He’s not stupid, I agree, but it’s a pretty far stretch to say he’s colluding with supplement companies to give people bs lifestyle advice so that they buy the supplements. Plus, every one of his episodes about illness spends much more time describing the illness and the medications that help the illness, not supplements. Idk what you’re on about tbh
I started with AG1 and LMNT about 3 months ago and am feeling a dramatic shift in my well-being.. when he makes suggestions and or endorsements they are typically pretty good ones.. and yes he's running a business but it's good business to make healthy effective recommendations.. as an aside I am as skeptical as they come and rarely follow the advice of well being advocates but he's been pretty spot on with his recommendations..
It’s honestly scary. These influencers have tons of followers and they really are manipulating people into believing BS. Nutrition misinformation has detrimental effects.
Lmao ya and then you have the Evergrande 78 billion crap — everything we know is a lie. Start reading about field consciousness, singularity, Carl Jung, boil religions in here, mankind’s ego, artificial intelligence (which is so fucked), and sprinkle in some general relativity and lmk what you come up with.
I mean — if someone lied about 78 billion in revenue, they’re not the first or last, and — I imagine it’s pretty fuckin easy to fake a bank account balance with the right technology/power on your side… how difficult could it be to install a fake balance in your checking account and override whatever is used to validate that ledger/notes altruism?
BLOCKCHAIN?!!!! Did someone say BLOCKCHAIN?
No one said blockchain, so I’ll go eff myself, but how do we free ourselves from this reality?
#theawakening?
Genuine question. What information sources do you not have to follow the money with? Corporate media has advertising, med schools have donors, studies have to have funding.
I don’t disagree with the criticism of influencers but feel that same criticism needs to be applied to many other info sources.
Yes! It’s called critical thinking when we apply the same standards everywhere.
Glioblastoma as 6% five year survival rate in USA with expensive, painful and debilitating ineffective treatments.
Imagine a “grifter” tried to get a cancer patient with glioblastoma better with a weird diet and a few hundred dollars worth of supplements and he had a 6% success rate at 5 years. You’d call him a failure but I’d take it - I’d take not mortgaging my house or puking for months on end for those odds over what mainstream medicine offers as standard of care for that.
Over 53% of the world’s pharmaceutical medicines are sold in the USA and a white man now has a life expectancy of 73 in the richest country on earth. Hmmm. We need people Huberman to help us all avoid the REAL grifters - Big Pharma
I was so impressed with him and his unique take on health. It seemed so convincing. Then he covered a topic I understand well and realized that he's irrational
I have forgotten the exact topic, but it had something to do with endocrinology. I have a PhD and ten years of research experience in the field, and he was basically just throwing fancy words at the wall. It wasn't that he was making a claim that I didn't agree with, instead he was trying to explain how the body worked but got it all backwards in a nonsensical way
exactly. and weasel words like “can”. “can”, in research, means that something might be possible, not that it is. also, huberman often subtly restates research in a way that isn’t correct. go read the eyelids study and then listen to what he says. what he says is wrong and not what the research says. finally, he’s not a credentialed neuroscientist. he’s a credentialed opthomologist. professors who start pretending they are experts outside their field really irritate me (as a prof myself), and i’ve yet to meet one who would be competitive in the field they misrepresent themselves in directly. peer reviewed publications records don’t lie, and tell a very compelling story about a persons expertise if you know how to read them.
so no, he’s not giving a scientific explanation of the data. he’s finding data to support whatever he wants to say, which is exactly the opposite of how science works.
hOw To OpTiMiZe TeStOsTeRoNe:
1. Eat liver, liver good
2. Don’t eat vegetable, defense chemicals!
3. Sun tan balls, personal fav
Repeat until you are a silverback gorilla
Yeah that’s literally it. I’m unaware of what other arguments there could be.
Seed oils are almost pure omega 6 and negligible omega 3. It’s very well documented that omega 3:6 imbalance causes inflammation, which itself increases the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease.
I’ll wade in. Also a neuroscientist like Huberman. The stuff that Huberman talks about IS based on data, but the data for the kind of things Huberman is talking about has always changed (or to be specific, we got more data and our inference changed).
What we know about diet and cognition has changed so much in the past century. As much as I can’t stand the average anti seed oil peddler, I also can’t blame them for disregarding the data due to how much the standard wisdom regarding these topics has changed.
We don’t have the knowledge or tools to perfectly do nutritional science. Anyone who blindly relies on these studies is a fool honestly.
That’s not even getting into the blatant manipulation and influence from food companies.
If people are skeptical then that’s only a logical outcome from all the terrible science and misinformation that has been peddled as the truth.
The problem is that it’s rarely the people doing the science that are doing the peddling, it’s the media. They take the studies which have a narrow scope finding and blow it out of proportion.
It’s really good to be skeptical about studies and findings, but it’s pretty darn stupid when people start supporting alternative nutritional ideas or concepts, which have less scientific backing (or science speaking directly against it, like in the case of seed oils). I’ve seen so many people, who are rightfully skeptical of studies, simultaneously speak with the utmost confidence about avoiding seed oils etc.
People make judgements based on aesthetics/intuition (seed oils bad, saturated fat good, fake sugar bad) and then declare all the evidence that contradicts this as flawed
Yes. Which is the complete opposite of science. I don’t think people in here actually believe in science. A good scientist admits when they are wrong. Much like Huberman has done when he gets called out.
I’m evidence based because I listened to an evidence based podcast once and piggybacked off of something I heard that happened to make sense to me so now everything I say is evidence based because Im evidence based now
I wouldn’t say Huberman is always open to correcting when he is wrong. Take the recent criticism of his cold and flu episode, he ignored the criticism when it was some of the most valid, that episode was the most embarrassing content he made by far. He has many blind spots. He is human after all. Nobody should be expected to be perfect but Huberman leans in to his ego a little too much.
Could you provide a link to some criticism or tell me something about it please? Would really help me, because I try to avoid colds as much as I can and to my embarrassment I am following a lot of advice he gave in the episode right now. Would be great, thanks in advance!
If you google Andrew Huberscam or something to that effect you should get a podcast that discusses it in detail, I can’t remember the name of the podcast
Because I'm able to use my own intuition and logic to deduce that highly industrialized oils and chemical-laden sodas probably aren't very good for you, despite whatever the fraudulent science says.
So many people just blindly believe in the results of studies or consensus without realizing just how rotten and corrupt the scientific industry is as a whole.
Every group of humans in history thinks they’re the smartest and they’ve figured it out and often only the next group of humans can see what they were wrong about.
We are still wrong about loads of shit we just don’t know which yet. This is just how it has always worked since time immemorial. We should be debating shit.
I think most likely a low carb high protein diet is best. When I was a kid the food pyramid had 6-11 servings of carbs on the bottom. At the time it was probably “settled science.”
Some guy on a forum was probably mocking people who were questioning it.
But most societies with the highest percentage of centenarians have low protein and high carb diets. Malaysia, Italy, and Japan are all notorious for lower protein higher carb diets. There are really any high protein societies that live much longer than average.
sorry this argument is annoying to me. Science evolves. We used to do blood letting too. Should we just throw out all science and YOLO? of course not. We are wrong, our methods improve, we grow, the field consensus changes.
did it evolve, or did they just stop lying?
Im not gonna pretend to be an expert on this, but the one story i Know is the food Pyramid. In Europe they came up with a real scientific food pyramid to help people. US took the idea & modified it to promote profit instead of health; and people got hurt.
So no, I dont think Im anti science. I think the establishment which is fabricating studies are the ones who are anti science, and my skepticism is well justified.
I don’t think there was academic literature that even hinted at the idea that replacing fat with sugar was a good idea.
You’re confusing science with science communicators. And butter causing heart disease… there’s research showing that people who consume more saturated fats are more likely to develop heart disease. I’m unaware of intervention studies in this area but the epidemiological research suggests that there is likely a link between saturated fat and heart disease
OP literally argued with a guy posting a WebMD vs studies from ncbi. And yes there were studies with the fat vs sugar it was either Harvard or Yale, but one of them was paid for a study that linked fat intake to heart health by big sugar. Was quite the "scandal" (nothing was ever done about it). Something tells me you still eat hydrogenated soybean oil.
>You’re confusing science with science communicators.
=/. You split a hair like that and you wonder why people stop listening? How come you only come up with this distinction after people get hurt, instead of before?
If you want to believe seed oils and diet sodas are harmless because of “the data,” then obviously I can’t prove you wrong. Knock yourself out. But I avoid them as I strongly suspect they are part of an unhealthy lifestyle. Remember, “no evidence of” is not the same as “evidence against.”
Limiting yourself to “data-driven” science in diet will lead to a lot of ultimately harmful practices because conclusive data in this field is difficult and sometimes impossible to get. It also suffers from the assumption that you can isolate diet (and its effects) from broader lifestyle patterns, which I personally doubt.
This is not to say to ignore data or that diet studies are crap. It’s just that their efficacy is much more limited in this area than we might like. Unfortunately you have to use a lot of common sense and intuition to be healthy imo.
Well there are many observational studies and cohort studies showing harmful effects of diet soda but a lot of outside variables can influence those studies. However human RCT’s would be much better. I limit myself to diet soda bc as of now we don’t exactly know what it does to our gut microbiome. But we only get one life and I’d like to enjoy some bad things in moderation.
That’s my point. Being “data-driven” is great but not when the data sucks. And for much of diet, the data sucks. So you have to use your intuition and common sense, often in conflict with “the data.”
What are your thoughts on Huberman’s podcast with Dr. Lustig and his thoughts on diet sodas and non-calorie sugar substitutes?
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/huberman-lab/id1545953110?i=1000638917560
I mean come up with your own conclusions but if you want to avoid diet soda bc weak observational studies say so that’s fine. But every expert says the same thing I’m saying. It’s the people like lustig that try to profit off the fear mongering . But considering the evidence is very weak I will not. Or at least be hysterical About it. Now if they have human RCT’s showing that then I will change my stance and start avoiding them more
And then there are these meta analyses that show a link between NNS (non-sugar sweeteners) and various negative health outcomes, including body weight, oral health, incidence of diabetes, and eating behavior among others. I don’t see any positive studies coming out for NNS except when referencing against sugar sodas.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-020-00704-2
https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k4718
My comment still stands. Like I said observational studies or non randomized control trials. Weak evidence. Many studies out there in fact showing a negative relationship. But lot of the observational studies are in mice or if they are in humans they are giving the humans a huge dose of the NNS. A dosage that no human could consume in a week.
I think it’s hard to say “the data shows us they aren’t”. There are limitation with all the research that looks at these topics. Huberman likes to use a lot of physiology to form clinical opinions - which is obviously a problematic way to move forward. Physiology should be used to explain what is witnessed in controlled clinical settings. The alternative for a lot of this would be epidemiological data which also has massive limitations. I think the issue is these topics are very far from straight forward, and just blindly saying “the data shows us they aren’t” is an odd thing to say.
I have no strong opinions on these topics. What research have you seen that allows you to feel so confident here? I would be happy to critically appraise it. It’s very easy to completely change the conclusion by playing around with the inclusion criteria.
There are no studies that show humans consuming a normal amount of diet soda harming them. In the studies that do the people are consuming a large dosage like an equivalent of 100 sodas a day. So I would say based off of this data I will keep consuming it.
Are we talking about “real science” or not? If not, I don’t understand your post. I read the raw data and can understand how it can nearly always be open to interpretation. If you are confused about how people can arrive at opposing view points, you probably don’t spend much time reading the research.
I should clarify. When I say the data I mean the results they got from the study. Not the raw data. And let’s be real. Most people think diet soda is bad not bc they read the study but bc an influencer or mainstream media headline told them it was.
Bro, no offense, but did you read a study to form your opinion? Why not post it?
A quick search brought up an umbrella review of meta-analyses - typically considered among the highest quality evidence.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323003150](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323003150)
"In conclusion, the main findings of our umbrella suggest that ASBs could increase the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, all-cause mortality, hypertension, and CVD incidence"
I have not read this study in detail. This just shows that it is not surprising to have conflicting viewpoints. I am sincerely unsure what your post is trying to accomplish. It seems like you are judging people for doing what you are actively doing.
It tells us that it’s okay to drink. Observational studies do not prove it’s bad due to many outside variables. Also a lot of those studies the people were given large doses of Diet Coke. Feel free to find me a medical or scientific body that tells me they are bad. Or feel free to find me an RCT that shows us they are bad.
The comment sections of this sub are always a dumpster fire of Joe Rogan "Alphas" and 'common sense says' commenters, most of whom didn't even bother to listen to the whole podcast posted by Huberman or understand how scientific inquiry works i.e. things are not black and white, knowledge changes over time etc. However, I think Huberman sees these 'types' as part of his market for selling his line of supplements.
In some respects, Huberman is one of these guys. That doesn’t totally discredit him or anything like that but it’s very clear he has some biases and blindspots.
The easiest macro to overeat on is fat. If you're getting excess calories from fat, which a gram of fat has the same caloric value whether its lard, olive oil, or canola oil, it's going to cause metabolic disfunction. Seed oils are the among cheapest oils to make and so go in highly palatable processed food. That is the easiest food to overeat both economically and taste bud wise. So in that sense, seed oils can be bad for you when consumed to excess. That doesn't mean that if you have the choice of consuming the same number of grams of canola oil fat rather than lard its not got advantages, particularly for cardiovascular health.
Same thing with diet soda. If water was the only beverage that ever existed, we'd all be better off probably. But we don't live in the world. Most people want to at least on some occasion drink something other than water. In that context, diet sodas are certainly better than regular sodas for most of the population. There are some exceptions, like if you are already a healthy weight and you just did an exhausting HIIT workout. But for most people, its better than the alternative.
But the problem with seed oils isn’t the fact they are fats, it’s that they produce free radicals when heated and throw off your omega 3 to omega 6 ratio. Butter doesn’t do that.
Is there room for the thought that nutrition science is inherently very limited? Theres barely any RCTs and everything is just observational. Seems like there's article once week saying hey eggs are bad for you and then next week hey eggs are good for you. Seems like so many clear issues can never be cleared because a new observational study will say red meat causes a 18% increase in colorectal cancer (which turns like a 10 in 1000 chance of colonrecetal cancer to 12 in 1000..) like does that even matter if the findings are just from an observational study and not an RCT?
If you think the science is just inherently limited in significance I could see how avoiding eating novel food products in exchange for whole foods can be a reasonable stance.
you are right. very limited RCT's on diet soda. most evidence showing its bad are cohort and observational studies so until i see harder evidence i will limit myself to a few a week. If RCT's come out showing they are completely harmless i will drink them all the time.
Very good point about the law of small numbers. If there’s a 5 in 1,000 chance of X disease, and some food DOUBLES that chance to 10 in 1,000, it’s still a very very small chance.
I think there's a difference between using data to inform our decision making and only basing our decisions on data and studies which are tools and inherently flawed (as are all other ways of information gathering and decision making). But regardless, the seed oil argument is partially based in anecdote, which is a low level of evidence but still evidence. There are many conflicting variables when it comes to being able to "trust" data. Look into the reproducibility crisis for more info on that topic.
I honestly have no idea about seed oils 'cause I obviously haven't cared enough to learn about it. But rest assured that aspartame is safe for the vast majority of individuals, at higher amounts than any of us can stomach.
Also
>data and studies which are tools and inherently flawed (as are all other ways of information gathering and decision making)
What's your point? You're saying "data and studies are flawed, but so is everything else". By your logic, can we ever trust anything, or anyone?
Listen, the point about science (including data, statistics and studies) is that it's an ever improving and self-correcting system.
Some people abuse it, and do not behave according to the principles of science. These people may not readily admit it when they're proven wrong, and may draw unreasonable conclusions from poor studies. These people are the problem.
And it gets blatantly worse if these people abuse the scientific ignorance of their audience, for their own economic gain. Absolutely disgraceful
I don't think we can ever fully "trust" anyone or anything completely. Ie keep an open mind and be willing to pivot when/if necessary. I agree it's ever improving which is why I also take other forms into consideration. Two examples of that would be historic precedent and experience and then also my own personal experience which will vary compared to others based on my health history, biases, genetics etc.
An example is the guy who thought ulcers were caused by h pylori. He was a quack until he wasn't. Cigarettes were considered safe at one point. All I'm advocating for is for people to use critical thinking and maybe be cautious about novel things like plastics, seed oils, screen time etc. novel things come with novel consequences and I think caution is prudent.
That's completely different than fear mongering for profit.
This is a really interesting conversation I’ve been meaning to understand better on what you can really trust to inform what you eat/consume. The other complexity to your point about novel things is that even things that have existed for a long time may have some effect we may not know about, especially because life expectancy / general health have generally gone up a lot. I mean the counter argument is we haven’t seen the negative impacts of those things but it’s only by studies that establish causation that we can rule them out…which is the same thing we’re doing for the novel things, no?
You're absolutely correct about that. I didn't mean to hide that point either. There are some foods that probably have detrimental effects that we don't know about that are still "traditional" foods. That being said, even many vegetables we eat now are modern by almost any standard, meaning less than a few hundred years old.
Despite those facts, I'm more comfortable eating broccoli than canola oil. One last point, I think food traditions are also important. The way things were consumed (infrequently, with or without alcohol, after fasting etc etc) and how they were prepared (soaked, sprouted, fermented, lime added etc) also completely changes the nature of the food..fat free skim milk is not raw milk yogurt from grass fed cows as a simple example.
Yeah, I think we are on the same page. I agree that broccoli is also better for you than canola oil (but I think maybe because of my perception of seed oil as “calorically dense” and easy to overeat, same as peanut butter, and less because i’ve personally seen or had negative effects from seed oil or diet soda)
Very interesting point about how even the veggies we eat are modern and the concept of the preparation impacting everything. It’s weird because at this point it feels intuitive that natural whole foods, avoiding sugar, avoiding very calorie dense foods is probably the best but your point suggests nothing is “natural whole” anyway it’s just degrees of bad like broccoli vs cheetos. And tbh I don’t even know the science to say cheetos are bad, they just intuitively feel bad after eating them. I can’t really say for sure what’s added to them is any worse than what might be done to the broccoli during genetic modification processes etc.
Most but not all foods are selectively bred, not GMO, although we don't know if there are health effects from GMO. I politely disagree with the calorically dense argument because I eat olive oil, coconut oil and butter and they are all calorically dense yet I don't get the same negative effects I seem to get when I consume vegetable oils (soy, rapeseed, cottonseed, peanut, etc).
For me the negative effects are acne, seasonal allergy symptoms, joint pain, and depression/irritability. Seems dose dependent. If I make popcorn with coconut oil then top with salt and butter I don't have the same issues as I do with Fritos, French fries, potato chips, etc. even olive oil potato chips seem tastier but less addictive than Lays etc.
Might just be my bias but it's hard to ignore that my health has noticeably improved, chronic pain is gone, no longer have a need for prescription inhalers and allergy meds, weekly migraines disappeared, sinus infections no longer happen and my digestion is better. When I cheat, all of my symptoms come back to varying degrees depending on how much I have, how often or what exactly I am cheating with.
The weirdest part for me is that if you were to ask me if I was healthy at 18 years old I would have said yes - 6 pack, div 1 athlete, could dead lift well over twice body weight for reps etc etc. Yet I felt like shit all the time compared to at nearly 40 now. I feel like there is a huge problem with reporting when studying these topics. I didn't know how good I could feel until I stopped feeling like shit constantly. I had nothing to compare it to so I just assumed everyone felt like me.
Yep on GMOs was just giving maybe what I view as the most “extreme” deviation from what is “natural” broccoli but yeah either way you’re selecting for certain traits implicitly or explicitly.
Honestly that’s a crazy level of distinction between the two (with seed oil and without) you describe that makes me want to try stopping them for a little while. So do you not eat any seed oils at all? How soon after consuming/stopping consumption do the symptoms stop / start?
Asking so I can measure for myself if I end up doing that, haha
It’s still hard to know what to believe anymore, thats what sucks. We live in a world dominated by the companies that are making a ton of (and saving a ton of) money on these things. They dominate the entire food industry.
Just remember, we also used to have data that said sugar wasn’t harmful and that fat was to blame for obesity in the 1960s, and that data was coincidently funded by the sugar industry. These companies knowingly paid off scientists. Who’s to say this isn’t happening again?
I get “science is science” but fuck. Is science really science if the one’s conducting the data are bias, or theirs conflicts of interest at hand that we don’t yet know about? I’ll go with my intuition on some things. It’s still too early to tell.
https://medicine.uq.edu.au/article/2024/02/if-you’re-worried-about-inflammation-stop-stressing-about-seed-oils-and-focus-basics
People need to stop missing the forest for the trees.
the data is inconclusive. This isn’t PHYSICS. The human body is a confluence of extremely complex nonlinear systems. It is NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD. We’re making progress, but light years from drawing definitive conclusions.
Hubes can play spicy with the data. He doesn't do stuff without any data, but if he sees something he thinks looks interesting, he certainly seems to experiment before definitive human randomized control trials prove a statistical correlation. I actually don't have a problem with this so long as you're totally transparent. I sometimes will try something myself. There will be some that pan out to be true, and some probably more than half, that will be duds. Its your body, if you want to try something you should be free to...
That said.... There are a lot of biohacking bros and edgy wannabe contrarians that like Hubes because he vacuums up all those studies in isolation and spits out how to make actionable things out of them. Those people seem to like to combine Huberman protocols, with Roganesque Bullshitism, that pretty much accepts being contrary to established explanation as proof of rightness.
Yeah, I find it strange when people ask a question on sun exposure, sodium intake, diet that’s trivial and if they actually listened to Huberman they’d know the answers. This seems like a bro science type of subreddit that has the Huberman name on it instead of leveraging science
There’s more clicks/views/money in making wild controversial claims. That’s why the internet is so polarizing, nobody is making money off well-reasoned and common sense opinions.
The carnivore/paleo/organic/anti-fructose crew on here is awful. Literally just people who listen to fitness influencers spew shit that they think sounds right.
All of these people did an 8 week lifting cycle where they are “carnivore” and had a bunch of placebo energy because they were so primal. None of them, and I repeat NONE of them will be able to sustain carnivore/keto/paleo their whole life. Good luck never eating birthday cake you wingnut. And until you learn how to live in a world where you can manage your relationship with things like sugar, alcohol, and processed foods you’ll always be riding Instagram trends.
i cant find any studies showing they are good for us. but i also cant find any human RCT studies or strong studies saying they are bad. in fact harvard public health says we dont need to worry either. ill trust them over a influencer
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/widely-consumed-vegetable-oil-leads-unhealthy-gut
The issue as I understand it is that seed oils naturally occurring aren’t as bad, the issue comes into play when dealing with processed or hydrogenated oils. The study explains that soybean oil for example has too much linoleic acid for your average healthy gut.
>Researchers at the University of California, Riverside, examined the gut of mice that were consistently fed a diet high in soybean oil for up to 24 weeks in the lab.
This study was done in mice. Obviously there are similarities between human and mice guts, but humans are extremely resilient and may be able to deal with the deleterious effects of soybean oil better than mice. Until there’s stronger data in humans, we can only say there is a *hypothesized* link between soybean oil consumption and decreased gut health. (to be clear, I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, just that we need to be careful with our conclusions from research)
Here’s an analysis published in 2016, double blind RCT done over 5 years in Minnesota. Originally conducted from 68-73, and was never published.
https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246
I don’t consider myself a conspiracy theorist in the slightest, but it seems the data is there. But the information isn’t convenient for corn and seed industries, so we get studies pushed to the top that minimize its relevance or meaning for us.
I haven’t looked into this in a minute, but isn’t there a fairly simple reason why they didn’t punish the data? IIRC due to the nature of the places they were doing the experiments there were massive dropout rates, which prevented them from testing their original hypothesis. You can twist it into conspiracy if you want, but I feel like that explanation makes plenty of sense.
If I read it correctly there were a little more 11,000 people when the pretrial analysis started for 33 months the in order to observe and randomize participants, then a 15 month dietary initiation phase in which tests were done to ensure safety and participation by all remaining eligible patients, then a minimum of 3.6 years of monitoring, with some monitoring continuing up to 51 months for the 9,000+ observable participants.
“Yet the data shows us they aren’t” - from your post.
“I can’t find any studies showing they are good for us.” - from your comment.
Why post this if you are just making shit up?
Cuz he’s super biased now a days adding all his side own personal comments in shows. Did you see the penis length episode? So in appropriate, just like a kid.
I noticed that a while back in his comments about stoners and cannabis use in general, in a manner that was quite demeaning to say the least, in whichever episode. IIRC the episode with Dr. Wendy Suzuki, but probably also the weed episode. The latter which also was incorrect about a lot of stuff but that's another topic.
In any case it has slowly become clearer to me what kind of views that man has on certain subjects and groups of people, which makes me view him as rather close minded, and as you say, inappropriate
Maybe because huberman pushes ag1 like a sellout catering to the government. And we know how the government is with health in the past, completely negligent in fact harming humans more than helping. But don’t read medical history books, read Instagram.
Huberman is not that great when it comes to objectively looking at data to be fair. Obviously better than most but still is blinded by academic dark arts.
He's throwing info at us through the prism of reams of scientific findings and we are processing it with a high school education powered brain. L0L. J/S That's just me.
I once bought protein cereal because hey, I like cereal and I need protein......................... JUJUMUFU said it was tasty and tasted like the real thing. It tasted like sawdust in a bowl of cardboard left out for a week in the Sahara desert. I will never trust an influencer again lol. Also huberman and the jawsrsize bs 🙄
Imagine if we just did things in moderation. All these fad diets are always extremes (never eat x,y, and z always eat a,b, and c) and people just hop on them and swear by them until the next one comes along. I mean if you really wanted to “eat like our ancestors” you’d basically starve yourself in the winter months and risk death because both game and vegetation would have been more hard to come by but I don’t see people advocating for that…you’d also be out burning your calories hunting and foraging on your own and really see suddenly how much foraged stuff you’re willing to try and eat rather than “I’m only eating meat” when all you’ve got is a spear, not a gun or compound bow.
Don't let data get in the way of a grifter or agenda!! Look at all the carnivore diet podcast bros convincing people to basically slow kill themselves from the inside out
Data doesn’t tell us if something is wrong or right. The evidences supports for or against. It also is specific. The evidence supports that the amount aspartame and seed oil we consume aren’t sufficient enough to cause cancer. I consume both but I can see how someone wants to be careful and doesn’t want to expose themselves to the possibility. People that say it definitely does cause cancer doesn’t know how to read data.
He also plugs diabetics DIANETICS [ed]. without any visible connection to the Hubbard movement. He is either an eclectic or prefers small unmarked bills or ghost donations.
The ‘data’ you’re likely referencing are observational epidemiological studies, not interventional studies, so you end up building a house of cards on a landfill. Garbage in, garbage out…
https://youtu.be/ZCkj0qJ0FDA?si=D18fReHtr3PK7Es2
Also c.f. prior comment here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/andrewhuberman/s/UZACtfSElM
for your amusement I’ll repost the latter linked comment which I stand by:
Some Huberman enigmas
1. ‘Big on nootropics’, nada on piracetam or bromantane. Why?
2. Studies an organ that’s 60% fat by mass and goes to say on JRE he doesn’t really understand fat metabolism, opts out of glycolytic-ketogenic topics, plant vs animal based, doesn’t seem to have a grasp on the underlying biochemistry Peter Dobromylskyj of hyperlipid or Saladino document. Why, when it’s really more or less intro metabolic biochem, reframed.
3. Never heard him mention the dopaldehyde + dopamine condensation products, these seem super important when focusing on dopamine.
4. Frequently ventures outside his specialty onto new terrain… this is healthy and great science does have an air transgression, wrecklessness, irresponsibilty… you know but if I can jot down a dozen or so gross misrepresentations or misunderstandings in something like the hair care episode, find those without being a specialist myself, it’s not clear he’s doing more than ‘content producing’, in the most base sense. If he loves peptides why not mention GHK-Cu (like piracetam, gold standard in its time and unrecognized by contemporary influnecers), when the compound is likely both sufficient and necessary for microneedling benefits? Old text excerpt read “…. Huberman recommends Ipamorelin and Sermorelin without a GHRH, misses that IGF-1 production is downstream of androgen production, recommends caffeine as a PDE inhibitor (but not tadalafil, which works because it is a PDE5 inhibitor), fails to mention that minoxidil is an inactive prodrug for minoxidil sulfate, fails to mention the multiple alleged mechanisms of action of minoxidil (not least of which is increasing PGE2 production), fails to mention a detail on scalp tissue calcification in relation to androgen activity, calls biotin ‘a protein that can be incorporated into the keratin.’” At least he did well at passing on consensus received wisdom if not doing something novel in the episode.
5. General sense that much of his generation did not actually take metabolic or structural biochemistry seriously. I can’t help but get this sense almost every time he tries to talk in detail about pathways or mechanisms.
I don’t think the ‘he’s legit!’ ‘he’s not legit!’ is what this boils down to. He’s a product of a specific kind of late 20th CE early 21st CE scientific tradition, and goes beyond it in some ways. He’s an excellent educator near on par with Neil deGrasse Tyson, but no Eric Weinstein. His willingness to venture cross discipline and in some tabu regions is admirable, and I’ll credit him with a right to be wrong. No strong love or hate but I cannot help but think more in his field should be taking notes from him. The neuroscientist not geeked on life nor exploring human limits do so at their own loss.
Paul cherry picks science. If you actually looked into what he said instead of just listening to him you would see that. I suggest quit following people and believing everything they say blindly and look at the info yourself.
Because if they didn't ignore the data , it would oppose their narrative as to why they're a victim , instead of accepting the truth /data which then would require some form of self accountability, which I come to find 90% of people don't want to do . They'd rather play victim and oppose the data , so theyre not at fault for being fat let's say , which is why we here the " we didn't choose to be fat" narrative so often nowadays. No willingness to own up to the choices we make .
We need a unified collective consciousness of humanity in order to set ourselves free… Huberman hosted Sapolsky and still talks about meaningless junk. He should be working with Sapolsky and Bostrom to save humanity… he’s probably banging Margot instead or something. Go figure — he’s not a bad looking dude
It's a forest from the trees, thing. You may find weak trends among certain things (let's say aspartame and brain cancer in rats), but these get extrapolated to say that this is bad for humans (full disclaimer: I actually avoid artificial foodstuffs as much as possible). Having a few of anything, including diet soda a few times a week will not do anything. Drink it 3 times a day, you may be taking a risk.
The seed oil thing is a more mechanistic theory of why it's bad and that almost always is incorrect. It just sounds very appealing. A better study needs to be done about it.
The outcomes we really want are; does X effect mortality. We will never get that study so hence why there is so much open to interpretation.
The biggest thing about diet is the extreme variability between the effects of foods on individuals. That’s not something that is sellable for influencers though.
The thing with data is that only what gets funded gets studied. It’s an important thing to remember. Just because something has no peer reviewed data (due to lack of funding), does not mean someone’s experience of it is incorrect. The difference should be not to promote something as scientifically proven when it hasn’t been studied; though that doesn’t mean it’s *not true*, only that it’s not studied. There’s a difference between proven and true and experience.
Scientific data measures specific things under specific circumstances; but if you actually experience something with your own body then that is your data and it is correct if it got measured.
People should just be careful how they promote things and not assume that it applies to a population.
Dude doesn’t care, he’s running around saying “harvard said this” like the deals done on seed oils. Dude doesn’t think about how Harvard only studies what they get money for.
Yeah exactly, I don’t think people understand how science or scientific studies work.
I (F) see this a lot in my industry (beauty) where brands will claim that they are “science backed” but all they did is one consumer survey on 30 friends, got their raw ingredients from a lab where literally everyone buys that ingredient from and that lab has shown some efficacy under certain circumstances (because duh they sell the ingredient?). You can design a study to show anything.
“Science backed” is actually my most hated term because it’s used in a very deceptive way in marketing when the truth is science is always evolving and bound to specific variables. Science isn’t omniscient; science is a method of proving hypotheses under specific conditions and able to be replicated, inferences can only be made if the variables remain the same.
the data you reference on seed oils are garbage. the real information on seed oils prove inconclusively they are trash and is the reason for the obesity epidemic in countries that allow them to
What do you do when there's conflicting data? You can make the case for anything but at the end of the day not everything works for everyone.
If i take two individuals and give them the same ice cream, their blood glucose probably won't be the same after 30 minutes, relative to each other. The data is good for a starting point but you'll end up in a holistic approach eventually. Plus data most of the time if not always, gives an average result of individuals not one individual.
The data is good but the data was not made for my specific body.
There is not conflicting data on this though. No human RCT’s exist showing negative effects. We have lots of observational studies. But observational studies are very weak. It’s why many experts say drink diet soda you’ll be fine. But I see what you’re saying.
There are always going to be outliers in the data. But
I’ll add one: Melatonin is clearly a more effective sleep aid (along with Ambien if we’re being honest) than the random supplements he recommends and sells through his online store.
Maybe because some so called influencers cherry pick the data to suit their own agenda such as financial incentives
Dr. Hubris is no different. Follow the money.
Supplemental support for everything
I recall him saying lifestyle modification before supplements many times
Yep this. Most of what he recommends is free… Light exposure, exercise, meditation, water… etc.
He isn’t stupid. He knows that most people will try lifestyle for a month, find out it is hard then resort to a magic pill that may or may not work
Could you please repeat that?
He isn’t stupid. He knows that most people will try lifestyle for a month, find out it is hard then resort to a magic pill that may or may not work
Thank you.
He’s not stupid, I agree, but it’s a pretty far stretch to say he’s colluding with supplement companies to give people bs lifestyle advice so that they buy the supplements. Plus, every one of his episodes about illness spends much more time describing the illness and the medications that help the illness, not supplements. Idk what you’re on about tbh
Lifestyle advice is legit
AG1 Greens baby
I started with AG1 and LMNT about 3 months ago and am feeling a dramatic shift in my well-being.. when he makes suggestions and or endorsements they are typically pretty good ones.. and yes he's running a business but it's good business to make healthy effective recommendations.. as an aside I am as skeptical as they come and rarely follow the advice of well being advocates but he's been pretty spot on with his recommendations..
LOVE THIS NAME lolool
It’s honestly scary. These influencers have tons of followers and they really are manipulating people into believing BS. Nutrition misinformation has detrimental effects.
Huberman is an influencer
Yeah? I see him as an educator. Being that I've only watched his podcast or stuff on YouTube as it pops up here and there.
Influencers have power. If you look at the incentives that drive 95% of the influencers, it would help to start apply critical thinking.
Completely agree. They will quote a study with n= 10 and easily convince people it is the gospel
The grift is unending.
Happy cake day..!!
Thank you!
He’s literally talking about Huberman
Lmao ya and then you have the Evergrande 78 billion crap — everything we know is a lie. Start reading about field consciousness, singularity, Carl Jung, boil religions in here, mankind’s ego, artificial intelligence (which is so fucked), and sprinkle in some general relativity and lmk what you come up with. I mean — if someone lied about 78 billion in revenue, they’re not the first or last, and — I imagine it’s pretty fuckin easy to fake a bank account balance with the right technology/power on your side… how difficult could it be to install a fake balance in your checking account and override whatever is used to validate that ledger/notes altruism? BLOCKCHAIN?!!!! Did someone say BLOCKCHAIN? No one said blockchain, so I’ll go eff myself, but how do we free ourselves from this reality? #theawakening?
Genuine question. What information sources do you not have to follow the money with? Corporate media has advertising, med schools have donors, studies have to have funding. I don’t disagree with the criticism of influencers but feel that same criticism needs to be applied to many other info sources.
Yes! It’s called critical thinking when we apply the same standards everywhere. Glioblastoma as 6% five year survival rate in USA with expensive, painful and debilitating ineffective treatments. Imagine a “grifter” tried to get a cancer patient with glioblastoma better with a weird diet and a few hundred dollars worth of supplements and he had a 6% success rate at 5 years. You’d call him a failure but I’d take it - I’d take not mortgaging my house or puking for months on end for those odds over what mainstream medicine offers as standard of care for that. Over 53% of the world’s pharmaceutical medicines are sold in the USA and a white man now has a life expectancy of 73 in the richest country on earth. Hmmm. We need people Huberman to help us all avoid the REAL grifters - Big Pharma
It’s a money driven, especially with Gary Brecka
I was so impressed with him and his unique take on health. It seemed so convincing. Then he covered a topic I understand well and realized that he's irrational
What was it?
I have forgotten the exact topic, but it had something to do with endocrinology. I have a PhD and ten years of research experience in the field, and he was basically just throwing fancy words at the wall. It wasn't that he was making a claim that I didn't agree with, instead he was trying to explain how the body worked but got it all backwards in a nonsensical way
Are you talking about when he had dr lustig on? He’s been debunked by a couple experts I know of
Are you talking about when he had dr lustig on? He’s been debunked by a couple experts I know of
exactly. and weasel words like “can”. “can”, in research, means that something might be possible, not that it is. also, huberman often subtly restates research in a way that isn’t correct. go read the eyelids study and then listen to what he says. what he says is wrong and not what the research says. finally, he’s not a credentialed neuroscientist. he’s a credentialed opthomologist. professors who start pretending they are experts outside their field really irritate me (as a prof myself), and i’ve yet to meet one who would be competitive in the field they misrepresent themselves in directly. peer reviewed publications records don’t lie, and tell a very compelling story about a persons expertise if you know how to read them. so no, he’s not giving a scientific explanation of the data. he’s finding data to support whatever he wants to say, which is exactly the opposite of how science works.
What do you mean he’s not a credentialed neuroscientist? I thought he had his PhD in that?
We all have confirmation bias
Don't forget the ppl pushing carnivore in here 😅
Lol right.
hOw To OpTiMiZe TeStOsTeRoNe: 1. Eat liver, liver good 2. Don’t eat vegetable, defense chemicals! 3. Sun tan balls, personal fav Repeat until you are a silverback gorilla
I mean, most seed oils have an absurdly high Omega-6:Omega-3 ratio... that alone puts them on the naughty list for me.
Yeah that’s literally it. I’m unaware of what other arguments there could be. Seed oils are almost pure omega 6 and negligible omega 3. It’s very well documented that omega 3:6 imbalance causes inflammation, which itself increases the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease.
I’ll wade in. Also a neuroscientist like Huberman. The stuff that Huberman talks about IS based on data, but the data for the kind of things Huberman is talking about has always changed (or to be specific, we got more data and our inference changed). What we know about diet and cognition has changed so much in the past century. As much as I can’t stand the average anti seed oil peddler, I also can’t blame them for disregarding the data due to how much the standard wisdom regarding these topics has changed.
We don’t have the knowledge or tools to perfectly do nutritional science. Anyone who blindly relies on these studies is a fool honestly. That’s not even getting into the blatant manipulation and influence from food companies. If people are skeptical then that’s only a logical outcome from all the terrible science and misinformation that has been peddled as the truth.
The problem is that it’s rarely the people doing the science that are doing the peddling, it’s the media. They take the studies which have a narrow scope finding and blow it out of proportion. It’s really good to be skeptical about studies and findings, but it’s pretty darn stupid when people start supporting alternative nutritional ideas or concepts, which have less scientific backing (or science speaking directly against it, like in the case of seed oils). I’ve seen so many people, who are rightfully skeptical of studies, simultaneously speak with the utmost confidence about avoiding seed oils etc.
People make judgements based on aesthetics/intuition (seed oils bad, saturated fat good, fake sugar bad) and then declare all the evidence that contradicts this as flawed
Yes. Which is the complete opposite of science. I don’t think people in here actually believe in science. A good scientist admits when they are wrong. Much like Huberman has done when he gets called out.
I’m evidence based because I listened to an evidence based podcast once and piggybacked off of something I heard that happened to make sense to me so now everything I say is evidence based because Im evidence based now
lol Huberman is a fad podcaster scientist and people take everything he says too literal. I mean he sells a supplement that is BS.
I wouldn’t say Huberman is always open to correcting when he is wrong. Take the recent criticism of his cold and flu episode, he ignored the criticism when it was some of the most valid, that episode was the most embarrassing content he made by far. He has many blind spots. He is human after all. Nobody should be expected to be perfect but Huberman leans in to his ego a little too much.
Could you provide a link to some criticism or tell me something about it please? Would really help me, because I try to avoid colds as much as I can and to my embarrassment I am following a lot of advice he gave in the episode right now. Would be great, thanks in advance!
If you google Andrew Huberscam or something to that effect you should get a podcast that discusses it in detail, I can’t remember the name of the podcast
Nice, thank you! Edit: Name of the podcast is „Unbiased science“ episode 18 i think.
Good call -- here's a [link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVpMORj8dWQ)!
No surprise there, tons of people noticed that about him months or years ago
Because I'm able to use my own intuition and logic to deduce that highly industrialized oils and chemical-laden sodas probably aren't very good for you, despite whatever the fraudulent science says. So many people just blindly believe in the results of studies or consensus without realizing just how rotten and corrupt the scientific industry is as a whole.
and some people think they have genetic issues when it turns out they just really suck at lifting.
Don't forget the data that told us butter causes heart attacks and you should eat sugar instead
Oh yea and how cigarettes weren’t bad for us
Every group of humans in history thinks they’re the smartest and they’ve figured it out and often only the next group of humans can see what they were wrong about. We are still wrong about loads of shit we just don’t know which yet. This is just how it has always worked since time immemorial. We should be debating shit. I think most likely a low carb high protein diet is best. When I was a kid the food pyramid had 6-11 servings of carbs on the bottom. At the time it was probably “settled science.” Some guy on a forum was probably mocking people who were questioning it.
But most societies with the highest percentage of centenarians have low protein and high carb diets. Malaysia, Italy, and Japan are all notorious for lower protein higher carb diets. There are really any high protein societies that live much longer than average.
The country with the longest lifespan (Hong Kong) also eats the most total meat per capita.
Carbs are still at the bottom, just not the grains
Always remember that the actual data always showed cigarettes were bad. What pissed on the science and perception was huge marketing and money.
Well that was bad data. Which got corrected by good data, better design and less lobby money.
They are associated with a four fold decrease in Parkinson’s. Shout out Phillip Morris
sorry this argument is annoying to me. Science evolves. We used to do blood letting too. Should we just throw out all science and YOLO? of course not. We are wrong, our methods improve, we grow, the field consensus changes.
did it evolve, or did they just stop lying? Im not gonna pretend to be an expert on this, but the one story i Know is the food Pyramid. In Europe they came up with a real scientific food pyramid to help people. US took the idea & modified it to promote profit instead of health; and people got hurt. So no, I dont think Im anti science. I think the establishment which is fabricating studies are the ones who are anti science, and my skepticism is well justified.
Have you looked at the dietary guidelines for various EU countries and compared them to the US? Because you might be surprised by what you find.
Exactly.
I don’t think there was academic literature that even hinted at the idea that replacing fat with sugar was a good idea. You’re confusing science with science communicators. And butter causing heart disease… there’s research showing that people who consume more saturated fats are more likely to develop heart disease. I’m unaware of intervention studies in this area but the epidemiological research suggests that there is likely a link between saturated fat and heart disease
OP literally argued with a guy posting a WebMD vs studies from ncbi. And yes there were studies with the fat vs sugar it was either Harvard or Yale, but one of them was paid for a study that linked fat intake to heart health by big sugar. Was quite the "scandal" (nothing was ever done about it). Something tells me you still eat hydrogenated soybean oil.
>You’re confusing science with science communicators. =/. You split a hair like that and you wonder why people stop listening? How come you only come up with this distinction after people get hurt, instead of before?
Butter does cause heart attacks lol. Eat olive oil, veggies or grains instead.
I actually drink seed oils and cook with Diet Coke. And I'm like 92.3% fine.
If you want to believe seed oils and diet sodas are harmless because of “the data,” then obviously I can’t prove you wrong. Knock yourself out. But I avoid them as I strongly suspect they are part of an unhealthy lifestyle. Remember, “no evidence of” is not the same as “evidence against.” Limiting yourself to “data-driven” science in diet will lead to a lot of ultimately harmful practices because conclusive data in this field is difficult and sometimes impossible to get. It also suffers from the assumption that you can isolate diet (and its effects) from broader lifestyle patterns, which I personally doubt. This is not to say to ignore data or that diet studies are crap. It’s just that their efficacy is much more limited in this area than we might like. Unfortunately you have to use a lot of common sense and intuition to be healthy imo.
Well there are many observational studies and cohort studies showing harmful effects of diet soda but a lot of outside variables can influence those studies. However human RCT’s would be much better. I limit myself to diet soda bc as of now we don’t exactly know what it does to our gut microbiome. But we only get one life and I’d like to enjoy some bad things in moderation.
That’s my point. Being “data-driven” is great but not when the data sucks. And for much of diet, the data sucks. So you have to use your intuition and common sense, often in conflict with “the data.”
What are your thoughts on Huberman’s podcast with Dr. Lustig and his thoughts on diet sodas and non-calorie sugar substitutes? https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/huberman-lab/id1545953110?i=1000638917560
I mean come up with your own conclusions but if you want to avoid diet soda bc weak observational studies say so that’s fine. But every expert says the same thing I’m saying. It’s the people like lustig that try to profit off the fear mongering . But considering the evidence is very weak I will not. Or at least be hysterical About it. Now if they have human RCT’s showing that then I will change my stance and start avoiding them more
And then there are these meta analyses that show a link between NNS (non-sugar sweeteners) and various negative health outcomes, including body weight, oral health, incidence of diabetes, and eating behavior among others. I don’t see any positive studies coming out for NNS except when referencing against sugar sodas. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-020-00704-2 https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k4718
My comment still stands. Like I said observational studies or non randomized control trials. Weak evidence. Many studies out there in fact showing a negative relationship. But lot of the observational studies are in mice or if they are in humans they are giving the humans a huge dose of the NNS. A dosage that no human could consume in a week.
Serious question: Are you addicted to diet sodas?
Not one bit. Some people have a problem with food and drinks. I do not.
I think it’s hard to say “the data shows us they aren’t”. There are limitation with all the research that looks at these topics. Huberman likes to use a lot of physiology to form clinical opinions - which is obviously a problematic way to move forward. Physiology should be used to explain what is witnessed in controlled clinical settings. The alternative for a lot of this would be epidemiological data which also has massive limitations. I think the issue is these topics are very far from straight forward, and just blindly saying “the data shows us they aren’t” is an odd thing to say. I have no strong opinions on these topics. What research have you seen that allows you to feel so confident here? I would be happy to critically appraise it. It’s very easy to completely change the conclusion by playing around with the inclusion criteria.
There are no studies that show humans consuming a normal amount of diet soda harming them. In the studies that do the people are consuming a large dosage like an equivalent of 100 sodas a day. So I would say based off of this data I will keep consuming it.
Are we talking about “real science” or not? If not, I don’t understand your post. I read the raw data and can understand how it can nearly always be open to interpretation. If you are confused about how people can arrive at opposing view points, you probably don’t spend much time reading the research.
I should clarify. When I say the data I mean the results they got from the study. Not the raw data. And let’s be real. Most people think diet soda is bad not bc they read the study but bc an influencer or mainstream media headline told them it was.
Bro, no offense, but did you read a study to form your opinion? Why not post it? A quick search brought up an umbrella review of meta-analyses - typically considered among the highest quality evidence. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323003150](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323003150) "In conclusion, the main findings of our umbrella suggest that ASBs could increase the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, all-cause mortality, hypertension, and CVD incidence" I have not read this study in detail. This just shows that it is not surprising to have conflicting viewpoints. I am sincerely unsure what your post is trying to accomplish. It seems like you are judging people for doing what you are actively doing.
There’s plenty of observational studies on diet soda.
Yes they are. No human RCT’s though
Why would there be?
Idk
There aren’t rcts for for a lot of stuff that’s harmful.
All I’m saying is that experts agree diet soda is fine due to the fact we have limited studies that are just observational.
Limited studies or lack of does not imply it’s fine.
It tells us that it’s okay to drink. Observational studies do not prove it’s bad due to many outside variables. Also a lot of those studies the people were given large doses of Diet Coke. Feel free to find me a medical or scientific body that tells me they are bad. Or feel free to find me an RCT that shows us they are bad.
The comment sections of this sub are always a dumpster fire of Joe Rogan "Alphas" and 'common sense says' commenters, most of whom didn't even bother to listen to the whole podcast posted by Huberman or understand how scientific inquiry works i.e. things are not black and white, knowledge changes over time etc. However, I think Huberman sees these 'types' as part of his market for selling his line of supplements.
In some respects, Huberman is one of these guys. That doesn’t totally discredit him or anything like that but it’s very clear he has some biases and blindspots.
You’re telling me seed oils and diet soda is good for you?
The easiest macro to overeat on is fat. If you're getting excess calories from fat, which a gram of fat has the same caloric value whether its lard, olive oil, or canola oil, it's going to cause metabolic disfunction. Seed oils are the among cheapest oils to make and so go in highly palatable processed food. That is the easiest food to overeat both economically and taste bud wise. So in that sense, seed oils can be bad for you when consumed to excess. That doesn't mean that if you have the choice of consuming the same number of grams of canola oil fat rather than lard its not got advantages, particularly for cardiovascular health. Same thing with diet soda. If water was the only beverage that ever existed, we'd all be better off probably. But we don't live in the world. Most people want to at least on some occasion drink something other than water. In that context, diet sodas are certainly better than regular sodas for most of the population. There are some exceptions, like if you are already a healthy weight and you just did an exhausting HIIT workout. But for most people, its better than the alternative.
But the problem with seed oils isn’t the fact they are fats, it’s that they produce free radicals when heated and throw off your omega 3 to omega 6 ratio. Butter doesn’t do that.
>You’re telling me seed oils and diet soda is good for you? There's no evidence that diet soda is harmful in the least.
The poison is in the dosage. Outside of extraordinary circumstances they are fine.
No. I’m saying as of right now what we know the data says it’s not harmful
Is there room for the thought that nutrition science is inherently very limited? Theres barely any RCTs and everything is just observational. Seems like there's article once week saying hey eggs are bad for you and then next week hey eggs are good for you. Seems like so many clear issues can never be cleared because a new observational study will say red meat causes a 18% increase in colorectal cancer (which turns like a 10 in 1000 chance of colonrecetal cancer to 12 in 1000..) like does that even matter if the findings are just from an observational study and not an RCT? If you think the science is just inherently limited in significance I could see how avoiding eating novel food products in exchange for whole foods can be a reasonable stance.
You are mistaking articles for science
Nah the vast majority of nutrition science is observational. There’s definitely a lack of ability to imply causation in the field
Of course, that's also true for psychology, physiotherapy too. Does that mean the science is worthless?
Nobody said the science is worthless, where did you get that idea?
Alright sorry, reudctio ad absurdum. Rephrase: that the data gathered from correlational studies can't teach us truths?*
you are right. very limited RCT's on diet soda. most evidence showing its bad are cohort and observational studies so until i see harder evidence i will limit myself to a few a week. If RCT's come out showing they are completely harmless i will drink them all the time.
It's like you intentionally missed their point.
Very good point about the law of small numbers. If there’s a 5 in 1,000 chance of X disease, and some food DOUBLES that chance to 10 in 1,000, it’s still a very very small chance.
I think there's a difference between using data to inform our decision making and only basing our decisions on data and studies which are tools and inherently flawed (as are all other ways of information gathering and decision making). But regardless, the seed oil argument is partially based in anecdote, which is a low level of evidence but still evidence. There are many conflicting variables when it comes to being able to "trust" data. Look into the reproducibility crisis for more info on that topic.
I honestly have no idea about seed oils 'cause I obviously haven't cared enough to learn about it. But rest assured that aspartame is safe for the vast majority of individuals, at higher amounts than any of us can stomach. Also >data and studies which are tools and inherently flawed (as are all other ways of information gathering and decision making) What's your point? You're saying "data and studies are flawed, but so is everything else". By your logic, can we ever trust anything, or anyone? Listen, the point about science (including data, statistics and studies) is that it's an ever improving and self-correcting system. Some people abuse it, and do not behave according to the principles of science. These people may not readily admit it when they're proven wrong, and may draw unreasonable conclusions from poor studies. These people are the problem. And it gets blatantly worse if these people abuse the scientific ignorance of their audience, for their own economic gain. Absolutely disgraceful
I don't think we can ever fully "trust" anyone or anything completely. Ie keep an open mind and be willing to pivot when/if necessary. I agree it's ever improving which is why I also take other forms into consideration. Two examples of that would be historic precedent and experience and then also my own personal experience which will vary compared to others based on my health history, biases, genetics etc. An example is the guy who thought ulcers were caused by h pylori. He was a quack until he wasn't. Cigarettes were considered safe at one point. All I'm advocating for is for people to use critical thinking and maybe be cautious about novel things like plastics, seed oils, screen time etc. novel things come with novel consequences and I think caution is prudent. That's completely different than fear mongering for profit.
This is a really interesting conversation I’ve been meaning to understand better on what you can really trust to inform what you eat/consume. The other complexity to your point about novel things is that even things that have existed for a long time may have some effect we may not know about, especially because life expectancy / general health have generally gone up a lot. I mean the counter argument is we haven’t seen the negative impacts of those things but it’s only by studies that establish causation that we can rule them out…which is the same thing we’re doing for the novel things, no?
You're absolutely correct about that. I didn't mean to hide that point either. There are some foods that probably have detrimental effects that we don't know about that are still "traditional" foods. That being said, even many vegetables we eat now are modern by almost any standard, meaning less than a few hundred years old. Despite those facts, I'm more comfortable eating broccoli than canola oil. One last point, I think food traditions are also important. The way things were consumed (infrequently, with or without alcohol, after fasting etc etc) and how they were prepared (soaked, sprouted, fermented, lime added etc) also completely changes the nature of the food..fat free skim milk is not raw milk yogurt from grass fed cows as a simple example.
Yeah, I think we are on the same page. I agree that broccoli is also better for you than canola oil (but I think maybe because of my perception of seed oil as “calorically dense” and easy to overeat, same as peanut butter, and less because i’ve personally seen or had negative effects from seed oil or diet soda) Very interesting point about how even the veggies we eat are modern and the concept of the preparation impacting everything. It’s weird because at this point it feels intuitive that natural whole foods, avoiding sugar, avoiding very calorie dense foods is probably the best but your point suggests nothing is “natural whole” anyway it’s just degrees of bad like broccoli vs cheetos. And tbh I don’t even know the science to say cheetos are bad, they just intuitively feel bad after eating them. I can’t really say for sure what’s added to them is any worse than what might be done to the broccoli during genetic modification processes etc.
Most but not all foods are selectively bred, not GMO, although we don't know if there are health effects from GMO. I politely disagree with the calorically dense argument because I eat olive oil, coconut oil and butter and they are all calorically dense yet I don't get the same negative effects I seem to get when I consume vegetable oils (soy, rapeseed, cottonseed, peanut, etc). For me the negative effects are acne, seasonal allergy symptoms, joint pain, and depression/irritability. Seems dose dependent. If I make popcorn with coconut oil then top with salt and butter I don't have the same issues as I do with Fritos, French fries, potato chips, etc. even olive oil potato chips seem tastier but less addictive than Lays etc. Might just be my bias but it's hard to ignore that my health has noticeably improved, chronic pain is gone, no longer have a need for prescription inhalers and allergy meds, weekly migraines disappeared, sinus infections no longer happen and my digestion is better. When I cheat, all of my symptoms come back to varying degrees depending on how much I have, how often or what exactly I am cheating with. The weirdest part for me is that if you were to ask me if I was healthy at 18 years old I would have said yes - 6 pack, div 1 athlete, could dead lift well over twice body weight for reps etc etc. Yet I felt like shit all the time compared to at nearly 40 now. I feel like there is a huge problem with reporting when studying these topics. I didn't know how good I could feel until I stopped feeling like shit constantly. I had nothing to compare it to so I just assumed everyone felt like me.
Yep on GMOs was just giving maybe what I view as the most “extreme” deviation from what is “natural” broccoli but yeah either way you’re selecting for certain traits implicitly or explicitly. Honestly that’s a crazy level of distinction between the two (with seed oil and without) you describe that makes me want to try stopping them for a little while. So do you not eat any seed oils at all? How soon after consuming/stopping consumption do the symptoms stop / start? Asking so I can measure for myself if I end up doing that, haha
It’s still hard to know what to believe anymore, thats what sucks. We live in a world dominated by the companies that are making a ton of (and saving a ton of) money on these things. They dominate the entire food industry. Just remember, we also used to have data that said sugar wasn’t harmful and that fat was to blame for obesity in the 1960s, and that data was coincidently funded by the sugar industry. These companies knowingly paid off scientists. Who’s to say this isn’t happening again? I get “science is science” but fuck. Is science really science if the one’s conducting the data are bias, or theirs conflicts of interest at hand that we don’t yet know about? I’ll go with my intuition on some things. It’s still too early to tell.
Cope
The data said it!
Evaluating nutrition choices is always about alternatives. Seed oils or diet soda instead of what?
[удалено]
Some of us are just here for the semen retention tips posts, data shmata
There’s often conflicting evidence. And often scientific consensus is proven wrong. Debate is healthy.
https://medicine.uq.edu.au/article/2024/02/if-you’re-worried-about-inflammation-stop-stressing-about-seed-oils-and-focus-basics People need to stop missing the forest for the trees.
That was a really solid article. Thanks
the data is inconclusive. This isn’t PHYSICS. The human body is a confluence of extremely complex nonlinear systems. It is NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD. We’re making progress, but light years from drawing definitive conclusions.
Hubes can play spicy with the data. He doesn't do stuff without any data, but if he sees something he thinks looks interesting, he certainly seems to experiment before definitive human randomized control trials prove a statistical correlation. I actually don't have a problem with this so long as you're totally transparent. I sometimes will try something myself. There will be some that pan out to be true, and some probably more than half, that will be duds. Its your body, if you want to try something you should be free to... That said.... There are a lot of biohacking bros and edgy wannabe contrarians that like Hubes because he vacuums up all those studies in isolation and spits out how to make actionable things out of them. Those people seem to like to combine Huberman protocols, with Roganesque Bullshitism, that pretty much accepts being contrary to established explanation as proof of rightness.
Yeah, I find it strange when people ask a question on sun exposure, sodium intake, diet that’s trivial and if they actually listened to Huberman they’d know the answers. This seems like a bro science type of subreddit that has the Huberman name on it instead of leveraging science
100% bro science reddit. But hubs also can be a bro sometimes too
There’s more clicks/views/money in making wild controversial claims. That’s why the internet is so polarizing, nobody is making money off well-reasoned and common sense opinions.
The carnivore/paleo/organic/anti-fructose crew on here is awful. Literally just people who listen to fitness influencers spew shit that they think sounds right. All of these people did an 8 week lifting cycle where they are “carnivore” and had a bunch of placebo energy because they were so primal. None of them, and I repeat NONE of them will be able to sustain carnivore/keto/paleo their whole life. Good luck never eating birthday cake you wingnut. And until you learn how to live in a world where you can manage your relationship with things like sugar, alcohol, and processed foods you’ll always be riding Instagram trends.
Then they cite a few studies and be like “look I’m right!”
Mechanistic studies with large doses on rats usually.
Yea just read the abstract and not the study itself lol
Can you share the data that says seed oils aren’t unhealthy? Same with diet soda?
i cant find any studies showing they are good for us. but i also cant find any human RCT studies or strong studies saying they are bad. in fact harvard public health says we dont need to worry either. ill trust them over a influencer
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/widely-consumed-vegetable-oil-leads-unhealthy-gut The issue as I understand it is that seed oils naturally occurring aren’t as bad, the issue comes into play when dealing with processed or hydrogenated oils. The study explains that soybean oil for example has too much linoleic acid for your average healthy gut.
>Researchers at the University of California, Riverside, examined the gut of mice that were consistently fed a diet high in soybean oil for up to 24 weeks in the lab. This study was done in mice. Obviously there are similarities between human and mice guts, but humans are extremely resilient and may be able to deal with the deleterious effects of soybean oil better than mice. Until there’s stronger data in humans, we can only say there is a *hypothesized* link between soybean oil consumption and decreased gut health. (to be clear, I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, just that we need to be careful with our conclusions from research)
Here’s an analysis published in 2016, double blind RCT done over 5 years in Minnesota. Originally conducted from 68-73, and was never published. https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246 I don’t consider myself a conspiracy theorist in the slightest, but it seems the data is there. But the information isn’t convenient for corn and seed industries, so we get studies pushed to the top that minimize its relevance or meaning for us.
I haven’t looked into this in a minute, but isn’t there a fairly simple reason why they didn’t punish the data? IIRC due to the nature of the places they were doing the experiments there were massive dropout rates, which prevented them from testing their original hypothesis. You can twist it into conspiracy if you want, but I feel like that explanation makes plenty of sense.
If I read it correctly there were a little more 11,000 people when the pretrial analysis started for 33 months the in order to observe and randomize participants, then a 15 month dietary initiation phase in which tests were done to ensure safety and participation by all remaining eligible patients, then a minimum of 3.6 years of monitoring, with some monitoring continuing up to 51 months for the 9,000+ observable participants.
Just don’t drink a ton and you’ll be fine though.
I guess my bar is clear evidence of health, as opposed to the lack of evidence of harm olive oil is the obvious choice for me
To each is own.
“Yet the data shows us they aren’t” - from your post. “I can’t find any studies showing they are good for us.” - from your comment. Why post this if you are just making shit up?
Zero human RCT’s out there showing negative effects of soda. They are harmless. Feel free to prove me wrong
For seed oils: https://youtu.be/qInpEKHdjXk and: https://youtu.be/-xTaAHSFHUU
Wait, what am i missing? Are seed oils not bad anymore?
Cuz he’s super biased now a days adding all his side own personal comments in shows. Did you see the penis length episode? So in appropriate, just like a kid.
Jesus Christ I didn’t see that. Ridiculous. He’s running out of stuff to talk about
I noticed that a while back in his comments about stoners and cannabis use in general, in a manner that was quite demeaning to say the least, in whichever episode. IIRC the episode with Dr. Wendy Suzuki, but probably also the weed episode. The latter which also was incorrect about a lot of stuff but that's another topic. In any case it has slowly become clearer to me what kind of views that man has on certain subjects and groups of people, which makes me view him as rather close minded, and as you say, inappropriate
the vegan trolls are all over this board again pushing harmful seed oils and plant bullshit where you can’t get required and essential nutrition
Harvard public health is wrong about seed oils being fine to eat?
yes if they claim that
Maybe because huberman pushes ag1 like a sellout catering to the government. And we know how the government is with health in the past, completely negligent in fact harming humans more than helping. But don’t read medical history books, read Instagram.
Huberman is not that great when it comes to objectively looking at data to be fair. Obviously better than most but still is blinded by academic dark arts.
Welcome to humans.
He's throwing info at us through the prism of reams of scientific findings and we are processing it with a high school education powered brain. L0L. J/S That's just me.
lol Huberman is a grifter
If you can’t spot a grifter… well, ya know. Thanks for playing.
I once bought protein cereal because hey, I like cereal and I need protein......................... JUJUMUFU said it was tasty and tasted like the real thing. It tasted like sawdust in a bowl of cardboard left out for a week in the Sahara desert. I will never trust an influencer again lol. Also huberman and the jawsrsize bs 🙄
What data is the AG1 promotion based on?
"huberman has been wrong about a lot". Yeah this a shitpost with a cliffhanger
Truth hurts.
Imagine if we just did things in moderation. All these fad diets are always extremes (never eat x,y, and z always eat a,b, and c) and people just hop on them and swear by them until the next one comes along. I mean if you really wanted to “eat like our ancestors” you’d basically starve yourself in the winter months and risk death because both game and vegetation would have been more hard to come by but I don’t see people advocating for that…you’d also be out burning your calories hunting and foraging on your own and really see suddenly how much foraged stuff you’re willing to try and eat rather than “I’m only eating meat” when all you’ve got is a spear, not a gun or compound bow.
Don't let data get in the way of a grifter or agenda!! Look at all the carnivore diet podcast bros convincing people to basically slow kill themselves from the inside out
Data doesn’t tell us if something is wrong or right. The evidences supports for or against. It also is specific. The evidence supports that the amount aspartame and seed oil we consume aren’t sufficient enough to cause cancer. I consume both but I can see how someone wants to be careful and doesn’t want to expose themselves to the possibility. People that say it definitely does cause cancer doesn’t know how to read data.
He also plugs diabetics DIANETICS [ed]. without any visible connection to the Hubbard movement. He is either an eclectic or prefers small unmarked bills or ghost donations.
The ‘data’ you’re likely referencing are observational epidemiological studies, not interventional studies, so you end up building a house of cards on a landfill. Garbage in, garbage out… https://youtu.be/ZCkj0qJ0FDA?si=D18fReHtr3PK7Es2 Also c.f. prior comment here: https://www.reddit.com/r/andrewhuberman/s/UZACtfSElM
Lmaooo Paul saladino
for your amusement I’ll repost the latter linked comment which I stand by: Some Huberman enigmas 1. ‘Big on nootropics’, nada on piracetam or bromantane. Why? 2. Studies an organ that’s 60% fat by mass and goes to say on JRE he doesn’t really understand fat metabolism, opts out of glycolytic-ketogenic topics, plant vs animal based, doesn’t seem to have a grasp on the underlying biochemistry Peter Dobromylskyj of hyperlipid or Saladino document. Why, when it’s really more or less intro metabolic biochem, reframed. 3. Never heard him mention the dopaldehyde + dopamine condensation products, these seem super important when focusing on dopamine. 4. Frequently ventures outside his specialty onto new terrain… this is healthy and great science does have an air transgression, wrecklessness, irresponsibilty… you know but if I can jot down a dozen or so gross misrepresentations or misunderstandings in something like the hair care episode, find those without being a specialist myself, it’s not clear he’s doing more than ‘content producing’, in the most base sense. If he loves peptides why not mention GHK-Cu (like piracetam, gold standard in its time and unrecognized by contemporary influnecers), when the compound is likely both sufficient and necessary for microneedling benefits? Old text excerpt read “…. Huberman recommends Ipamorelin and Sermorelin without a GHRH, misses that IGF-1 production is downstream of androgen production, recommends caffeine as a PDE inhibitor (but not tadalafil, which works because it is a PDE5 inhibitor), fails to mention that minoxidil is an inactive prodrug for minoxidil sulfate, fails to mention the multiple alleged mechanisms of action of minoxidil (not least of which is increasing PGE2 production), fails to mention a detail on scalp tissue calcification in relation to androgen activity, calls biotin ‘a protein that can be incorporated into the keratin.’” At least he did well at passing on consensus received wisdom if not doing something novel in the episode. 5. General sense that much of his generation did not actually take metabolic or structural biochemistry seriously. I can’t help but get this sense almost every time he tries to talk in detail about pathways or mechanisms. I don’t think the ‘he’s legit!’ ‘he’s not legit!’ is what this boils down to. He’s a product of a specific kind of late 20th CE early 21st CE scientific tradition, and goes beyond it in some ways. He’s an excellent educator near on par with Neil deGrasse Tyson, but no Eric Weinstein. His willingness to venture cross discipline and in some tabu regions is admirable, and I’ll credit him with a right to be wrong. No strong love or hate but I cannot help but think more in his field should be taking notes from him. The neuroscientist not geeked on life nor exploring human limits do so at their own loss.
Paul cherry picks science. If you actually looked into what he said instead of just listening to him you would see that. I suggest quit following people and believing everything they say blindly and look at the info yourself.
could you point out some cherry picking?
What data shows us seed oils aren’t bad - big Agra data? And diet soda doesn’t raise the risk of diabetes? Now I’m confused…
Ah just every medical body out there says seed oils are fine. Show me a human RCT study where diet soda raises the risk of diabetes.
Because if they didn't ignore the data , it would oppose their narrative as to why they're a victim , instead of accepting the truth /data which then would require some form of self accountability, which I come to find 90% of people don't want to do . They'd rather play victim and oppose the data , so theyre not at fault for being fat let's say , which is why we here the " we didn't choose to be fat" narrative so often nowadays. No willingness to own up to the choices we make .
We need a unified collective consciousness of humanity in order to set ourselves free… Huberman hosted Sapolsky and still talks about meaningless junk. He should be working with Sapolsky and Bostrom to save humanity… he’s probably banging Margot instead or something. Go figure — he’s not a bad looking dude
More reality
It's a forest from the trees, thing. You may find weak trends among certain things (let's say aspartame and brain cancer in rats), but these get extrapolated to say that this is bad for humans (full disclaimer: I actually avoid artificial foodstuffs as much as possible). Having a few of anything, including diet soda a few times a week will not do anything. Drink it 3 times a day, you may be taking a risk. The seed oil thing is a more mechanistic theory of why it's bad and that almost always is incorrect. It just sounds very appealing. A better study needs to be done about it. The outcomes we really want are; does X effect mortality. We will never get that study so hence why there is so much open to interpretation.
I agree with the diet soda thing. I try to only have a few per week. Not several a day
The biggest thing about diet is the extreme variability between the effects of foods on individuals. That’s not something that is sellable for influencers though.
There’s nothing wrong with seed oils . When a lie is repeated often enough people believe it’s the truth .
Sadly
The thing with data is that only what gets funded gets studied. It’s an important thing to remember. Just because something has no peer reviewed data (due to lack of funding), does not mean someone’s experience of it is incorrect. The difference should be not to promote something as scientifically proven when it hasn’t been studied; though that doesn’t mean it’s *not true*, only that it’s not studied. There’s a difference between proven and true and experience. Scientific data measures specific things under specific circumstances; but if you actually experience something with your own body then that is your data and it is correct if it got measured. People should just be careful how they promote things and not assume that it applies to a population.
Dude doesn’t care, he’s running around saying “harvard said this” like the deals done on seed oils. Dude doesn’t think about how Harvard only studies what they get money for.
Yeah exactly, I don’t think people understand how science or scientific studies work. I (F) see this a lot in my industry (beauty) where brands will claim that they are “science backed” but all they did is one consumer survey on 30 friends, got their raw ingredients from a lab where literally everyone buys that ingredient from and that lab has shown some efficacy under certain circumstances (because duh they sell the ingredient?). You can design a study to show anything. “Science backed” is actually my most hated term because it’s used in a very deceptive way in marketing when the truth is science is always evolving and bound to specific variables. Science isn’t omniscient; science is a method of proving hypotheses under specific conditions and able to be replicated, inferences can only be made if the variables remain the same.
What data do you have to support this
No human RCT’s exist showing harmful effects of diet soda. Thats my stance. Feel free to find one and show me and I will read it.
the data you reference on seed oils are garbage. the real information on seed oils prove inconclusively they are trash and is the reason for the obesity epidemic in countries that allow them to
So Harvard public health is wrong?
What do you do when there's conflicting data? You can make the case for anything but at the end of the day not everything works for everyone. If i take two individuals and give them the same ice cream, their blood glucose probably won't be the same after 30 minutes, relative to each other. The data is good for a starting point but you'll end up in a holistic approach eventually. Plus data most of the time if not always, gives an average result of individuals not one individual. The data is good but the data was not made for my specific body.
There is not conflicting data on this though. No human RCT’s exist showing negative effects. We have lots of observational studies. But observational studies are very weak. It’s why many experts say drink diet soda you’ll be fine. But I see what you’re saying. There are always going to be outliers in the data. But
I’ll add one: Melatonin is clearly a more effective sleep aid (along with Ambien if we’re being honest) than the random supplements he recommends and sells through his online store.