Andrew Huberman Has Supplements on the Brain

This article feels a bit harsh. I recently started listening to him and my main complaint about him is that he can be boring. 4 hours about breathing and the correct way to breathe and I didn't feel like I understood what to take away from it at the end. I would need to go back and listen again and take detailed notes.

The thing he lacks is the ability to summarize.

I think he himself is a person who takes a lot of supplements and is looking for an edge in whatever way it comes. Maybe breathing a special way or ice showers or whatever. All that stuff feels like way past the basics that most listeners need to learn about. The best stuff I learned from him was basics, like alcohol is never good for you. And it's bad in low amounts in lots of subtle ways. That message will improve lives.

I hope he doesn't hit the doctor Oz spiral but it doesn't seem like he has so far.

This reads like there’s an agenda and the author isn’t looking at the balance of Huberman’s content objectively at all.

The podcast repeatedly, almost relentlessly advises putting sleep, socializing, movement, and diet above all else (unless a situation warrants immediate remedy of course). He frequently suggests not taking supplements to address issues that foundational self-care should address first. He warns against taking many supplements, urging people to experiment carefully, reminding listeners that biology varies and people will experience varying results. There are no silver bullets.

The guy puts breathing, yoga nidra, and morning light exposure on a pedestal. My takeaway from listening to almost every single episode has never been to take more supplements.

Sure he is sponsored by people who sell them. Yes he takes them. My experience is that this is transparent and not foisted on listeners as the holy grail of health and performance.

Huberman recently interviewed someone that I consider to be the real deal, Andy Galpin, and it was a very interesting series of 6 episodes. I don't listen to a lot of Huberman, but during these long conversations I've learned about the incredible amount of things he take. Of special note was a "sleep cocktail", a mix of several supplements. Stuff pre and post workout, for this function or this other function, I don't know if it was every cataloged but I wouldn't be surprised if we're talking about ~30 different supplements.

Anyway, Huberman and Galpin were talking, and Huberman super interested in all sorts of things Galpin would recommend, and Galpin then says "My objective is to get you OFF supplements long term, fixing the foundational problems instead of the symptoms" - I found some transcription online here https://podscript.ai/podcasts/huberman-lab-podcast/guest-ser... around the 01:53:06 mark.

I think it's easy to miss in a +3 hour conversation about supplements someone actually saying: Long term you shouldn't need this stuff. So friendly reminder how supplementation is one of last things you should consider when trying to improve performance.

PS: Athletic Greens (which I tried for 3 months) is more like 99 since at least for California you need to add +20 for shipping. Interesting, I decided to try based on this review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJOo78NiFI - and stopped because it didn't do much for me.

Hmm I listened to about 2 dozens of his podcasts and I feel like the author is really putting a lot of focus on something that I didn’t feel was nearly as emphasised as this post makes it seem. The vast majority of info I think is about behavioural things and processes inside of us and I think him relentlessly reminding us to always check with our health care providers first before taking or stopping to take anything is enough of a preface for me to be alright with him talking about supplements. And while I appreciate the callout of him citing low quality data (albeit I haven’t checked myself who is in the wrong here), I would also like to point to the fact that most of the other interventions he talks about do in fact have lots of proven benefits and are widely recognised as such. Another questions would be the baseline we are comparing him to. I have two friends who have dramatically improved their lives after stumbling upon his podcast and I also took away quite a few practices that had a positive impact on my life. If that is the mean effect I am ok with embracing a few imperfections in the data he cites or the supplements he recommends since a lot of people start with a baseline of shitty self destructive behaviour consuming all sorts of really damaging stuff.

My response to this is rather neutral. As a long-time follower of Huberman, I can attest that he consistently delivers valuable information. Each episode is akin to a college-level biology lecture.

When you closely listen to his advice (and I'm paraphrasing), he suggests first getting your life in order (focusing on proper light exposure, sleep, exercise, and diet), followed by seeking behavioral modifications, and only then considering supplementation or pharmaceuticals.

The critique regarding his sponsors is legitimate. However, one should consider that producing this content is not free for Huberman, as he spends at least ten hours a week of his own time working on it, and it's reasonable for him to want to monetize his efforts.

That being said, I did try AG1 based on his recommendation (he claims to have used it daily since 2012). My significant other and I tested it for a month (costing over $160) and experienced no noticeable improvements. It's worth noting that I already take Spirulina and other supplements, so my experience may be an outlier, but neither of us felt any tangible benefits.

I've liked Huberman's podcasts, I think that sometimes he has some really useful info... but I'm getting increasingly concerned about all of the products he's hawking for sponsors. Most are dietary supplements. Athletic Greens is one product he's been advertising for a while - I saw a review of AG on a YouTube channel (they didn't mention Huberman) and their conclusion was that at best it was way over priced and probably will have no effect other than placebo.

The gotcha / sneering style harms something I otherwise agree with.

For example, Ashwagandha is something I've been putting into daal curry for years; it has been a part of Indian cuisine forever. Not that you'd know by the style it is conveyed in; there must be a word for this style of dishonesty, where you purposely hide context to inflate the danger.

It's a shame because most supplements are clearly not necessary.

Firstly, I disagree with the core premise of the article. What Huberman does is worthy of applause and respect; I've watched about 20 videos of his, and I've never had the impression he pushes supplements on people. On the contrary, he sometimes even acknowledges people that prefer not to take supplements and says that's a completely reasonable stance as well. His job is informative, and he only recommends what he actually takes and has experimented with.

Secondly, I often find it useful to regard The Huberman Lab (his podcast) as a natural extension of his teaching at Stanford. He just goes as deep as he can, mentioning papers, and getting into the actual science of things, because he's a geek and a passionate researcher first and foremost.

I see some people complain he's too boring. I disagree; the problem is people expect that learning is supposed to be a light and fun exercise. The thing is, true learning takes time and a lot of effort. Otherwise, you'll just forget about what you're learning. When you listen to Huberman you might need to take notes and re-watch episodes to fully get a mental model of the things he talks about. If you just want tips and suggestions: sure, listen to it casually. But if you want to be in a position where you can precisely explain to someone why a certain intervention or practice is good, then expect to put in the time.

Personally, I even prefer reading the transcripts and taking notes instead of listening to him, though often I would only do that after I'm determined to learn deeply about a topic and I've watched a list part of the episode. Here's a list of resources you can use to read transcripts:

1. https://www.hubermantranscripts.com (powered by ChatGPT, it has search, and does episode summaries) 2. https://www.steno.ai/huberman-lab 3. https://podscript.ai/podcasts/huberman-lab-podcast/

Paraphrasing, but

"Filter the things I'm professing through the lens of your own research and conversations with your doctor"

is something Huberman has said often in his early podcasts I've listened to. I'm an adult and I'm happy to trade my attention for free information that I know may be biased due to his sponsors or even wrong due to a bad read on The Literature. Still, if I were to act on any of his advice, I would do so knowing that it's ultimately my responsibility to evaluate and vett the info. Which is no different to how I would think a reasonable person should approach info from any source.

That said, this article definitely reads like a hit piece as another commenter mentioned. Quite a bit of loaded language and associations. I think if you call yourself a 'pseudoscience buster', you have probably established some incentives and now everything looks like a nail.

Engagement farming 101: 1. find something a lot of people like or are interested in

2. Dis on it in a public platform, usually a blog post or twitter thread, or a news article

3. Profit from the attention you get by riling up people from group in step 1

It's a bit of a hit-job on Dr Huberman, and the final sentence is probably too harsh, comparing Huberman's support of supplementation to Andrew Wakefield and the Autism-Vaccine lie.

However, I am surprised by the state of the supplements market, and that there is no way to reliably know what you are taking.

Athletic Greens doesn't even try to suggest what amounts of different vitamins you get in a serving, apparently they just say it is a "proprietary blend".

There is a "Know Drugs" platform for tracking safety of recreational drugs, I believe another platform exists, I'm not sure about the space as I'm not a user.

I'm surprised a similar platform doesn't exist for supplements. How difficult is it to test for the amounts of vitamins and minerals in a supplement, say if you had access to a university laboratory?

His content suffers from the library size being large. I doubt in one sitting he’d suggest everything to a person all at once. I have adopted my own “stack” which works for me and many of the items I take work for me. So should anyone else who is interested in supplements. They should start slow and try to measure what works. They should periodically take breaks.

Or... maybe the guy is just interested in experimenting with supplements.

This article seems to be implying something that just isn't there in my perception.

The writer of the article clearly wants to put negative light on Huberman and in general frightens readers away from taking responsibility for their own health. The tone is suggesting not to waste money on vitamins or minerals or supplements, unless proven deficient. You even put yourself in danger if you do so!

That's exactly what we expect from a Big Pharma sponsored university.

1. When he talks about supplements, it's mostly accomplied by discussion of peer-reviewed papers about the supplements.

2. Supplements and medicine converge in some ways - for instance, the line between "refined fish oil supplements" and "Vascepa, the FDA-approved medicine" is blurring.

3. The future of science is rooted in the educated hypotheses of scientists.

I don't think Huberman has a dark agenda focused on supplements behind his contents, but I do wish he would find a pill he could take that make him record shorter podcast episodes.

I read the first two paragraphs, and although they are presented neutrally I knew this was going to be a negative article.

> Combining the calm delivery and pared-down wardrobe of a Sam Harris with the more imposing physique of a Joe Rogan

> The aesthetics of Huberman’s show are that of masculine minimalism.

Such weird comments.

I do agree with some of this article though... I don't really follow Huberman, but I have seen a couple of his podcasts on YouTube. I also found the personalised advertising of supplements and health services quite distasteful. If it was a simple "sponsored by Athletic Greens" then fine, but reading an elaborate script about how much he personally loves Athletic Greens is a bit questionable given his credentials.

The actual information he presentee in the episodes I listened to seemed mostly fine though. Not perfect, but way better than most content on health and nutrition on the internet. Perhaps the quality has dropped more recently or something.

Jelly pretend-journalism at its finest.

Such a negative take on supplements in 2023 is really behind. They frequently make huge, positive differences to peoples' lives.

(Disclaimer: I have no idea what the author's political views are, so my comment is not about the author & his article specifically but rather about a general phenomenon I have come across various times.)

> Even though his podcast is firmly rooted in the masculine space of “body optimization”

While there's no doubt that self-optimization topics seem to attract more men than women, why is it that people who are into gender, equality and "toxic masculinity" topics – and, for the sake of this argument, let's assume the author is one of them – always have to put a label on everything, such as "This is male, this is female." They seem to be falling into exactly the trap they are criticizing.

The author goes on to say:

> Huberman is a lot less “bro-ey” than his fellow influencers. There’s a real gentleness and care to his delivery. The packaging is less aggressive, but the content does not stray far from Silicon Valley’s love affair with the tweaking of healthy human biology.

Ah, so gentleness is not associated with masculinity, but aggressiveness is, got it. Ergo, women must be gentle but not aggressive. Oh and "body optimization" is clearly not for females.

Why are they reinforcing the same stereotypes[0] they are fighting? Why can't we simply say

> While body optimization influencers often come across as aggressive and demonstrate little care for their delivery, Huberman's podcast…

? There, gender stereotypes and labels avoided.

[0]: I am aware that studies indicate that there is some truth to this specific stereotype in that – on average – men are more non-agreeable, women a bit less so (i.e. more agreeable). But this is a statistical average – an individual's personality traits can be far away from the average, and so I think stereotypes like "X is clearly male, and Y is clearly female" are doing us a disservice. Can't we all just be individuals?