[Handprint4469]

+1 to this. Huberman has the bad habit of constructing grand narratives that match his beliefs about health and reality, and packaging them as podcast episodes based on science. The only problem is that "based on science" might mean a single low-powered study, which Huberman cites and over-generalizes as if it was rock-solid fact. See this[0] discussion on Huberman's subreddit for more context.

Another example is his episode with Matthew Walker[1] (author of Why We Sleep), and his other episodes where he gives sleep advice citing Walker as an authority. The problem is that Walker's work is not good[2][3] (riddled with errors at best, fraudulent at worst).

To be clear: I'm sure a lot (if not the majority) of what Huberman says is correct, or at least matches our current scientific understanding. The problem is that some things are incorrect, and the layman has no way of knowing which is which (especially since all the content is presented with the same high-certainty "science-based tools" tone)

[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/andrewhuberman/comments/smnnb0/crit...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbQFSMayJxk

[2] https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21546850

[doo_daa]

+1