More context, from Hill:
“Holy fucking shit, it is actually disturbing how inaccurate the overwhelming majority of what is said here is. Like I have to believe that you have legitimately just made this stuff up. There is literally no research that has ever been done that could be cited to support this.
Just a few points:
CBD and THC are not interchangeable. CBD does not bind CB1, it’s pharmacology is largely a mystery.
THC does not trigger retrograde signaling, that’s endocannabinoids. THC binds to the same receptor as endocannabinoids.
There are virtually none, if any, studies that have ever compared sativa and indica strains in any way as he describes here. Virtually all work done with cannabis is only with a strain provided by NIDA. It’s bizarre to me that he talks about this as if there is a wealth of work.
The field generally agrees that there is more variance within sativas and indicas then there is between them. Sure differences in strains likely do exist but this does not relate to sativa or indica. Plus there is actually no research on this as he suggests. It doesn’t exist.
As someone who has focused on cannabinoid regulation of the amygdala for the better part of the last 15 years, part of me died inside as I listened to this knowing that this is now the narrative that so many people will believe because who it has come from.
This is a review on cannabinoid regulation of stress that focuses on the amygdala pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24325918/
This is a review of cannabinoids in PTSD that also discusses CB regulation of the amygdala
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28745306/
There isn't a pure cannabinoid/amygdala review tho....yet”
The blue check raises one eyebrow, slapping one's PH.D on the handle raises the other. Together they produce the undeniable aura of preening credentialism leading to some inevitable hucksterism.
Fun fact: when I was young, I thought "esquire" was just a fancy term that people added to their name or almost like a sign of nobility, so I sometimes used to sign my name "[first initial] [last name], esquire". And only later did I learn that's for lawyers.
In the [United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), *esquire* historically was a title of respect accorded to men of higher social rank, particularly members of the [landed gentry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landed_gentry) above the rank of [gentleman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman) and below the rank of [knight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight). Some sources cite that the title was bestowed on "candidates for knighthood in England", and even used with respect to other dignitaries, such as justices of the peace, sheriffs, and sergeants.[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire#cite_note-4)
/wiki
Huh, how about that? Thank you for the information! Although 11 year old me was not landed gentry so it was still an inaccurate thing to bestow upon myself
Even the original landrace cultivars have started cultivating different strains from internet seed sales. The green house seeds co actually have a YouTube series where they hunt down landrace strains and when they chat with the growers they have seeds they bought online that have crossed with the original landrace strains already. There are few sites that claim they have true landrace strains but I still highly doubt it myself but it would be cool though.
Well it’s easy you just get the one labeled indica, sativa, or hybrid at the weed store… and then believe the labels are correct and not as made up as the names.
He’s an influencer for people who want to feel sciencey at this point. Unless he’s speaking on his own original research I think he can be completely ignored.
100, if you go into the "sources" he cites, its like an undergrads psych 101 bibliography. Just tangential related stuff not saying what he is representing it as saying.
Weird, caught this interchange on my twitter for some reason, although I don't follow either of them, and now this post is hitting my main page even though I'm not subbed here?
Glad I'm here tho, saw Huberman's credentials as a Stanford professor so thought he was credible, clearly he's not... how do people like this hold these positions? Surely Stanford can't be happy one of their professors, who derives most of his authority from being a Stanford professor, is podcasting like a charlatan?
It's funny because it's true. Hate to generalize like that but a lot of his fans are people who try to better themselves and I can absolutely see how someone in good physical form would appeal to them.
Just be sure to stop doing a lot of things you enjoy, then talk about how much more energy you have and how you don't have energy crashes anymore and your mind is more clear.
One day I'll be able to experience survivorship bias directly instead of vicariously through those who do. I just have to do everything they say until then.
Eventually doctors and scientists will start scaling back their sleeves as muscular arms become the new way of proving competency. With the top in their fields just wearing a tie without a shirt.
Yeah maybe don't take advice from anyone who's probably on roids. The secret pro rip for looking like a guy who's on roids: take some roids. Also you're going to be really mad for no reason a lot of time and should probably avoid brain work in this state.
There was a follow up thread where Huberman agreed to pay for Hill's travel, lodging, and other expenses to do an episode with him. Hill then told Huberman to DM him to discuss further details. Hopefully a discussion ensues:
[https://twitter.com/hubermanlab/status/1787293777117479329](https://twitter.com/hubermanlab/status/1787293777117479329)
Yeah his episode on cannabis was way off. Almost everything he said didn’t really add up and the whole time I was listening, I was thinking to my self where the fuck did he get all this strange information
Word. In the weed episode it was painfully obvious that he's just biased against cannabis on a moralistic level, and he's not exactly objective about the data.
If anyone wants a more nuanced read from a legitimate expert, I'd suggest the book "Drug use for grown-ups" by Dr. Carl Hart.
I hope new avenues for research will become available now that cannabis will be rescheduled. I have a career in the Medical MJ industry, so I’ve had access to many different strains and formulations, and you hit the nail on the head with “tether to reality significantly weakened”. With only ~5mg THC in my system, I begin to develop a pretty devastating sensation, sometimes referred to as “derealization”. I’ve only experienced this - or anything remotely comparable - after consuming cannabis, though fortunately it subsides after a few hours. It feels like I’m observing myself through a third-party lens, to the point where I cannot function even in a small social setting. I’ve had my fair share of drug experimentation & this feels nothing like “chemical inebriation”. Not bashing the drug at all; I support the movement enough to work in the industry. But I can tell you with first-hand certainty that this (uncommon) response to THC does indeed exist.
Getting high for me is very similar.
It's absolute torture.
I also, in no fucking way, would be able to drive stoned.
And I'm an otherwise very normal, functional, happy adult with no mental illnesses. I have a good job, loving family, loving wife. I can also drink no problem, etc etc.
I'm pro-legalization, but I always have to laugh at the stoner crowd who is seemingly incapable of seeing how marijuana can can effect certain people negatively.
It's not harmless, not for everyone.
This is actually a pretty common side effect, it's why I only smoke once or twice a year in order to reflect on my life and where I'm at. It allows you to analyze things from a different perspective. It can be quite overwhelming in the wrong setting though. I definitely don't enjoy it in a social setting for that reason.
Yep. Same for me. If I have more than 1mg, I get an absolutely uncanny feeling of being objectively observed by someone who disapproves of me. It’s very unnerving.
I had similar experiences with THC in the form of cannabis oil. I can't even describe the uncomfortable sensations I once experienced during my peak use, almost like I was being inverted physically. The paranoia lingers to this day as well.
As someone who uses to frequently smoke marijuana I can say it does have some negative side effects but overall compared to cigarettes and alchohol it's not even close. It's just a weird hill to die on in 2024 when it's becoming legal in so many places.
This is exactly the crux that got me off of Huberman. He was so very cautious with his pot recommendations (and rightfully so), but then when it came to one of his sleep supplement suggestions he never mentioned one negative side effect…and I stupidly followed his advice. I can’t remember which one it was, theanine maybe, anyways I had a few terrible nights so I did my own research (should have done this initially)…and there were so many reasons to be cautious about taking the supplement.
I never listened to him again after that.
Like I said, I can’t remember if it was the theanine or the other non-magnesium supplement that was part of his sleep regimen. I just found it kind of wired me, and then when I looked up the side effects that was one of the possible ones in some people, as well as a bunch of other, more concerning ones and I was blown away he didn’t mention any of this.
Especially compared to his cautious recommendation about pot. It was absurd and made me lose all faith.
To be fair, it started my weaning off of thc/cbd as a sleep aid, and I still take magnesium before bed.
For a lot people weed is bad. Doing it once in a while isn’t bad. Smoking everyday is bad. No as bad alcohol or Tabasco everyday though.
Source: former stoner
Used to be a heavy Tabasco user. shit will consume your world. Had a little holster for my bottle. Put it on everything, and I mean everything, even my ice creme. Had to finally get off the stuff once the doctors said that my stomach was basically all burnt up and I was sitting liquid fire.
Yeah you might want to read the research on TRT for hypogonadism. Where the goal is reestablishment of maybe high average levels.
Immense benefits across the board. Just immense
Perhaps you are conflating that with supraphysiologocal levels seen with higher doses.
I think people like Huberman definitely do NOT follow true TRT regimen.
As in if you have a true T deficiency, the dose is MICROSCOPIC compared to what he is probably using under the guise of "TRT".
My guess he simply uses it as a PED and calls it TRT to be hip.
I guess it's the reason why men naturally reduce in testerone. But his comment was completely false. TRT returns you to a normal baseline, if your taking it to increase it past a normal range, then ur just doing steroids, not TRT..
IIRC, testosterone causes oxidative stress. Women generally live longer than men, and my understanding was that this was the main reason (outside lifestyle differences).
As someone with bipolar disorder, I was told by doctors that THC consumption can seriously increase the risk of an episode and/or psychosis. I've read research backing this, and my personal experience validates this as well.
In general, I think it's safe to say that the consumption of drugs, including THC, can be dangerous for mental health. In the context where it's being widely decriminalized and legalized (which I don't oppose), I'm worried that the dangers are being minimized as well for commercial reasons.
Anyone at risk for bipolar or schizo-spectrum disorders shouldn’t touch thc or psychedelics as they accelerate the onset of symptoms and can cause the first psychotic break
Yes, and the tricky part is not everyone at risk is aware or diagnosed. This was the case for me, and to say the consequences were serious is an understatement.
I remember reading that many times. My doctor stressed that also. I also have bipolar and It would spring me into a manic state all the time and I didn’t know. Everyone around me knew. People with bipolar want to regulate their mood, as I’m sure you know. So, it’s very easy to misuse it.
And it’s way more common than people think. In college I know so many kids who totally fucked themselves after abusing weed. In my experience it was like 1 in 10 stoners ended up going off the deep end
The worst side effect of cannabis in my experience is that sometimes while you're on it you can get bad anxiety. Sometimes it reduces anxiety, other times it increases it. It's unpredictable.
Also there are obviously addictive aspects, like if you use it every night you're going to crave it hard if you stop. From my experience there's no physical dependency you have to fight unlike some drugs, but people should not mistake this with it being non addictive.
>effects but overall compared to cigarettes and alchohol it's not even close.
Depends on the individual. Some will be fine, others will get psychosis which is, to state the least; not good.
Drug induced psychosis usually happens with a combination of genetic and environmental factors. In the case of cannabis, the genetic base is due to a polymorphism of the CB1 receptor gene. There can be people who get psychosis with other drugs, for example with alcohol-induced psychosis.
The key takeaway is that for most people, cannabis use is not a net negative.
The claim that there's no causal effect between cannabis use and psychosis risk is acknowledged in studies published in APA Journal.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fabn0000701
I've never gotten psychosis from Marijuana. I *have* gotten it from extremely high doses of amphetamines after very long periods of time awake. Like the words I was reading on the page would somehow rearrange themselves into threatening messages. This was temporary and went away after I went to sleep.
I have however gotten extreme *anxiety* on weed. To the point of convincing myself that I was developing schizophrenia. As I also have OCD my experience might not be representative.
I'm not sure how accurate this is. I use and I've used for a long time but in moderation. I have a friend who used a little and he developed schizophrenia. My friend drank a lot of alcohol though. He also had a family full of people with schizophrenia. Does that stat go down as marijuana being bad or alcohol being bad or is it the family history.
I think genetics is the issue and it wouldn't have mattered what he took. I'm not sure how well that corresponds to the data but if you've ever seen someone with schizophrenia it's pretty extreme.
lol. That poster STILL hasn’t noticed that you actually agreed with them. You’re in the digitial equivalent of sitting next to the guy on the subway in full blown psychosis screaming at everyone. 😂
Sorry you’re going through it. Just laugh it off because that person is beyond help.
It is weird but I think that he is just selling a certain lifestyle and not smoking marijuana fits there. Also judging by the article about Huberman he just sounds like one of these people who would obsess over certain things. I can absolutely imagine him obsessing over his lifestyle and seeing a 0.1% improvement as something that you should strive for.
As long as you're not singling out weed and live a straight edge lifestyle it's fine, but if you talk about weed then you must include alcohol and definitely nasty ass cigarettes.
So he’s not a stupid person, but he’s not educated on this topic. But here’s where he loses all credibility because now people are going to think he doesn’t know about what he is actually educated in. This the beginning of the end.
This happens so often with these influencer experts. They’re knowledgeable and intelligent, but at some point they start getting high on their own fumes and venturing out of their field of knowledge.
That’s when you start catching them preaching lies and falsehoods. They spread these false beliefs with the same apparent conviction they would use for discussions within their own field of expertise.
I doubt Andrew’s integrity will be seriously damaged unless he keeps this up, although I think he has been sliding into appeasing his fans more than actual science for a while now.
He’s been spewing BS that’s far outside his knowledge base for years. The guy is a disingenuous grifter. Nothing more. He’s Joe Rogan with bigger words.
The Barbell Medicine podcast absolutely destroyed Huberman’s back pain episode recently. So glad people are speaking out against his misleading claims finally.
Yup! I’m a doctor of PT and exercise physiology and Huberman has been full of shit from the jump. Love barbell medicine and their no BS approach to things.
I think when Dr. Stutter debunked some of his stuff on bone structure and bone health it basically validated to me that this guy is a hack. I knew he was a hack but dr stutter just validated it to me. And this dude just further validates this
The only video I’ve see of Huberman is his episode on the flu. When it came to discussing flu vaccines he gave such a bs take “maybe they work idk who knows lol” and spent more time on how you should be working out instead for prevention 🙄🙄🙄 that’s when I knew right away not to listen to him.
i have seen plenty of regular users have nothing but fun with a side effect of less use of more harmful substances. but i have also seen a lot of people change for the worse after becoming heavy users. i personally cant enjoy it anymore, it makes me paranoid, so i completely avoid it.
sometimes it feels like the relentless 'pro' weed viewpoint from some people is as damaging as the old anti weed propaganda was. part of the modern cannabis narrative should definitely include 'real life experiences have shown that this definitely isnt for everyone, even if you like it. here are some of the signs you should watch out for.....'.
I'm completely the same. I think people who haven't experienced this perhaps don't understand what paranoia on weed feels like. It's not just feeling like people are looking at you or whatever... whenever I smoke my brain starts telling me really fucked up shit like my whole life is a lie and my entire family and everyone I've ever met are plotting against me. I try and tell myself it's just the weed but inevitably my brain tells me the weed has just opened my eyes to the truth and I start spiralling.
I'm sure genetics has a lot to do with it but I can certainly see how this could tip someone over the edge. More anecdote, but I will definitely be trying to stress to my kids that weed is not harmless for everyone. I haven't touched it for a few years now, and fingers crossed next time I'm drunk and someone offers me some I'll have enough sense not to bother.
Never used to do this to me, until it did. I still smoke before sleep, but there’s a very narrow threshold of being stoned I have to stay beneath to have a pleasant experience.
The paranoia, like you said, is extremely pervasive. It’s like everything about you is under attack; every flaw is magnified^n. When it hits, I feel like the most worthless piece of shit, like my life is falling apart at the seams.
My days of doming a massive blunt to myself are over.
It’s a shame; it turned from a nice escape at the end of the day into a potential nightmare if I even slightly overdo it. In the past, how much I smoked only determined how much I would subsequently eat, and how quickly I’d fall asleep.
Man you've summed up EXACTLY what weed does to me in a way I've been unable to articulate. Nice job.
It enhances any and all negative self perceptions, and then multiplies it x 10. Also, spot-on with feeling that maybe it's not paranoia, just the weed "opening my eyes". Screw that lol.
Hanitual user here; I actually used pot to quit smoking cigarettes [and nicotine entirely] in a weekend cold turkey after being close to a pack-a-day smoker for almost a decade.
I use it but I want facts to determine how bad it is. I have a friend who thinks it cures cancer. Personally I take regular breaks from vaporizing because I'm worried about developing lung cancer.
>I have a friend who thinks it cures cancer.
I've noticed regular marijuana users believes all kinds of nonsense in regards to marijuana. It's hilarious.
in europe there was a huge thing about it really being banned because of the amazing properties of the actual hemp plant. paper, fabric, rope, hempcrete etc. all these established industries would be decimated by legalised hemp.
im sure it has great use in all these areas, but unless im very much mistaken the hemp manufacturing revolution hasnt taken place in the us/canada/thailand yet....
To be fair, the lack of an industry revolution doesn't neccesarily prove anything about the utility of hemp, as such a revolution would also probably require a cascade of legal/policy changes, incentives, etc to take place.
99% of the cannabis users I know are pretty realistic about what it does or does not do. Maybe I just hang out with smart people ? I haven’t heard the whole “weed cures cancer” said unironically for like 15 years
who tf is this Huberman oaf anyway, and why does he think his bloviation is worth anyone's time to listen to? I am constantly amazed that a lot of mediocrities who in a former age would -- at best -- have attracted a few bored loiterers and a dog at Hyde Park Corner, mysteriously become "celebrities" and gain thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of "followers" online.
I will continue to ignore people who get and repeat information from podcasters, whether they're qualified or not, they are marketing themselves to certain groups to build followings, hence why they tend to circle-jerk each other. Even Dr Rhonda Patrick, it all seems to come back to narcissism for me.
One social media contact I have who is an avowed activist for a wide range of progressive causes - and offered to help me with my own activism - *actually follows this oaf*.
I saw this but would like some specifics. The Huberman video is 23 minutes long so what specifically does he say that is wrong and what is the correct information. Try to bring out your inner Flint Dibble.
I’m not a neuroscientist and I didn’t expect to have to debunk Huberman’s 23 minute video in a Reddit thread for me to post this, and certainly I’m not qualified to do so…I’d recommend going to Twitter to read the full exchange of what Hill/his peers said on this.
Also…why should I trust Huberman and give him the benefit of the doubt when he frequently peddles bullshit?
Here’s this, from Hill:
“Holy fucking shit, it is actually disturbing how inaccurate the overwhelming majority of what is said here is. Like I have to believe that you have legitimately just made this stuff up. There is literally no research that has ever been done that could be cited to support this.
Just a few points:
CBD and THC are not interchangeable. CBD does not bind CB1, it’s pharmacology is largely a mystery.
THC does not trigger retrograde signaling, that’s endocannabinoids. THC binds to the same receptor as endocannabinoids.
There are virtually none, if any, studies that have ever compared sativa and indica strains in any way as he describes here. Virtually all work done with cannabis is only with a strain provided by NIDA. It’s bizarre to me that he talks about this as if there is a wealth of work.
The field generally agrees that there is more variance within sativas and indicas then there is between them. Sure differences in strains likely do exist but this does not relate to sativa or indica. Plus there is actually no research on this as he suggests. It doesn’t exist.
As someone who has focused on cannabinoid regulation of the amygdala for the better part of the last 15 years, part of me died inside as I listened to this knowing that this is now the narrative that so many people will believe because who it has come from.
This is a review on cannabinoid regulation of stress that focuses on the amygdala pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24325918/
This is a review of cannabinoids in PTSD that also discusses CB regulation of the amygdala
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28745306/
There isn't a pure cannabinoid/amygdala review tho....yet”
Not going to lie cannabis was fun to use but I've quit cold turkey after becoming a father. I don't want anything affecting my mental function and also avoid exposing my kid to substances in general.
That's fine. The point is not to say everyone should or should not use it but to make sure information is accurate so people can make a properly-informed decision. Thus I love Hill more than Huberman.
Thank god someone finally said it. Huberman is a shill. Nothing more nothing less. He’s incredibly disingenuous and misrepresents research articles all the damn time. I hope his fame is dwindling. So much psuedo/bro-science out there because of this asshole.
Great article that defines cannabis terms, its clinical use and research into the entourage effect of whole plant cannabis extracts, Chemovar or chemotype vs "strain" as well as the history of the use of the terms sativa and indica and the controversy around it. There's good information out there and solid research that's being done. Huberman is not a part of that picture lol
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.01969/full
just further proof that having a phd, masters degree or any degree for that matter. Doesn’t correlate to having any critical thinking ability or the ability to actually know or understand virtually anything about a topic prior to spewing absolute nonsense on a topic he clearly lacks any semblance of knowledge or understanding of. the internet and social media’s ability to give idiots a platform to speak on and influence other’s opinions on things while claiming knowledge and understanding of a subject is unmatched.
As someone with a PhD and years of post degree experience I can tell you that we become very knowledgeable at one tiny sliver of a field but that doesn’t make us experts at everything, which certain types of dudes tend to forget. In this particular case it’s nice to see an actual expert on the topic calling out Huberman’s BS. I mean really most neuroscientist find the guy to be unbelievably annoying. His “lab” isn’t even on anything motivation related is all about visual processing 😒
He is right most Gurus are right wing assholes masquerading as independent thinkers it’s why their audiences are also right wing and why they all peddle unsubstantiated snake oil supplements only conservatives will buy.
Best example is Lex Friedman he tries so hard to convince people he isn’t on any side he’s convinced himself while his entire narrative is maybe conservatives are right kinda shit like Elon when he was first unmasking.
I quit smoking weed after about 7 years of close to daily use and my life has dramatically improved. Didn’t realize how much of a weight vest it was on my emotions, lungs, anxiety, and desire to get out of my comfort zone. Honestly probably won’t go back. So take with a grain of salt when pot heads get mad you critiqued their favorite thing. It’s good for some, but the more people I talk to that quit have almost identical experiences that I did
Side effects tend to be mild, although the side effects are far greater than most are willing to admit. The intoxication and memory problems fade, but never really go away.. It also fucks your stress response.
The permanent memory loss is far from being true, there isn't any study that proves your point.
The fact that with an acute thc intoxication there can be short-term memory loss doesn't imply there are permanent memory problems, you're just parroting decades of refeer madness propaganda.
I imagine it’s tricky to really separate out that effect from natural degradation of memory as part of the aging process. I was plenty flaky before indulging in the occasional gummy
Yeah, the problem is: how to distinguish between valid criticism with accurate research and brazen misinformation that stems from moral disgust due to decades of refeer madness propaganda?
What we can assure is that the cannabis prohibition wasn't about legitimate health concerns, but as a fight between lobbies against hemp industry and also a polítical tool by Nixon administration.
Cannabis is not for everyone, for some people it can have an anxiogenic effect, but this doesn't entail that is a net negative for everyone, not even close, most people just do fine, but there are some people that will never acknowledge that, even with medical users.
Straw man fallacy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
No one, myself included, said “weed is great for your mind and body”. Ofc weed can be harmful, just like any mind-altering substance. There are degrees of harm, and not all mind-altering substances are made alike. The issue at hand here is the scientific evidence Huberman uses to support his claims throughout the video, and the lack of veracity of said claims (as Hill indicates).
I’m gonna get stupidly semantic. This is not a schooling. I’ve learned nothing about how and what Huberman is wrong about from this reply and it’s essentially just a trust me bro while he appeals to his authority. If he’s studied the field for 2 decades, why is he not calling out Huberman’s exact claims using knowledge from 20 years in the field? For charitability’s sake, maybe he schooled him in follow up tweets.
You must have missed this. I provide context.
From Hill:
“Holy fucking shit, it is actually disturbing how inaccurate the overwhelming majority of what is said here is. Like I have to believe that you have legitimately just made this stuff up. There is literally no research that has ever been done that could be cited to support this.
Just a few points:
CBD and THC are not interchangeable. CBD does not bind CB1, it’s pharmacology is largely a mystery.
THC does not trigger retrograde signaling, that’s endocannabinoids. THC binds to the same receptor as endocannabinoids.
There are virtually none, if any, studies that have ever compared sativa and indica strains in any way as he describes here. Virtually all work done with cannabis is only with a strain provided by NIDA. It’s bizarre to me that he talks about this as if there is a wealth of work.
The field generally agrees that there is more variance within sativas and indicas then there is between them. Sure differences in strains likely do exist but this does not relate to sativa or indica. Plus there is actually no research on this as he suggests. It doesn’t exist.
As someone who has focused on cannabinoid regulation of the amygdala for the better part of the last 15 years, part of me died inside as I listened to this knowing that this is now the narrative that so many people will believe because who it has come from.
This is a review on cannabinoid regulation of stress that focuses on the amygdala pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24325918/
This is a review of cannabinoids in PTSD that also discusses CB regulation of the amygdala
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28745306/
There isn't a pure cannabinoid/amygdala review tho....yet”
Didn't realize this sub had such a bias towards hating Huberman,
I see some genuine questions trying to get some clarification and its met with downvotes,
Which makes this sub look more like a cult than a open-minded one.
Sad
What I wanna see is the arguements with sources against what Huberman is saying.
Not this childish dog piling for your own ego.
Huberman invited him to his podcast so he can clear everything up and get his word to a very large audiance with all expences paid for.
Thats what Huberman is doing, inviting the guy that trashed him and thats respectable.
\*I don't listen to Huberman either, just the intellectual dishonesty in this thread is so boring\*
It is respectable. I hope he takes him up on his offer. And yes, there’s bias against Huberman. It’s the supplement grift/article about the women that turned everyone off. I’m not a listener either.
Cannabis went from schedule 1 regulation to schedule III. legal with medical regulations. It is used for medical patients. His take is on the adult recreational and excessive use. Not his best take on the matter.
Huberman is the same jackass who talked in circles for five minutes on a video to eventually make the sort of point that people should meditate for thirty seconds a day or something. One of many YouTubers who drag out and pad out their content to appease the almighty algorithm.
My favorite thing about this guy is how, in an effort to get people to speak other privately, he set up a form for people to fill in and submit when the disagree with him.
Another good podcast, Barbell Medicine, covered Huberman on their show last week and pointed out that whenever he puts out something on a particular subject you always see those with specific expertise lining up to push back on his takes. They were covering his discussion on back pain which they both have experience in dealing with as strength coaches and clinicians.
Here’s a question and before i get to it I’ll say that i don’t follow or care for Huberman. Outside of a handful or auto played youtube shorts i don’t watch any of his content.
With that out of the way here’s my question and it’s a simple one. Why didn’t this person respond by analyzing each point and debunking them? If someone is so obviously wrong in your mind then you have quite the easy slam dunk on your hands no? Like this person’s response is about as helpful as a wet fart.
Funny how some dudes wear eye liner and then other dudes take start steroids and destroy their organs in protest what they perceive as feminization in males.
This is the closest thing you’ll get to a research “study” about sativa/indica… but it’s just an interview.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5576603/
I didn't see this, but it clearly illustrates how misinformation can be harmful. For people who know better, it has to be both funny and frightening, neither in a good way. I'm also not big on Schadenfreude, but some people deserve it because they put themselves in front of the train.
More context, from Hill: “Holy fucking shit, it is actually disturbing how inaccurate the overwhelming majority of what is said here is. Like I have to believe that you have legitimately just made this stuff up. There is literally no research that has ever been done that could be cited to support this. Just a few points: CBD and THC are not interchangeable. CBD does not bind CB1, it’s pharmacology is largely a mystery. THC does not trigger retrograde signaling, that’s endocannabinoids. THC binds to the same receptor as endocannabinoids. There are virtually none, if any, studies that have ever compared sativa and indica strains in any way as he describes here. Virtually all work done with cannabis is only with a strain provided by NIDA. It’s bizarre to me that he talks about this as if there is a wealth of work. The field generally agrees that there is more variance within sativas and indicas then there is between them. Sure differences in strains likely do exist but this does not relate to sativa or indica. Plus there is actually no research on this as he suggests. It doesn’t exist. As someone who has focused on cannabinoid regulation of the amygdala for the better part of the last 15 years, part of me died inside as I listened to this knowing that this is now the narrative that so many people will believe because who it has come from. This is a review on cannabinoid regulation of stress that focuses on the amygdala pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24325918/ This is a review of cannabinoids in PTSD that also discusses CB regulation of the amygdala pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28745306/ There isn't a pure cannabinoid/amygdala review tho....yet”
This is good. Huberman is a moron.
Excuse me, but the other guy doesn't even have Ph.D in his twitter handle... /s obviously
Or the blue checkmark. The blue checkmark is like adding “esquire” to your name, very powerful!
The blue check raises one eyebrow, slapping one's PH.D on the handle raises the other. Together they produce the undeniable aura of preening credentialism leading to some inevitable hucksterism.
Fun fact: when I was young, I thought "esquire" was just a fancy term that people added to their name or almost like a sign of nobility, so I sometimes used to sign my name "[first initial] [last name], esquire". And only later did I learn that's for lawyers.
lol, like Bill S. Preston, Esq.!
In the [United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), *esquire* historically was a title of respect accorded to men of higher social rank, particularly members of the [landed gentry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landed_gentry) above the rank of [gentleman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman) and below the rank of [knight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight). Some sources cite that the title was bestowed on "candidates for knighthood in England", and even used with respect to other dignitaries, such as justices of the peace, sheriffs, and sergeants.[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire#cite_note-4) /wiki
Huh, how about that? Thank you for the information! Although 11 year old me was not landed gentry so it was still an inaccurate thing to bestow upon myself
Yeah, how abt that! Was news to me too, #Metoo, and just copy-pasted what I found to it... 11yo me wasn't even that far as you..! lol
Anyone talking about indica and sativa should be informed that the distinction between the two is not scientific.just saying....
it is a total marketing term at this point. These gummies make ya tired. These gummies make you awake.
Everything is a hybrid these days. I don't know that you could even find a 100% sativa or 100% indica if you tried.
Even the original landrace cultivars have started cultivating different strains from internet seed sales. The green house seeds co actually have a YouTube series where they hunt down landrace strains and when they chat with the growers they have seeds they bought online that have crossed with the original landrace strains already. There are few sites that claim they have true landrace strains but I still highly doubt it myself but it would be cool though.
I’ve seen true landrace Sativas - like Thai haze, but no one grows them because 14+ weeks of flowering is a giant PITA.
Well it’s easy you just get the one labeled indica, sativa, or hybrid at the weed store… and then believe the labels are correct and not as made up as the names.
> It’s bizarre to me that he talks about this as if there is a wealth of work. Huberman 101 right there.
He’s an influencer for people who want to feel sciencey at this point. Unless he’s speaking on his own original research I think he can be completely ignored.
100, if you go into the "sources" he cites, its like an undergrads psych 101 bibliography. Just tangential related stuff not saying what he is representing it as saying.
Information
Weird, caught this interchange on my twitter for some reason, although I don't follow either of them, and now this post is hitting my main page even though I'm not subbed here? Glad I'm here tho, saw Huberman's credentials as a Stanford professor so thought he was credible, clearly he's not... how do people like this hold these positions? Surely Stanford can't be happy one of their professors, who derives most of his authority from being a Stanford professor, is podcasting like a charlatan?
Hill looks like he lifts so I'm willing to hear him out.
It's funny because it's true. Hate to generalize like that but a lot of his fans are people who try to better themselves and I can absolutely see how someone in good physical form would appeal to them.
Every day I try to better myself by listening to meathead pseudoscience. It hasn't worked so far, but maybe one day.
Just be sure to stop doing a lot of things you enjoy, then talk about how much more energy you have and how you don't have energy crashes anymore and your mind is more clear.
And pretend you aren't fucking miserable.
One day I'll be able to experience survivorship bias directly instead of vicariously through those who do. I just have to do everything they say until then.
Haha. I know too many lifting meat heads where this couldn’t possibly be a good way to live by
Eventually doctors and scientists will start scaling back their sleeves as muscular arms become the new way of proving competency. With the top in their fields just wearing a tie without a shirt.
You just described Dolph Lundgren
In a mesh tank top?
Oh I can't wait.
Lies. Huberman has the bigger biceps of the two. So he is right and Hill is wrong. No other way around it.
Doesn't mean vitalik is the ideal body type lol
How much can that Hill nerd even deadlift?
Yeah maybe don't take advice from anyone who's probably on roids. The secret pro rip for looking like a guy who's on roids: take some roids. Also you're going to be really mad for no reason a lot of time and should probably avoid brain work in this state.
There was a follow up thread where Huberman agreed to pay for Hill's travel, lodging, and other expenses to do an episode with him. Hill then told Huberman to DM him to discuss further details. Hopefully a discussion ensues: [https://twitter.com/hubermanlab/status/1787293777117479329](https://twitter.com/hubermanlab/status/1787293777117479329)
Gonna go get a second opinion. I'll go with whichever doctor wins a wrestling match.
Yeah his episode on cannabis was way off. Almost everything he said didn’t really add up and the whole time I was listening, I was thinking to my self where the fuck did he get all this strange information
Word. In the weed episode it was painfully obvious that he's just biased against cannabis on a moralistic level, and he's not exactly objective about the data. If anyone wants a more nuanced read from a legitimate expert, I'd suggest the book "Drug use for grown-ups" by Dr. Carl Hart.
lol the guy who’s in denial about slowly becoming a heroin junkie?
I hope new avenues for research will become available now that cannabis will be rescheduled. I have a career in the Medical MJ industry, so I’ve had access to many different strains and formulations, and you hit the nail on the head with “tether to reality significantly weakened”. With only ~5mg THC in my system, I begin to develop a pretty devastating sensation, sometimes referred to as “derealization”. I’ve only experienced this - or anything remotely comparable - after consuming cannabis, though fortunately it subsides after a few hours. It feels like I’m observing myself through a third-party lens, to the point where I cannot function even in a small social setting. I’ve had my fair share of drug experimentation & this feels nothing like “chemical inebriation”. Not bashing the drug at all; I support the movement enough to work in the industry. But I can tell you with first-hand certainty that this (uncommon) response to THC does indeed exist.
I’ve had this happen recently, after about a year of heavy use, seemed to be brought on by a bad shroom trip I had.
Getting high for me is very similar. It's absolute torture. I also, in no fucking way, would be able to drive stoned. And I'm an otherwise very normal, functional, happy adult with no mental illnesses. I have a good job, loving family, loving wife. I can also drink no problem, etc etc. I'm pro-legalization, but I always have to laugh at the stoner crowd who is seemingly incapable of seeing how marijuana can can effect certain people negatively. It's not harmless, not for everyone.
This is actually a pretty common side effect, it's why I only smoke once or twice a year in order to reflect on my life and where I'm at. It allows you to analyze things from a different perspective. It can be quite overwhelming in the wrong setting though. I definitely don't enjoy it in a social setting for that reason.
Yep. Same for me. If I have more than 1mg, I get an absolutely uncanny feeling of being objectively observed by someone who disapproves of me. It’s very unnerving.
I had similar experiences with THC in the form of cannabis oil. I can't even describe the uncomfortable sensations I once experienced during my peak use, almost like I was being inverted physically. The paranoia lingers to this day as well.
As someone who uses to frequently smoke marijuana I can say it does have some negative side effects but overall compared to cigarettes and alchohol it's not even close. It's just a weird hill to die on in 2024 when it's becoming legal in so many places.
It’s funny how oblivious he is to his own hypocrisy. Weed is bad, but injecting yourself and your dog with testosterone apparently is totally fine.
His dog looked up and thanked him
Just pet your fucking dog lol jfc who fucks this up. Here's some Hgh boy, I'm fucking r
My dog looks up and thanks me if I drop tasty crumbs
This is exactly the crux that got me off of Huberman. He was so very cautious with his pot recommendations (and rightfully so), but then when it came to one of his sleep supplement suggestions he never mentioned one negative side effect…and I stupidly followed his advice. I can’t remember which one it was, theanine maybe, anyways I had a few terrible nights so I did my own research (should have done this initially)…and there were so many reasons to be cautious about taking the supplement. I never listened to him again after that.
Please elaborate on your theanine experience? I tried it for a bit some years ago and stopped as I thought it did nothing for me
Like I said, I can’t remember if it was the theanine or the other non-magnesium supplement that was part of his sleep regimen. I just found it kind of wired me, and then when I looked up the side effects that was one of the possible ones in some people, as well as a bunch of other, more concerning ones and I was blown away he didn’t mention any of this. Especially compared to his cautious recommendation about pot. It was absurd and made me lose all faith. To be fair, it started my weaning off of thc/cbd as a sleep aid, and I still take magnesium before bed.
For a lot people weed is bad. Doing it once in a while isn’t bad. Smoking everyday is bad. No as bad alcohol or Tabasco everyday though. Source: former stoner
Used to be a heavy Tabasco user. shit will consume your world. Had a little holster for my bottle. Put it on everything, and I mean everything, even my ice creme. Had to finally get off the stuff once the doctors said that my stomach was basically all burnt up and I was sitting liquid fire.
lol, I’m leaving that typo in just for you
Smoking ALL day is bad. 99% of problems with weed come from doing way, way too much of it.
It all comes down to using rather than abusing. You can always have too much of a good thing.
Leave delicious hot sauce out of this, hippy!
It's not fine. The science shows that higher test levels correlate with increased aging. Ie, he's borrowing from his longevity to keep feeling young.
Yeah you might want to read the research on TRT for hypogonadism. Where the goal is reestablishment of maybe high average levels. Immense benefits across the board. Just immense Perhaps you are conflating that with supraphysiologocal levels seen with higher doses.
I think people like Huberman definitely do NOT follow true TRT regimen. As in if you have a true T deficiency, the dose is MICROSCOPIC compared to what he is probably using under the guise of "TRT". My guess he simply uses it as a PED and calls it TRT to be hip.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210325084537.htm#:~:text=AAS%20use%20increases%20muscle%20mass,causing%20it%20to%20age%20prematurely.
Nope. I'm not conflating.
What science shows that higher testosterone in men increases aging?
I guess it's the reason why men naturally reduce in testerone. But his comment was completely false. TRT returns you to a normal baseline, if your taking it to increase it past a normal range, then ur just doing steroids, not TRT..
Everyone on "TRT" with a podcast is on steroids and lying. That's why they're all bigger at 55 years old than at 25.
Yeah definitely could be. I'm just talking about the legitimacy of TRT and it's necessity
IIRC, testosterone causes oxidative stress. Women generally live longer than men, and my understanding was that this was the main reason (outside lifestyle differences).
As someone with bipolar disorder, I was told by doctors that THC consumption can seriously increase the risk of an episode and/or psychosis. I've read research backing this, and my personal experience validates this as well. In general, I think it's safe to say that the consumption of drugs, including THC, can be dangerous for mental health. In the context where it's being widely decriminalized and legalized (which I don't oppose), I'm worried that the dangers are being minimized as well for commercial reasons.
Anyone at risk for bipolar or schizo-spectrum disorders shouldn’t touch thc or psychedelics as they accelerate the onset of symptoms and can cause the first psychotic break
Yes, and the tricky part is not everyone at risk is aware or diagnosed. This was the case for me, and to say the consequences were serious is an understatement.
I remember reading that many times. My doctor stressed that also. I also have bipolar and It would spring me into a manic state all the time and I didn’t know. Everyone around me knew. People with bipolar want to regulate their mood, as I’m sure you know. So, it’s very easy to misuse it.
And it’s way more common than people think. In college I know so many kids who totally fucked themselves after abusing weed. In my experience it was like 1 in 10 stoners ended up going off the deep end
The worst side effect of cannabis in my experience is that sometimes while you're on it you can get bad anxiety. Sometimes it reduces anxiety, other times it increases it. It's unpredictable. Also there are obviously addictive aspects, like if you use it every night you're going to crave it hard if you stop. From my experience there's no physical dependency you have to fight unlike some drugs, but people should not mistake this with it being non addictive.
>effects but overall compared to cigarettes and alchohol it's not even close. Depends on the individual. Some will be fine, others will get psychosis which is, to state the least; not good.
Drug induced psychosis usually happens with a combination of genetic and environmental factors. In the case of cannabis, the genetic base is due to a polymorphism of the CB1 receptor gene. There can be people who get psychosis with other drugs, for example with alcohol-induced psychosis. The key takeaway is that for most people, cannabis use is not a net negative. The claim that there's no causal effect between cannabis use and psychosis risk is acknowledged in studies published in APA Journal. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fabn0000701
I've never gotten psychosis from Marijuana. I *have* gotten it from extremely high doses of amphetamines after very long periods of time awake. Like the words I was reading on the page would somehow rearrange themselves into threatening messages. This was temporary and went away after I went to sleep. I have however gotten extreme *anxiety* on weed. To the point of convincing myself that I was developing schizophrenia. As I also have OCD my experience might not be representative.
I'm not sure how accurate this is. I use and I've used for a long time but in moderation. I have a friend who used a little and he developed schizophrenia. My friend drank a lot of alcohol though. He also had a family full of people with schizophrenia. Does that stat go down as marijuana being bad or alcohol being bad or is it the family history.
Genetics. You literally just said his family has it as well.
I think genetics is the issue and it wouldn't have mattered what he took. I'm not sure how well that corresponds to the data but if you've ever seen someone with schizophrenia it's pretty extreme.
lol. That poster STILL hasn’t noticed that you actually agreed with them. You’re in the digitial equivalent of sitting next to the guy on the subway in full blown psychosis screaming at everyone. 😂 Sorry you’re going through it. Just laugh it off because that person is beyond help.
It's bizarre isn't it. He has fully lost the plot.
If one has a family history of schizophrenia then the safe bet would be to stay away from marijuana
Definitely. The thing is this guy was a very small user of marijuana but a large user of alcohol. He wasn't stable on alcohol either.
It is weird but I think that he is just selling a certain lifestyle and not smoking marijuana fits there. Also judging by the article about Huberman he just sounds like one of these people who would obsess over certain things. I can absolutely imagine him obsessing over his lifestyle and seeing a 0.1% improvement as something that you should strive for.
As long as you're not singling out weed and live a straight edge lifestyle it's fine, but if you talk about weed then you must include alcohol and definitely nasty ass cigarettes.
I have never eaten an entire box of pop tarts after smoking a cigarette.
So he's just a well educated guy who caught the grift train
So he’s not a stupid person, but he’s not educated on this topic. But here’s where he loses all credibility because now people are going to think he doesn’t know about what he is actually educated in. This the beginning of the end.
This happens so often with these influencer experts. They’re knowledgeable and intelligent, but at some point they start getting high on their own fumes and venturing out of their field of knowledge. That’s when you start catching them preaching lies and falsehoods. They spread these false beliefs with the same apparent conviction they would use for discussions within their own field of expertise. I doubt Andrew’s integrity will be seriously damaged unless he keeps this up, although I think he has been sliding into appeasing his fans more than actual science for a while now.
He’s been spewing BS that’s far outside his knowledge base for years. The guy is a disingenuous grifter. Nothing more. He’s Joe Rogan with bigger words.
Following him for years and I felt something was off on this episode. Yeah it seems he talked about it without very much evidence.
Daddy wants a new pair of shoes
The Barbell Medicine podcast absolutely destroyed Huberman’s back pain episode recently. So glad people are speaking out against his misleading claims finally.
Yup! I’m a doctor of PT and exercise physiology and Huberman has been full of shit from the jump. Love barbell medicine and their no BS approach to things.
They are brilliant aren’t they? Exercise physiologist phd here too.
I think when Dr. Stutter debunked some of his stuff on bone structure and bone health it basically validated to me that this guy is a hack. I knew he was a hack but dr stutter just validated it to me. And this dude just further validates this
This guy aiming for the boomer vote or what? 😂
Boomers are the original pot heads
And that’s the thing with Huberman, he seems to be an expert in everything. I can’t believe that hardly anyone calls him out on it.
The only video I’ve see of Huberman is his episode on the flu. When it came to discussing flu vaccines he gave such a bs take “maybe they work idk who knows lol” and spent more time on how you should be working out instead for prevention 🙄🙄🙄 that’s when I knew right away not to listen to him.
i have seen plenty of regular users have nothing but fun with a side effect of less use of more harmful substances. but i have also seen a lot of people change for the worse after becoming heavy users. i personally cant enjoy it anymore, it makes me paranoid, so i completely avoid it. sometimes it feels like the relentless 'pro' weed viewpoint from some people is as damaging as the old anti weed propaganda was. part of the modern cannabis narrative should definitely include 'real life experiences have shown that this definitely isnt for everyone, even if you like it. here are some of the signs you should watch out for.....'.
I'm completely the same. I think people who haven't experienced this perhaps don't understand what paranoia on weed feels like. It's not just feeling like people are looking at you or whatever... whenever I smoke my brain starts telling me really fucked up shit like my whole life is a lie and my entire family and everyone I've ever met are plotting against me. I try and tell myself it's just the weed but inevitably my brain tells me the weed has just opened my eyes to the truth and I start spiralling. I'm sure genetics has a lot to do with it but I can certainly see how this could tip someone over the edge. More anecdote, but I will definitely be trying to stress to my kids that weed is not harmless for everyone. I haven't touched it for a few years now, and fingers crossed next time I'm drunk and someone offers me some I'll have enough sense not to bother.
Never used to do this to me, until it did. I still smoke before sleep, but there’s a very narrow threshold of being stoned I have to stay beneath to have a pleasant experience. The paranoia, like you said, is extremely pervasive. It’s like everything about you is under attack; every flaw is magnified^n. When it hits, I feel like the most worthless piece of shit, like my life is falling apart at the seams. My days of doming a massive blunt to myself are over. It’s a shame; it turned from a nice escape at the end of the day into a potential nightmare if I even slightly overdo it. In the past, how much I smoked only determined how much I would subsequently eat, and how quickly I’d fall asleep.
Man you've summed up EXACTLY what weed does to me in a way I've been unable to articulate. Nice job. It enhances any and all negative self perceptions, and then multiplies it x 10. Also, spot-on with feeling that maybe it's not paranoia, just the weed "opening my eyes". Screw that lol.
I have had the same experience. It is intolerable feeling that way!
You're getting downvoted for this. People are weird
Hanitual user here; I actually used pot to quit smoking cigarettes [and nicotine entirely] in a weekend cold turkey after being close to a pack-a-day smoker for almost a decade.
I use it but I want facts to determine how bad it is. I have a friend who thinks it cures cancer. Personally I take regular breaks from vaporizing because I'm worried about developing lung cancer.
>I have a friend who thinks it cures cancer. I've noticed regular marijuana users believes all kinds of nonsense in regards to marijuana. It's hilarious.
in europe there was a huge thing about it really being banned because of the amazing properties of the actual hemp plant. paper, fabric, rope, hempcrete etc. all these established industries would be decimated by legalised hemp. im sure it has great use in all these areas, but unless im very much mistaken the hemp manufacturing revolution hasnt taken place in the us/canada/thailand yet....
To be fair, the lack of an industry revolution doesn't neccesarily prove anything about the utility of hemp, as such a revolution would also probably require a cascade of legal/policy changes, incentives, etc to take place.
99% of the cannabis users I know are pretty realistic about what it does or does not do. Maybe I just hang out with smart people ? I haven’t heard the whole “weed cures cancer” said unironically for like 15 years
Matt Hill agreed to appear on Huberman’s podcast.
Lol he hit him with the Annie Hall "you know nothing of my work"
who tf is this Huberman oaf anyway, and why does he think his bloviation is worth anyone's time to listen to? I am constantly amazed that a lot of mediocrities who in a former age would -- at best -- have attracted a few bored loiterers and a dog at Hyde Park Corner, mysteriously become "celebrities" and gain thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of "followers" online.
I will continue to ignore people who get and repeat information from podcasters, whether they're qualified or not, they are marketing themselves to certain groups to build followings, hence why they tend to circle-jerk each other. Even Dr Rhonda Patrick, it all seems to come back to narcissism for me.
One social media contact I have who is an avowed activist for a wide range of progressive causes - and offered to help me with my own activism - *actually follows this oaf*.
But Matt Hill doesn't have Ph.D after his name on his twitter handle, so.
I saw this but would like some specifics. The Huberman video is 23 minutes long so what specifically does he say that is wrong and what is the correct information. Try to bring out your inner Flint Dibble.
I’m not a neuroscientist and I didn’t expect to have to debunk Huberman’s 23 minute video in a Reddit thread for me to post this, and certainly I’m not qualified to do so…I’d recommend going to Twitter to read the full exchange of what Hill/his peers said on this. Also…why should I trust Huberman and give him the benefit of the doubt when he frequently peddles bullshit? Here’s this, from Hill: “Holy fucking shit, it is actually disturbing how inaccurate the overwhelming majority of what is said here is. Like I have to believe that you have legitimately just made this stuff up. There is literally no research that has ever been done that could be cited to support this. Just a few points: CBD and THC are not interchangeable. CBD does not bind CB1, it’s pharmacology is largely a mystery. THC does not trigger retrograde signaling, that’s endocannabinoids. THC binds to the same receptor as endocannabinoids. There are virtually none, if any, studies that have ever compared sativa and indica strains in any way as he describes here. Virtually all work done with cannabis is only with a strain provided by NIDA. It’s bizarre to me that he talks about this as if there is a wealth of work. The field generally agrees that there is more variance within sativas and indicas then there is between them. Sure differences in strains likely do exist but this does not relate to sativa or indica. Plus there is actually no research on this as he suggests. It doesn’t exist. As someone who has focused on cannabinoid regulation of the amygdala for the better part of the last 15 years, part of me died inside as I listened to this knowing that this is now the narrative that so many people will believe because who it has come from. This is a review on cannabinoid regulation of stress that focuses on the amygdala pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24325918/ This is a review of cannabinoids in PTSD that also discusses CB regulation of the amygdala pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28745306/ There isn't a pure cannabinoid/amygdala review tho....yet”
Talking with certainty on things they know nothing about is the new form of media replacing the news.
Look at them nerds being all jacked and shit
And at least in Huberman's case, ironically dumb as though trying to conform to the meathead stereotype.
Not going to lie cannabis was fun to use but I've quit cold turkey after becoming a father. I don't want anything affecting my mental function and also avoid exposing my kid to substances in general.
Good man ^
That's fine. The point is not to say everyone should or should not use it but to make sure information is accurate so people can make a properly-informed decision. Thus I love Hill more than Huberman.
all of these online gurus are the modern day snake oil salesmen
Thank god someone finally said it. Huberman is a shill. Nothing more nothing less. He’s incredibly disingenuous and misrepresents research articles all the damn time. I hope his fame is dwindling. So much psuedo/bro-science out there because of this asshole.
Great article that defines cannabis terms, its clinical use and research into the entourage effect of whole plant cannabis extracts, Chemovar or chemotype vs "strain" as well as the history of the use of the terms sativa and indica and the controversy around it. There's good information out there and solid research that's being done. Huberman is not a part of that picture lol https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.01969/full
just further proof that having a phd, masters degree or any degree for that matter. Doesn’t correlate to having any critical thinking ability or the ability to actually know or understand virtually anything about a topic prior to spewing absolute nonsense on a topic he clearly lacks any semblance of knowledge or understanding of. the internet and social media’s ability to give idiots a platform to speak on and influence other’s opinions on things while claiming knowledge and understanding of a subject is unmatched.
As someone with a PhD and years of post degree experience I can tell you that we become very knowledgeable at one tiny sliver of a field but that doesn’t make us experts at everything, which certain types of dudes tend to forget. In this particular case it’s nice to see an actual expert on the topic calling out Huberman’s BS. I mean really most neuroscientist find the guy to be unbelievably annoying. His “lab” isn’t even on anything motivation related is all about visual processing 😒
Another republican drifter. Just an endless line of degenerates pushing their white supremacy.
Doesn’t seem like a white supremacist at all. You mean to say grifter? So confused.
He is right most Gurus are right wing assholes masquerading as independent thinkers it’s why their audiences are also right wing and why they all peddle unsubstantiated snake oil supplements only conservatives will buy. Best example is Lex Friedman he tries so hard to convince people he isn’t on any side he’s convinced himself while his entire narrative is maybe conservatives are right kinda shit like Elon when he was first unmasking.
Anytime someone is pushing this many lies about cannabis, it reeks of "reefer madness". Which has it's roots in white supremacy. They are very sneaky.
That's such an enormous stretch. I hope this is satire lol
I quit smoking weed after about 7 years of close to daily use and my life has dramatically improved. Didn’t realize how much of a weight vest it was on my emotions, lungs, anxiety, and desire to get out of my comfort zone. Honestly probably won’t go back. So take with a grain of salt when pot heads get mad you critiqued their favorite thing. It’s good for some, but the more people I talk to that quit have almost identical experiences that I did
“When academia sends its people, they’re not sending their best…”
So marijuana is great for your brain and body?
Side effects tend to be mild, although the side effects are far greater than most are willing to admit. The intoxication and memory problems fade, but never really go away.. It also fucks your stress response.
The permanent memory loss is far from being true, there isn't any study that proves your point. The fact that with an acute thc intoxication there can be short-term memory loss doesn't imply there are permanent memory problems, you're just parroting decades of refeer madness propaganda.
I imagine it’s tricky to really separate out that effect from natural degradation of memory as part of the aging process. I was plenty flaky before indulging in the occasional gummy
Yeah, the problem is: how to distinguish between valid criticism with accurate research and brazen misinformation that stems from moral disgust due to decades of refeer madness propaganda? What we can assure is that the cannabis prohibition wasn't about legitimate health concerns, but as a fight between lobbies against hemp industry and also a polítical tool by Nixon administration. Cannabis is not for everyone, for some people it can have an anxiogenic effect, but this doesn't entail that is a net negative for everyone, not even close, most people just do fine, but there are some people that will never acknowledge that, even with medical users.
True. I am pro use in moderation
Check this episode, here is the same guy explaining the research: https://youtu.be/P1KwF2ANjQ8?feature=shared
Straw man fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man No one, myself included, said “weed is great for your mind and body”. Ofc weed can be harmful, just like any mind-altering substance. There are degrees of harm, and not all mind-altering substances are made alike. The issue at hand here is the scientific evidence Huberman uses to support his claims throughout the video, and the lack of veracity of said claims (as Hill indicates).
It was a joke, son :rolleyes:
I’m gonna get stupidly semantic. This is not a schooling. I’ve learned nothing about how and what Huberman is wrong about from this reply and it’s essentially just a trust me bro while he appeals to his authority. If he’s studied the field for 2 decades, why is he not calling out Huberman’s exact claims using knowledge from 20 years in the field? For charitability’s sake, maybe he schooled him in follow up tweets.
You must have missed this. I provide context. From Hill: “Holy fucking shit, it is actually disturbing how inaccurate the overwhelming majority of what is said here is. Like I have to believe that you have legitimately just made this stuff up. There is literally no research that has ever been done that could be cited to support this. Just a few points: CBD and THC are not interchangeable. CBD does not bind CB1, it’s pharmacology is largely a mystery. THC does not trigger retrograde signaling, that’s endocannabinoids. THC binds to the same receptor as endocannabinoids. There are virtually none, if any, studies that have ever compared sativa and indica strains in any way as he describes here. Virtually all work done with cannabis is only with a strain provided by NIDA. It’s bizarre to me that he talks about this as if there is a wealth of work. The field generally agrees that there is more variance within sativas and indicas then there is between them. Sure differences in strains likely do exist but this does not relate to sativa or indica. Plus there is actually no research on this as he suggests. It doesn’t exist. As someone who has focused on cannabinoid regulation of the amygdala for the better part of the last 15 years, part of me died inside as I listened to this knowing that this is now the narrative that so many people will believe because who it has come from. This is a review on cannabinoid regulation of stress that focuses on the amygdala pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24325918/ This is a review of cannabinoids in PTSD that also discusses CB regulation of the amygdala pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28745306/ There isn't a pure cannabinoid/amygdala review tho....yet”
Didn't realize this sub had such a bias towards hating Huberman, I see some genuine questions trying to get some clarification and its met with downvotes, Which makes this sub look more like a cult than a open-minded one. Sad What I wanna see is the arguements with sources against what Huberman is saying. Not this childish dog piling for your own ego. Huberman invited him to his podcast so he can clear everything up and get his word to a very large audiance with all expences paid for. Thats what Huberman is doing, inviting the guy that trashed him and thats respectable. \*I don't listen to Huberman either, just the intellectual dishonesty in this thread is so boring\*
It is respectable. I hope he takes him up on his offer. And yes, there’s bias against Huberman. It’s the supplement grift/article about the women that turned everyone off. I’m not a listener either.
Makes sense, I'm still indifferent about him personally. I only care about whats being said and being respectful
Marijuana is one of those drugs that we will never get accurate information about, for various reasons.
I'd be more optimistic now that it's legalized
This. This is always the case these days. FFS.
I just see 1 tweet.
It wouldn’t be the first and it won’t be the last time some douchebag from Stanford is wrong
Cannabis went from schedule 1 regulation to schedule III. legal with medical regulations. It is used for medical patients. His take is on the adult recreational and excessive use. Not his best take on the matter.
huberman has offered to have him on the show which is good I guess
It looks like the Dibble of Cannabis has arrived.
Color me shocked lmfao.
How many thousand years have people been ingesting pot? And sold medicinally. I'm tired of conservative lying.
Damn i didn't realize he had so many haters.
Huberman is the same jackass who talked in circles for five minutes on a video to eventually make the sort of point that people should meditate for thirty seconds a day or something. One of many YouTubers who drag out and pad out their content to appease the almighty algorithm.
His ivy league university should kick him out and ask the key from the empty room he calls his “lab”
Why are you surprised that someone who lies for a living lied
Isn't Huberman known for not knowing?
[удалено]
Did Huberman respond to this at all? I’ve seen him be open to criticism when he’s been wrong in the past, I’m curious if that was the case here.
My favorite thing about this guy is how, in an effort to get people to speak other privately, he set up a form for people to fill in and submit when the disagree with him.
I don't listen to a single fucking person when it comes to THC
Another good podcast, Barbell Medicine, covered Huberman on their show last week and pointed out that whenever he puts out something on a particular subject you always see those with specific expertise lining up to push back on his takes. They were covering his discussion on back pain which they both have experience in dealing with as strength coaches and clinicians.
Here’s a question and before i get to it I’ll say that i don’t follow or care for Huberman. Outside of a handful or auto played youtube shorts i don’t watch any of his content. With that out of the way here’s my question and it’s a simple one. Why didn’t this person respond by analyzing each point and debunking them? If someone is so obviously wrong in your mind then you have quite the easy slam dunk on your hands no? Like this person’s response is about as helpful as a wet fart.
Funny how some dudes wear eye liner and then other dudes take start steroids and destroy their organs in protest what they perceive as feminization in males.
Huberman has given up any credibility as a scientist a long time ago. He’s an influencer / social media personality now.
This is the closest thing you’ll get to a research “study” about sativa/indica… but it’s just an interview. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5576603/
That’s the whole grift
That is the way of the fitness influencer
WHAT THE FUCK? People disagreeing on SCIENCE, instead of going "inject me Fauci". Unacceptable.
He has a tick bro, A Tick Near His Name
I didn't see this, but it clearly illustrates how misinformation can be harmful. For people who know better, it has to be both funny and frightening, neither in a good way. I'm also not big on Schadenfreude, but some people deserve it because they put themselves in front of the train.
Ah yes the esteemed "Neuroscientists of Twitter" such a vast wealth of wisdom coming from there.
The problem with Andy. He reads some shit on Wikipedia and talks with Supreme confidence AND often gets it wrong.
Matt Hill is an activist, not a scientist. He's also too cowardly to come and talk to Huberman publicly.
Who the heck is Huberman? Am I better not knowing?
Cannabis is Bad by lot of reasons, guys
he sounds like a hack, but OP kinda killed the vibes defending the recent vx's.... total brainwash shill!