[ArthurAardvark]

Really? On what basis? To be honest, I've been burnt out when it comes to supplements and health max/min type things, so I never dove deep into the Hubermann World.

With that being said, I know he's a (purportedly) prolific Stanford researcher of all healthy living things...nutrition, sleep, supplements and so on. He knows what he is talking about from what I have listened to.

We live in a society...blah blah, make a dollar blah blah. I highly doubt he's going out of his way to get people on things they shouldn't be on or claiming a supp. is something it is not.

But if he is blatantly endorsing garbage/pushing bullocks claims, that'd be beyond highly unethical and astonishing.

[sooheon]

The basis is self evident: he is an affiliate marketer for an overpriced product with astronomical margins (investors piled in at north of a billion) making health claims without scientific basis, 3rd party testing, or transparent labeling.

Good on him for getting his bag, but the incentives are clear: he made his name before sponsorships with quality content, but now the demand for ad impressions has outpaced his supply of meaningful insights. He needs to keep churning out videos to earn sponsorship dollars, so it's a natural symbiotic choice to invite low quality guests.

They bring the content (and controversy / engagement / followers), he supplies the veneer of legitimacy, studio lighting and somber expression in the thumbnail. The advertisers benefit and all get their payday, as long as his adherents keep overpaying for processed powder with multivitamin.

[stakhanov]

> he is an affiliate marketer for an overpriced product

Didn't he recently announce that he now even has equity in AG1? So, it even goes beyond "affiliate".

That said, if you listen to the actual wordings of the claims he makes about AG1, he very clearly makes it a subjective statement, as in, he himself is taking it, because it sounds to him like a good idea (and walks through his thinking).

He very clearly distinguishes the modality around that from the modality around the science he reviews and that sort of thing. At least, to a trained ear, the distinction comes across very clearly.

[birksherty]

> The basis is self evident:

No it's not evidence.

You wrote so many things but you also could not provide any evidence on what you said, product selling is not proof of anything. Please give proper evidence while accusing others of such and writing long comments.

[sooheon]

Product selling is proof of product selling. I wrote he is a supplement shill—-shilling for a supplement is proof enough of that.