Huberman's pretty good at taking research he doesn't have the expertise to assess out of context and turning it into some protocol that everyone needs to do.
The vast majority of things he talks about, if beneficial at all, are at the margins and people stand to gain far more from doing things like exercising and eating vegetables more.
I have a nearly identical take, and every time I try to explain to someone that there are much simpler and higher impact changes they could make to their life, they can't seem to comprehend it.
It's always met with something that sounds like: buT tHe handsome NEuroSciENtiSt sAid !!!
Who's Alan Flanagan and why should I listen to his opinion on Huberman?
From what I can tell, Huberman is a neuroscience Ph.D. whereas Flanagan is one in nutritional science is that right? If so, by credentials alone, Huberman seems like a better reference in matters of the nervous system.
Note that I have no horse in this race, I'm really just curious!
Alan has an MSc and PhD in nutrition and runs Alinea nutrition.
I can't speak on Huberman's assessment of research in the neuroscience space, where he has expertise. Alan has done some breakdowns of Huberman's broad claims related to nutrition, and how they're generally hyperbolic and lacking sufficient evidence (ie they're not based on studies that show outcomes in actual humans in a controlled fashion).
The folks at Barbell Medicine have spoken to some of his generic health/fitness claims as well, to similar effect.
I think Huberman uses his platform and title to paint overly broad strokes about all kinds of things outside of his expertise. Some of this could be attributed to a platform like twitter that prioritizes small amounts of text, but overall I think it's disingenuous especially as someone claiming to be an expert. I think if he were more interested in helping people he would focus less on money/fame/views and take a more nuanced approach, instead of (mis)leading people to change based on extremely limited evidence. The problem is he wouldn't be able to churn out so much content if he did so.
I have no reason to doubt any of his academic qualifications. But I have a lot of appreciation for the breadth and depth of knowledge required to speak confidently about the latest evidence in a field. This becomes a problem when the field is outside of one's expertise. Alan goes into this in detail on his instagram post.
I realize the post is based on something Huberman said within his expertise. But I think the context is important to understand, as it makes me wary of listening to him in general.
For 90% of people the most in impactful thing they can do for their health, focus, and success is to eat well and sleep well. Unfortunately no one actually wants to do this. Instead they'd rather find "life hacks". I get the appeal, I honestly do it too. But the most important stuff here is, as often, pretty boring.
I don't mean to rain on your parade - but the reason I've heard of this book is red pen reviews:
https://www.redpenreviews.org/reviews/why-we-get-sick/
Which didn't give it a particularly favorable review in terms of scientific accuracy
The glaring assumption here being that deficiency can be treated with supplementation. There are tons of reasons why you can be deficient, and many that don't respond at all to supplementation. More people should be talking to medical professionals about this stuff
Trains are also vastly more efficient, space-wise, at moving people than cars.
As the article mentions, increasing rail infrastructure would logically include regional connections first. It's not like we'd be building a train track everywhere there's a road
I think the social ramifications of car dependence are overlooked. US loves its freedom but in many ways cars make people much less free by taking away their free time, money, social interaction, physical activity, etc. It's incredible how expensive car infrastructure is, which increases taxes to an often unsustainable level (and poorer people not living in the sprawl of single family homes end up subsidizing). Paving everything looks disgusting and is bad for the environment and economy. Not to mention minimum parking laws' contribution to the housing crisis, or the trauma caused by ~40,000 deaths per year due to cars (not to mention all the other injuries). It's not hard to see why this sort of lifestyle could damage your health.
I hope we can get more deep dives on this topic as you mentioned because there are millions of people that would use viable alternatives. These would carry over to QOL improvements for everyone else too.
As the resident HN conservative, I wish the GOP would embrace bikes as a symbol of freedom. Cars are NOT tools of freedom - you are at the whim of gigacorporations and authoritarian governments like Iran.
With a bike, you move through the world, on extremely low cost infrastructure, while becoming a Fit Western Man and through Self Reliance. You don't need subsidies, you just need a bit of Strength and Forethought and all those other conservative goals.
> I wish the GOP would embrace bikes as a symbol of freedom. Cars are NOT tools of freedom - you are at the whim of gigacorporations and authoritarian governments
What you have in the US isn't too far, two parties for the illusion of democracy and a butt load of lobbyists and oligarchs in the back making sure the money printing press keeps on printing for the right people. Conservatism isn't about conserving values or the environment, it's about conserving status and money
Exactly.
Two things:
1. The vast majority of people do not need to worry about nuances of nutrition. Most Americans (90%+) don't even meet physical activity guidelines, for which there is extremely strong evidence of far more significant benefits.
2. OP responded to another comment of mine that they actively go against what Phd nutritionists say. This was never a post about facts/science.
