I was not a podcast guy at all, but I stumbled upon Andrew Huberman a few months ago and wow, what an amazing source of information and it has helped me a lot while making conmutes and training sessions a lot less wasteful.
The thing is that, now that I basically have consumed all their catalogue, I feel the need for more.
I am very interested in science, backed-up self-improvement, open source stuff, and… Maybe, if it’s really well done I could enjoy some politics.
I mostly like to get informed and to grow. I have other sources for entertainment.
I would be wary of the beneficial claims of Huberman and his “lab”
https://slate.com/technology/2024/03/andrew-huberman-huberman-lab-health-advice-podcast-debunk.html
It was disappointing to go through the saga of thinking I found a semi reliable podcast regarding health and current research, to finding some weak episodes, and finally arriving at the conclusion that his methodology is sloppy at best. The Dr Lustig episode was especially egregious. He let that guy make some of the most outlandish claims that I’ve heard. He made up statements about how FDA nutrition labels are required which was easily dismissible by a quick look at the FDA website. That was more or less the final nail in the coffin for me.
The biggest indicator to the scientific weakness of his podcast is the rate of release. It is not possible to do weekly releases on the complex topics he covers AND maintain the level of scientific scrutiny required to vet the referenced research or guest.
Thousands of papers against a single article. Yeah, right.
To be honest, I would love to see him truly debunked. That would be incredibly useful. But so far science has his back, and as long as that keeps going, I am going to listen to what he says.
How many of these papers are peer reviewed? Can you show me medical studies with NIH funding and repeatable methods? Huberman uses the same principles as conservative think tanks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KuIFF-LCI4k
Thousands of papers mean nothing without rigor.
Also it’s not just one article
https://futurism.com/neoscope/neuroscientist-andrew-huberman-podcaster-behavior
https://www.unbiasedscipod.com/episodes/science-for-sale-huberman
https://www.acsh.org/news/2015/07/07/the-detrimental-effects-of-junk-science
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://m.piped.video/watch?v=KuIFF-LCI4k
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Okay so, half of those links have nothing to do with Huberman, so I am not going to bother commenting on those.
As per the other 2, one is about his personal life, which… Why should we give a f*ck? I don’t see how that is related to his podcasts; and the other link is a video where some scientists say “actually Huberman does a great job of bringing science to the masses, but of course some of the technicalities get lost when reducing things down”… Um…
So the only argument against Huberman is that some dumbf*cks may bypass his warnings about experimental treatments… So let’s ban science discussions in general… Right?
Still, I am not saying that his work is perfect. There are things I’ve seen in the podcast that I did not like (Zuckerberg’s one, for example), but that is the good thing about life, you know? You can like some parts and not the others.
Not seeing any of these papers you’re referring to. I’ll re-engage with this when you can provide sources and not personal anecdotes or opinion.
I don’t have to provide any source because Huberman has done it already for you.
Hidden Brain
Hidden Brain and Radiolab are both very engaging and educational.
