The Huberman Lab is one of my favourite podcasts. It's nerdy. I love the depth he goes into explaining concepts.
A year ago, I felt slightly disappointed when I looked into the sponsorship deals of him. But then, he is a podcaster, earning money. Sponsorships provide money. I sometimes have to remind myself that even when professionals are trying to be helpful, they need to earn $$$.
He is also human, not protected against bias, mistakes, prejudice, forgetfulness. He could be wrong too, and that's ok. All scientists, researchers, medical professionals can be wrong.
"We tend to look at science in quite an all-or-nothing way." Yes! Some people treat it like maths: 1 + 1 = 2 (always). Then, they get angry/disappointed when more evidence to support against a claim arrive after decades. Our findings and judgements only come from the available evidence we have. So, we don't know about a lot of things! We are trying to find out more and more about the human body. It's uncomfortable, but some things are inconclusive. There is either not enough evidence, or conflicting evidence.
Things get even more complicated when we look into timelines, doses and risk vs reward. Timelines: some things have no proven negative health effects in the short term, but some proven negative health effects in the long term. Doses: the classic "this is very toxic but because it is only found in small percentages in your food, it's ok." This one makes people paranoid. Risk vs reward: the "it's not the best as it could cause these side effects, but there are a lot of up sides to it." This is generally the drug or supplement discussion.
I still go back to personalised health. Just because a protocol works for the population average doesn't mean it will work for me. I try to wear a scientist's hat, form a hypothesis, get a comprehensive blood test done (or use a tracking device), try something new, see what changes. So, I'd use good podcasts for inspiration, rather than the absolute truth.
Also, love your research assistant! More distracting than helpful but it's ok.
Research gives us indications about how something might work but we never reach certainty. So perhaps there’s no other way than to make assumptions and mistakes along the way.
I agree with the idea of personalised care and experimenting, but even that can be flawed by the placebo effect and confirmation bias. And as you say, if we add the timeline (short-term vs long-term) into the equation, things get even harder to capture.
But podcasts like Huberman Lab a good starting point to learn and explore new ideas.
Thanks - my assistant usually sleeps on his job! 😂
Well summarised, Dino. I guess listening to an interesting podcast could be seen as the start of the research process, rather than the final step before implementing a protocol.
Thanks for this nuanced take. I love Huberman. His podcast helped me SO much at a time when I was struggling to manage my health. He does occasionally overstate the strength of some evidence or present theoretical framings as if there’s empirical evidence, as you laid out. But I agree with you that for the most part, his content is well-researched and very helpful.
I also think it’s important for individual listeners to distinguish between population-level evidence and n=1 evidence. When you hear of a protocol and try it out, you may or may not personally see a benefit. Science tends to be about averages, but how that applies to an individual will differ. So whether a protocol presented is evidence-based or theoretical (if based on solid theoretical foundations), does it matter that much in a practical sense if you have to do the n=1 experiment on yourself in any case?
As a science communicator myself, yeah I do think he could be more careful with his phrasing sometimes, but at the end of the day I think his podcast is a net positive to the world by a long margin.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Nami. I totally agree. Science can be very vague. Perhaps we need someone brave enough to simplify the complicated science into a straightforward protocol even at the risk of making mistakes?
But at the same time each protocol must be taken with a pinch of suspicion. As you say, we’re all different, and experimenting with protocols can be very helpful if we approach it with reflective mindset.
He’s definitely very passionate about what he does and I think this is part of the pull. It’s kind of exiting to listen to someone excited about the topic you’re excited about! But this makes it so easy to get overexcited!
As you say, being a science communicator is challenging. It’s hard to tell people “the truth” or “the advice”, because there is no one truth out there. I personally noticed it takes a lot of effort to ensure I only provide credible and checked information. We are human and some level of interpretation, excitement and anecdotal evidence should be more than expected. What are your thoughts?
I don’t have a fully baked argument on this so bear with me thinking out loud here:
I do think it’s important to communicate the strength/weakness of the evidence along with the protocol we’re suggesting. In that sense, I think the criticism towards Huberman is valid.
However, that doesn’t negate the fact that his content is largely useful and it’s helped a ton of people improve their lives.
Any protocol should always be tested by the individual. Even if there’s very strong evidence that something works in a RCT, it might not work for you specifically. So, strong scientific evidence and usefulness for the individual don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand. Let’s also not pretend that peer-reviewed published science is the “truth” - no experiment is flawless.
Also, sometimes, something that works for a lot of people just hasn’t been validated by the traditional western scientific method. Eastern medicine, for example, hasn’t been thoroughly studied under the western scientific paradigm, but it’s a result of thousands of years of accumulated knowledge and genuinely helps people in a way that western medicine sometimes cannot.
Also, from a practical perspective as a science communicator, there’s also the challenge that I can’t always go into the methodology of a study or other nitty gritties of the science. I’m writing for the layperson, not people who are formally trained in science, so I’d lose my readers’ interest if I get too technical. I’m sure Huberman struggles with the same thing.
I agree and I have similar thoughts. So basically: science is not perfect, there are individual and cultural differences, and not everything is researched or tested. Protocols can be useful, but as you say, each individual person should test and research the intervention and not just follow blindly. It will be interesting to see his new book "Protocols" coming out next week and how it's received by the world. Everything we discussed above is so relevant to how one interprets the book, which I am assuming will have quite a prescriptive nature.
The Huberman Lab is one of my favourite podcasts. It's nerdy. I love the depth he goes into explaining concepts.
A year ago, I felt slightly disappointed when I looked into the sponsorship deals of him. But then, he is a podcaster, earning money. Sponsorships provide money. I sometimes have to remind myself that even when professionals are trying to be helpful, they need to earn $$$.
He is also human, not protected against bias, mistakes, prejudice, forgetfulness. He could be wrong too, and that's ok. All scientists, researchers, medical professionals can be wrong.
"We tend to look at science in quite an all-or-nothing way." Yes! Some people treat it like maths: 1 + 1 = 2 (always). Then, they get angry/disappointed when more evidence to support against a claim arrive after decades. Our findings and judgements only come from the available evidence we have. So, we don't know about a lot of things! We are trying to find out more and more about the human body. It's uncomfortable, but some things are inconclusive. There is either not enough evidence, or conflicting evidence.
Things get even more complicated when we look into timelines, doses and risk vs reward. Timelines: some things have no proven negative health effects in the short term, but some proven negative health effects in the long term. Doses: the classic "this is very toxic but because it is only found in small percentages in your food, it's ok." This one makes people paranoid. Risk vs reward: the "it's not the best as it could cause these side effects, but there are a lot of up sides to it." This is generally the drug or supplement discussion.
I still go back to personalised health. Just because a protocol works for the population average doesn't mean it will work for me. I try to wear a scientist's hat, form a hypothesis, get a comprehensive blood test done (or use a tracking device), try something new, see what changes. So, I'd use good podcasts for inspiration, rather than the absolute truth.
Also, love your research assistant! More distracting than helpful but it's ok.
Some great thoughts Doa.
Science is surprisingly unscientific at times!
Research gives us indications about how something might work but we never reach certainty. So perhaps there’s no other way than to make assumptions and mistakes along the way.
I agree with the idea of personalised care and experimenting, but even that can be flawed by the placebo effect and confirmation bias. And as you say, if we add the timeline (short-term vs long-term) into the equation, things get even harder to capture.
But podcasts like Huberman Lab a good starting point to learn and explore new ideas.
Thanks - my assistant usually sleeps on his job! 😂
I think that's a good way to look at it. Listen, learn, but still do your own homework before taking every recommendation as fact.
Well summarised, Dino. I guess listening to an interesting podcast could be seen as the start of the research process, rather than the final step before implementing a protocol.
Thanks for this nuanced take. I love Huberman. His podcast helped me SO much at a time when I was struggling to manage my health. He does occasionally overstate the strength of some evidence or present theoretical framings as if there’s empirical evidence, as you laid out. But I agree with you that for the most part, his content is well-researched and very helpful.
I also think it’s important for individual listeners to distinguish between population-level evidence and n=1 evidence. When you hear of a protocol and try it out, you may or may not personally see a benefit. Science tends to be about averages, but how that applies to an individual will differ. So whether a protocol presented is evidence-based or theoretical (if based on solid theoretical foundations), does it matter that much in a practical sense if you have to do the n=1 experiment on yourself in any case?
As a science communicator myself, yeah I do think he could be more careful with his phrasing sometimes, but at the end of the day I think his podcast is a net positive to the world by a long margin.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Nami. I totally agree. Science can be very vague. Perhaps we need someone brave enough to simplify the complicated science into a straightforward protocol even at the risk of making mistakes?
But at the same time each protocol must be taken with a pinch of suspicion. As you say, we’re all different, and experimenting with protocols can be very helpful if we approach it with reflective mindset.
He’s definitely very passionate about what he does and I think this is part of the pull. It’s kind of exiting to listen to someone excited about the topic you’re excited about! But this makes it so easy to get overexcited!
As you say, being a science communicator is challenging. It’s hard to tell people “the truth” or “the advice”, because there is no one truth out there. I personally noticed it takes a lot of effort to ensure I only provide credible and checked information. We are human and some level of interpretation, excitement and anecdotal evidence should be more than expected. What are your thoughts?
I don’t have a fully baked argument on this so bear with me thinking out loud here:
I do think it’s important to communicate the strength/weakness of the evidence along with the protocol we’re suggesting. In that sense, I think the criticism towards Huberman is valid.
However, that doesn’t negate the fact that his content is largely useful and it’s helped a ton of people improve their lives.
Any protocol should always be tested by the individual. Even if there’s very strong evidence that something works in a RCT, it might not work for you specifically. So, strong scientific evidence and usefulness for the individual don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand. Let’s also not pretend that peer-reviewed published science is the “truth” - no experiment is flawless.
Also, sometimes, something that works for a lot of people just hasn’t been validated by the traditional western scientific method. Eastern medicine, for example, hasn’t been thoroughly studied under the western scientific paradigm, but it’s a result of thousands of years of accumulated knowledge and genuinely helps people in a way that western medicine sometimes cannot.
Also, from a practical perspective as a science communicator, there’s also the challenge that I can’t always go into the methodology of a study or other nitty gritties of the science. I’m writing for the layperson, not people who are formally trained in science, so I’d lose my readers’ interest if I get too technical. I’m sure Huberman struggles with the same thing.
I agree and I have similar thoughts. So basically: science is not perfect, there are individual and cultural differences, and not everything is researched or tested. Protocols can be useful, but as you say, each individual person should test and research the intervention and not just follow blindly. It will be interesting to see his new book "Protocols" coming out next week and how it's received by the world. Everything we discussed above is so relevant to how one interprets the book, which I am assuming will have quite a prescriptive nature.