Mind Muscle with Simon de Veer
Mind Muscle with Simon de Veer
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
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. Today I am Simon Devere and there is nothing new except all that has been forgotten. All right, today we're going to touch on the news cycle again. So, yeah, admittedly I was already kind of starting to prep up a series on at least what I consider the modern day gurus. We already hit on oprah, I already had this one in the works, and then a news story popped that uh, made it a little more timely, so I rushed up, finished up, but I actually want to take a deep dive into andrew huberman of a huberman lab, officially the most popular podcast in the health and fitness space today, uh, currently, right now, um, but yeah, so there there was a new york magazine piece that um dropped within the week and it's mostly focusing on, I guess, huberman's dating life, if you will. So again, even though that is highly available, we will discuss it somewhat, but admittedly, that's the part that I have prepped the least for. So, anyway, I am trying to ride the coattails of the SEO relevance of the topic, some things that are probably not being discussed in the piece that has made Huberman arguably the main character of the internet for a few days. I actually want to focus more on the aspects that I'm at least somewhat qualified to speak on, which are going to be some of the health and fitness advice that Huberman has given through his podcast. But anyway, I know that for people in the health and fitness space, this is a household name, but there's actually a pretty good chance that you know at least some people still have no idea who I'm even talking about, so you know. Probably a little bit of background warranted before we dive all the way in. But yeah, I guess, if you don't know who Andrew Huberman is, as I mentioned at the top, he currently has the most popular podcast. Spotify just put out rankings of the top 10. And he's first in the health and fitness space. Almost 4 million listeners, I guess, is that what they call them. But yeah, so he objectively has an incredibly successful health and fitness podcast.
Speaker 1:He got his PhD in neuroscience from UC Davis, go Aggies. I got a few close to me in my life, so that's cool. I like folks from Davis, I actually lived there myself at one point and then, yeah, he is an assistant professor at Stanford. We'll touch on that later, even though I'm introducing that as a fact in his bio. That's slightly contested but we don't have good sources on either end of that one. And yeah, also alluded to at the top a piece about his dating life. He's got what like five or six different girlfriends, something like that, but that has made him the main character of the internet for a few days and, as I mentioned, I have been prepping to cover him just because he is one of the most popular health influencers right now. So it would be well, you kind of have to cover it right Because he is one of the biggest names out there. You kind of have to cover it right Because he is one of the biggest names out there.
Speaker 1:But yeah, actually I was hanging out in Venice Beach recently and just meeting some new folks and we were talking about we're actually meeting over some coffee, so everybody's discussing their favorite coffee drinks, stuff like that. But then it turns to the morning routines and this is a very subtle, admittedly unscientific, metric. That kind of signals to me when ideas are reaching peak salience would be a nice way to say it Jumping the shark, perhaps, to use a term from my adopted hometown of Hollywood. But yeah, just as I was talking to some folks that and I'm going to say some things, like I always do, but no judgment, it's just an observation People that were not considered fit in my estimation were telling me all about their cold plunging and their morning routines, because I have been observing this space for many years and I know what most people are saying at any given time. It was pretty obvious to me these were some Huberman protocols that these people were trying to teach me about, and anyway, I'm a bit of a fitness hipster and whatever guilty as charged.
Speaker 1:But as a trainer who also has an interest in finance, when people that I don't consider fit start lecturing me or giving me unsolicited advice on fitness hacks that I could do to improve my fitness, it actually reminds me of a famous anecdote from Joseph Kennedy, and he famously said that if the shoeshine boys are given stock tips, then it's time to get out of the market, and so part of me felt that, in that vein, it was time to start exploring the work and advice of Andrew Huberman, as his voice is becoming the voice of the unsolicited health and fitness advice that I am hearing. If this was finance and I could somehow short those positions, I would, because my time in finance has taught me, when things reach that peak, the edge is gone. Once it's trickled into certain populations, it's time to, as Kennedy said, get out of the market. But in truth, I also want to bring up that, yeah, I'm going to say some critical things, but I just want to highlight upfront and throughout, wherever it's warranted.
Speaker 1:I actually think there's going to be a lot that Andrew Huberman and I agree on. A number of my clients listen to the show. I've already had many similarities in the things we discussed cited to me. So, yeah, I don't want this to even come off like a hit piece by any stretch. Again, I'm not going to be discussing anything that was in New York Magazine. Going to be discussing anything that was in New York Magazine. I'm mostly going to be discussing ideas that he has promoted on his podcast and, yeah, we're just going to talk mostly about those things. So most of my disagreements I think I'm going to be able to justify. And, yeah, I also don't want this to seem in any way contentious or that I don't like him. I don't. I don't know him, but he actually works out in a neighborhood I train in, really good chance I could actually just cross paths with him in real life. So again, not a hit piece, not doing that, just different perspective. And yeah, there is a fair bit of overlap and actually let's just keep that going, let's keep the kumbaya, the good vibes going and we'll open up on where Huberman and I agree and actually a couple of these things I can admit that I even learned a little bit from him on. So yeah, first we'll start there.
Speaker 1:One that I would actually credit Huberman with opening my eyes to is don't have caffeine right when you wake up. We both share is sort of syncing up our routines with circadian rhythms. In that vein, he was really promoting the idea that you shouldn't wake up and immediately drink coffee. His justification there was that obviously what wakes you up out of bed is a shot of cortisol. When you drink your coffee, you're getting another shot that you don't actually need at that time. In addition, you haven't had any water in the last six to eight hours, depending on how long you were sleeping, assuming you don't sleepwalk and anything like that. But yeah, it's actually just not the ideal time to get the most out of your caffeine, for a lot of reasons, contributes to dehydration. You should maybe start hydrating first thing, instead of taking down a diuretic and getting another shot of cortisol when you don't need one. So anyway, yeah, credit to Huberman there for helping me adopt that as a general practice. I'm not immediately hitting the coffee. I don't know if I wait the 90 minutes to two hours immediately hitting the coffee. I don't know if I wait the 90 minutes to two hours, but it ain't first thing in the morning anymore. Big one that we also and I think this is what my clients notice If you listen to Huberman or you listen to myself, it's become clear that neither one of us is a big fan of drinking.
Speaker 1:I think there are a lot of people that have a very favorable opinion of Huberman. He might be the person who convinced them to stop drinking. Lots of accounts of Huberman changing people's lives and of the advice that I see him giving. This is the one that I would say has the most potential to really do that, and why I understand that comment of some of his listeners, particularly as they have seen him getting criticized this week that's something that they keep reminding is that actually listening to this podcast has created actual, real positive change in my life to this podcast has created actual, real positive change in my life and because I have seen him consistently speak on that, I don't doubt that for one second. That's something that we just flat out completely agree on and I've said it again or I've said it many times, I will say it again Just in doing what I do for years and you hear people telling you what their health issues are and what their diets, what their routines look like, that really has become my least common denominator.
Speaker 1:90% of the problems people complain to you about if you're a trainer can be directly improved by not drinking. I'm not a teetotaler. Of the problems people complain to you about if you're a trainer can be directly improved by not drinking. I'm not a teetotaler. I'm not a priest or a moral authority on anything, so I'm not coming at it from that angle. I really am just coming at it from that angle of your trainer and I'm down to listen. I really am. I don't want to sound like I'm impatient or anything, but when somebody keeps talking about the same problems and they don't stop with what's actually causing them, there's a bit of frustration.
Speaker 1:And again, in the health and fitness space. I've also seen how there has been a lot of justification for people to continue drinking, where those studies, particularly like red wine is good for your heart. We've done this separately, but that one was debunked but the results were too good, meaning that people liked the results so they just didn't do away with it for so long. That, again, the reason I bang on about it so much is it's probably the single biggest thing I see that people will think is consistent with healthy lifestyles. That, in my experience as being people's trainer and scouring the literature as I do periodically, is really really hard for me to believe. But yeah, there's a slight little hipster in me that is going to come out a few times this episode, but I've been talking about this for a long time. So I hey, if Huberman Lab got you to stop drinking, honestly that's great and I'm thankful actually that somebody with the power or a platform that large is using it for something good that can actually improve people's lives. But there is that annoying hipster that in me who has been doing this for a long time with no fame, no flowers thrown my way for doing it, mostly resistance actually and anger. So, um, yeah, anyway, there's a slightly annoyed hipster who has gotten a lot of resistance for saying the same thing, who never got the type of flowers and cool testimonials he's getting for saying the same thing 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 for saying it all that time.
Speaker 1:Another one that Huberman big on go outside. I love telling people to touch grass. Aside from alcohol, that might be the number two amendment they could do to just immediately improve their life. Yeah, so he is obviously big on that. That also ties in the circadian rhythm. He wants people getting sunlight early in the morning. That's going to correlate with sleep. Health, which is also another thing that Huberman talks a lot about, is basically that sleep is important. That really comes across with a lot of his podcasts and yeah, so there are some distinctions. I think they're going to come up later with that. You know that after accepting those 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 critical and I just know how those things go.
Speaker 1:This isn't a hit. I don't hate the guy. We got a lot in common in more ways than one. We're both dudes who were born in Central California and live in Southern California right now, work in health and fitness and talk about a lot of the same things. So, anyway, we're about to get into the critical portion. But no, I imagine we probably have some people listening that, like myself, were also Huberman Lab listeners. So I just don't want what follows to be seen as being contentious or trying to pile on. These are distinctions and issues that I've had for a while that I just felt this was maybe the time to finally bring them up. So, anyway and this one should actually come as no surprise I've been very, very consistent on this, but obviously I'm not a big fan of nutrition supplements.
Speaker 1:To me, one of the questionable positions that Huberman has with his show and his platform is actually having so many paid sponsors that are in the supplement industry. In fairness, again, I want to keep this a good faith discussion. Having a paid sponsor obviously in and of itself is not a disqualifier. I'd take one, not going to lie. So, yeah, I'm not going to come out and be like, oh, because you have a paid sponsor, you must be full of shit. No, but it certainly does bring in conflicts of interest and it might even dictate some of the content that one chooses to look at. I do think actually there is a strong argument to be made that Huberman has let some of those affiliations dictate the advice he gives.
Speaker 1:Um, and yeah, let's just not speak in generalities, let's be specific, um. So again, the, the number one sponsor of his show is Athletic Greens. And again, good faith, he's certainly not the only show sponsored by Athletic Greens. They sponsor a lot of shows. He's definitely not shy about that. I think he's been relatively transparent. He says that he takes it.
Speaker 1:I've taken it at some point, so that's not a big deal to me either. It at some point. So that's not a big deal to me either. But I'm going to also be honest and don't get mad. I got the AG1 mixer in my pantry right now. So I'm just telling you I might be projecting here, but no, just like the guy in Venice telling me about his cold plunging morning routine. Ag1 and even that little mixer bottle that they send you, that's got the little metallic top and it's clear that for me, right there is almost becoming a sign, or a signal of somebody who is really into health and wellness. Remember I got one in my closet too, health and wellness Remember I got one in my closet too.
Speaker 1:But, as I mentioned, I've had a mixed relationship with green powders over the years. We talked about it here before. To me, the green powder is like the modern multivitamin and there's a litany of scientific literature talking about the ineffectiveness and just lack of efficacy of multivitamins. Yet I actually find the logic of multivitamins to make a lot of intuitive sense, and it made sense to me for a long time. But actually just when I was putting this together it finally all kind of came together and so, full disclosure, I'm not actually drinking a green powder right now.
Speaker 1:Maybe I'll fall prey to the same thinking that I have many times in the past and fall back, go back into old patterns, but no, finally, I actually saw the multivitamin logic as actually quite simple or quite similar, rather, to Pascal's wager. So for you guys who are not philosophy nerds in the audience, pascal's wager was basically this idea that well, you can't know if God exists or doesn't. You can't know if God exists or doesn't. So strategically, it's just a good idea to say you believe in him, just in case he is real, then you get to go to heaven. And then, if you were wrong and he wasn't real, no downside. Actually quite similar to the logic behind multivitamins Even though we have no evidence of their efficacy, we still use them in the hope that they are going to cover gaps, gaps which haven't been identified or noted in any study, but the kind of just-in-case principle, just in case those things exist, then taking the multivitamin might offer some health benefits, you know, just in case.
Speaker 1:And then, if not, well, no harm, no foul. There's, yeah, and again, more and more. I'm not really sure of the efficacy of notonent, of athletic greens, which is obviously a highly processed food-like product. But yeah, any supplement is obviously incredibly highly processed. So, yeah, you just got to be careful with how you're running all that down. And again, not be careful with how you run it down. But his justification for why you shouldn't eat processed foods would also actually knock out the athletic greens, which again just makes me think that his advice probably has a little bit more to do with the fact that they paid to sponsor the show than the fact that he actually thinks that it has efficacy for people using it.
Speaker 1:The data on supplements in general is very small short studies, numbers of limitations but the evidence really isn't strong. And again, I'm not doing a hit piece here. I don't actually think Andrew Huberman is stupid. You listen to his show. I think you'll come to the opposite conclusion, which actually makes me think that he's well aware of the limitations of some of the things that he is advocating, and he's just not sharing his honest feeling with his audience. I don't know that to be true, but a man with his education and how well versed he is on a number of topics, it is hard to believe that he would actually think that supplements are extremely efficacious. Another one that he is actually promoting now is Ashwagandha, and I actually went back to Google Trends and you can do this yourself. Go to Google Trends, type in Ashwagandha and you'll see that nobody was talking or thinking about Ashwagandha for over a decade, until about June of 2021, which is exactly when he dropped his episode on it.
Speaker 1:But a little background ashwagandha has been used since about 6,000 BC and this is not its first moment in the sun in my lifetime. So back when I was in my early 20s, there were very, very similar arguments slightly different but very similar arguments being made for improving testosterone by using ashwagandha and yours truly ate that up hook line and sinker like a fucking trout in those lakes. I used to fish in Montana. Never seen anything. I just bit every shiny object when I was like 18 to 25. And so, honestly, I've seen the literature. We're going to get into that.
Speaker 1:But my first thing on like why I'm saying ashwagandha doesn't work comes from using it myself, getting into biohacking as I was back then, and attempting to move the needle with my training. Anecdotal, but in my experience I had really expensive piss. I'd probably give it one star and I have never recommended it to anybody. Um, it's one of those things you almost pretend like. Like when I was also supplementing with tribulus around the same time. You kind of pretend that you didn't do because you see all the well it doesn't work. You waste your money on it, you feel embarrassed and you just pretend like it didn't happen. Um, so part of me is actually willing to bet that nobody who is this thing to record levels of search relevance and trending was partaking in the adoption cycle that I took part in, because that's a big reason why the pitch isn't working on me this time around is I already tried it and it didn't work for me.
Speaker 1:So, yeah, some of the specific claims that Huberman has made about ashwagandha that it can prompt multiple knock-on effects improving vision, cardiovascular health, sleep, memory that again, a lot of times, on face value, is a red flag just when it's improving everything, and some of these are going to be kind of nebulous like memory. How many of you are actually going to be submitting yourself to controlled trials? Or are you just going to be writing back six weeks later and saying, yeah, yeah, I feel sharper, I feel most of that's going to come down to surveys and self-perception, which I don't much believe in. A meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials concluded that it may aid in sleep, especially people with insomnia, but found no significant effect on quality of life. There's evidence of the supplement causing liver damage. This was a study that was done in 2020, looking at five cases of liver injury attributed to ashwagandha supplements. All patients in there had developed jaundice symptoms such as nausea, lethargy, severe itching, severe itching. And again, huberman has promoted its benefits multiple times.
Speaker 1:Another episode that was titled Using Cortisol and Adrenaline to Boost Our Energy and Immune System Function. It also promoted another ashwagandha supplement made from an evergreen shrub and had a profound effect on anxiety, reducing stress, cortisol and even depression. At least that's the claim. And again, I understand why people that are suffering from any condition like that is going to want an answer or something. I just don't think that this is going to be your best play. The results that we have are not 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 literature In general. This is going to be one of the spaces where I think he and I would differ the most, and that would just be. We'll wrap up this section on this.
Speaker 1:But use of supplements Said it again and again, but dietary supplements are not regulated. The labels are consistently not what is actually in there, they're not studied and there was actually a bit of legislation that was coming out of a senator from Utah many years back that opened up this whole paradigm where people can come out with products, print health claims on it and they don't actually have to be true. They're treated more like ads than health statements. So almost every single supplement you see falls prey to this and, yep, even the ones that currently America's favorite doctor right now is promoting. Promoting Not good. At least the actual literature on it is really not good.
Speaker 1:So now this one's a little bit touchier because in a sense, actually Huberman is the expert in this. I am not, he's a PhD. He should be well-versed in how to use science as a tool. I'm not a PhD, but I'm sophisticated enough to know that he is actually misusing his credentials and the tool of science heavily on his affiliation with an elite university to bolster his credibility, while, at least in my estimation, misusing a lot of aspects of science and, frankly, his position. Most people in science are typically wary, very wary, of overpromising. They're almost always like soft, peddling their findings with words like might or may and could. Perhaps they don't really like using a lot of definitive language, and you'll notice that that's not how Huberman speaks on his podcast.
Speaker 1:Speaks on his podcast. In fairness, again, I do think Huberman does a decent job. There's a section that's in every episode, that's kind of like a disclaimer, where he's constantly adding context and caveats. But it's almost like when you're listening to a financial podcast and they're obligated by law to tell you like hey, this is not financial advice. Basically, if you go act on this and go, fuck yourself up. We're not responsible. So, admittedly, that is how I read that disclaimer, if you will, and I guess the reason I say that is because there's actually a pattern that he exhibits when discussing scientific issues where I do think he's actually misusing his mandate, if you will.
Speaker 1:So one device that I do notice a lot is he'll start with a widely held generalization like sleep is important, or exercise is beneficial, or going outside is good. So if you agree with the first part, which is almost so banal and obvious that you couldn't not agree with it, why not agree with everything that comes next? And so, specifically on that, there was one where he was promoting how going outdoors was good and obviously no argument here, completely agree. But then he jumps into some study about how people who spent three to seven days near running water had all of these better outcomes. And again, going outside is good. That's not in question to me, but that study just sounds like a load of crap. Well, not a load of crap, but you can pretty quickly tease out that a study like that was actually more testing wealth than anything else. It's not like you're going to get to a direct mechanism in the outdoor environment that makes people healthy. What you're looking at is people who have the time to have three to seven days to be near running water and then, yeah, just again to kind of paint how. That's actually not as good as an example as it got painted on the show and then actually he used it to go and promote an ionization product because the ions outdoors were similar.
Speaker 1:But I grew up in Montana. You know that I mentioned it all the time, but when you live on an Indian reservation in Montana, the truth is that there's some kids that grew up on the Indian reservation. They've been outdoors their whole life. Don't trust me. Go check the health stats on. If you were born on an Indian reservation, how does that go? Flip it around and now you're like a Californian, like Huberman or me, and you move up to Montana later in life when you got a little bit of money in your pocket, get you like a nice little lake house At least that's what we did. Do you think your aggregate health stats are going to mirror the people that have actually been living outdoors the whole life? Because obviously the seasonal crowd up in Montana they like to spend time outdoors, just like the people who live there year round, but you're going to find the seasonal people do better on education, health, a whole bunch of other things.
Speaker 1:And it's not the ions, it's not the water, it's not the artesian wells, it's the money in their bank accounts. So anyway, I get what he was doing. There is he had an ionizing product that he wanted to push, so he used a study about being near running water to try to get around to making that pitch. I obviously didn't find it that convincing and again, it just. It shows this pattern of how he will use scientific literature in order to promote products. Another pattern I noticed is that he will frequently support his assertions by saying things like supported by peer review research or quote science backed. And there are links to the papers in the show notes.
Speaker 1:But, like we've talked about, it's important to know that not all studies are created equal. Some studies are done in cells in a Petri dish in vitro or in animals in vivo, and other scientists again ask people to fill out surveys. You know how I feel about those studies and so oftentimes, just because it's said in the body of the show that it's a good meta-analysis, if you actually go follow the studies, a lot of times that's not actually what was included in the show. Additionally, you will often notice if you actually go and look in the show links and do all of that stuff. I almost think in a way, people say that, almost daring you not to do it, because it's like, oh well, I said it. So they're just going to think I'm telling the truth and they won't check, because I've deployed that verbal device a few times. I want you to know. I actually mean go check me. I'm not saying that to try to appear above it, because, yeah, I see that in other folks and I know that I've used that. So literally, don't take my word for it. Actually, go research it. I literally mean that, but no, so just one other thing.
Speaker 1:I've seen how he uses studies. At times he often extrapolates from a non-human data to people, um, using an in vitro study or an in vivo study on non-human animals to make prescriptive recommendations or lifestyle changes in humans. Um, cherry picking weaker or relevant studies, discarding bigger, more robust ones that demonstrate a different point than the one that he is trying to make. These are just some of the issues that I have seen him in reporting on the studies that he cites in his show and brings up in the body of his show. Again, I don't think that this is a stupid person. I think this is a person who's capable of telling you absolutely everything. I just said. I have no indication that he would not be able to do that.
Speaker 1:One other subtle issue I have with how he even uses science on the show and yeah, not that I'm perfect, by the way, way, I actually even in writing this down and thinking about it, um, for me, this actually is highlighting things I can probably do better. And and, yeah, I I think that I admittedly have probably mimicked the styles that are popular in in, you know, citing studies and things. And anyway, I, I just want to make sure that I, I hold myself to that same standard. I don't think I've been perfect in the past. There's room for improvement on my own part there as well.
Speaker 1:But Heberman pushes this idea that a reason he brings these scientists to come and discuss the latest findings is that now they can have an open discussion among experts about the latest and greatest studies. I think that that idea makes intuitive sense, but I actually think that there is a big problem with the practice, and once somebody gets famous for an idea, then they start lobbying or fighting for it. So I actually just think that there is a bad alignment of incentives when and I still want people rewarded and motivated to do their work. But once you become famous for an idea, your actions start to become antithetical to good science. Because if your idea gets overturned, so does your celebrity and so does your relevance. And there are countless instances of scientists who were famous for breakthroughs, who the field moved beyond their breakthrough and they continued arguing and lobbying for the idea. And again, they were probably intelligent enough to move on. But if they move on, they also move on from their celebrity and whatever fringe benefits come with that.
Speaker 1:So one recent example that I think fits the bill countless others, but you guys remember power posing. There was a TED Talk on that a while back, how you're supposed to stand in a certain way and increase your testosterone. Well, yeah, they followed up on that and not so much. But you'll notice, I don't even remember the researcher's name, but she's still out there promoting power posing and I don't think had she not gotten to grace the TED stage and build some online fame and celebrity with that. I don't know if a slightly different case, but Dr Gundry with his case on lectins, his popular book Plant Paradox. Again, I read that and felt like I had to run vegetables out of my diet. But I don't think that it's actually coming from reviewing the literature. I think it's because he got famous for that idea and now he kind of has to keep lobbying for it.
Speaker 1:So, anyway, I do like having access to scientists, getting to hear what they discuss, but I think there can be a misalignment of incentives when researchers and people that should be kind of beyond or not concerned with that fray when those incentives start playing into their work, I think it actually deeply compromises them. The practice of interviewing experts on the latest studies it creates a lot of problems for the incentives to do good science and it also adds to the sense that these fields are constantly flipping on their heads when we're discussing all these new studies, when actually most of these fields are actually quite stable. Like nutrition, science, as I've said many times, is actually quite stable. If you're always listening to the latest studies every single week, you're going to think this is a field that is just spinning like a top and that actually isn't the way it is.
Speaker 1:There are so many reasons why trust in science is low, but I don't think that this helps. And because Huberman has gotten a lot of credit for kind of reviving interest in science, I'm going to dive deeper into my feelings on that later. I actually want to point out that I actually think things like this can actually undermine trust in science long run. Just like I mentioned it with my ashwagandha experience earlier, if you have the experience of a trusted expert telling you something works and then it doesn't, the likelihood that you're going to believe them 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 a little bit more careful with some of the discussions and how they conduct it.
Speaker 1:Um, so, yeah, actually one that you thought this one would have been in the agree section, but yes, huberman came out against processed food, and obviously I say that all the time, but the part where I kind of can't agree is that he went down the rabbit hole of calling it toxic, and no, it's not. That's actually one of this might be the dumbest thing he's said, and I really have tried to keep this good faith respectable. The whole toxins thing, though, and detox and all of that. There's absolutely no good evidence on that. And even foods that are bad, like sugar. I'm not saying you should go eat sugar, but it's not toxic. That's not the reason that you shouldn't eat sugar. That's a bad argument that I think is going to open up worse cans of worms later.
Speaker 1:But yeah, in an episode, hubert was joined by Robert Lustig, a pediatric oncologist with a history of hyperbolic claims on nutrition, and he did. He called sugar poison and then claimed that ultra-processed food consumption inhibits bone growth. Huberman actually followed up asked was this in vitro or in vivo? Lustig replied in vivo, and so Huberman asked so these are people that are eating high amounts of processed food. Exactly how did the researcher find those? In the Middle East? And then Lustig answered in Israel to process food. Exactly how did the researcher find those in the Middle East? And then Lustig answered in Israel? Problem was, the study was actually done in animals. At least the one that Lustig was referring to was done in rats. So the entire discussion was not based on a human study. It was based on a study in rats. And again, food is not toxic. All single nutrient explanations for everything wrong with human health are wrong, sorry, um, you know.
Speaker 1:One other that I did flag is that he hasn't actually come out as like full-blown anti-vax um, but he has consistently cast doubt on the efficacy of flu shots. He, in a semi-recent episode, was dismissing legitimate data on or at least he was dismissing CDC data on the flu to promote the idea that the flu shot is completely ineffective at combating any other forms of the flu virus, colds or any other types of upper respiratory infections. That's a Huberman quote. So the CDC is in direct contradiction to that, saying that the flu jab may offer some protection, while oh and then you know sorry getting my notes mixed up here, but so we have about up to 51,000 Americans die every year of the flu. It's estimated that about 1,100 lives are saved via flu shots and honestly, I've tried to stay away from this one because the health and wellness space was actually pretty well split over COVID.
Speaker 1:We got a lot of folks in this space that are into alternative medicine and obviously didn't want to go the vaxxing route. But no, I just wanted to point this out because during COVID I do feel like anti-vaxxing did become political. So hear me out, don't turn me off yet if you're an anti-vaxxer. No, I just wanted to point out that the landscape of anti-vaxxing shifted a lot during COVID.
Speaker 1:Prior to COVID, anti-vaxxing was first really being pushed from the work of a no longer doctor, but at the time Dr Andrew Wakefield. He was contacted by a lawyer because in England they did have a fund set up for anybody who had side effects from the MMR vaccine. There are side effects to vaccines. They're small. But the British government said if you had a side effect, we want to pay you, we want to make sure to compensate you for those damages. So this lawyer comes up with this idea that he wants to raid that fund. So he goes to Wakefield to actually reverse engineer a test that he can basically say these are subjects who had side effects. As you know, that's not how science works. You don't work back from the conclusion you want to be true. So Wakefield got his stuff accepted. They won a settlement. After they won that settlement he comes out to Silicon Valley. His goal was actually to launch a replacement for the MMR vaccine. We've covered that history a little bit, but the part I wanted to point out was that he again arrives in Silicon Valley.
Speaker 1:If you go back to the early adopters of anti-vaxxing. These were actually mostly wealthy, college-educated people in coastal California, mostly Marin County and the west side of Los Angeles. These were the first places to bring measles back. Covid actually flipped the political orientation of anti-vaxxing that used to be pre-COVID, a unique property of the quite well off coastal educated left Jokingly I call it the kale crowd. And one other that I actually came across to kind of demonstrate how quickly people have flipped on this one, joe Rogan, four days before the COVID shutdown. This was from an episode he had with an epidemiologist at the time. But yeah, four days before we got closed down, rogan was saying I hope this wakes people up to the value of vaccines too.
Speaker 1:So many wackos out there that think vaccines are a scam or they're dangerous. There's so many people out there that won't vaccinate their children, and his guest couldn't agree more. I think it's a really important point that we get to this idea that vaccines can be lifesaving. If we had one right now, think how different the situation that we're in would be. And then back to Rogan. It would be radically different. See the measles making a comeback, directly attributed to lack of vaccines.
Speaker 1:So many people are paranoid and delusional. They want it all to be a conspiracy. There's an amazing medical innovation in human culture and that's vaccines. It's amazing what is done. Have there been adverse effects on people? Of course, everything that people do, there's some people that are going to react in a bad way. It doesn't mean it's not a positive thing. There's a reason why cases of polio are so tiny. There's a reason why smallpox went away. It's because of vaccines, when something like this can be prevented.
Speaker 1:And the reason why people don't do it is because they're paranoid of vaccines and they get that information from some wacko website or from some person who really has no business talking about it. Whether it's the people out there that think it causes diseases or a government plot, or that it's a medical scam because it's just trying to raise money, it's just all of it. It's very disturbing. It's part of the people, human beings, for whatever reason. There's a percentage of us that lean towards conspiratorial thinking. They lean towards thinking that there's some sort of plot against them or the government's against them. It's just. You got to listen to the medical experts. So remember, all of that was not Simon, that was Joe Rogan, march 9th 2020.
Speaker 1:So Joe Rogan actually has a more popular podcast than Andrew Huberman, which is hard to do. Rogan's number one, I think. Huberman's number three, number one in the fitness space, but Rogan has five times the audience that Huberman does, so those two guys are often not thrown into the mainstream discussion. In terms of popularity, salience, availability, there is nothing more mainstream than the advice being given by Huberman and Rogan and again on this issue, even though it's not popular to say with some, I think they were allowing the incentives of their audience to dictate the content that they're producing.
Speaker 1:Joe Rogan's quote in March 9th makes it very clear that he doesn't believe most of what he's saying today. It's hard to believe, with Huberman's training, that he would believe what he's saying today. I think what both of them figured out is that there's actually a lot of money in appealing to those conspiracy theories. So that's the difference between Joe Rogan, march 9, 2020 and 2024 is he's actually learned that there's a lot of money in saying these conspiratorial things that are not actually taboo, forbidden thought crimes. There's actually a big audience that wants to hear that and, yeah, it's actually going to be a lot less popular to not indulge quick tricks, conspiracies, fantasies, stuff like that. That's actually probably the more taboo space, believe it or not, but anyway, all this, we covered a lot so far, but do the revelations in the New York Magazine piece matter at all? So now I'm getting away from the science issues I brought up and let's be honest, being a bad boyfriend actually isn't a crime, and I don't even know if it warrants a 5,000 word cover page and piece in a magazine.
Speaker 1:If his podcast is useful to some, like people that I've talked to that have absolutely improved their lives through listening to the show, does any of this matter? And I've actually even been asking friends Before I ever even wrote down my thoughts, I asked people that I know listen to show. How did they feel about this? One popular sentiment and joke I heard a lot was actually his cheating is proof that the protocols work. I mean, come on, man, juggling six different girlfriends, that takes a lot of energy. You need superhuman levels. Maybe they do work.
Speaker 1:And other people have actually gone the route of saying that the New York Magazine story was just a personal attack. That's the direction that Lex Friedman, another popular podcaster, took. What did he say? Here we go. It's heartbreaking to see a hit piece reading about my friend andrew huberman. Uh, hit piece attacks like this are simply trash clickbait journalism, desperately clinging on to relevance. Andrew should be celebrated, period. His podcast has helped millions of people, including me, lead healthier lives. Keep going, brother. Um, quick one on lex. He also says that he's an MIT researcher and people at MIT question that. So I doubt Lex likes the hit piece, particularly on Huberman possibly stretching his relationship with Stanford. But all right, now we're getting into my own thoughts.
Speaker 1:Admittedly, I didn't even finish the piece. As you know, I'm more interested in the science advice sorry, the health and fitness advice that Huberman gives and his use of science. There wasn't a lot in the article that I actually even found interesting or relevant to my concerns. That being said, though, I'm going to make an argument that the piece isn't really about Huberman's relationship with women. I actually think that the line that really more comes out of it is more Huberman's relationship with facts. So I am going to go against what most of my clients have told me and most of the conversations I've had, and I'm going to say actually, yes, that this does matter.
Speaker 1:Huberman's not just some dude with a podcast. He has a huge audience, um, and he has massive influence over people's daily routines. Um, his public image, the one that he has put out there is vastly at odds with his private life. Um, he styles himself as like an aesthetic who controls every aspect of his life. Meanwhile the piece paints a very different picture. And then you know real quick, actually, just because we're on there, there's nothing about his dating life. That's even shocking to me.
Speaker 1:I just got off a call with my brother. Lives in the Bay Area, actually Oakland, where Huberman used to live. Scott Carney was meeting him there in that piece and, yeah, didn't talk about this with my brother, but unsolicited, my brother offered to me that well, he's polyamorous, he's dating a whole bunch of people, and so I just want to point out that there's literally nothing shocking in that story to me. I know people who live a lot of different lifestyles and it's almost going to be a dating ad for my brother. If you're looking to date a polyamorous guy in the Bay Area, my brother won't lie and tell you that he's only dating one person. He'll tell you up front how many people he's dating, all of that. So yeah, I don't have any qualms with Huberman's lifestyle, it's just the relationship to the truth.
Speaker 1:That, I think, is a pattern that again flagged what I saw on the show and apparently these women he's dated maybe have a similar experience in a different domain is a little bit sketchy. You know my parents are college professors so he's supposed to be an associate professor, but I actually see him down in Venice. Well, I don't see him. I talk to people who see him. I know he's down there working out at Gold's in Venice. I don't know a lot of associate professors when my parents were in school that lived in another city and were still affiliated with the university. Things have changed. I don't know how that works. Still affiliated with the university. 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 the university is doing with the lab. Some people say it doesn't exist, other people say it does. I do think we need more information. But since the piece had him moving to Topanga and all my friends see him down in Venice, and since the piece had him moving to Topanga and all my friends see him down in Venice, I know he's not around the Stanford campus that often right now.
Speaker 1:So whatever the New York Magazine piece came out, there were already plenty of Huberman skeptics, who were mostly coming actually from the scientific community, accusing him of cherry picking data, again extrapolating from animal research into humans, and that he misuses his expertise and credentials toward the end of pushing the products he's talking about, misuses his expertise and credentials toward the end of pushing the products he's talking about. In general, all of his episodes are going to contain grains of truth, but then those grains are exaggerated beyond a point of usefulness, even leading so far as to move away from the truth. I think, objectively, it's fair to say that he steers his listeners into the unregulated world of supplements, and I do think that's bad. At best, most supplements do nothing. At worst they can be harmful. Obviously, supplements, thanks to just fun legal loopholes, can be sold without the burden of safety that food and anything else has to be sold with. So, yeah, aside from like special instances where, like, a specific supplement was recommended by a doctor for a specific specific medical issue, I don't think there's any body of evidence to support broadly advocating them to random people listening on a podcast. Uh, I honestly don't think any credible scientists should tell you to buy and consume magic pills. And, yeah, huberman has improved some lives, I think, with that, the broad advice nobody would disagree with, but I think he also has a potential to do a lot more than he currently is. I actually think that he is intelligent and is capable of more, but it seems more like he's going down the Dr Oz path of creating a big global market of products and things built on misinformation. I'm not sure he actually believes Then this will be had you a from us now.
Speaker 1:So let me go ahead and finish up on just this one point. So a Time Magazine piece a while back said the man who got America to care about science and I actually think a little bit too much credit is being given and where's the evidence that he is doing good science? In reality? His podcast is focused on pseudoscience. He often makes the claims appear scientific, but they lack evidence, plausibility or validity. He's constantly presenting unsubstantiated conclusions that then kind of become hard to distinguish from. The evidence that he lays down as to why these conclusions are true Again contains grains of truth, but I think it gets a little bit exaggerated.
Speaker 1:The appeal of Huberman to me is obvious he's credentialed, he's qualified, he's intelligent and he's speaking to having control over our health when it can feel that we have none. People want answers, people want to feel smart and listening to a smart person talk about things certainly accomplishes that. Again, in fairness, I do think there are some great takeaways that a lot of people have already taken from the show. I want to be very specific in his over-the-top, always seductive promises of what supplements can do. I think that's my issue is that it's often going to mislead people to do things that are ineffective or potentially harmful and then also, amplifying those behaviors in a roundabout way, actually discourages them from doing the big, important things.
Speaker 1:Biology is complex. We don't have every answer to everything and there's a lot of issues with our current healthcare system which compound, create frustration, desperation. But wellness products and supplements are not a solution. They're part of the exploitation. And, though he's a PhD, wellness influencers like Huberman pit their solutions against conventional science and medicine to sell unproven interventions that are expensive, have no benefit, might delay you from getting the right treatment or doing the right things, or could even be actively harmful. No easy fix. We got to shift the paradigm. We're trying to do that here in our own small way. But too many people confuse celebrity with expertise small way. But too many people confuse celebrity with expertise, and that's not new. Rebuilding trust in science is going to be an ongoing effort, but I'm going to disagree with Time Magazine. I don't think we're on that path right now.
Speaker 1:And then I did look around because I wanted to see if Huberman had responded to any of this, and I read a number of articles prepping up for this and I didn't see him commenting to anyone critical of any of his findings or on this particular issue. I would like to hear from him because a lot of this is coming secondhand, but admittedly he has enough time for really long podcasts and like six girlfriends. So the failure to comment on this 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 his voice out there when, when he wants to. So, um, yeah, at least now the fact that he hasn't addressed any of these claims is a little bit problematic for where I'm sitting. But anyway, guys, I hope I did a good job breaking this down.
Speaker 1:I know that there's going to be overlap in our listeners. I'm a Huberman Lab listener myself. I don't catch every episode, but I've definitely caught plenty in my time. There's a great deal that I agree with Andrew Huberman on in more ways than one. I hate to say it, but he's someone I'm trying not to be with my much, much smaller platform. In those disclaimers and qualifiers that he does on the importance of what we call here the big rocks, I appreciate that he talks about that. However, he's a little bit too quick to offer easy fixes and products to fill the void and I guess almost. I know we have a lot of overlap, but my big push here at MindMuscle has been to get you to focus on the Big Rocks. I kind of feel like what they do over at Huberman Lab is get you to major in the minors.
Speaker 1:As I often say here, I do really hope that I did a good job presenting a balanced version or a balanced critique of his work. As I mentioned, a number of my clients are fans. I'm a listener myself, so I don't want this to come off. I'm not passing judgment on listeners, god knows. I am one Passing a little bit of judgment on Huberman because of his expertise, his intelligence, and I don't think he is doing the best that he's capable of. That probably means nothing coming from a guy with a much smaller podcast, but I actually think that he could actually improve people's health. I think he could do more than just pushing products and supplements that I'm almost certain he knows have no value. Last time I'll say it, but I hope this didn't come off as a hit piece. Yeah, honestly, great chance I actually brush elbows with this guy at some point. So, honest to God, I honestly feel like everything I said here I could defend over a cup of coffee if that were to ever happen.
Speaker 1:Please don't feel attacked in anything that I laid down here today. Admittedly, I don't even know who's actually right. I would be willing, though, to set a calendar reminder for five years and then call me up and see if any of these supplements that we're promoting today have been adopted as good health practices, or if we've moved on to a set of supplements nobody is talking or thinking about currently, right now. So yeah, admittedly, I would actually like to see that. So if anybody wants to do that, set a little reminder. Let's see who's right in a few years. I'm still going to hammer down on focus on the big rocks, don't major in the minors. Most of these supplements questionable value, if any.
Speaker 1:I think that is the heart of where I find my disagreement with Andrew Huberman. But no, I do. I like the show. I listen to it at times and yeah, so in a way I doubt he's going to take the time to listen to somebody like me. But yeah, a kind of casual fan is 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 with anything I laid down, let me know what you guys think in the comments. I actually want to hear that. Yeah, and anyway, guys, I appreciate your time. Remember mind and muscle are inseparably intertwined. There are no gains without brains. Keep lifting and learning. I'll do the same.
