AnUser
#23
Yes, but the arguments are not invalid because you or someone is biased, that’s my point. You just evaluate the arguments and the evidence, not bring up someone’s bias as if it matters.
ng0rge
#24
Ever heard of “conflict of interest”?
jnorm
#25
Exactly. There’s a reason scientific and medical research is peer-reviewed. Even if the researchers are brilliant and credible, there still needs to be an unbiased review of the evidence and conclusions.
Sure, that process may not be perfect, but it exists for a reason. If a commercial product’s most credible proponent is being paid to advertise it, then that’s an enormous problem. People have no issue applying this logic to Sinclair or Stephenie Venn-Watson and Attia should be no different.
1 Like
AnUser
#26
You’re going to want peer review on Peter Attia liking the Oura ring?
1 Like
jnorm
#27
It’s an analogy, stop being a gremlin.
1 Like
AnUser
#28
Right, let’s hear the non-analogy then.
I found it striking, listening to this podcast, how uninformed Huberman was on the research behind NAD, sirtuins, etc. Sounded like he was hearing this old established research for the first time. Especially since he is the the host of the episode, a PhD scientist, and is the one blindly taking NMN. It’s unfortunate, but I’ve lost most of my respect for him in the longevity space. He sounded foolish talking about NMN increasing his hair growth and vague references to inflammation without backing any of it up with any citations. The contrast to Attia couldn’t have been greater. Like a grown up talking to a naive child.
4 Likes
I hate to be lazier than usual, but can anyone summarize why Attia is taking each of these?
hitch
#31
Agreed. I’ve listened to several Attia/Huberman podcasts.
To me, it always sounds like the professor explaining things to the freshman.
3 Likes
Sinclair has repeatedly lied and hyped up or misrepresented his own research. Attia consistently provides well-reasoned guidance based on good evidence, and course-corrects when new information becomes available.
We don’t know whether Attia is aware of the evidence that Athletic Greens appears to have been founded by a fraudster. We also don’t know that he’s being compensated in any way for his many mentions that he uses AG1, though he is an investor. His disclosure page insists that he is not compensated for promoting any product, though that is hard to square with the revelations in his Oura lawsuit.
He doesn’t list it on his disclosures page, so it would appear not.
1 Like
Yes. Huberman is remarkably non-credible: he regularly asserts incorrect things in an articulate and confident manner that makes you think he is a font of knowledge. His discussion with Attia on saturated fat and dietary cholesterol vs. apoB and CVD in an earlier podcast was face-palming.
6 Likes
Attia specifically says at the end of the podcast that he has no interest in Pendulum.
2 Likes
I beg to differ, this happens all the time… Mostly by selective presentation of evidence and omitting counter evidence.
2 Likes
“Scott Carney, Investigative journalist, anthropologist and New York Times bestselling author”
An exposé of online video gurus.
This is a very worthwhile video to watch, especially for those who look to various YouTube gurus and podcasters for guidance. Regardless of their number of Ph.Ds or what universities they attended, they must be greeted with a healthy degree of skepticism.
YouTube videos and most social media platforms are places where these gurus use their influence to gather followers and monetize their videos.
I have no axe to grind with Huberman, but he is perhaps the poster child for the hypocrisy of online video gurus.
Just remember that these influencers use these videos to make money. So, take everything they say with a healthy degree of skepticism.
4 Likes
I agree. I admit that I liked Huberman at first. He told me what I wanted to know. Too bad it wasn’t true.
Here is my learned rule about the internet:
The most attractive headlines come from people who don’t know what they are talking about or are willing to exaggerate the certainty and simplicity of their advice. I no longer click on the headline that promises to tell me the exact thing I wanted to know unless it comes from kaeberlein, Seheult (medcram), verhoeven (physionic), dr Loh, Lennon (sigma), Patrick (foundmyfitness)….plus other shows when they have a known reliably cautious and knowledgeable guests.
4 Likes
jakexb
#39
I’m not sure where I come down on Huberman or others, but I will say there is a whole cottage industry devoted to making these “takedown” videos that pick a popular podcaster or blogger and giving them the Dateline treatment, making them look terrible. It’s a great way to get a ton of views and a make a lot of money, piggybacking off all the fans and the haters of an already well-known person.
1 Like
IMO: That video is not unfair at all. He just shows Huberman and others’ hypocrisy and uses their own videos to show why we should not trust them.
1 Like
True but its easy to pick apart the BS that the most popular influencers spew. I’d say this phenomenon is a good and natural reaction to the exaggeration tendencies that the internet encourages. Perhaps it will help slow down the tribal instincts based on faith instead of facts.
I learned the hard way to seek disconfirming information. If I only look for data that supports what I already think I will find it and learn nothing.
4 Likes
mccoy
#42
My take on Hubermann is that he seems to be pretty erudite and reliable in ophthalmology, whereas on other things he’s not reliable and needs strict confirmation. In a couple of instances, I have realized he sometimes says inaccuracies or just what he thinks, without underlining that what he says is just his opinion, not evidence.
In the following post by one of the top experts of coffee, Hubermann’s affirmations on timing of drinking coffee seem to have been refuted, at least in a preliminary experiment with a limited sample.
2 Likes
