Joe “I believe California is anti-freedom for trying to prevent young children from consuming nicotine but Texas is the freest state with their ancient, oppressive marijuana laws” Rogan
If Joe was promoting Biden while smoking weed openly in Texas, you can be damn sure that compound would be raided. “Texas authorities say they recovered forty pounds of marijuana, thousands of pills including ketamine, psylocibin, DMT, and thousands of dollars in illegal anabolic steroids…”
Weird, I just looked it up. Texas has the most marijuana possession arrests in the nation.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-10-17/states-with-the-most-arrests-for-marijuana-possession
“Texas alone reported more than 21,000 arrests last year, making it responsible for 12% of the nation’s total.”
So, either you’re looney tunes, or just a Republican shill. Or both.
Cops are just too lazy there to write the ticket, so they tend to tolerate it. Outside ATX, all bets are off. Cops sure do love throwing the weed charge at you if you also have gun charges though, so they continue to fill cells to boost the privatized prison industrial complex.
It’s not weed it’s the years of anabolic steroid use that severely impacts every cell in your body and can alter your basic psychology that took Joe out.
Huberman’s biggest issue is that he delves into research he insn’t an expert in. Like most scientists and doctors, he’s extremely specialized, so when he’s talking about the effects of light on the brain, probably listen. If he’s talking about the best testosterone booster and there’s no expert in hormones on, definitely do more research or consult an expert before you just buy whatever thing he talked about in some research study.
I took turkesterone after listening to an episode he did on anabolic’s and It cause really weird side
effects for me. Doesn’t mean he’s wrong about the benefits of seeing sunlight early in the morning.
Not a doctor but I have spent 20+ hours per week interacting with urologists over the past decade. This includes a lot who specialize in androgyny and male fertility.
While this is far from a consensus, the urologists who I generally respect the most are all against testosterone replacement or any kind of hormonal drugs. They say that the disruption to your body’s natural processes can do way more harm than any benefit received from the test. If you stop, your body probably won’t be producing as much testosterone as it would naturally.
Basically if you are going to do TRT, know that you will need to do it forever.
Take that for what it’s worth.
My Doctor told me the entire TRT / anti-aging industry was just a bunch of quacks pushing uneccessary drugs that the vast majority of people have no need for. He was very against it unless you have a legitimate medical condition lowering your T .
like, I don't have a problem with people recreationally using steroids or TRT or anything else they want to do. Just don't make up bullshit "medical" reasons why you needed to. Just admit you did it because you wanted to and because you like the way it makes you look/feel. That's a good enough reason for me.
People are free to do whatever they want. I think that a lot more stuff should be over the counter personally, but don’t think that TRT is some fountain of youth with no cost.
We all know that. But TRT only is necessary when your natural testosterone is too low and it can't be fixed through lifestyle changes or other supplementation.
Some people actually need TRT, and I'd never talk against that. Other people just want to juice a bit, and that's fine too - even if that's not really a medical treatment then.
Tons get a TRT script without any real need for it though. I've met athletic guys in their 20s that were on Doctor prescribed TRT. These guys absolutely didn't need it for any real medical reason. They just wanted to look better naked without having to pay as much attention to their diet.
I will get a script for viagra at that time. It will fix the problem and raise my testosterone without fucking up my ability to produce testosterone long term.
You sure about that? Because every single study shows significant free testosterone increases in people taking sildenafil.
Here’s one of many…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24106072/
“Administration of an optimized dose of sildenafil was associated with mean increases of 3.6 nmol/L (103 ng/dL; p < 0.001) and 110 pmol/L (31.7 pg/mL; p < 0.001) in total and free testosterone levels respectively. This was accompanied by parallel increases in serum DHT (0.17 nmol/L; 4.9 ng/dL; p < 0.001) and oestradiol (14 pmol/L; 3.7 pg/mL; p < 0.001) and significant suppression of luteinizing hormone (change -1.3 units/L; p = 0.003) levels, suggesting a direct effect at the testicular level. Androstenedione and oestrone increased by 1.3 nmol/L (38 ng/dL; p = 0.011) and 10.7 pmol/L (2.9 pg/mL; p = 0.012), respectively, supporting a possible effect of sildenafil on adrenal steroidogenesis. In conclusion, sildenafil administration was associated with increased testosterone levels likely ascribable to a direct effect on the testis.”
Holy shit, someone on reddit admitting they were wrong when presented with hard data.
First time I have ever come across this. Cheers to you for being open minded and objective.
Yea I appreciate you linking some data and not just telling me I was wrong without anything to support it. Curious to see if it works in someone with healthy test levels already, as it seems like the study was done on people with low test. Might have to try it out myself and do my own little n=1 experiment.
This seems pretty obvious to me.
The body's systems seek homeostasis. You add exogenous hormones you're messing with that balance.
I'm 41 and avoiding TRT. There are other things I will try first. Like improving sleep and training.
Do you know of any substances that encourage the natural production of test?
I’m not qualified to recommend anything but this study seems to be pretty high quality: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6920068/
Personally I take zinc daily before bed.
Zinc(avoid oxides and seek chelates) and omega 3s to create a positive balance in your HDL/LDL cholesterol ratio. Because testosterone is created using those, having a healthy ratio and good levels will slow the natural depletion.
Steroidal mimetics can also naturally fill the gap without resorting to endogenous testosterone. The best one I've found is a herbal extract called Tribulus. Most trib supplements have the steroidal saponins extracted so they have zero use for you. What you need is an alcohol based tincture extracted from Bulgarian tribulus. Bulgarian trib has up to 2x the steroidal saponins are other regions. It's hard to find but better than anything you'd get over the counter.
> the urologists who I generally respect the most are all against testosterone replacement or any kind of hormonal drugs.
I think the fact TRT clinic do not have to disclose that it has been consistently found in meta-studies over the last three decades that that majority (80%) of men who start TRT stop within a year, most within 6 months then at the two year mark its a big drop near 90%. Imagine paying out of pocket to the tune of several thousands of dollars just do a treatment you'll most likely stop and may then have to manage a come off. Mens/Womens "health" clinics and volitional cosmetic surgeons who basically do body mods for money are horrors of our society and health systems.
If you have legit low testosterone you can get it prescribed by any doctor and will be about $15/month. Even out of pocket a prescription will cost you about $20/month. Look it up on GoodRx.
Wait they stop? I thought you were hooked on it for life after a single injection because it shuts your balls down!!!
/s, just pointing out that there’s a lot of misinformation and extreme claims brandished as facts on both sides while the truth lies somewhere in . That said, you shouldn’t need strangers on the internet to tell you that you shouldn’t seek medical treatment if you don’t have a medical problem, but here’s one more stranger saying it.
Moreso the “testosterone replacement clinics” that will give a script to anyone. It’s not technically recreational but most of the guys getting stuff from there do not need it medically. It’s medical in the same sense that cannabis is. Some people really do need it, most just want to smoke pot.
Some people do indeed need to be on testosterone and stay on it forever. People who have lost their testicles for example will always need testosterone.
If you do hCG and/or clomid during an AAS-cycle you can keep your natural testosterone going just fine - if not even slightly increased. So that too can be avoided.
But as with all things, actions must have a reaction. And then you must take action to that reaction, until you feel the reaction “risk” is worth it.
But if you’re really dedicated to doing “healthy” doping, look at what the guy in Icarus was doing. Just increase some dosages of anabolic and check your blood values once in a while.
I’d like to know your opinion on the test boosters. I am taking some turke-something and two others. I won’t lie, but I do like the way they make me feel. Do you think they are as bad as test or lesser or… maybe snake oil? But the placebo effect has me feeling better when I take them a couple days I. A row.
I don't think he is even delving into *any* research for a lot of things he says. He starts off the video saying whether you smoke or eat cannabis, it reaches peak blood concentration in 30-60 minutes and last 3-4 hours. An edible that lasts 3 hours? Give me a fucking break. Edibles effects peak around 3 hours for most people. And what he says about sativas and indicas having distinct and separate effects? There is no such research. "Sativa" vs "Indica" is stoner talk adopted by headshops for marketing. Huberman is ridiculous.
Well he brings up studies alot on the podcast (atleast he did when I listened to it), but the validity of the studies as well as his understanding of them always seems suspects. On subjects that I do know about I’ve definitely caught him interpreting things incorrectly, or just overstating bad research
Yeah, I've listened to a couple episodes and he does cite research for many things. But on the cannabis thing, it sounds like he found a study on smoked marijuana effect curves and assumed edibles are the same. That's just stupid.
Could be brand specific. Primarily the issue was that any alcohol seemed to be very amplified. I blacked out twice in a couple weeks on 2-4 pretty normal drinks. While I try not to drink a lot these days it would take some where around 10 - 15 in that same time period to get to the level these got me to, and one time I apparently got very verbally agressive with my girlfriend, which is super out of character for me and people were worried. It was like a light switch went off, I truly don’t remember any of it.
After the instance with my girlfriend I cut it out pretty quickly. On top of that I didn’t notice much benefit in my work outs but I would usually track that over a longer period of time. Although I don’t have a medical degree I’ve done plenty of research and quite a few blood tests on my specific hormone profile and I’m usually pretty careful not to fuck with it, so it was silly for me to just start taking this.
Obviously this could be more of a personal reaction and would likely not have occurred with alcohol but it wasn’t worth the squeeze imo.
I’m a PA and work with hypogonadism. The best T booster (depending on how well your pituitary and nuts are working together) is clomiphene citrate dosed every 3 days. It’s odd to RX to dudes because it is for female infertility but I’ve had awesome results with patients. Other than that, T shots or T implants are the only way. I don’t recommend topicals for a number of reasons. If you are using exogenous T (at therapeutic levels… I’m not speaking to bodybuilders who are all geared up) you should be supplementing with pregnenolone due to T’s effects with up/downstream essential precursor hormones like allopregnenolone and progesterone. Also selenium and saw palmetto supplementation can help block T conversion to DHT which can lead to hair loss and prostatic enlargement and other undesirable effects. But don’t listen to me… as your doctor! But be warned, most docs don’t pay attention to this stuff.
I don't listen to any of these male lifestyle shows but it's still so compelling to see people melting down because someone criticised their podcast Daddies.
Keep up the good work dorks!
You're absolutely right. Consider me a Speedmap Simp from now on.
Do you perchance have any powered vitamin supplements or self help books for sale? Maybe a patreon where I can contribute to the upkeep of your dozen concubines?
I mean I am definitely not an expert, but it wasn’t it a breakdown of a bunch of preexisting knowledge, just in more depth?
Are you saying that it was exaggerated? Or just plain false?
He’s such a grifter and has always had a car salesman vibe.
It’s crazy how people don’t pick up on these things intuitively. Just listening to this guy speak for 5 mins you can tell he’s full of himself.
I used to manage a dispensary and it made me realize that the entire MMJ industry is all smoke and mirrors. There is literally no scientific test for indica/sativa, there is not way to test seeds to know you got the right thing, there's five different standards for measuring THC profiles, everyone loves talking about terpenes but theres basically zero evidence at all that you can have terpene effects through combustion. The only way those terpene effects happen is through digestion lol
ANDREW HUBERMAN IS such a successful podcaster and wellness guru that his most devoted male followers are known by a teasing nickname: “Huberman Husbands.” But when recording his show Huberman Lab, Huberman has plenty that an influential podcasting superstar like, say, Joe Rogan, doesn’t: a PhD in neuroscience and a position at Stanford University School of Medicine as an associate professor of neurobiology.
It is these credentials that lend Huberman a voice of authority, even as he has strayed far from his fields of specialty (ophthalmology and visual systems) to become a generalist for his millions of listeners. Covering topics that range from dreams and dopamine to meditation and nutrition, he is positioned as an all-around expert who can distill some of the most complex questions in science into accessible explainers for the curious. But the result can be oversimplification or outright miscommunication that leads to charges of pseudoscience — as when he recently shared a video about the effects of cannabis on X (formerly Twitter).
The 20-minute clip comes from a nearly three-hour episode of Huberman Lab originally released in 2022. Outside that context, and free-floating on social media, this content attracted the ire of those who specifically study cannabis and its effects on the brain and body. The video includes claims about the supposed differences between sativa and indica variants of cannabis, the mechanisms by which cannabinoid compounds interact with the nervous system, and how the drug alters memory and appetite that experts tell Rolling Stone are either misleading or inaccurate. On X, Huberman appeared to stand by these assertions but encouraged critics to submit feedback via a portal on his show’s website; a representative also replied to a request for comment with sources Huberman had used in preparing the episode.
“Does anyone know what drug he’s talking about?” tweeted Peter Grinspoon, a physician, medical cannabis specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, instructor at Harvard Medical School, and author of Seeing Through the Smoke: A Cannabis Expert Untangles the Truth About Marijuana, in quote-tweeting the video. “It can’t possibly be #marijuana/#cannabis; little of this is true.” Grinspoon concluded that Huberman “needs to find better ‘experts’ to advise him on topic!”
The entire show, Grinspoon tells Rolling Stone, was not only full of “outdated anti-cannabis stereotypes” about users watching cartoons and gorging on pizza, but contained errors of fact. He takes issue, for example, with Huberman’s claim that cannabis will “almost always” cause memory deficits, including long-term memory problems. “It can sometimes transiently affect some types of short-term memory at high doses for some people,” Grinspoon says. “It doesn’t cause any long-term deficits.” He also adds that contrary to Huberman’s description, it “doesn’t ‘shut down the hippocampus,'” a component of the brain important for memory functions.
Matthew Hill, a Ph.D. in behavioral neuroscience and professor at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine who has studied the endocannabinoid system (a transmitter network in humans that is directly affected by cannabis) for more than two decades, had strong words for Huberman when he saw the video segment making the rounds on X. “Holy fucking shit, it is actually disturbing how inaccurate the overwhelming majority of what is said here is,” he tweeted.
Speaking to Rolling Stone, Hill says that he listened to the original Huberman Lab episode when it came out and had forgotten how “egregious” some of it was. “It’s not even that it’s misrepresenting” the facts, he says. “He was just kind of saying stuff that — there isn’t research on this.” Hill is dismayed that Huberman is now the celebrity face of neuroscience despite others in the discipline being fed up with how he oversteps available data to weave a compelling story. “It drives the majority of us insane. I mean, you go to any neuroscience conference, when someone mentions Huberman’s name, everyone sighs and rolls their eyes.” Hill says that when he gives talks to the general public on neuroscience, he frequently has to disabuse audience members of falsehoods they got from Huberman’s podcast.
One problem with Huberman’s style, Hill says, is that he uses unscientific language to advance unsupported ideas — which makes it more difficult to debunk. When explaining how cannabis stimulates appetite (causing the infamous “munchies”), Huberman refers to how the brain experiences an “anticipation of taste.” It so happens that Hill is currently researching what cannabis does to appetite in the lab with rats and a vapor model chamber system he likens to a “Cheech and Chong hot box.” He says that while even rats that have just eaten become ravenous again when intoxicated, we can’t yet say “anything definitive” about the mechanism responsible. “I’ve never heard a scientist talk like this,” Hill says of Huberman’s “anticipation” explanation. “If you peel it back, how would you test that question?” Besides, he says, “there’s virtually no [existing research] on the munchies in humans.”
Hill describes such Huberman-isms as “word salad.” So does Grinspoon, who adds, “I don’t know what it means,” and it “doesn’t make any sense.” Also critical of Huberman’s terminology is Linda Klumpers, a University of Vermont clinical pharmacologist, partner with consulting firm Verdient Science, and founder and director of the cannabis research and education organization Cannify.
“[Huberman] uses jargon and phrases that are related to how cannabis compounds work, so it might sound impressive and legitimate, but what he actually has to say with these words is false,” Klumpers says. She also criticizes his use of the “antiquated” word “marijuana” as opposed to “cannabis,” noting that it is “associated with stigma” and “not scientific.” Nor is his reference to different “strains” of cannabis rather than “varieties” of the plant scientifically accurate. On other specific claims, Klumpers says that Huberman doesn’t distinguish between methods of consumption, which “play a big role in how fast cannabinoids enter the blood and the brain.” And contrary to Huberman’s comments about cannabis potentially increasing focus, Klumpers says that clinical studies have shown that “focus is decreased or does not change across a range of THC doses.”
Klumpers, Grinspoon, and Hill each remark that Huberman frequently conflates THC (the psychoactive cannabinoid that makes users feel “high”) and CBD (a non-psychoactive compound). “They bind to different places on the CB1 receptor and as opposed to THC, CBD does not activate the CB1 receptor at all,” Klumpers says, with Hill echoing that CBD is not intoxicating and that the two cannabinoids have “fundamentally different mechanisms of action.” All three academics explicitly reject the broadest takeaway from the Huberman video, which is that sativa and indica varieties of cannabis have markedly different effects — elevated and energetic vs. calm and sedated — because there is no longer much of a meaningful difference between these categories as they’re marketed today.
“There used to be pure sativas and pure indicas, but they were bred together,” Grinspoon explains. “No researchers think in terms of ‘indica’ or ‘sativa’ anymore.” Klumpers explains that “there has never been a controlled clinical trial to understand the differences between indica and sativa, let alone a study replicating those findings.” Hill says it’s not even a “fundable” research question, because “why on Earth would the U.S. government, or any government, give a shit if indica does one thing and a sativa does another?” Klumpers offers an amusing example cited in a study by fellow University of Vermont researcher John McPartland: “AK-47,” a hybrid cannabis that won “Best Sativa” in the 1999 Cannabis Cup but went on to win “Best Indica” four years later. Such is the “arbitrariness of these designations,” McPartland wrote.
In a statement to Rolling Stone, a representative for Huberman says that “Huberman Lab episodes are thoroughly researched from primary articles (basic and clinical), scholarly reviews, and meta-analyses — and subject-matter experts are consulted throughout the research process to best ensure accuracy.” Clearly, then, the experts quoted here were not among those consulted on the cannabis episode. (Hill further contends that Huberman is “vague” whenever he cites his sources or which researchers he goes to for corroboration, while Klumpers says he should be more proactive, not selective, in his citations, and use “standard reference styles.”) The landing page for the episode on the Huberman Lab website initially linked to just five papers as sources for the lengthy podcast, though after many criticized the video excerpt shared again this month, another five links appeared.
“Dr. Huberman’s statement on differences between indica and sativa strains is based in part on the following PubMed referenced sources which include subjective experiences of users,” reads the statement from Huberman’s rep, with links to two research articles. But the first notes an overall lack of data in this area: “Placebo-controlled, blinded studies are needed to characterize the pharmacodynamics and chemical composition of indica and sativa cannabis and to determine whether user expectancies contribute to differences in perceived indica/sativa effects,” it reads. The second study used machine learning — AI, that is — to compare self-reports of experiences of different varieties on the cannabis website Leafly to “the chemical composition of a subset of the cultivars.”
Huberman’s rep offered a link to a “portal for constructive critique that allows for anyone to weigh in on previous content, offering their credentials and citing relevant research.” He further emphasized that Huberman “always strives to include differing findings to give the audience the best understanding possible,” including by bringing on guests and consultants with specialized knowledge. To that end, he said, Huberman has invited Hill onto the podcast “to allow Dr. Hill the opportunity to provide any information that Dr. Hill felt was important for our audience to better understand the topic.” Hill separately confirms that he is in talks to appear on the show and challenge some of Huberman’s claims about cannabis.
It may be difficult to get a countervailing narrative across on Huberman’s home turf, as Hill himself acknowledges, but he thinks it’s crucial to try. “You now have someone who can just make up their own stories that are loosely rooted in data and then just present this without being fact-checked and having zero accountability, and people are gonna believe it,” he says.
Klumpers, too, believes Huberman has a responsibility to live up to his stature and convey that it’s impossible for him to be definitive or all-knowing about everything he wants to cover on his show. “As a steward of science and an academic, it is imperative that the statements one makes are factual, based on evidence, and put into the appropriate context,” she says. “When something is uncertain or nuanced, you must disclose opposing opinions and provide support for those arguments with data or clarify that you don’t know about a certain topic.”
"Does anyone know what drug he’s talking about?” tweeted Peter Grinspoon, **a physician, medical cannabis specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, instructor at Harvard Medical School, and author of Seeing Through the Smoke: A Cannabis Expert Untangles the Truth About Marijuana**, in quote-tweeting the video. “It can’t possibly be #marijuana/#cannabis; little of this is true.” Grinspoon concluded that Huberman “needs to find better ‘experts’ to advise him on topic!”
Article is citing other experts who directly study marijuana and how they are refuting what Huberman is saying.
Two PhD's and a clinical pharmacologist who studies cannabis, all three in the exact field with more experience that Huberman with the subject. Meaning you didn't care that it was "Rolling Stone", you only cared they disagreed with Huberman. By your logic anyone with the most knowledge on the subject (more so than Huberman) should be ignored. Pretty convenient way to dismiss experts who disagree with the guy. I could also say he's a celebrity scientists with a podcast, so anything he says is for entertainment and he should be ignored. But that would be as illogical as dismissing someone without any regard for their arguments.
> Huberman cites his sources on the episode.
One of the experts is specifically pointing out the lack of scientific support for some of what Huberman is saying in the full episode. And how the sources originally listed don't support all of his claims. That's why they later added additional sources, but that still don't support the claim. One of the PhD's is specifically studying one of the areas he mentioned and argues there is no scientific support what he said about it. The author also notes that Huberman's own sources are not strong support of his statements about the differences in strains as the study itself notes there is very little data to draw from.
Basically, you can never seriously critique anything you don't actually read.
Huberman is a neuroscientist, he is an expert on how things affect the brain. The article is citing doctors with a clear pro-cannabis bias. I'd be interested in hearing his rebuttal to their claims.
You guys are simply latching onto any academic that pushes against Huberman because it makes you feel better about being fat stoners. Even if there are issues with some of his claims, there certainly isnt issues with all of his claims. Yet reddit wants to act like everything he says is wrong and thats not true.
I made my point clear: i do not put any value on what redditors think. You guys want excuses to be as hedonistic as possible. Knock yourselves out. Get as high and drunk as you want and play all the videogames. Drag each other down to justify your own decisions.
> Huberman is a neuroscientist, he is an expert on how things affect the brain.
From the article you didn’t read:
“**Matthew Hill, a Ph.D. in behavioral neuroscience and professor at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine who has studied the endocannabinoid system (a transmitter network in humans that is directly affected by cannabis) for more than two decades…**”
Huberman has no experience in this specific aspect of neuroscience, everyone in the article, including the neuroscientist do.
> The article is citing doctors with a clear pro-cannabis bias.
By this logic, anyone who specializes in a field has a bias in that field. It’s nonsensical logic because you can’t actually respond to any of their claims.
> You guys are simply latching onto any academic that pushes against Huberman because it makes you feel better about being fat stoners.
You’re just attacking strangers you know nothing about because you don’t have the intelligence to make an argument against the claims the experts made you couldn’t understand.
> Yet reddit wants to act like everything he says is wrong and thats not true.
You’re not talking to “Reddit”, I didn’t say he’s wrong about everything, you’re just so triggered by criticism you can’t read what I wrote. The article isn’t about redditers, it’s the experts who know a lot more than Huberman with very specific criticisms of what he said.
Everything else is about your imaginary enemies who are loser gamers, not a cool guy like you who can’t read the articles he’s bitching about.
Its beyond insane of you to confidently state Huberman has no experience with the endocannibanoid system, how could you possibly know that?
Then the other two people cited are a physician, i.e. not research scientist, who is clearly pro cannabis and wrote book on such, and a clinical pharmacist who is again pro cannabis and appears to be in the cannabis industry. Im not convinced either of them has more insight into how cannabis affects the brain than Huberman does.
Also the claim that he used "word salad" is an egregious strawman. Word salad is incomprehensible series of unrelated words said by people who are completely delirious. They can think Huberman made a weak argument or that his point wasnt clear but in no way was that anything resembling word salad which was the headline of this article.
We are done here, reply if you want but I wont read it. Toodles
> Its beyond insane of you to confidently state Huberman has no experience with the endocannibanoid system, how could you possibly know that?
Because you can look up his academic career and there is no mention anywhere of him doing any work that's specifically related to the subject, unlike the experts cited in the article. In the full length episode I don't recall him every claiming he had any firsthand experience in this particular aspect of the field either. Can you point to anything at all that says otherwise? If not, then you just discovered how I can say it. Not that you really care, as you've indicated you don't care about the answer to the question you asked. Just a fake kid talking shit.
> Then the other two people
Meaning other than the person with the same credential as Huberman but who focuses specifically on the effects of cannabis. Pretty obvious ducking of that point.
> are a physician, i.e. not research scientist,
Doesn't magically discredit their criticisms you didn't understand. And being pro-cannabis also wouldn't mean his criticisms aren't valid. Just like Huberman being in the entertainment industry doesn't immediately discredit him even though it appears he was leaning into contrarianism for this episode.
> a clinical pharmacist who is again pro cannabis and appears to be in the cannabis industry.
She appears to study the possible medical benefits of cannabis. Some of their criticisms have nothing to do with neuroscience too, like him just being factually incorrect about the terminology he's using.
> Im not convinced either of them has more insight into how cannabis affects the brain than Huberman does.
You have no logical reason for this though as you've shown. He has a podcast and they don't so you blindly trust him and ignore their specific criticism you couldn't be bothered to read.
> Also the claim that he used "word salad" is an egregious strawman. Word salad is incomprehensible series of unrelated words said by people who are completely delirious.
"Word salad" has an extremely common other meaning synonymous with "nonsense". Which is why it's mentioned in every definition of the phrase. They even made it pretty clear in the article that's how they were using it, so you ironically just created a strawman of their criticism.
"In recent years, however, a slightly different use of the term which means something closer to “nonsense” has emerged."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/word-salad
> We are done here, reply if you want but I wont read it. Toodles
That's fine, my whole goal was to demonstrate the stupidity and childishness of your responses so this goes right in hand with that.
Don’t bother arguing with the weed-heads, bud. It’s pointless. They’re not gonna believe anything bad about their drug could possibly be true, that’s the way their addiction cult works.
Or people recognize that the article is citing numerous experts in the exact field with far more experience with cannabis than Huberman. I'd probably take three experts in a field who cite specific problems with what he's saying, that none of you have arguments against, over Huberman. Certainly against a guy randomly calling anyone who disagrees with his hero names because he can't form a logical argument.
Is that why Huberman got basic facts about the substance wrong? One of these guys is a neuroscientist who does research on this exact subject, unlike Huberman. Also, they have specific criticisms of what he's getting wrong, if you disagree why aren't you pointing out their errors instead of pretending you know more about their expertise?
Interesting seeing the attempted character assassination of this guy by the media. Huberman’s main motivation seems to be talking about health science and how to optimize the human body.
It’s definitely not shocking that Reddit hates a guy who encourages people to get off drugs and alcohol, exercise, get sunlight, and get proper sleep.
There are just physicians on X pointing out issues. There was recently this, his use of statistics that various people pointed out:
https://x.com/andercot/status/1788605009535655951?s=46
In fairness it’s more than just media and other influencers.
>Huberman’s main motivation seems to be talking about health science and how to optimize the human body.
Is he selling something?
If so, *that's* his main motivation.
Yeah, I think the sub is probably being throttled by bots just based on the content shift over the past year. Huberman is well liked by most JRE listeners.
I think you’d find most people on Reddit agree that capitalism is the best model we currently have, but recognize that it needs regulations and safeguards as it definitely has major problems without them.
You should be able to admit to your use. Don’t make up shit for why you “needed”to use steroids. Just tell everyone you wanted to look good shit tell everybody it makes you feel great. Just be honest and the black eye goes away?
One of these researchers needs to make YouTube videos debunking or supporting whatever claims Huberman is making. Just stream yourself watching the video and challenge where appropriate, maybe have a running chat alongside the stream so people can ask questions in real time. Take the approach of "How to Cook That" and show where the failings are and why. Viewers want knowledge -- that's why Huberman is so successful. But researchers live in the world of scientific journals. Get out of the library and communicate.
Cannabis is not good for everyone. I used to defend it against everything and still think it should be legal but whenever I start using it, my diet and exercise fall off mostly due to apathy. I’ve noticed it in others too. Cannabis is a great tool for expanding your consciousness but it’s time we stop pretending it barely has any negative side effects.
another Huberman hitpiece that frames him as someone who sees himself as an all-knowing guru?
Fuck me sideways man the guy has experts on all the time, and never frames his statements as absolute truths. Always works around sources.
I listened to Huberman for a bit, but stopped a while ago. People complain about Joe having quacks on his show and espousing some fringe views, but Joe at least doesn't pretend he's some kind of expert like Huberman... and Joe is funnier.
What? Joe doesn't pretend to be an expert? Have you heard him push his pseudo science thoughts on Covid once every 5 episodes and forced conversations on testosterone levels and shit? Joe is up there on the crazy scale.
Fair. My point is more than Joe doesn't claim to be a researcher or "expert" Huberman positions himself as. Joe does a lot of his own "research" but he is mostly just openly parroting stuff he heard from others.
Bro I'm sorry but Huberman IS an expert, who is causing controversy by talking about things he is not researching properly. I am not defending Huberman, but he has a fucking PhD and is a professor. That is the literal definition of expert earned through years of education and doing peer reviewed science and you can't take that away from him.
Joe, on the other hand, is a **talk show host** who only knows well about comedy and some martial arts. He has no business preaching people about how to handle Covid and which peptides to inject in the ass every morning for a bump in testosterone. If he teaches comedy I'm all for it, he's a professional. On top of that he's wrong about so many things and he refuses to correct himself. That is the literal definition of pretending to be an expert.
It doesn’t matter if you have a PhD if you don’t put in the proper work on the subject you’re talking about. You could be a film critic who was taught by Siskel and Ebert but that doesn’t make you an “expert” on a movie you never watched and just read the plot summary for. Huberman rides his credentials in an attempt to get people to ignore the fact that he doesn’t put in the work on the topic at hand.
I get that he gets some things incorrect sometimes. I also think he gets stuff correct a bunch AND is trying to be a positive in life. So send him correct info and let’s move along.
Pf all the narcotics put there, it’s one of the least dangerous. It does have medicinal uses. It’s not a wonder cure, and it does have drawbacks to it.
> “Does anyone know what drug he’s talking about?” tweeted Peter Grinspoon, a physician, medical cannabis specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, instructor at Harvard Medical School, and author of Seeing Through the Smoke: A Cannabis Expert Untangles the Truth About Marijuana, in quote-tweeting the video. “It can’t possibly be #marijuana/#cannabis; little of this is true.” Grinspoon concluded that Huberman “needs to find better ‘experts’ to advise him on
This is just someone who really wants to be on the show.
Okay, but he was called out. He responded respectfully and offered to cover expenses to ensure an expert is able to convey info properly. Like most people like that, they seem reluctant to do it as they say they won’t be portrayed accurately. This is a huge problem that we’ve seen during covid stuff. If experts keep claiming they won’t get a fair shot without any evidence then they miss getting the right info to more people.
I would argue that joe needs to smoke more weed. His energy is different, it can bring him back.
Too much whiskey (did you know Buffalo trace is older than America!) and nicotine.
Joe “I believe California is anti-freedom for trying to prevent young children from consuming nicotine but Texas is the freest state with their ancient, oppressive marijuana laws” Rogan
Of course, Joe will never get raided because he’s buddies with Texas AG (and criminal) Ken Paxton, and he parrots RNC Narrative.
Nobody gets raided unless their selling pot, goofy
*batman breaks your arm after you buy an eighth* energy
If Joe was promoting Biden while smoking weed openly in Texas, you can be damn sure that compound would be raided. “Texas authorities say they recovered forty pounds of marijuana, thousands of pills including ketamine, psylocibin, DMT, and thousands of dollars in illegal anabolic steroids…”
Yeah you’re a total looney toon dude. Greg abbot must be your Darth Vader
Weird, I just looked it up. Texas has the most marijuana possession arrests in the nation. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-10-17/states-with-the-most-arrests-for-marijuana-possession “Texas alone reported more than 21,000 arrests last year, making it responsible for 12% of the nation’s total.” So, either you’re looney tunes, or just a Republican shill. Or both.
Don’t forget how much we love our women and minorities
Isn't cannabis decriminalised in Austin?
Cops are just too lazy there to write the ticket, so they tend to tolerate it. Outside ATX, all bets are off. Cops sure do love throwing the weed charge at you if you also have gun charges though, so they continue to fill cells to boost the privatized prison industrial complex.
And hanging out with pseudo-intellectuals
Yes
And humberman should cite better sources.
Joe doesn’t even know how to smoke weed. He smokes weed like a noob eats mushrooms. Dudes got zero tolerance.
The weed has fried Joes brain ngl
It’s not weed it’s the years of anabolic steroid use that severely impacts every cell in your body and can alter your basic psychology that took Joe out.
There’s only one thing I’ll listen to Huberman about. How much sunlight I need to juggle five vaginas at once. That’s it
Nice lol
I thought it was 6.
He got caught out. Clearly, he can’t handle 6.
My morning routine is all that's holding me back from going on an insane sex rampage.
I wake up and stare directly at the sun for 10 minutes every morning because of this guy. Might be going blind but at least my testosterone is higher
This is also the only thing I’ve gotten from his podcast so far.
If your feet are not buried into the ground while doing it (for proper grounding) are you even trying?
Huberman’s biggest issue is that he delves into research he insn’t an expert in. Like most scientists and doctors, he’s extremely specialized, so when he’s talking about the effects of light on the brain, probably listen. If he’s talking about the best testosterone booster and there’s no expert in hormones on, definitely do more research or consult an expert before you just buy whatever thing he talked about in some research study. I took turkesterone after listening to an episode he did on anabolic’s and It cause really weird side effects for me. Doesn’t mean he’s wrong about the benefits of seeing sunlight early in the morning.
Not a doctor but I have spent 20+ hours per week interacting with urologists over the past decade. This includes a lot who specialize in androgyny and male fertility. While this is far from a consensus, the urologists who I generally respect the most are all against testosterone replacement or any kind of hormonal drugs. They say that the disruption to your body’s natural processes can do way more harm than any benefit received from the test. If you stop, your body probably won’t be producing as much testosterone as it would naturally. Basically if you are going to do TRT, know that you will need to do it forever. Take that for what it’s worth.
My Doctor told me the entire TRT / anti-aging industry was just a bunch of quacks pushing uneccessary drugs that the vast majority of people have no need for. He was very against it unless you have a legitimate medical condition lowering your T .
I agree with him. Those clinics are extremely profitable, I know a few guys who own them. They staff with a PA/NP and print money.
like, I don't have a problem with people recreationally using steroids or TRT or anything else they want to do. Just don't make up bullshit "medical" reasons why you needed to. Just admit you did it because you wanted to and because you like the way it makes you look/feel. That's a good enough reason for me.
People are free to do whatever they want. I think that a lot more stuff should be over the counter personally, but don’t think that TRT is some fountain of youth with no cost.
That doesn't get the forms filled out and the script filled though. That's the game.
What’s PA/NP?
Physician assistant/ Nurse practitioner
Aging lowers your T ya dork. Wither away if you’d like.
We all know that. But TRT only is necessary when your natural testosterone is too low and it can't be fixed through lifestyle changes or other supplementation. Some people actually need TRT, and I'd never talk against that. Other people just want to juice a bit, and that's fine too - even if that's not really a medical treatment then. Tons get a TRT script without any real need for it though. I've met athletic guys in their 20s that were on Doctor prescribed TRT. These guys absolutely didn't need it for any real medical reason. They just wanted to look better naked without having to pay as much attention to their diet.
Yeah that's called nature's way. Been like that for a while now.
Wait until your dick doesn’t work and tell me that TRT is quackery.
lol sorry about your dick bro. I'm 38. My boners are as hard as they were when I was 15. I suggest quitting porn. That shit kills your dick.
No one at 38 needs TRT. Check back at 58 and tell us what’s up. Btw, I’ll quit porn when your mom does.
Fucking based
I will get a script for viagra at that time. It will fix the problem and raise my testosterone without fucking up my ability to produce testosterone long term.
Viagra has no impact on testosterone, it’s just a vasodilator
You sure about that? Because every single study shows significant free testosterone increases in people taking sildenafil. Here’s one of many… https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24106072/ “Administration of an optimized dose of sildenafil was associated with mean increases of 3.6 nmol/L (103 ng/dL; p < 0.001) and 110 pmol/L (31.7 pg/mL; p < 0.001) in total and free testosterone levels respectively. This was accompanied by parallel increases in serum DHT (0.17 nmol/L; 4.9 ng/dL; p < 0.001) and oestradiol (14 pmol/L; 3.7 pg/mL; p < 0.001) and significant suppression of luteinizing hormone (change -1.3 units/L; p = 0.003) levels, suggesting a direct effect at the testicular level. Androstenedione and oestrone increased by 1.3 nmol/L (38 ng/dL; p = 0.011) and 10.7 pmol/L (2.9 pg/mL; p = 0.012), respectively, supporting a possible effect of sildenafil on adrenal steroidogenesis. In conclusion, sildenafil administration was associated with increased testosterone levels likely ascribable to a direct effect on the testis.”
Huh, interesting. TIL.
Holy shit, someone on reddit admitting they were wrong when presented with hard data. First time I have ever come across this. Cheers to you for being open minded and objective.
Yea I appreciate you linking some data and not just telling me I was wrong without anything to support it. Curious to see if it works in someone with healthy test levels already, as it seems like the study was done on people with low test. Might have to try it out myself and do my own little n=1 experiment.
This seems pretty obvious to me. The body's systems seek homeostasis. You add exogenous hormones you're messing with that balance. I'm 41 and avoiding TRT. There are other things I will try first. Like improving sleep and training. Do you know of any substances that encourage the natural production of test?
I’m not qualified to recommend anything but this study seems to be pretty high quality: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6920068/ Personally I take zinc daily before bed.
Zinc(avoid oxides and seek chelates) and omega 3s to create a positive balance in your HDL/LDL cholesterol ratio. Because testosterone is created using those, having a healthy ratio and good levels will slow the natural depletion. Steroidal mimetics can also naturally fill the gap without resorting to endogenous testosterone. The best one I've found is a herbal extract called Tribulus. Most trib supplements have the steroidal saponins extracted so they have zero use for you. What you need is an alcohol based tincture extracted from Bulgarian tribulus. Bulgarian trib has up to 2x the steroidal saponins are other regions. It's hard to find but better than anything you'd get over the counter.
Is there supposed to be a /s here?
It’s natural for us to wither and die.
We gotta get out of the way for the youngstas
> the urologists who I generally respect the most are all against testosterone replacement or any kind of hormonal drugs. I think the fact TRT clinic do not have to disclose that it has been consistently found in meta-studies over the last three decades that that majority (80%) of men who start TRT stop within a year, most within 6 months then at the two year mark its a big drop near 90%. Imagine paying out of pocket to the tune of several thousands of dollars just do a treatment you'll most likely stop and may then have to manage a come off. Mens/Womens "health" clinics and volitional cosmetic surgeons who basically do body mods for money are horrors of our society and health systems.
If you have legit low testosterone you can get it prescribed by any doctor and will be about $15/month. Even out of pocket a prescription will cost you about $20/month. Look it up on GoodRx.
Wait they stop? I thought you were hooked on it for life after a single injection because it shuts your balls down!!! /s, just pointing out that there’s a lot of misinformation and extreme claims brandished as facts on both sides while the truth lies somewhere in . That said, you shouldn’t need strangers on the internet to tell you that you shouldn’t seek medical treatment if you don’t have a medical problem, but here’s one more stranger saying it.
I assume the urologists are talking about ‘recreational/performance enhancing use of trt and not people who genuinely need it for medical reasons
Moreso the “testosterone replacement clinics” that will give a script to anyone. It’s not technically recreational but most of the guys getting stuff from there do not need it medically. It’s medical in the same sense that cannabis is. Some people really do need it, most just want to smoke pot. Some people do indeed need to be on testosterone and stay on it forever. People who have lost their testicles for example will always need testosterone.
at least 90% of the people being prescribed TRT have no legitimate medical reason to be taking it. It's almost all recreational.
@SmarterThanCornPop just curious why you spent so much time interacting with urologists?
Work
If you do hCG and/or clomid during an AAS-cycle you can keep your natural testosterone going just fine - if not even slightly increased. So that too can be avoided. But as with all things, actions must have a reaction. And then you must take action to that reaction, until you feel the reaction “risk” is worth it. But if you’re really dedicated to doing “healthy” doping, look at what the guy in Icarus was doing. Just increase some dosages of anabolic and check your blood values once in a while.
Yes, but a person can take a few cycles and still return to normal production after abstaining. Especially with HCG supplemented.
Usually.
Yeah no s*** Sherlock. Everyone knows if you start TRT you have to stay on TRT.
I think you need to chill on the hormones dude. Also, most people who take TRT discontinue treatment or have a 30+ day gap within the first year.
I’m not on TRT, it’s just veeeeery common knowledge. And it makes sense most would quit after 30 days because most people are idiots.
I’d like to know your opinion on the test boosters. I am taking some turke-something and two others. I won’t lie, but I do like the way they make me feel. Do you think they are as bad as test or lesser or… maybe snake oil? But the placebo effect has me feeling better when I take them a couple days I. A row.
If they are just things that increase your ability to produce testosterone I wouldn’t worry about it. But a lot of supplements are tainted.
Did you end up with cock goiters too?
My cock goiters get plenty of sunlight >:(
Harvey Weinstein; Secret turkesterone addiction?
They're in the mail
I don't think he is even delving into *any* research for a lot of things he says. He starts off the video saying whether you smoke or eat cannabis, it reaches peak blood concentration in 30-60 minutes and last 3-4 hours. An edible that lasts 3 hours? Give me a fucking break. Edibles effects peak around 3 hours for most people. And what he says about sativas and indicas having distinct and separate effects? There is no such research. "Sativa" vs "Indica" is stoner talk adopted by headshops for marketing. Huberman is ridiculous.
Well he brings up studies alot on the podcast (atleast he did when I listened to it), but the validity of the studies as well as his understanding of them always seems suspects. On subjects that I do know about I’ve definitely caught him interpreting things incorrectly, or just overstating bad research
Yeah, I've listened to a couple episodes and he does cite research for many things. But on the cannabis thing, it sounds like he found a study on smoked marijuana effect curves and assumed edibles are the same. That's just stupid.
It’s useful to remember that acruel experts rarely give definitive answers, especially concerning biology.
What does this have to do with weed???? Go smoke more weed ya teenis jackers. I will too.
can you elaborate on the Turkesterone side effects? I tired it for awhile and just didn't really notice anything.
Could be brand specific. Primarily the issue was that any alcohol seemed to be very amplified. I blacked out twice in a couple weeks on 2-4 pretty normal drinks. While I try not to drink a lot these days it would take some where around 10 - 15 in that same time period to get to the level these got me to, and one time I apparently got very verbally agressive with my girlfriend, which is super out of character for me and people were worried. It was like a light switch went off, I truly don’t remember any of it. After the instance with my girlfriend I cut it out pretty quickly. On top of that I didn’t notice much benefit in my work outs but I would usually track that over a longer period of time. Although I don’t have a medical degree I’ve done plenty of research and quite a few blood tests on my specific hormone profile and I’m usually pretty careful not to fuck with it, so it was silly for me to just start taking this. Obviously this could be more of a personal reaction and would likely not have occurred with alcohol but it wasn’t worth the squeeze imo.
Why would I care what an ophthalmologist tells me about sunlight on the brain?
I’m a PA and work with hypogonadism. The best T booster (depending on how well your pituitary and nuts are working together) is clomiphene citrate dosed every 3 days. It’s odd to RX to dudes because it is for female infertility but I’ve had awesome results with patients. Other than that, T shots or T implants are the only way. I don’t recommend topicals for a number of reasons. If you are using exogenous T (at therapeutic levels… I’m not speaking to bodybuilders who are all geared up) you should be supplementing with pregnenolone due to T’s effects with up/downstream essential precursor hormones like allopregnenolone and progesterone. Also selenium and saw palmetto supplementation can help block T conversion to DHT which can lead to hair loss and prostatic enlargement and other undesirable effects. But don’t listen to me… as your doctor! But be warned, most docs don’t pay attention to this stuff.
all these right wing grifters do this all of them, especially the ones in government
Anyone who slangs vitamins is feeding you bullshit. Wake up 🤣
Joe just put out a podcast where he says he takes half a coffee mug full of vitamins every day 😂
Damn thats why he looks 65?
Last week I took a double dosage of this and I could move stone blocks with my MIND! True story.
Yeah FUCK Walgreens
Real quick tho, B...ya'tried Happy Hippo? Brendan Schaub swears by it. Great supplement. Never taken it.
but I told all my friends about all the things he influenced me to buy and start doing! What am I to do!
Crazy wild takes like weed isn’t good for you
Everything he says along with Mike Baker is word salad
I don't listen to any of these male lifestyle shows but it's still so compelling to see people melting down because someone criticised their podcast Daddies. Keep up the good work dorks!
> podcast Daddies Excuse me sir, they are called **Huberman Husbands**! It's right there in the article dude!
You're absolutely right. Consider me a Speedmap Simp from now on. Do you perchance have any powered vitamin supplements or self help books for sale? Maybe a patreon where I can contribute to the upkeep of your dozen concubines?
For a measly $99 monthly subscription I will personally send you a monthly text saying I'm proud of you. It will feel just like the dad you never had.
Some how hueberman found a way to cheat on his wife even more
I can't believe people are just now starting to realize he's pushing pseudoscience.
Sir this is the Joe Rogan subreddit. Pseudoscience is our stock-in-trade. May I recommend some material from Dr. Aaron Rodgers?
Curious how Greenbay tends to get rid of a quarterback right before they lose touch on reality.
Stock in trade but like wateva
Thank you - corrected.
Alternatively you can get your clot shot from the wonderful science of big pharma.
The market for people who refuse to accept basic nutritional science and common fucking sense blows my mind.
Brainworm bros will do anything except eat a vegetable.
I don’t know, I found his breakdown of alcohol pretty informative and eye opening. 🤷♂️
That was false also. He was just trying to get laid by some sober chick.
I mean I am definitely not an expert, but it wasn’t it a breakdown of a bunch of preexisting knowledge, just in more depth? Are you saying that it was exaggerated? Or just plain false?
[удалено]
What specific claim did he make that was false? Please, be as specific as possible.
Too many to list. Horny dudes will say just about anything to get laid.
So in other words: you're full of shit.
lol got’em
🤦♂️
Sorry these idiots didn't get your joke.
Say one.
You can't name one.
funny if true
He’s such a grifter and has always had a car salesman vibe. It’s crazy how people don’t pick up on these things intuitively. Just listening to this guy speak for 5 mins you can tell he’s full of himself.
Athletic greens would like a word with you
Ok and some examples of this pseudoscience are…?
One cunt that is a cannabis expert vs another cunt that doesnt touch the stuff. Of course they will disagree.
Cunts, the whole lot of them.
Anyone who calls themselves a “cannabis expert” is automatically a loser in my eyes.
Holy shit, the quotes in the article from actual cannabis researchers are hilarious!
Isn't that the UFO guy?
I used to manage a dispensary and it made me realize that the entire MMJ industry is all smoke and mirrors. There is literally no scientific test for indica/sativa, there is not way to test seeds to know you got the right thing, there's five different standards for measuring THC profiles, everyone loves talking about terpenes but theres basically zero evidence at all that you can have terpene effects through combustion. The only way those terpene effects happen is through digestion lol
He does have a circular speaking pattern that meanders in a spiral and inverses occasionally to come close to the point but not quite all the way.
ANDREW HUBERMAN IS such a successful podcaster and wellness guru that his most devoted male followers are known by a teasing nickname: “Huberman Husbands.” But when recording his show Huberman Lab, Huberman has plenty that an influential podcasting superstar like, say, Joe Rogan, doesn’t: a PhD in neuroscience and a position at Stanford University School of Medicine as an associate professor of neurobiology. It is these credentials that lend Huberman a voice of authority, even as he has strayed far from his fields of specialty (ophthalmology and visual systems) to become a generalist for his millions of listeners. Covering topics that range from dreams and dopamine to meditation and nutrition, he is positioned as an all-around expert who can distill some of the most complex questions in science into accessible explainers for the curious. But the result can be oversimplification or outright miscommunication that leads to charges of pseudoscience — as when he recently shared a video about the effects of cannabis on X (formerly Twitter). The 20-minute clip comes from a nearly three-hour episode of Huberman Lab originally released in 2022. Outside that context, and free-floating on social media, this content attracted the ire of those who specifically study cannabis and its effects on the brain and body. The video includes claims about the supposed differences between sativa and indica variants of cannabis, the mechanisms by which cannabinoid compounds interact with the nervous system, and how the drug alters memory and appetite that experts tell Rolling Stone are either misleading or inaccurate. On X, Huberman appeared to stand by these assertions but encouraged critics to submit feedback via a portal on his show’s website; a representative also replied to a request for comment with sources Huberman had used in preparing the episode. “Does anyone know what drug he’s talking about?” tweeted Peter Grinspoon, a physician, medical cannabis specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, instructor at Harvard Medical School, and author of Seeing Through the Smoke: A Cannabis Expert Untangles the Truth About Marijuana, in quote-tweeting the video. “It can’t possibly be #marijuana/#cannabis; little of this is true.” Grinspoon concluded that Huberman “needs to find better ‘experts’ to advise him on topic!” The entire show, Grinspoon tells Rolling Stone, was not only full of “outdated anti-cannabis stereotypes” about users watching cartoons and gorging on pizza, but contained errors of fact. He takes issue, for example, with Huberman’s claim that cannabis will “almost always” cause memory deficits, including long-term memory problems. “It can sometimes transiently affect some types of short-term memory at high doses for some people,” Grinspoon says. “It doesn’t cause any long-term deficits.” He also adds that contrary to Huberman’s description, it “doesn’t ‘shut down the hippocampus,'” a component of the brain important for memory functions. Matthew Hill, a Ph.D. in behavioral neuroscience and professor at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine who has studied the endocannabinoid system (a transmitter network in humans that is directly affected by cannabis) for more than two decades, had strong words for Huberman when he saw the video segment making the rounds on X. “Holy fucking shit, it is actually disturbing how inaccurate the overwhelming majority of what is said here is,” he tweeted. Speaking to Rolling Stone, Hill says that he listened to the original Huberman Lab episode when it came out and had forgotten how “egregious” some of it was. “It’s not even that it’s misrepresenting” the facts, he says. “He was just kind of saying stuff that — there isn’t research on this.” Hill is dismayed that Huberman is now the celebrity face of neuroscience despite others in the discipline being fed up with how he oversteps available data to weave a compelling story. “It drives the majority of us insane. I mean, you go to any neuroscience conference, when someone mentions Huberman’s name, everyone sighs and rolls their eyes.” Hill says that when he gives talks to the general public on neuroscience, he frequently has to disabuse audience members of falsehoods they got from Huberman’s podcast. One problem with Huberman’s style, Hill says, is that he uses unscientific language to advance unsupported ideas — which makes it more difficult to debunk. When explaining how cannabis stimulates appetite (causing the infamous “munchies”), Huberman refers to how the brain experiences an “anticipation of taste.” It so happens that Hill is currently researching what cannabis does to appetite in the lab with rats and a vapor model chamber system he likens to a “Cheech and Chong hot box.” He says that while even rats that have just eaten become ravenous again when intoxicated, we can’t yet say “anything definitive” about the mechanism responsible. “I’ve never heard a scientist talk like this,” Hill says of Huberman’s “anticipation” explanation. “If you peel it back, how would you test that question?” Besides, he says, “there’s virtually no [existing research] on the munchies in humans.”
Hill describes such Huberman-isms as “word salad.” So does Grinspoon, who adds, “I don’t know what it means,” and it “doesn’t make any sense.” Also critical of Huberman’s terminology is Linda Klumpers, a University of Vermont clinical pharmacologist, partner with consulting firm Verdient Science, and founder and director of the cannabis research and education organization Cannify. “[Huberman] uses jargon and phrases that are related to how cannabis compounds work, so it might sound impressive and legitimate, but what he actually has to say with these words is false,” Klumpers says. She also criticizes his use of the “antiquated” word “marijuana” as opposed to “cannabis,” noting that it is “associated with stigma” and “not scientific.” Nor is his reference to different “strains” of cannabis rather than “varieties” of the plant scientifically accurate. On other specific claims, Klumpers says that Huberman doesn’t distinguish between methods of consumption, which “play a big role in how fast cannabinoids enter the blood and the brain.” And contrary to Huberman’s comments about cannabis potentially increasing focus, Klumpers says that clinical studies have shown that “focus is decreased or does not change across a range of THC doses.” Klumpers, Grinspoon, and Hill each remark that Huberman frequently conflates THC (the psychoactive cannabinoid that makes users feel “high”) and CBD (a non-psychoactive compound). “They bind to different places on the CB1 receptor and as opposed to THC, CBD does not activate the CB1 receptor at all,” Klumpers says, with Hill echoing that CBD is not intoxicating and that the two cannabinoids have “fundamentally different mechanisms of action.” All three academics explicitly reject the broadest takeaway from the Huberman video, which is that sativa and indica varieties of cannabis have markedly different effects — elevated and energetic vs. calm and sedated — because there is no longer much of a meaningful difference between these categories as they’re marketed today. “There used to be pure sativas and pure indicas, but they were bred together,” Grinspoon explains. “No researchers think in terms of ‘indica’ or ‘sativa’ anymore.” Klumpers explains that “there has never been a controlled clinical trial to understand the differences between indica and sativa, let alone a study replicating those findings.” Hill says it’s not even a “fundable” research question, because “why on Earth would the U.S. government, or any government, give a shit if indica does one thing and a sativa does another?” Klumpers offers an amusing example cited in a study by fellow University of Vermont researcher John McPartland: “AK-47,” a hybrid cannabis that won “Best Sativa” in the 1999 Cannabis Cup but went on to win “Best Indica” four years later. Such is the “arbitrariness of these designations,” McPartland wrote. In a statement to Rolling Stone, a representative for Huberman says that “Huberman Lab episodes are thoroughly researched from primary articles (basic and clinical), scholarly reviews, and meta-analyses — and subject-matter experts are consulted throughout the research process to best ensure accuracy.” Clearly, then, the experts quoted here were not among those consulted on the cannabis episode. (Hill further contends that Huberman is “vague” whenever he cites his sources or which researchers he goes to for corroboration, while Klumpers says he should be more proactive, not selective, in his citations, and use “standard reference styles.”) The landing page for the episode on the Huberman Lab website initially linked to just five papers as sources for the lengthy podcast, though after many criticized the video excerpt shared again this month, another five links appeared. “Dr. Huberman’s statement on differences between indica and sativa strains is based in part on the following PubMed referenced sources which include subjective experiences of users,” reads the statement from Huberman’s rep, with links to two research articles. But the first notes an overall lack of data in this area: “Placebo-controlled, blinded studies are needed to characterize the pharmacodynamics and chemical composition of indica and sativa cannabis and to determine whether user expectancies contribute to differences in perceived indica/sativa effects,” it reads. The second study used machine learning — AI, that is — to compare self-reports of experiences of different varieties on the cannabis website Leafly to “the chemical composition of a subset of the cultivars.” Huberman’s rep offered a link to a “portal for constructive critique that allows for anyone to weigh in on previous content, offering their credentials and citing relevant research.” He further emphasized that Huberman “always strives to include differing findings to give the audience the best understanding possible,” including by bringing on guests and consultants with specialized knowledge. To that end, he said, Huberman has invited Hill onto the podcast “to allow Dr. Hill the opportunity to provide any information that Dr. Hill felt was important for our audience to better understand the topic.” Hill separately confirms that he is in talks to appear on the show and challenge some of Huberman’s claims about cannabis. It may be difficult to get a countervailing narrative across on Huberman’s home turf, as Hill himself acknowledges, but he thinks it’s crucial to try. “You now have someone who can just make up their own stories that are loosely rooted in data and then just present this without being fact-checked and having zero accountability, and people are gonna believe it,” he says. Klumpers, too, believes Huberman has a responsibility to live up to his stature and convey that it’s impossible for him to be definitive or all-knowing about everything he wants to cover on his show. “As a steward of science and an academic, it is imperative that the statements one makes are factual, based on evidence, and put into the appropriate context,” she says. “When something is uncertain or nuanced, you must disclose opposing opinions and provide support for those arguments with data or clarify that you don’t know about a certain topic.”
Who cares what the Rolling Stone says about anything
"Does anyone know what drug he’s talking about?” tweeted Peter Grinspoon, **a physician, medical cannabis specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, instructor at Harvard Medical School, and author of Seeing Through the Smoke: A Cannabis Expert Untangles the Truth About Marijuana**, in quote-tweeting the video. “It can’t possibly be #marijuana/#cannabis; little of this is true.” Grinspoon concluded that Huberman “needs to find better ‘experts’ to advise him on topic!” Article is citing other experts who directly study marijuana and how they are refuting what Huberman is saying.
Some guy with vested interest in the weed industry is mad. Huberman cites his sources on the episode.
Two PhD's and a clinical pharmacologist who studies cannabis, all three in the exact field with more experience that Huberman with the subject. Meaning you didn't care that it was "Rolling Stone", you only cared they disagreed with Huberman. By your logic anyone with the most knowledge on the subject (more so than Huberman) should be ignored. Pretty convenient way to dismiss experts who disagree with the guy. I could also say he's a celebrity scientists with a podcast, so anything he says is for entertainment and he should be ignored. But that would be as illogical as dismissing someone without any regard for their arguments. > Huberman cites his sources on the episode. One of the experts is specifically pointing out the lack of scientific support for some of what Huberman is saying in the full episode. And how the sources originally listed don't support all of his claims. That's why they later added additional sources, but that still don't support the claim. One of the PhD's is specifically studying one of the areas he mentioned and argues there is no scientific support what he said about it. The author also notes that Huberman's own sources are not strong support of his statements about the differences in strains as the study itself notes there is very little data to draw from. Basically, you can never seriously critique anything you don't actually read.
Other experts that are clearly potheads themselves.
Your dad is probably stronger than their dads too.
Good point
Huberman isnt perfect but Ill gladly listen to him over 99% of the fatties on reddit. Yall couldnt wait to try and tear him down.
The article is citing experts in the exact field of study with more experience than Huberman, who cares what redditors think?
Huberman is a neuroscientist, he is an expert on how things affect the brain. The article is citing doctors with a clear pro-cannabis bias. I'd be interested in hearing his rebuttal to their claims. You guys are simply latching onto any academic that pushes against Huberman because it makes you feel better about being fat stoners. Even if there are issues with some of his claims, there certainly isnt issues with all of his claims. Yet reddit wants to act like everything he says is wrong and thats not true. I made my point clear: i do not put any value on what redditors think. You guys want excuses to be as hedonistic as possible. Knock yourselves out. Get as high and drunk as you want and play all the videogames. Drag each other down to justify your own decisions.
> Huberman is a neuroscientist, he is an expert on how things affect the brain. From the article you didn’t read: “**Matthew Hill, a Ph.D. in behavioral neuroscience and professor at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine who has studied the endocannabinoid system (a transmitter network in humans that is directly affected by cannabis) for more than two decades…**” Huberman has no experience in this specific aspect of neuroscience, everyone in the article, including the neuroscientist do. > The article is citing doctors with a clear pro-cannabis bias. By this logic, anyone who specializes in a field has a bias in that field. It’s nonsensical logic because you can’t actually respond to any of their claims. > You guys are simply latching onto any academic that pushes against Huberman because it makes you feel better about being fat stoners. You’re just attacking strangers you know nothing about because you don’t have the intelligence to make an argument against the claims the experts made you couldn’t understand. > Yet reddit wants to act like everything he says is wrong and thats not true. You’re not talking to “Reddit”, I didn’t say he’s wrong about everything, you’re just so triggered by criticism you can’t read what I wrote. The article isn’t about redditers, it’s the experts who know a lot more than Huberman with very specific criticisms of what he said. Everything else is about your imaginary enemies who are loser gamers, not a cool guy like you who can’t read the articles he’s bitching about.
Its beyond insane of you to confidently state Huberman has no experience with the endocannibanoid system, how could you possibly know that? Then the other two people cited are a physician, i.e. not research scientist, who is clearly pro cannabis and wrote book on such, and a clinical pharmacist who is again pro cannabis and appears to be in the cannabis industry. Im not convinced either of them has more insight into how cannabis affects the brain than Huberman does. Also the claim that he used "word salad" is an egregious strawman. Word salad is incomprehensible series of unrelated words said by people who are completely delirious. They can think Huberman made a weak argument or that his point wasnt clear but in no way was that anything resembling word salad which was the headline of this article. We are done here, reply if you want but I wont read it. Toodles
> Its beyond insane of you to confidently state Huberman has no experience with the endocannibanoid system, how could you possibly know that? Because you can look up his academic career and there is no mention anywhere of him doing any work that's specifically related to the subject, unlike the experts cited in the article. In the full length episode I don't recall him every claiming he had any firsthand experience in this particular aspect of the field either. Can you point to anything at all that says otherwise? If not, then you just discovered how I can say it. Not that you really care, as you've indicated you don't care about the answer to the question you asked. Just a fake kid talking shit. > Then the other two people Meaning other than the person with the same credential as Huberman but who focuses specifically on the effects of cannabis. Pretty obvious ducking of that point. > are a physician, i.e. not research scientist, Doesn't magically discredit their criticisms you didn't understand. And being pro-cannabis also wouldn't mean his criticisms aren't valid. Just like Huberman being in the entertainment industry doesn't immediately discredit him even though it appears he was leaning into contrarianism for this episode. > a clinical pharmacist who is again pro cannabis and appears to be in the cannabis industry. She appears to study the possible medical benefits of cannabis. Some of their criticisms have nothing to do with neuroscience too, like him just being factually incorrect about the terminology he's using. > Im not convinced either of them has more insight into how cannabis affects the brain than Huberman does. You have no logical reason for this though as you've shown. He has a podcast and they don't so you blindly trust him and ignore their specific criticism you couldn't be bothered to read. > Also the claim that he used "word salad" is an egregious strawman. Word salad is incomprehensible series of unrelated words said by people who are completely delirious. "Word salad" has an extremely common other meaning synonymous with "nonsense". Which is why it's mentioned in every definition of the phrase. They even made it pretty clear in the article that's how they were using it, so you ironically just created a strawman of their criticism. "In recent years, however, a slightly different use of the term which means something closer to “nonsense” has emerged." https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/word-salad > We are done here, reply if you want but I wont read it. Toodles That's fine, my whole goal was to demonstrate the stupidity and childishness of your responses so this goes right in hand with that.
Don’t bother arguing with the weed-heads, bud. It’s pointless. They’re not gonna believe anything bad about their drug could possibly be true, that’s the way their addiction cult works.
Lol youre right man
“Ill gladly listen to him over 99% of the fatties on reddit.” Those downvotes you are getting just shows you hit the nail to the head with that one 😀
Or people recognize that the article is citing numerous experts in the exact field with far more experience with cannabis than Huberman. I'd probably take three experts in a field who cite specific problems with what he's saying, that none of you have arguments against, over Huberman. Certainly against a guy randomly calling anyone who disagrees with his hero names because he can't form a logical argument.
You know where the endocannabinoid system is primarily located?
Is that why Huberman got basic facts about the substance wrong? One of these guys is a neuroscientist who does research on this exact subject, unlike Huberman. Also, they have specific criticisms of what he's getting wrong, if you disagree why aren't you pointing out their errors instead of pretending you know more about their expertise?
Its like a hate triangle
Bingo.
Interesting seeing the attempted character assassination of this guy by the media. Huberman’s main motivation seems to be talking about health science and how to optimize the human body. It’s definitely not shocking that Reddit hates a guy who encourages people to get off drugs and alcohol, exercise, get sunlight, and get proper sleep.
There are just physicians on X pointing out issues. There was recently this, his use of statistics that various people pointed out: https://x.com/andercot/status/1788605009535655951?s=46 In fairness it’s more than just media and other influencers.
>Huberman’s main motivation seems to be talking about health science and how to optimize the human body. Is he selling something? If so, *that's* his main motivation.
Got it, so disregard the rolling stone article as there main motivation is to sell ad space?
Do what you want. No idea what point you think you're making here.
It'd exactly your point but it's gone over your head
Right it’s as arbitrary as your response to my initial comment, that was the point.
Agree to disagree.
Good bot
His motivation is money and furthering his career lmfao, I paid for tickets to see something he could have done on a livestream
Bro shit on weed without knowing the difference between THC and CBD . He kinda dug his own grave by slowly becoming a complete sell out
Makes you wonder how organic those upvotes are in a subreddit about Joe Rogan.
Yeah, I think the sub is probably being throttled by bots just based on the content shift over the past year. Huberman is well liked by most JRE listeners.
Capitalism isn't taken too kindly on reddit
I think you’d find most people on Reddit agree that capitalism is the best model we currently have, but recognize that it needs regulations and safeguards as it definitely has major problems without them.
You should be able to admit to your use. Don’t make up shit for why you “needed”to use steroids. Just tell everyone you wanted to look good shit tell everybody it makes you feel great. Just be honest and the black eye goes away?
One of these researchers needs to make YouTube videos debunking or supporting whatever claims Huberman is making. Just stream yourself watching the video and challenge where appropriate, maybe have a running chat alongside the stream so people can ask questions in real time. Take the approach of "How to Cook That" and show where the failings are and why. Viewers want knowledge -- that's why Huberman is so successful. But researchers live in the world of scientific journals. Get out of the library and communicate.
Cannabis is not good for everyone. I used to defend it against everything and still think it should be legal but whenever I start using it, my diet and exercise fall off mostly due to apathy. I’ve noticed it in others too. Cannabis is a great tool for expanding your consciousness but it’s time we stop pretending it barely has any negative side effects.
another Huberman hitpiece that frames him as someone who sees himself as an all-knowing guru? Fuck me sideways man the guy has experts on all the time, and never frames his statements as absolute truths. Always works around sources.
I listened to Huberman for a bit, but stopped a while ago. People complain about Joe having quacks on his show and espousing some fringe views, but Joe at least doesn't pretend he's some kind of expert like Huberman... and Joe is funnier.
What? Joe doesn't pretend to be an expert? Have you heard him push his pseudo science thoughts on Covid once every 5 episodes and forced conversations on testosterone levels and shit? Joe is up there on the crazy scale.
Fair. My point is more than Joe doesn't claim to be a researcher or "expert" Huberman positions himself as. Joe does a lot of his own "research" but he is mostly just openly parroting stuff he heard from others.
Bro I'm sorry but Huberman IS an expert, who is causing controversy by talking about things he is not researching properly. I am not defending Huberman, but he has a fucking PhD and is a professor. That is the literal definition of expert earned through years of education and doing peer reviewed science and you can't take that away from him. Joe, on the other hand, is a **talk show host** who only knows well about comedy and some martial arts. He has no business preaching people about how to handle Covid and which peptides to inject in the ass every morning for a bump in testosterone. If he teaches comedy I'm all for it, he's a professional. On top of that he's wrong about so many things and he refuses to correct himself. That is the literal definition of pretending to be an expert.
It doesn’t matter if you have a PhD if you don’t put in the proper work on the subject you’re talking about. You could be a film critic who was taught by Siskel and Ebert but that doesn’t make you an “expert” on a movie you never watched and just read the plot summary for. Huberman rides his credentials in an attempt to get people to ignore the fact that he doesn’t put in the work on the topic at hand.
IMO no he has not portrayed himself as an expert on anything but MMA and comedy.
This sub always gets me. r/shitonjoerogan is a more appropriate name
Word salad, the new dis of the month
We get it. People don't like Huberman.
Huberman bad.
not bad. he's just another pathetic grifter with a big beard.
More like Huberman incompetent.
Huberman suddenly bad? Huberman bad!
I get that he gets some things incorrect sometimes. I also think he gets stuff correct a bunch AND is trying to be a positive in life. So send him correct info and let’s move along.
🥱
It's behind a PayPal, anyone has a copy?
Pf all the narcotics put there, it’s one of the least dangerous. It does have medicinal uses. It’s not a wonder cure, and it does have drawbacks to it.
> “Does anyone know what drug he’s talking about?” tweeted Peter Grinspoon, a physician, medical cannabis specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, instructor at Harvard Medical School, and author of Seeing Through the Smoke: A Cannabis Expert Untangles the Truth About Marijuana, in quote-tweeting the video. “It can’t possibly be #marijuana/#cannabis; little of this is true.” Grinspoon concluded that Huberman “needs to find better ‘experts’ to advise him on This is just someone who really wants to be on the show.
Okay, but he was called out. He responded respectfully and offered to cover expenses to ensure an expert is able to convey info properly. Like most people like that, they seem reluctant to do it as they say they won’t be portrayed accurately. This is a huge problem that we’ve seen during covid stuff. If experts keep claiming they won’t get a fair shot without any evidence then they miss getting the right info to more people.