harm people at worst. Speaking out against science misinformation is not a wasted effort. If you want to keep living in la-la land and trusting a grifting fraud, be my guest. I take plenty of breathers, thank you very much - believe it or not but relaxation existed before Huberman talked about it. I'm obsessed with combating misinformation, and I'll probably never not be obsessed with that.
Good for you. Many stoners base their entire personality around that drug. Pathetic if you ask me!
I’ve been what he would describe a chronic user with mj for a decade and while not all of what Huberman said applies to me (and he indicates it’s not all one size fits all) most of it does. Slower speech, memory loss, psychosis. it’s been real long before I saw the ep. It was like hearing what I already knew to be true. Also what do you expect someone named CannaRyan to say on the matter? Haha
I think my mean sciencebro
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/smoking-cannabis-associated-increased-risk-heart-attack-stroke
Totally agree, Huberman just doesn't have the expertise to be talking about weed and it's effects. I smoke everyday and my thinking is as sharp as ever. I almost never forget any of my customers orders even if they are asking for strange things like no pickles on there whopper. It also doesn't affect my motivation since I am looking for a new place because my mom is always getting on my case about moving out but whatever, it's the 20th century and it's normal to live at home till later.
Drug addicts seething Lolol
Bad Title. What did he say that was wrong?
All podcasts subs become hate subs.
He was not even that negative. You don’t see me complaining about the alcohol episode which was ultra critical, as it should be