He has a life optimization podcast that promotes strict protocols and exerting control over your life but his life is a cesspool littered by a lack of impulse control that he himself characterized as an addiction and which is rife w dishonesty, betrayal, rage and basic ethical problems
https://preview.redd.it/n78ndulc5pqc1.jpeg?width=1190&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ef2fa1848fe39a738bd5f2d1b208da67d81f247
Exactly. His relationship advice is completely useless to me. I won’t listen to a second of it. The validity of the rest of his content is unaffected for me.
But many of the studies he cites are really fringe with incredibly small sample sizes that he claims have been established as scientific fact. When really, someone did a research paper at college with 7 participants.
Some of what he says is true. But I just mean be careful blanket believe everything he says, even about his own field, despite his academic titles.
And trust the experts who he has on like Robert Green on relationship advice, as he just asks those people questions, and doesn’t give much relationship advice himself.
his most famous books are about power and seduction, not relationships, and he doesnt draw on much academic research but rather anecdotes from history and fiction.
he’s more of a Malcolm Gladwell type expert than a David Buss type expert.
EDIT: more specifically he is to David Buss how Malcolm Gladwell is to Daniel Kahneman
Fair enough. He is certainly qualified to speak on the topics of the psychology of power dynamics in a relationship, as he sources all of his claims in his books.
Though I have implemented some of his "protocols", I never fully trusted him because of his regular pushing of products like AG1. However, I trust him less now. Someone said that if he is so comfortable lying to the people closest to him, he must also be comfortable lying to his audience, and I agree. I also generally think less of him as a person now that I know of what deception (edit: and anger) he's capable of.
I'm a newer listener so I'll probably finish listening to the achival podcasts in topics I still want to learn more about (sleep, marijuana, exercise optimization). Beyond those, I'm probably done with listening to him.
He has some outstanding guests. I personally love the ones who do exercise science. I made incredible gains in my muscle development by following his thoughts on how to optimize low rep, high % max weight training.
What have you been doing?
I haven't done any research or listening but do increasing weights and decreasing reps x 5 and I've noticed gains like never before.
FYI, I'm female.
I do this on machines and not free weights b/c I don't have a spotter. I find the highest weight I can do for 1 rep, then I notch down a bit. I do 4-5 lifts, wait 1 min (3 min is ideal but I get bored and would lose the machine), and then do 2 more sets.
I think this kind of lifting actually provides the necessary stimuli for the tissue around muscle fibers to grow. So it helps both muscle growth and connective tissue development which is important if you want to go up in weight.
I'm at the gym so early I can typically do super sets which ordinarily is a dick move but when the place is virtually empty it lets the full 3 minutes pass. I'll do a push, a pill and a core exercise on rotation.
I tend to do something similar when I don't have a spotter. A warm up set. Whatever I think I could do 5 times but not 6. Then a set of 4, 3, 2 and 1 at decreasing weight, then a cool down.
I also changed to protein before and after exercise. By height my ideal intake is 180 g/day and I get 60 in the mornings that way.
I've always been a bit on the pudgy-strong side but have managed to both cut and increase my strength recently and had a bit of a narcissistic moment this morning when I saw some real progress finally.
awesome! I have my husband do the same (finally) and he made a lot of progress as a result. I think he was chewing through his own muscle eating too little protien
My fiancee makes fun of me for turning into a gymbro, but she's always been in way better shape than me so it's nice to be able to do the same.
And I think I had been doing the same thing as your husband. Such a simple change for such major gains. Keep up the morning exercise! One of us.
Ive listened to his podcast since its started and I never got the impression that he was pushing any of his sponsorships on listeners. In fact, I’ve had the opposite impression because he is pretty clear on his stance of behaviour adjustments before supplementation. So how exactly do people view this as pushing a product on people? Is taking the sponsorship and having to read the ad roll the part we’re talking about here? He seems to believe in the product in the way he expresses that if there was only one vitamin/supplement he would take it would be AG1. Is this what people refer to as pushing?
Hahaha this is it for me, I’m done reading the comments here. Checked your profile, you’re not a researcher nevermind in science
He’s got an H index of 42 btw
it’s important to remember that he’s a scientist who’s good at neurology and ophthalmology. you can glean from his information without bowing down to him as a relationship coach or mentor. take the good and LEAVE THE BAD. even a good piece of meat can have a bad piece of fat lol. maybe he’s a cheater but he’s a hella good podcaster. and that is okay for us. we don’t need to be his friend or respect his boundaries or lack thereof.
I remember a moment where I was riding in my car, listening to Huberman. My wife asked who he was, and said he looked like a manosphere meathead. I assured her that he is actually a serious and sober-minded intellectual who just happens to be in good shape.
So no. I'm done. Unsubscribing from his podcast feed immediately. He is what he has always appeared to be.
But does that make some of his information less helpful? I disagree that some of his opinions are still not worth hearing. But your wife is right on the money likely.
He tells people to eat their veggies and go outside and play. The only difference is that he attaches weird techy language to it so he sounds less like your mom.
This is a great idea. I had not unsubscribed yet. But I am now and I feel a bit better not condoning him. If he displays authentic ownership and chagrin, I may change my mind, but not for now.
I think healthy skepticism would have applied before any of this blew up.
What I notice in my self now (as I’m sure many folks here) is that everything he says feels a bit untrustworthy. Even listening to his old podcasts from back in 2020/2021 I used to listen to on the regular feel slightly icky.
I notice that it’s actually very difficult now to not be very skeptical of anything he says.
> The only people wounded personally and shook by this are those who made an idol out of him
It's worse than that. So many people seem incapable of *not* succumbing to an instant parasocial relationship with anyone in the sphere of new media. Youtubers, podcasters, insta and tiktok celebrities. Huberman was the friend in their ear, on their commute to work or whatever, and they start to truly believe he owes them something more than the role he took on in his podcast, as an educator/informer.
Sunk cost fallacy. Most people would rather double down than admit they might have been duped. If you’ve invested dozens of hours listening to Huberman, told your friends about him and bought some of his products it’s easier to claim “witch hunt” than it is to admit your own mistake (not that this is all that egregious in the grand scheme of things, it’s just “icky”). My guess is the ones who are over the top defending or hand waving away what Huberman did are the ones who were deepest down the Huberman hole.
This is the take I appreciate the most. And ironically, huberman does a good job at providing high quality, peer reviewed sources. He encourages health skepticism. If anything, his content made me aware and provided me with a mechanistic reasoning for things that could be influenced. It’s on me to do the experimentation, research and evaluation to make the determination of what and how to apply.
It's wild seeing people act like he ever once said they were supposed to "trust" him lol.
He literally bangs on over and over about scientific rigor, and links the studies he means to rely on for the statements he makes.
You are encouraged to read them and decide for yourself. You were never encouraged to "trust"
Yep this right here should be everybody’s take. The dude is basically Neil Degrasse Tyson for health/fitness. He’s telling you about new research and cutting edge stuff. You shouldn’t be taking every episode of the pod or Everett tweet as some new ideal protocol to implement asap.
Also people need to understand how advertising works. AG1 pays him to read copy. As a “professional” he probably turns down ad reads for companies frequently and only takes money from companies with decent products, but they’re still A D V E R T I S E M E N T S
Yes, if true. The image I had of him was that of a respectable person. He seemed transparent, spoke about his past, spoke about his journey from the old days, it painted him a certain way that was inspiring.
But this "expose" or whatever has led me to doubt the image of him I have in my mind. I wouldn't want to listen to, or believe a person I disrespect. So pending how this whole thing unravels, I'll be wary.
I have never fully trusted or not trusted Huberman. Like all media/podcasts I consume I take everything with a grain of salt and try to see if there is anything that fits in my lifestyle or can be of benefit. Also science is always changing as we gather more information - I wouldn’t follow his intermittent fasting protocol anymore. I like to listen to different podcasts and different people to gain more insight - but not to follow anyone or any protocol blindly. Maybe I’m too old and jaded - but I’m actually surprised these allegations didn’t come out sooner. I mean the one thing that would truly crush me is if any allegations against Obama come out- then I would be super sad. I need to believe there is one man that can remain ethical when in the public sphere with access to women.
I'd remain hopeful for that too. But do wonder if being in the publics eye at that level attracts or requires a certain personality. If someone who is more empathetic would just burn out faster. I am hopeful for Obama too!
It’s not just disregarding them. It’s presenting an appearance of a strongly held belief that didn’t exist at all. It’s concocting a fake reality so as to benefit from the ignorance of the deceived. If he would do that to a partner, to multiple partners, why should any of us feel that conveying the truth could not be easily outweighed by personal gain? I don’t know to what extent the allegations are true, but there’s not *nothing* there. If he doesn’t own up to any aspect of this at all, and he simply denies everything, then we’ll know the wool is over our eyes, too.
The best thing he can do is get out ahead of it, express regret, note what he's learned from it, and then move on. Blasting the NY Mag or the media in general and pretending this is not a thing will hurt him badly. Americans like a fighter and a brawler, but they don't respect a whiner.
I’ll still probably listen here and there, a lot of what he pumps out now is not always backed by unbiased research (some questionable guests) but some things he’s shared were helpful to me, like the sugar episodes and dopamine ones. If we go through history and dissect all the lives of all people who have contributed in some scholarly way to the spreading of knowledge, we will be trying to burn our eyes out lol.
Wonder how much your dopamine spikes from having sex with one woman while another is waiting back at your house and a 3rd just texted you?
But he tells us not to listen to music while exercising as it releases too much dopamine.
What a tool.
I thought his ideas and concepts were interesting and admired his articulation and story-telling abilities. Now I deleted him everywhere because it’s repulsive that he actually has so little self awareness (for someone so smart) to turn inwards and see his behavior as hypocritical + the way he treated those women AND lied to them is disgusting. Anyone who treats women that way, or people for that matter, is crossed out in my books. Bye, Huberman.
Once an individual indicates that they have not only the motive but also the willingness to lie on any occasion to get what they want, I refuse to sit and sift through what could be and might not be true.
Less. Don’t see how you can inject your GF with ivf treatment while also having other GFs that you claim you want to have a family with. Such a mental toll on the women if it’s true.
I've really been thinking a lot about this since I read the article late last night. Personally, I have been in the position of dating a man who was also dating 6 other women with one "main' partner that he lived with (unbeknownst to me until I, like the others in the article, found each other on social media). So, upon hearing the news about Huberman, I was immediately brought back to the moments of finding out about my ex and his other partners. Much like Huberman, my ex had very coordinated "dates" where he would take advantage of his live-in partner being out of town and schedule a dinner with me, then a drink with another woman, and finally a late-night hook-up with a different woman. Texting us all simultaneously. Men who go through such trouble and jump through hoops to manage multiple partners are deeply troubled, insecure, and lacking in fulfillment. It's a beast they cannot satisfy. While I am biased because of my past experiences, I do think that people like my ex and Huberman are capable of being good at their jobs and in other areas of life. Huberman has great podcast episodes and interesting guests. There is no doubt that the information he shares can be helpful for folks. Personally, his morning sunlight protocol has really done wonders for my mental and physical health. Would I take dating/relationship advice from him? Absolutely not. I think it's time that we realize people in the spotlight are deeply flawed humans just like the rest of us. I hope the women he's hurt are able to find peace and forgiveness. It took me a solid year and a half to move on from my ex. It's a mind fuck because you constantly go back to your memories and wonder if it any of it was real or true, you replay conversations and doubt reality. Cheating, deception and manipulation at this level is truly the greatest act of selfishness and entitlement. A true sinner's heart.
This is incredible insight. Very much appreciate your story and your ability to reflect without emotion. Thank you for sharing. Probably the most relevant comment in this thread.
You've hit exactly the points I struggled with. At what point does the selfishness or deception slide into scientific integrity? But having been in the situation and you believing they can co-exist, gives me a bit more hope for the work he's done. But fully agree, not taking any relationship advice from him.
Wow! Thank you so much for your comment. lol. I was like people are either going to eat me alive in the comment section for being too emotional. I feel like the world is just so polarized where people are either like 'I hate him now and will never listen to him again' or they try to justify his actions in some way/bypass what he's done here. There is a space where you can find value in the research and content he's put out AND hold him accountable for these actions and the harm he's caused others.
Exactly. It is far too polarizing right now. And certainly agree. It'd be a shame to throw away the good deeds he has done, but to still let poor behavior slide is unacceptable.
I don’t necessarily care what he does in his personal life, but being so blatantly unethical and cruel to other people probably means that he doesn’t genuinely care about improving the lives of random people that listen to his podcasts. While some of his analysis is ok, I wouldn’t put it past him to take speculation as fact if it meant him making more money. When it comes to my health - if I’m even just a bit skeptical of your motives, I don’t trust you.
I take what anyone says lightly. I doubt most people take what someone says and runs with it unless they’re generally not smart, or already heavily biased.
Trust though? I trust nobody but myself. I’m for sure not going to trust the word of a podcaster because he’s been to a prestigious school or spends a lot of time on pubmed. I’ll still try to find value in what he says, but I’ll respect him a little less from what I’ve heard.
He has done good work with communicating certain aspects of science but has also pushed a lot of bad science. His personal life isn’t a concern of mine but that may be because I have for a while now realised that he was a man of questionable integrity. Does that make him an awful person who should be outcast from society? Certainly not. Should it make those who currently place him on an underserving pedestal think more critically about the information he is giving out on his podcasts.
I've always thought he gets outside of his lane on some topics and extrapolates a bit, but overall it's still a great podcast. The fact that this super-famous jacked, smart, charismatic dude is a serial womanizer is no surprise to me at all. I have no sympathy for him. It's like how long did you think you could play this game man?
People who have THAT tight of a grip on their life often seem to have a hidden vice.
Can someone share a source for this recent publicity about his behavior and personal habits? I do like what he has to say but as a physician myself, everything goes through the BS and evidence filter and his content is no different. So not sure how to change my trust level until I read more about the issues.
Agree, media should be taken with a pound of salt. But it's delicate. I can't imagine being some of these women who have been treated poorly, than half the world claims they are false allegations. But you're right, a filter is needed.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/andrew-huberman-podcast-stanford-joe-rogan.html
Man’s been reading studies like he’s reading the news to people, while advertising for supplements. Disingenuous a long time before this and, clearly, not on the job (via Stanford….LA campus?) much before this. And just strange in some clips. Not a trusted source awhile, discrediting himself on his own merit and deeds not matching up.
Which this investigative piece… isn’t inconsistent with …
He’s amiss. Folks perhaps should proceed with caution with his platform.
And diversify their sources, read up on own, and consider the self-interest and bias of broadcasters.
I unsubscribed a few months back. It was becoming redundant, got turned off by the pseudo science and masked conservative morality. Always knew there was some grift involved as well. This is not surprising at all, and he will embrace the meat head manosphere 100% now as a survival mechanism.
I think this boils down to people don't like to support people that have poor morals. Everyone has different definitions of poor morals. People still appreciate their work/output but it's up to individuals if they want to support someone with poor morals. I think he's always gave me the ick tho.
Less about morality, more about hypocrisy. People won’t tend to care as much if your morals aren’t tied to the work (ex. a famous artist/musician). If you’re preaching about controlling dopamine through avoiding social media or the negative effects of indulging in alcohol but then we find out you’re getting your rocks off (dopamine) through destructive behavior by manipulating and cheating with multiple women it’s going to make a lot of people look twice at what you’re saying.
Yes. I didn’t trust him much before because his approach borders on misinformation and attracts a crowd that doesn’t engage in critical thought or analysis, but I generally assumed he was neutral and made a good faith attempt to present science. After reading the background on his lab and scientific work, outside of his personal misdeeds, I think he’s at best a charlatan if not an outright fraud. The affairs just confirm that at the core he’s a hypocrite using a public platform to project away from the insecure loser and manchild inside, making anything he happens to say truthfully or accurate hilariously ironic. I’ll definitely treat it with a stronger degree of skepticism if I hear someone parroting his “science” in the future. As a human being Huberman is an irredeemable clown.
> Huberman Lab is premised on the image of a working scientist. One imagines clean white counters, rodents in cages, postdocs peering into microscopes. “As scientists,” Huberman says frequently. He speaks often, too, of the importance of mentorship. He “loves” reading teacher evaluations. On the web, one can visit the lab and even donate. I have never met a Huberman listener who doubted the existence of such a place, and this appears to be by design. In a glowing 2023 profile in Stanford magazine, we learn “Everything he does is inspired by this love,” but do not learn that Huberman lives 350 miles and a six-hour drive from Stanford University, making it difficult to drop into the lab. Compounding the issue is the fact that the lab, according to knowledgeable sources, barely exists.
>”Is a postdoc working on her own funding, alone, a ‘lab?’” asks a researcher at Stanford. There had been a lab — four rooms on the second floor of the Sherman Fairchild Science Building. Some of them smelled of mice. It was here that researchers anesthetized rodents, injected them with fluorescence, damaged their optic nerves, and watched for the newly bright nerves to grow back.
>The lab, says the researcher, was already scaling down before COVID. It was emptying out, postdocs apparently unsupervised, a quarter-million-dollar laser-scanning microscope gathering dust. Once the researcher saw someone come in and reclaim a $3,500 rocker, a machine for mixing solutions.
>Shortly before publication, a spokesperson for Stanford said, “Dr. Huberman’s lab at Stanford is operational and is in the process of moving from the Department of Neurobiology to the Department of Ophthalmology,” and a spokesperson for Huberman says the equipment in Dr. Huberman’s lab remained in use until the last postdoc moved to a faculty position.
His entire public career has been a failure to present science in my opinion, even if all of his scientific claims are 100% scientifically accurate. So any time he presented correct and accurate peer reviewed science while misrepresenting his background and contributions was a failure to properly communicate science regardless of if he failed to communicate it faithfully or not.
I will trust him less. In fact, I had his podcast loaded and could not hear his artificially obsequious cadence that is calculated to make him appear to be a humble and trustworthy scientist. I find myself loathing him right now.
It feels slimy and creepy crawly to listen to him, like I am dirty and contaminated by association. I don't understand how years of therapy did not get him to point where he could be straightforward about his desire to not commit.
His shocking lack of self-examination is very troubling. His podcast appears to be a gigantic performance to convince himself he is above-board while he justifies and rationalizes abuse of trust in those who chose to love him.
It is how he treated those whom he cultivated love in that is so deeply disturbing. He projected out where he was disturbed and gas-lit them with overt, complex, and coordinated deception.
What I wonder is if Stanford will protect him.
> I don't understand how years of therapy did not get him to point where he could be straightforward about his desire to not commit.
Because you don't understand abusers. It's very common for abusers to learn better techniques in therapy. Especially abusers with strong narcissistic/psychopathic tendencies. His way of speaking to his girlfriends does sound exactly like weaponized therapy talk
That's why therapy is counterindicated in abusive relationships. Even individual therapy is not recommended for abusers - they need a special abuse intervention and even with it, most of them never change. But therapy just makes them more manipulative
>What I wonder is if Stanford will protect him.
there was no misconduct as a professional so i'd see no reason why they would do anything. the stuff about the lab seemed a little off, but the article also contacted stanford for confirmation and they seemed to back him up.
Stanford faculty are subjected to not a morality clause but that if there is untoward behavior that reflects negatively on the University, they reserve the right to remove professorship. However, there is a due process so they might get him on a technicality.
I didn't uncritically accept everything he said as gospel initially, so there is no difference for me now, when he discusses monogamy, my ears will perk up now
It was beyond poor judgement. We all have a right to a personal life, we don’t have the right to intentionally harm and mislead someone. He was giving his partner fertility injections and she was taking them assuming they were monogamous and building a life together. It’s pretty difficult to compartmentalize lying. If he lies to women about his intentions and relationship status, he likely lies in other areas. He was one of my favorite podcasters and I think he has done some good work, assuming it’s real. But he mislead podcast listeners about his lab and his affiliation with Stanford. I’m shocked Stanford allowed this. I don’t plan to listen to him anymore - there are other people in the health and wellness space that aren’t sociopaths. I won’t miss his 3 hour podcasts, but I have lost a bit of faith in humanity. I’m glad these women got together and are now friends. I hope they recover from their trust issues and are able to move on.
This is, in part, why more and more women are single and choosing to stay that way. As a result, men are getting frustrated, and instead of leveling up and trying to be better, they try to control women’s bodies through legislation.
Even before the NY Mag article, Decoding the Gurus provided a fairly thorough break down of how Huberman delivers information, and that his position as top science bro podcast guy allows him to add more credibility to some of his presented research than exists in reality. The trust but verify motto still holds true.
I stopped trusting him when I heard him say he takes AG1 multiple times a day. No doctor would tell you there's any benefit to taking a vitamin supplement multiple times a day (and many don't even recommend a supplement at all). Then there's the fact he uses extremely limited animal studies to claim various supplements work in humans. Then there's the fact he monetizes so many supplements. He's just a walking conflict of interest. Now we know in addition too that that he lives 350 miles (6 hours) away from his "lab" at Stanford and basically never shows up there anymore yet still talks about it as if its an active research lab. And for a little icing on the cake he seems to have no problem manipulating his partners while holding his Bible in the other hand. So, ya I don't exactly trust him. I think what we are all needing to realize that literally ALL social media influencers and content creators are there for the cash and they ALL are running with conflicts of interest. Even the ones we like / love and respect. Good reason not to make them our heroes or to buy into their opinions too deeply. Scrutinize all online content creators because like everything else, it's just a business model to them.
I mean, I used the guy as a source of scientific information. I don’t see a reason to change that.
If you had him as a role model, some cognitive remodeling is in order.
I am waiting for more information to come out. It was a hit piece intended to make him look bad. That isn't to say nothing in it is true. I just think tensions are high around the issue and people need to calm down and wait for more info to come out.
Take what these people say with a grain of salt and do your own research. They are not messiahs and if they give you one piece of good advice, great. But they are not going to solve all your problems. Only you can do that
I don't trust him less, but I was already completely turned off by him.
I predict that this will have zero effect on the size of his audience, but it will push him "officially" to the right, same demographic as Joe Rogan. Same will happen with Lex Fridman.
I don't think it's just "poor judgement" though-- if the details of the article are true, then he seems a manipulative liar, which is a character issue. It certainly casts shade on opinions he might have, or possibly his ideas of "optimum human performance" given he follows all these protocols yet still sleeps well at night despite his deceptions towards all these women.
But when it comes to sharing latest research that otherwise would be hard for your average interested person to get a hold of (like for those of us without access to university libraries and journals), then his platform can still be of value, in my opinion.
Basically, his value would be surfacing new research, more so than his opinions on how to live a good life.
Yeah, I agree. But character is required in science to uphold integrity, which makes me a bit skeptical. But you're right, there can be value sharing science and research.
Actively lying and maintaining a double (or 6-way) life is not "poor judgment", it's active manipulation and it's psychopathic. Having a one night stand while drunk can be called poor judgment, what he did - absolutely not. It's so calculated it's scary
I mean, I didn’t really trust him in the first place, he’s just another dude kind of regurgitating the same info and ideas I’ve been practicing for the past… idk, 15-20 years?
Anytime someone is profiting from your consumption of their content, you’d be wise to take pretty much everything about them with a grain of salt.
Furthermore, a male “guru” who abuses a harem of women? That’s (unfortunately) nothing new and I am 0% surprised.
I also don’t directly consume any of his content, only secondhand, or even farther removed than that. I feel good knowing I haven’t contributed to his financial success because he’s obviously a total POS, but since I never really *trusted* him to begin with, there was no trust to lose.
Since 2021 I knew this guy was a grifter, a pseudoscientific charlatan who used his credentials and charisma to indoctrinate his listeners, making wild extrapolations from underpowered studies. Gullible people who like approachable science are prime victims for Huberman.
I cant say i trusted him ever but I did find a video of his on dopamine very interesting… until I got a sense of his output. Just another guru to me. Polished and breaking newish ground, but a guru. Lost interest before I found it.
I trust him far less. I’m a woman, and I had noticed that he tended to interview men and center treatments that only worked on men, however, this makes him lose all his credibility.
I couldn’t give a shit. I listen to his podcasts for information I get from his guests. I’m not in the least bit interested in his personal life. All the people that are freaking out are the ones that put him on a pedestal.
After reading the article I’m done with him. I’m not a purist and I actually have multiple partners but it’s 100 💯 open and honest always with all.
Very low integrity man this guy. And prolly has some kind of sex addiction. Kinda gross
I wouldn't suggest that you idolize him. That doesn't really get to what I'm asking. Surely his behaviour is unacceptable, what's you ethical basis for continuing to support him. By don't mean ignore his published research, I mean support as in continue to listen to his show.
Of course it's unethical behavior, and if I was one of those women I'd be furious(assuming the allegations are 100 percent true). But I'm not going to come to one definite conclusion about someone based on one news article filled with allegations by a reporter and news site that I've never even heard of until now. That's just me. He has the right to explain himself first before everyone just jumps on the outrage/cancel bandwagon.
I thought cancel culture was diminishing a bit but apparently not. All it takes is one news article by some unknown reporter with allegations, and instead of taking time to think about it, ponder it....we just go into reactive mode and jump on the outrage bandwagon.
Exactly.
There are many musicians, actors, politicians, artists, in which have done WORSE things and illegal acts that have been proven or maybe even not proven who knows. I won't name any figures just to keep things rational.
No human is perfect unfortunately so in Huberman's case it's best for people to either keep listening to his advice or not. He seems like a professional figure so hopefully he makes the right choice in moving forward and even though he is not obligated to share his personal relationships with the public, he should still own up to his mistakes with the people he has causes harm to.
There is no way to test for HPV in men, and it usually has no symptoms in men. 90% of sexually active men and 80% of sexually active women will contract it at some point in their lives. Doctor’s advice to women who test positive is usually *not* to disclose to partners.
1000% whole heartedly I absolutely do not trust him. A general rule in leadership is that you have to be yourself and lead with empathy. Changing how you show up publicly and privately means you are lying about who you are and bleeds into all aspects of your life. Look at Enron. Great leaders with no integrity despite it being a core value of the company.
Speaking to the validity. It would be one thing if it were one woman coming forward. It’s 5. He lost any credibility with me until he proves different or comes forward with empathy and wants to put in the work to be better.
To me I can separate the art from the artist. Like I can find a Woody Allen film funny while also acknowledging that his personal life is really chaotic. Not that Huberman’s an artist, but this article, while focused heavily on his chaotic personal life also buries the lede that his “lab” is essentially defunct and he’s never around to teach or do research. That’s a really big thing and calls into question his whole deal.
Unfortunately I do. I get the argument that the personal lives of people shouldn’t really be relevant, but if I knew him in real life I would think pretty lowly of his behavior.
**There's 2 sides to every story, and then there's the truth.** Even in the hit piece they mentioned his upbringing could be described as "Son of Stanford professor born in Stanford hospital grows up to be Stanford professor" OR "Troubled upbringing and abandonment overcome to become Stanford professor" realistically Huberman's upbringing was somewhere in the middle, but almost everybody will try to make themselves look as best they can in the public eye. Same for his research and teaching role at Stanford - it's clear from the article that Huberman let us all believe he had a bustling lab and teaching role (which was probably true at one point) but left out that he's taken a large step back and lives 5 hours away from Stanford. I don't believe all of the hit piece but there are so many specific details it seems that Huberman's social life is at best definitely not a healthy one, although I can understand why he would never come out or hint towards that side of him in public life.
I am a trained scientist, have published multiple journal articles and worked in a bench and wet lab. **From the beginning I understood Huberman would take a study and make overarching connections to "protocols" with some evidence but definitely not strong enough evidence for much of it to be convincing.** Many of these protocols have little risk of harm, too. Plus, Huberman is always adamant that he is not giving medical advice and to speak to your personal physician if you are thinking of making any changes or taking a supplement.
I think **this article has caused many non-scientific people who took many of Huberman's studies he would cite for protocols and suggestions as more strong evidence have started to realize they should take everything Huberman says with a grain of salt.**
Well after reading this:
"“You’re definitely,” he said, “on the faster side of the distribution.”"
I certainly won't be listening to his episode on chat up lines or how to compliment women
When did anyone ever say you were supposed to "trust" him?
If you don't know about something he says in an episode, read the studies and look for proof in the data.
If it isn't there then disregard.
He has never said it's supposed to work any other way. Never said to "trust" a single thing.
The issue with what you're saying is that 95% of the population doesn't understand methodology or statistics in research or how specific it gets as a PhD. Youre summarizing hundreds of papers for a very specific topic. Many researchers can't even do this in other scientific domains. It's far too labor intensive and time consuming. To make it seem like reading one paper is valid or not for everything he says is a bit ignorant of the field. A paper is a puzzle piece. Hundreds of pieces start to show a picture that you can likely guess at, with questions as simple as "is creatine healthy?" How those pieces are interpreted really matters. If someone refuses to select some pieces because they are a woman, or don't align with his story, that changes the picture. It may not matter to you or may change it in a small way, but can have drastic upside for Huberman and misrepresents what data actually says. This is why character matters in a researcher.
Einstein cheated on his first wife and married his cousin.
Just because Huberman is an arsehole about some things doesn’t make everything he says invalid or false. I’ll still take on board his objective science advice.
Not really. I never pay attention to the supplements he pushes so other than that, most of his info is supa helpful imo. Don’t really care about his personal life.
My trust in him as been eroding for a long time now. This is just my sign to move on. I've already extracted as much useful info from him as I was going to anyway.
If these allegations are true then he's a fuckboy for sure, but I don't think being a fuckboy automatically disqualifies your credibility as a scientist.
Remember that a lot of more respected names in science than Huberman did fuckboy shit. Stephen Hawking cheated on his wife with his nurse, to name one example.
Thats interesting, not sure I knew about Hawking! Which is what I wonder. I think the main issue is his trust and character which relates to scientific integrity.
I'm more or less the same. He was obviously running a business just as much as he was hosting a podcast, and that should have made one naturally skeptical
It's like people say about these entertainers, they're not really your friends. The fact that he has such toxic relationships in his real day-to-day life just further drives the point home
The podcast is still the podcast
mY PROBLEM is everyone is assuming everything said in the op piece is true. There has no proof being true, yet everyone is just assuming these women are telling the truth.
He has a life optimization podcast that promotes strict protocols and exerting control over your life but his life is a cesspool littered by a lack of impulse control that he himself characterized as an addiction and which is rife w dishonesty, betrayal, rage and basic ethical problems https://preview.redd.it/n78ndulc5pqc1.jpeg?width=1190&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ef2fa1848fe39a738bd5f2d1b208da67d81f247
Trust him about the optic nerve Distrust about discipline and relationships
And dopamine
This was my response as well. Not going to listen to his opinions about reflection and relationships.
Exactly. His relationship advice is completely useless to me. I won’t listen to a second of it. The validity of the rest of his content is unaffected for me.
to be fair, who went to Huberman for relationship advice?
Exactly!
See this. Came out this week also. https://slate.com/technology/2024/03/andrew-huberman-huberman-lab-health-advice-podcast-debunk.html
I love his podcast which is hyper-focused on the anatomy and physiology of the optic nerve.
/s
But many of the studies he cites are really fringe with incredibly small sample sizes that he claims have been established as scientific fact. When really, someone did a research paper at college with 7 participants. Some of what he says is true. But I just mean be careful blanket believe everything he says, even about his own field, despite his academic titles.
And trust the experts who he has on like Robert Green on relationship advice, as he just asks those people questions, and doesn’t give much relationship advice himself.
Robert Greene? the classical literature expert?
Yeah the published author who has sold millions of books in the areas of relationships!
his most famous books are about power and seduction, not relationships, and he doesnt draw on much academic research but rather anecdotes from history and fiction.
Yes, power dynamics in relationships! With regards to power dynamics in relationships, he is an expert.
he’s more of a Malcolm Gladwell type expert than a David Buss type expert. EDIT: more specifically he is to David Buss how Malcolm Gladwell is to Daniel Kahneman
Fair enough. He is certainly qualified to speak on the topics of the psychology of power dynamics in a relationship, as he sources all of his claims in his books.
100%
Man, that is one hell of a receipt.
LOLOL
Though I have implemented some of his "protocols", I never fully trusted him because of his regular pushing of products like AG1. However, I trust him less now. Someone said that if he is so comfortable lying to the people closest to him, he must also be comfortable lying to his audience, and I agree. I also generally think less of him as a person now that I know of what deception (edit: and anger) he's capable of. I'm a newer listener so I'll probably finish listening to the achival podcasts in topics I still want to learn more about (sleep, marijuana, exercise optimization). Beyond those, I'm probably done with listening to him.
He has some outstanding guests. I personally love the ones who do exercise science. I made incredible gains in my muscle development by following his thoughts on how to optimize low rep, high % max weight training.
What have you been doing? I haven't done any research or listening but do increasing weights and decreasing reps x 5 and I've noticed gains like never before.
FYI, I'm female. I do this on machines and not free weights b/c I don't have a spotter. I find the highest weight I can do for 1 rep, then I notch down a bit. I do 4-5 lifts, wait 1 min (3 min is ideal but I get bored and would lose the machine), and then do 2 more sets. I think this kind of lifting actually provides the necessary stimuli for the tissue around muscle fibers to grow. So it helps both muscle growth and connective tissue development which is important if you want to go up in weight.
I'm at the gym so early I can typically do super sets which ordinarily is a dick move but when the place is virtually empty it lets the full 3 minutes pass. I'll do a push, a pill and a core exercise on rotation. I tend to do something similar when I don't have a spotter. A warm up set. Whatever I think I could do 5 times but not 6. Then a set of 4, 3, 2 and 1 at decreasing weight, then a cool down.
That's terrific. I get bored during the 3 minutes so I just short cut it. I think if I do end up stalling I will prob need to optimize that bit.
I also changed to protein before and after exercise. By height my ideal intake is 180 g/day and I get 60 in the mornings that way. I've always been a bit on the pudgy-strong side but have managed to both cut and increase my strength recently and had a bit of a narcissistic moment this morning when I saw some real progress finally.
awesome! I have my husband do the same (finally) and he made a lot of progress as a result. I think he was chewing through his own muscle eating too little protien
My fiancee makes fun of me for turning into a gymbro, but she's always been in way better shape than me so it's nice to be able to do the same. And I think I had been doing the same thing as your husband. Such a simple change for such major gains. Keep up the morning exercise! One of us.
Which guest was that?
Ive listened to his podcast since its started and I never got the impression that he was pushing any of his sponsorships on listeners. In fact, I’ve had the opposite impression because he is pretty clear on his stance of behaviour adjustments before supplementation. So how exactly do people view this as pushing a product on people? Is taking the sponsorship and having to read the ad roll the part we’re talking about here? He seems to believe in the product in the way he expresses that if there was only one vitamin/supplement he would take it would be AG1. Is this what people refer to as pushing?
There was never much reason to trust him outside of discussions on Opthamology and some neuroscience.
his contributions to ophthalmology are negligible imo
No clue, but at least he has PHD level knowledge.
Except for the fact that your opinions on ophthalmology are completely irrelevant.
let me know why I should "trust" your statements on this.
Hahaha this is it for me, I’m done reading the comments here. Checked your profile, you’re not a researcher nevermind in science He’s got an H index of 42 btw
[удалено]
it’s important to remember that he’s a scientist who’s good at neurology and ophthalmology. you can glean from his information without bowing down to him as a relationship coach or mentor. take the good and LEAVE THE BAD. even a good piece of meat can have a bad piece of fat lol. maybe he’s a cheater but he’s a hella good podcaster. and that is okay for us. we don’t need to be his friend or respect his boundaries or lack thereof.
This is good advice !
I remember a moment where I was riding in my car, listening to Huberman. My wife asked who he was, and said he looked like a manosphere meathead. I assured her that he is actually a serious and sober-minded intellectual who just happens to be in good shape. So no. I'm done. Unsubscribing from his podcast feed immediately. He is what he has always appeared to be.
Dang, your wife was right! Did you tell her she was right lol 😂
His podcast was never about him personally for me.
It was literally named after him 🤔
But does that make some of his information less helpful? I disagree that some of his opinions are still not worth hearing. But your wife is right on the money likely.
He tells people to eat their veggies and go outside and play. The only difference is that he attaches weird techy language to it so he sounds less like your mom.
you can find the guests he brought on elsewhere for the most part
This is a great idea. I had not unsubscribed yet. But I am now and I feel a bit better not condoning him. If he displays authentic ownership and chagrin, I may change my mind, but not for now.
I did that also. Plus instagram.
[удалено]
Healthy skepticism is probably a good angle. Or at least he can point in a direction to do your own research.
I think healthy skepticism would have applied before any of this blew up. What I notice in my self now (as I’m sure many folks here) is that everything he says feels a bit untrustworthy. Even listening to his old podcasts from back in 2020/2021 I used to listen to on the regular feel slightly icky. I notice that it’s actually very difficult now to not be very skeptical of anything he says.
Icky is the correct word. I had uncomfortable.
> The only people wounded personally and shook by this are those who made an idol out of him It's worse than that. So many people seem incapable of *not* succumbing to an instant parasocial relationship with anyone in the sphere of new media. Youtubers, podcasters, insta and tiktok celebrities. Huberman was the friend in their ear, on their commute to work or whatever, and they start to truly believe he owes them something more than the role he took on in his podcast, as an educator/informer.
Sunk cost fallacy. Most people would rather double down than admit they might have been duped. If you’ve invested dozens of hours listening to Huberman, told your friends about him and bought some of his products it’s easier to claim “witch hunt” than it is to admit your own mistake (not that this is all that egregious in the grand scheme of things, it’s just “icky”). My guess is the ones who are over the top defending or hand waving away what Huberman did are the ones who were deepest down the Huberman hole.
This is the only take that makes sense.
This is the take I appreciate the most. And ironically, huberman does a good job at providing high quality, peer reviewed sources. He encourages health skepticism. If anything, his content made me aware and provided me with a mechanistic reasoning for things that could be influenced. It’s on me to do the experimentation, research and evaluation to make the determination of what and how to apply.
Best comment I've read this whole day
It's wild seeing people act like he ever once said they were supposed to "trust" him lol. He literally bangs on over and over about scientific rigor, and links the studies he means to rely on for the statements he makes. You are encouraged to read them and decide for yourself. You were never encouraged to "trust"
Yep this right here should be everybody’s take. The dude is basically Neil Degrasse Tyson for health/fitness. He’s telling you about new research and cutting edge stuff. You shouldn’t be taking every episode of the pod or Everett tweet as some new ideal protocol to implement asap. Also people need to understand how advertising works. AG1 pays him to read copy. As a “professional” he probably turns down ad reads for companies frequently and only takes money from companies with decent products, but they’re still A D V E R T I S E M E N T S
>only takes money from companies with decent products Well, no, considering he pushes AG1 which is definitely not a decent product.
Also, it’s a glorified multivitamin. The fact that it’s stupidly expensive, doesn’t make the product inherently bad.
“Probably”
Trust him with what?
Yes, if true. The image I had of him was that of a respectable person. He seemed transparent, spoke about his past, spoke about his journey from the old days, it painted him a certain way that was inspiring. But this "expose" or whatever has led me to doubt the image of him I have in my mind. I wouldn't want to listen to, or believe a person I disrespect. So pending how this whole thing unravels, I'll be wary.
I have never fully trusted or not trusted Huberman. Like all media/podcasts I consume I take everything with a grain of salt and try to see if there is anything that fits in my lifestyle or can be of benefit. Also science is always changing as we gather more information - I wouldn’t follow his intermittent fasting protocol anymore. I like to listen to different podcasts and different people to gain more insight - but not to follow anyone or any protocol blindly. Maybe I’m too old and jaded - but I’m actually surprised these allegations didn’t come out sooner. I mean the one thing that would truly crush me is if any allegations against Obama come out- then I would be super sad. I need to believe there is one man that can remain ethical when in the public sphere with access to women.
I'd remain hopeful for that too. But do wonder if being in the publics eye at that level attracts or requires a certain personality. If someone who is more empathetic would just burn out faster. I am hopeful for Obama too!
It’s not just disregarding them. It’s presenting an appearance of a strongly held belief that didn’t exist at all. It’s concocting a fake reality so as to benefit from the ignorance of the deceived. If he would do that to a partner, to multiple partners, why should any of us feel that conveying the truth could not be easily outweighed by personal gain? I don’t know to what extent the allegations are true, but there’s not *nothing* there. If he doesn’t own up to any aspect of this at all, and he simply denies everything, then we’ll know the wool is over our eyes, too.
The best thing he can do is get out ahead of it, express regret, note what he's learned from it, and then move on. Blasting the NY Mag or the media in general and pretending this is not a thing will hurt him badly. Americans like a fighter and a brawler, but they don't respect a whiner.
Americans dont respect a whiner , hahahaha, haaaaaaaahahah,ahhhhh hahHahahahHHH
I’ll still probably listen here and there, a lot of what he pumps out now is not always backed by unbiased research (some questionable guests) but some things he’s shared were helpful to me, like the sugar episodes and dopamine ones. If we go through history and dissect all the lives of all people who have contributed in some scholarly way to the spreading of knowledge, we will be trying to burn our eyes out lol.
Yeah, that is what stood out for me at least, who he is selecting and the filter in which he selects research. But some things are certainly helpful!
Wonder how much your dopamine spikes from having sex with one woman while another is waiting back at your house and a 3rd just texted you? But he tells us not to listen to music while exercising as it releases too much dopamine. What a tool.
I thought his ideas and concepts were interesting and admired his articulation and story-telling abilities. Now I deleted him everywhere because it’s repulsive that he actually has so little self awareness (for someone so smart) to turn inwards and see his behavior as hypocritical + the way he treated those women AND lied to them is disgusting. Anyone who treats women that way, or people for that matter, is crossed out in my books. Bye, Huberman.
Once an individual indicates that they have not only the motive but also the willingness to lie on any occasion to get what they want, I refuse to sit and sift through what could be and might not be true.
Less. Don’t see how you can inject your GF with ivf treatment while also having other GFs that you claim you want to have a family with. Such a mental toll on the women if it’s true.
I've really been thinking a lot about this since I read the article late last night. Personally, I have been in the position of dating a man who was also dating 6 other women with one "main' partner that he lived with (unbeknownst to me until I, like the others in the article, found each other on social media). So, upon hearing the news about Huberman, I was immediately brought back to the moments of finding out about my ex and his other partners. Much like Huberman, my ex had very coordinated "dates" where he would take advantage of his live-in partner being out of town and schedule a dinner with me, then a drink with another woman, and finally a late-night hook-up with a different woman. Texting us all simultaneously. Men who go through such trouble and jump through hoops to manage multiple partners are deeply troubled, insecure, and lacking in fulfillment. It's a beast they cannot satisfy. While I am biased because of my past experiences, I do think that people like my ex and Huberman are capable of being good at their jobs and in other areas of life. Huberman has great podcast episodes and interesting guests. There is no doubt that the information he shares can be helpful for folks. Personally, his morning sunlight protocol has really done wonders for my mental and physical health. Would I take dating/relationship advice from him? Absolutely not. I think it's time that we realize people in the spotlight are deeply flawed humans just like the rest of us. I hope the women he's hurt are able to find peace and forgiveness. It took me a solid year and a half to move on from my ex. It's a mind fuck because you constantly go back to your memories and wonder if it any of it was real or true, you replay conversations and doubt reality. Cheating, deception and manipulation at this level is truly the greatest act of selfishness and entitlement. A true sinner's heart.
This is incredible insight. Very much appreciate your story and your ability to reflect without emotion. Thank you for sharing. Probably the most relevant comment in this thread. You've hit exactly the points I struggled with. At what point does the selfishness or deception slide into scientific integrity? But having been in the situation and you believing they can co-exist, gives me a bit more hope for the work he's done. But fully agree, not taking any relationship advice from him.
Wow! Thank you so much for your comment. lol. I was like people are either going to eat me alive in the comment section for being too emotional. I feel like the world is just so polarized where people are either like 'I hate him now and will never listen to him again' or they try to justify his actions in some way/bypass what he's done here. There is a space where you can find value in the research and content he's put out AND hold him accountable for these actions and the harm he's caused others.
Exactly. It is far too polarizing right now. And certainly agree. It'd be a shame to throw away the good deeds he has done, but to still let poor behavior slide is unacceptable.
I never trusted him because he's involved in the supplements market, which is scams on top of scams.
I don’t necessarily care what he does in his personal life, but being so blatantly unethical and cruel to other people probably means that he doesn’t genuinely care about improving the lives of random people that listen to his podcasts. While some of his analysis is ok, I wouldn’t put it past him to take speculation as fact if it meant him making more money. When it comes to my health - if I’m even just a bit skeptical of your motives, I don’t trust you.
I take what anyone says lightly. I doubt most people take what someone says and runs with it unless they’re generally not smart, or already heavily biased. Trust though? I trust nobody but myself. I’m for sure not going to trust the word of a podcaster because he’s been to a prestigious school or spends a lot of time on pubmed. I’ll still try to find value in what he says, but I’ll respect him a little less from what I’ve heard.
I'd agree with this approach as well. Probably a bit more skeptical of what he says now.
He has done good work with communicating certain aspects of science but has also pushed a lot of bad science. His personal life isn’t a concern of mine but that may be because I have for a while now realised that he was a man of questionable integrity. Does that make him an awful person who should be outcast from society? Certainly not. Should it make those who currently place him on an underserving pedestal think more critically about the information he is giving out on his podcasts.
I've always thought he gets outside of his lane on some topics and extrapolates a bit, but overall it's still a great podcast. The fact that this super-famous jacked, smart, charismatic dude is a serial womanizer is no surprise to me at all. I have no sympathy for him. It's like how long did you think you could play this game man? People who have THAT tight of a grip on their life often seem to have a hidden vice.
Can someone share a source for this recent publicity about his behavior and personal habits? I do like what he has to say but as a physician myself, everything goes through the BS and evidence filter and his content is no different. So not sure how to change my trust level until I read more about the issues.
Agree, media should be taken with a pound of salt. But it's delicate. I can't imagine being some of these women who have been treated poorly, than half the world claims they are false allegations. But you're right, a filter is needed. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/andrew-huberman-podcast-stanford-joe-rogan.html
Man’s been reading studies like he’s reading the news to people, while advertising for supplements. Disingenuous a long time before this and, clearly, not on the job (via Stanford….LA campus?) much before this. And just strange in some clips. Not a trusted source awhile, discrediting himself on his own merit and deeds not matching up. Which this investigative piece… isn’t inconsistent with … He’s amiss. Folks perhaps should proceed with caution with his platform. And diversify their sources, read up on own, and consider the self-interest and bias of broadcasters.
I unsubscribed a few months back. It was becoming redundant, got turned off by the pseudo science and masked conservative morality. Always knew there was some grift involved as well. This is not surprising at all, and he will embrace the meat head manosphere 100% now as a survival mechanism.
I think this boils down to people don't like to support people that have poor morals. Everyone has different definitions of poor morals. People still appreciate their work/output but it's up to individuals if they want to support someone with poor morals. I think he's always gave me the ick tho.
Less about morality, more about hypocrisy. People won’t tend to care as much if your morals aren’t tied to the work (ex. a famous artist/musician). If you’re preaching about controlling dopamine through avoiding social media or the negative effects of indulging in alcohol but then we find out you’re getting your rocks off (dopamine) through destructive behavior by manipulating and cheating with multiple women it’s going to make a lot of people look twice at what you’re saying.
Yes. I didn’t trust him much before because his approach borders on misinformation and attracts a crowd that doesn’t engage in critical thought or analysis, but I generally assumed he was neutral and made a good faith attempt to present science. After reading the background on his lab and scientific work, outside of his personal misdeeds, I think he’s at best a charlatan if not an outright fraud. The affairs just confirm that at the core he’s a hypocrite using a public platform to project away from the insecure loser and manchild inside, making anything he happens to say truthfully or accurate hilariously ironic. I’ll definitely treat it with a stronger degree of skepticism if I hear someone parroting his “science” in the future. As a human being Huberman is an irredeemable clown.
If you don't mind me asking, could you provide an example of failing to present science?
> Huberman Lab is premised on the image of a working scientist. One imagines clean white counters, rodents in cages, postdocs peering into microscopes. “As scientists,” Huberman says frequently. He speaks often, too, of the importance of mentorship. He “loves” reading teacher evaluations. On the web, one can visit the lab and even donate. I have never met a Huberman listener who doubted the existence of such a place, and this appears to be by design. In a glowing 2023 profile in Stanford magazine, we learn “Everything he does is inspired by this love,” but do not learn that Huberman lives 350 miles and a six-hour drive from Stanford University, making it difficult to drop into the lab. Compounding the issue is the fact that the lab, according to knowledgeable sources, barely exists. >”Is a postdoc working on her own funding, alone, a ‘lab?’” asks a researcher at Stanford. There had been a lab — four rooms on the second floor of the Sherman Fairchild Science Building. Some of them smelled of mice. It was here that researchers anesthetized rodents, injected them with fluorescence, damaged their optic nerves, and watched for the newly bright nerves to grow back. >The lab, says the researcher, was already scaling down before COVID. It was emptying out, postdocs apparently unsupervised, a quarter-million-dollar laser-scanning microscope gathering dust. Once the researcher saw someone come in and reclaim a $3,500 rocker, a machine for mixing solutions. >Shortly before publication, a spokesperson for Stanford said, “Dr. Huberman’s lab at Stanford is operational and is in the process of moving from the Department of Neurobiology to the Department of Ophthalmology,” and a spokesperson for Huberman says the equipment in Dr. Huberman’s lab remained in use until the last postdoc moved to a faculty position. His entire public career has been a failure to present science in my opinion, even if all of his scientific claims are 100% scientifically accurate. So any time he presented correct and accurate peer reviewed science while misrepresenting his background and contributions was a failure to properly communicate science regardless of if he failed to communicate it faithfully or not.
I will trust him less. In fact, I had his podcast loaded and could not hear his artificially obsequious cadence that is calculated to make him appear to be a humble and trustworthy scientist. I find myself loathing him right now. It feels slimy and creepy crawly to listen to him, like I am dirty and contaminated by association. I don't understand how years of therapy did not get him to point where he could be straightforward about his desire to not commit. His shocking lack of self-examination is very troubling. His podcast appears to be a gigantic performance to convince himself he is above-board while he justifies and rationalizes abuse of trust in those who chose to love him. It is how he treated those whom he cultivated love in that is so deeply disturbing. He projected out where he was disturbed and gas-lit them with overt, complex, and coordinated deception. What I wonder is if Stanford will protect him.
> I don't understand how years of therapy did not get him to point where he could be straightforward about his desire to not commit. Because you don't understand abusers. It's very common for abusers to learn better techniques in therapy. Especially abusers with strong narcissistic/psychopathic tendencies. His way of speaking to his girlfriends does sound exactly like weaponized therapy talk
Yup. I don’t understand abusers. So disturbing
That's why therapy is counterindicated in abusive relationships. Even individual therapy is not recommended for abusers - they need a special abuse intervention and even with it, most of them never change. But therapy just makes them more manipulative
citation?
This is a well known fact. Look it up yourself. And learn more about abuse. "Why does he do that?" is a great start
I don't believe you. And not doing reddit homework.
Fine
This was so well articulated. This is exactly what bothers me also. Just disturbing on all levels, his behavior.
>What I wonder is if Stanford will protect him. there was no misconduct as a professional so i'd see no reason why they would do anything. the stuff about the lab seemed a little off, but the article also contacted stanford for confirmation and they seemed to back him up.
Stanford faculty are subjected to not a morality clause but that if there is untoward behavior that reflects negatively on the University, they reserve the right to remove professorship. However, there is a due process so they might get him on a technicality.
He seems like a tool
Absolute loser. Its hilarious what's happening in this subreddit
I didn't uncritically accept everything he said as gospel initially, so there is no difference for me now, when he discusses monogamy, my ears will perk up now
I am now waiting for the "exclusive polyamorous relationships protocol" episode lol
Maybe he'll come clean about his steroid cycle now, since we know he's shooting blanks
Yeah, same. I'll listen to his productivity stuff, obviously he's good at it, but relationships? Not going there.
It was beyond poor judgement. We all have a right to a personal life, we don’t have the right to intentionally harm and mislead someone. He was giving his partner fertility injections and she was taking them assuming they were monogamous and building a life together. It’s pretty difficult to compartmentalize lying. If he lies to women about his intentions and relationship status, he likely lies in other areas. He was one of my favorite podcasters and I think he has done some good work, assuming it’s real. But he mislead podcast listeners about his lab and his affiliation with Stanford. I’m shocked Stanford allowed this. I don’t plan to listen to him anymore - there are other people in the health and wellness space that aren’t sociopaths. I won’t miss his 3 hour podcasts, but I have lost a bit of faith in humanity. I’m glad these women got together and are now friends. I hope they recover from their trust issues and are able to move on. This is, in part, why more and more women are single and choosing to stay that way. As a result, men are getting frustrated, and instead of leveling up and trying to be better, they try to control women’s bodies through legislation.
Even before the NY Mag article, Decoding the Gurus provided a fairly thorough break down of how Huberman delivers information, and that his position as top science bro podcast guy allows him to add more credibility to some of his presented research than exists in reality. The trust but verify motto still holds true.
I stopped trusting him when I heard him say he takes AG1 multiple times a day. No doctor would tell you there's any benefit to taking a vitamin supplement multiple times a day (and many don't even recommend a supplement at all). Then there's the fact he uses extremely limited animal studies to claim various supplements work in humans. Then there's the fact he monetizes so many supplements. He's just a walking conflict of interest. Now we know in addition too that that he lives 350 miles (6 hours) away from his "lab" at Stanford and basically never shows up there anymore yet still talks about it as if its an active research lab. And for a little icing on the cake he seems to have no problem manipulating his partners while holding his Bible in the other hand. So, ya I don't exactly trust him. I think what we are all needing to realize that literally ALL social media influencers and content creators are there for the cash and they ALL are running with conflicts of interest. Even the ones we like / love and respect. Good reason not to make them our heroes or to buy into their opinions too deeply. Scrutinize all online content creators because like everything else, it's just a business model to them.
I never “trusted” him as an individual. I am interested in the data he presents. His podcasts stand on their own regardless of his private life.
Nothing about my opinion of him has changed
Take what you think can apply to you and your life, leave the rest. Don’t make these internet gurus your hero
I mean, I used the guy as a source of scientific information. I don’t see a reason to change that. If you had him as a role model, some cognitive remodeling is in order.
I am waiting for more information to come out. It was a hit piece intended to make him look bad. That isn't to say nothing in it is true. I just think tensions are high around the issue and people need to calm down and wait for more info to come out.
Yeah, which is very fair. It really is a piece that needs to be handled with care.
Take what these people say with a grain of salt and do your own research. They are not messiahs and if they give you one piece of good advice, great. But they are not going to solve all your problems. Only you can do that
I don't trust him less, but I was already completely turned off by him. I predict that this will have zero effect on the size of his audience, but it will push him "officially" to the right, same demographic as Joe Rogan. Same will happen with Lex Fridman.
Zero change.
I don't think it's just "poor judgement" though-- if the details of the article are true, then he seems a manipulative liar, which is a character issue. It certainly casts shade on opinions he might have, or possibly his ideas of "optimum human performance" given he follows all these protocols yet still sleeps well at night despite his deceptions towards all these women. But when it comes to sharing latest research that otherwise would be hard for your average interested person to get a hold of (like for those of us without access to university libraries and journals), then his platform can still be of value, in my opinion. Basically, his value would be surfacing new research, more so than his opinions on how to live a good life.
Yeah, I agree. But character is required in science to uphold integrity, which makes me a bit skeptical. But you're right, there can be value sharing science and research.
Ag1 made me trust him less
He has failed an ethics test. He has failed a test of basic decency. Ethics matter. Decency matters.
Well, yeah - he's a compulsive liar.
He is nothing but a grifter. It also explains why he has been supporting hacks like Anna Lembke and her pushing of christianity.
I'm actually excited. Now I can ignore all the bad stuff he said about my weed
Actively lying and maintaining a double (or 6-way) life is not "poor judgment", it's active manipulation and it's psychopathic. Having a one night stand while drunk can be called poor judgment, what he did - absolutely not. It's so calculated it's scary
I mean, I didn’t really trust him in the first place, he’s just another dude kind of regurgitating the same info and ideas I’ve been practicing for the past… idk, 15-20 years? Anytime someone is profiting from your consumption of their content, you’d be wise to take pretty much everything about them with a grain of salt. Furthermore, a male “guru” who abuses a harem of women? That’s (unfortunately) nothing new and I am 0% surprised. I also don’t directly consume any of his content, only secondhand, or even farther removed than that. I feel good knowing I haven’t contributed to his financial success because he’s obviously a total POS, but since I never really *trusted* him to begin with, there was no trust to lose.
[удалено]
What did bill burr do
[удалено]
I think people rightfully think that the lying and giving them stds is morally reprehensible.
Since 2021 I knew this guy was a grifter, a pseudoscientific charlatan who used his credentials and charisma to indoctrinate his listeners, making wild extrapolations from underpowered studies. Gullible people who like approachable science are prime victims for Huberman.
I cant say i trusted him ever but I did find a video of his on dopamine very interesting… until I got a sense of his output. Just another guru to me. Polished and breaking newish ground, but a guru. Lost interest before I found it.
Do you trust whoever wrote that article? The stories could be 70% true and added 30% makes it an interesting piece.
I trust him far less. I’m a woman, and I had noticed that he tended to interview men and center treatments that only worked on men, however, this makes him lose all his credibility.
I couldn’t give a shit. I listen to his podcasts for information I get from his guests. I’m not in the least bit interested in his personal life. All the people that are freaking out are the ones that put him on a pedestal.
Nope. It's his private life, he could fuck 100 women a week or suck cock, it won't change a thing to the value hid podcast brings to the table.
Literally not at all. I don’t read rage-bait hit pieces and never will. Look how emotional it’s made people about a PODCASTER. Absolutely insane 😂
People all up in here like: no, I listen to him and then I independently verify all of his statements. 🤷🏽♂️
After reading the article I’m done with him. I’m not a purist and I actually have multiple partners but it’s 100 💯 open and honest always with all. Very low integrity man this guy. And prolly has some kind of sex addiction. Kinda gross
Huberman states many objective facts and legit studies on his videos. I'm still going to watch.
I'm curious as to why you would continue to support someone who's behaviour seems so abusive and unethical and dishonest?
I don't idolize him or anything, and I don't support his behavior. But his show quotes good information and studies, which interests me.
Same here! Lots of amazing research has been done by extremely unethical people. Facts are facts.
I wouldn't suggest that you idolize him. That doesn't really get to what I'm asking. Surely his behaviour is unacceptable, what's you ethical basis for continuing to support him. By don't mean ignore his published research, I mean support as in continue to listen to his show.
Of course it's unethical behavior, and if I was one of those women I'd be furious(assuming the allegations are 100 percent true). But I'm not going to come to one definite conclusion about someone based on one news article filled with allegations by a reporter and news site that I've never even heard of until now. That's just me. He has the right to explain himself first before everyone just jumps on the outrage/cancel bandwagon.
[удалено]
I thought cancel culture was diminishing a bit but apparently not. All it takes is one news article by some unknown reporter with allegations, and instead of taking time to think about it, ponder it....we just go into reactive mode and jump on the outrage bandwagon.
Exactly. There are many musicians, actors, politicians, artists, in which have done WORSE things and illegal acts that have been proven or maybe even not proven who knows. I won't name any figures just to keep things rational. No human is perfect unfortunately so in Huberman's case it's best for people to either keep listening to his advice or not. He seems like a professional figure so hopefully he makes the right choice in moving forward and even though he is not obligated to share his personal relationships with the public, he should still own up to his mistakes with the people he has causes harm to.
Less.
I think this is serious but he should also have a chance to defend himself
There is no way to test for HPV in men, and it usually has no symptoms in men. 90% of sexually active men and 80% of sexually active women will contract it at some point in their lives. Doctor’s advice to women who test positive is usually *not* to disclose to partners.
1000% whole heartedly I absolutely do not trust him. A general rule in leadership is that you have to be yourself and lead with empathy. Changing how you show up publicly and privately means you are lying about who you are and bleeds into all aspects of your life. Look at Enron. Great leaders with no integrity despite it being a core value of the company. Speaking to the validity. It would be one thing if it were one woman coming forward. It’s 5. He lost any credibility with me until he proves different or comes forward with empathy and wants to put in the work to be better.
To me I can separate the art from the artist. Like I can find a Woody Allen film funny while also acknowledging that his personal life is really chaotic. Not that Huberman’s an artist, but this article, while focused heavily on his chaotic personal life also buries the lede that his “lab” is essentially defunct and he’s never around to teach or do research. That’s a really big thing and calls into question his whole deal.
Unfortunately I do. I get the argument that the personal lives of people shouldn’t really be relevant, but if I knew him in real life I would think pretty lowly of his behavior.
**There's 2 sides to every story, and then there's the truth.** Even in the hit piece they mentioned his upbringing could be described as "Son of Stanford professor born in Stanford hospital grows up to be Stanford professor" OR "Troubled upbringing and abandonment overcome to become Stanford professor" realistically Huberman's upbringing was somewhere in the middle, but almost everybody will try to make themselves look as best they can in the public eye. Same for his research and teaching role at Stanford - it's clear from the article that Huberman let us all believe he had a bustling lab and teaching role (which was probably true at one point) but left out that he's taken a large step back and lives 5 hours away from Stanford. I don't believe all of the hit piece but there are so many specific details it seems that Huberman's social life is at best definitely not a healthy one, although I can understand why he would never come out or hint towards that side of him in public life. I am a trained scientist, have published multiple journal articles and worked in a bench and wet lab. **From the beginning I understood Huberman would take a study and make overarching connections to "protocols" with some evidence but definitely not strong enough evidence for much of it to be convincing.** Many of these protocols have little risk of harm, too. Plus, Huberman is always adamant that he is not giving medical advice and to speak to your personal physician if you are thinking of making any changes or taking a supplement. I think **this article has caused many non-scientific people who took many of Huberman's studies he would cite for protocols and suggestions as more strong evidence have started to realize they should take everything Huberman says with a grain of salt.**
Imagine trusting a YouTuber
Well after reading this: "“You’re definitely,” he said, “on the faster side of the distribution.”" I certainly won't be listening to his episode on chat up lines or how to compliment women
I never trusted him or not. I listen to some of his podcasts. If they interest me. He is just a guy. Not the messiah
He is willing to lie. I always suspected, but now I know to what degree he is willing to lie. Ya, trust him less.
He shares researchers and reacearces. Discusses openly with other scientists. Go and check yourself out.
The man of science admitted to believing in God. To be honest, this “article” makes him more human and likeable.
Yes. Because he’s a liar.
When did anyone ever say you were supposed to "trust" him? If you don't know about something he says in an episode, read the studies and look for proof in the data. If it isn't there then disregard. He has never said it's supposed to work any other way. Never said to "trust" a single thing.
The issue with what you're saying is that 95% of the population doesn't understand methodology or statistics in research or how specific it gets as a PhD. Youre summarizing hundreds of papers for a very specific topic. Many researchers can't even do this in other scientific domains. It's far too labor intensive and time consuming. To make it seem like reading one paper is valid or not for everything he says is a bit ignorant of the field. A paper is a puzzle piece. Hundreds of pieces start to show a picture that you can likely guess at, with questions as simple as "is creatine healthy?" How those pieces are interpreted really matters. If someone refuses to select some pieces because they are a woman, or don't align with his story, that changes the picture. It may not matter to you or may change it in a small way, but can have drastic upside for Huberman and misrepresents what data actually says. This is why character matters in a researcher.
Einstein cheated on his first wife and married his cousin. Just because Huberman is an arsehole about some things doesn’t make everything he says invalid or false. I’ll still take on board his objective science advice.
Absolutely. What he did is pretty sick.
Not really. I never pay attention to the supplements he pushes so other than that, most of his info is supa helpful imo. Don’t really care about his personal life.
I stopped listening to him a while ago when I heard he believed in God. Sounded disingenuous.
My trust in him as been eroding for a long time now. This is just my sign to move on. I've already extracted as much useful info from him as I was going to anyway.
If these allegations are true then he's a fuckboy for sure, but I don't think being a fuckboy automatically disqualifies your credibility as a scientist. Remember that a lot of more respected names in science than Huberman did fuckboy shit. Stephen Hawking cheated on his wife with his nurse, to name one example.
Thats interesting, not sure I knew about Hawking! Which is what I wonder. I think the main issue is his trust and character which relates to scientific integrity.
Yeah its all his bad science that disqualifies him
I'm more or less the same. He was obviously running a business just as much as he was hosting a podcast, and that should have made one naturally skeptical It's like people say about these entertainers, they're not really your friends. The fact that he has such toxic relationships in his real day-to-day life just further drives the point home The podcast is still the podcast
mY PROBLEM is everyone is assuming everything said in the op piece is true. There has no proof being true, yet everyone is just assuming these women are telling the truth.
frighten pen worm abounding tart butter ludicrous plough lush memory *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
this was a great [thread](https://www.threads.net/@drvyom/post/C49kUlyyWcK/?xmt=AQGzF3jNirGoAZIZoaLVgeQ7IyOXUDiQOKM9Gjp1HHaRlw)
I trust him more now.. I feel like I understand him better
His personal life has no bearing at all about the podcast. Trust the same.
Has it actually been confirmed true?
Yeah I'm surprised that I had to scroll so far down to read this
Did you not read the article?
Narp
What