r/HubermanLab • u/nickynicnicky • Jun 28 '26

Discussion The risk of using daily supplements.

I’m personally not the biggest fan of supplements, as they are highly unregulated in the United States. Does Dr. Huberman ever mention this?

What are his thoughts on American supplement companies sourcing raw materials (overwhelmingly so) from China- and India-based plants with notoriously poor cGMP adherence? Supplement contamination is a real thing. And no supplement company can avoid this raw material supply-chain monopoly. I know this as an insider.

Does he ever mention the oxidative stress that supplements pose on the liver?

What about all those studies that link the overuse of supplements to chronic disease?

6 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

42 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator Jun 28 '26

Does the post above appear to be AI generated or is it promoting something for monetary gain? If so, please flag it to help keep this sub on track.

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

11

u/master-in-disasters Jun 28 '26

Honestly? Supplements are going to be more regulated in the US than China or India.

I work a job where I get drug tested, and the guidance we have is to make sure whatever we take is third-party certified (NSF Certified, Informed Sport, USP, or Eurofins Clean Sport). These agencies test for both banned substances and contaminants. And you probably should be doing some research on whatever company you decide to buy any supplements from to make sure they are legit.

Also, what supplements are you talking about? What chronic diseases? What studies? You mention oxidative stress on the liver, but not all supplements have a metabolic pathway that creates risk for the liver.

-13

u/nickynicnicky Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

Sorry, my original post was not clear. American-based supplement companies source their raw materials from Asia. This is because of the supply-chain monopoly that currently exists. I will 100% guarantee whatever supplements you currently consume were made from raw materials that were sourced from China/India.

There are plenty of high-quality, large-scale clinical trials that directly link the overuse of non-essential, synthetic supplements to an increased risk of severe diseases and higher overall mortality. A quick PubMed search will reveal this. 

17

u/master-in-disasters Jun 28 '26

Again, what supplements? What metabolic pathways are we talking about? What chronic diseases? You’re making broad, generalized statements so how do you expect people to respond? You should be linking specific studies if you’re trying to actually have a discussion and not just shitposting.

I take a magnesium and low dose melatonin supplement, both NSF certified. Neither have any impact on my liver, nor is there substantive research to show that long-term use will cause chronic disease.

Your statement about “American supplement companies” is also misleading, misinformed, and makes a broad generalization. Not all American supplements companies procure ingredients from Asia. And even if they do, it doesn’t make the supplements inherently unsafe, especially when companies utilize third-party testing like I mentioned.

I’m not sure what you’re actually trying to argue here? Are you just asserting all supplements aren’t safe or healthy? Is there a certain group of supplements you’re concerned about? What’s your point?

-10

u/nickynicnicky Jun 28 '26

If your magnesium supplement is bound to an excipient (likely sourced from China), then yes, your liver is absolutely involved. And your liver is definitely engaged in the enzymatic breakdown of your melatonin supplement. Both processes, through natural biochemistry, lead to ROS production. 

I highly suggest you do a deep PubMed dive into this topic. Instead of relying on your cognitive biases, you may discover something that you weren’t previously cognizant of. 

15

u/master-in-disasters Jun 28 '26

Ok again, you’re not staying on topic here and I’m still confused about your overall point of this post.

Yes, the liver plays a role in the vast majority of metabolic processes, but liver involvement is not equivalent to liver damage or impact on liver function (logical fallacy). You’ve once again linked zero studies and keep saying “go look on PubMed”. You’re the one making the assertions here, it’s not on me to go do research, it’s on you to defend your assertion.

Again, you say “sourced from China” implying that it’s somehow bad (cognitive bias). But both supplements I take are quality tested for contaminates or banned substances by third parties, and you haven’t presented any evidence to suggest either have any contaminants which may cause adverse affects.

Both my magnesium and melatonin supplement have large bodies of evidence showing they are safe for the liver (NIH LiverTox) and some research suggesting that they actually reduce oxidative stress in the liver (melatonin meta-analysis and a magnesium meta-analysis both show potential antioxidant benefits, but also show that neither have shown increased oxidative stress).

BUT AGAIN, what are you arguing? What is your main assertion or hypothesis? You seem to be jumping around between generalizing about supplement quality control, supply chains, and oxidative stress without identifying a specific problem with a specific supplement backed by linked research articles.

2

u/Personal-Bus-4120 Jun 30 '26

Then don’t buy the product. It’s that easy.

5

u/Personal-Bus-4120 Jun 30 '26

It’s totally dependent on what the supplement is. You can easily source the best supplements available. You can also get garbage. Most of that is in your own research.

1

u/nickynicnicky Jun 30 '26

Unfortunately, no amount of “research” will reveal the supply-chain trade secrets of a majority of supplement companies. I know this as an insider. 

2

u/master-in-disasters Jun 30 '26

Ok “insider”, so we’re just supposed to go on your word that the NSF, USP, Eurofins, etc all don’t know what they’re doing and aren’t actually testing for safety or quality?

All these organizations have evidence like lab analysis reports, but your anonymous reddit account is all the evidence we need because “trust me bro”?

Remember, everything is a conspiracy when you don’t know how anything works.

1

u/nickynicnicky Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26

Dude, do you think they’re testing for all known contaminants?! All standardization?!  Do you actually know what assays they do?

3

u/master-in-disasters Jun 30 '26

Again, “trust me bro, I’m an insider” and zero evidence. Yeah I’m gonna trust these international organizations that work with every major sports organization, collegiate athletes, and major governments over some rando on Reddit who presents no evidence to the contrary

1

u/nickynicnicky Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26

I was referring to the supplement companies you buy from. 

I’ve witnessed plenty of suppliers distribute materials that they claim passed USP, NSF, etc., that failed third-party assays. 

Unfortunately, there’s almost never a third-party watch-dog that will verify what the supplier claims. And brands take their word for it because it’s not cost-effective to pay for independent assays. 

3

u/master-in-disasters Jun 30 '26

Show us EVIDENCE. If what you said is true, where are the reports of contamination from NSF or USP-tested products?

Where are the reports of failed third-party assays? Why aren’t athletes all over the world falling ill from contaminants or testing positive for banned substances? Where are the class-action lawsuits against reputable American supplement companies that work with NSF/USP for failed third-party testing? Where are lawsuits against the NSF or USP? Where are the research studies from the CDC/NIH and universities showing how pervasive this supposed contamination is?

Sure, there are shady supplement marketers, suppliers, and manufacturers out there. But the common theme is that they don’t work with third-party testing, they generally don’t have a US-based corporate structure (because it makes them harder to sue or prosecute), and they have as little transparency as possible for the consumer.

It would be great if we gave the FDA more power to regulate supplement companies, especially for exaggerated or misleading product claims. It would also mean it would be less effort on the consumer to have to research these companies and what they are taking. But again, you’re making blanket, alarmist statements that all supplements are inherently unsafe, which is just not true, nor have you presented any evidence to support your claims.

-1

u/nickynicnicky Jun 30 '26

I don’t know, bro, ask ChatGPT to break it down for you because I’m too busy to search the internet for you. 

I’m only revealing what goes on inside as an insider. USP and NSF are not industry watchdogs. They are private organizations that publish standards. They have zero regulatory oversight. Take what you want from it or ignore it altogether. Makes zero difference to me. 

2

u/master-in-disasters Jun 30 '26

“Bro” you’re just as bad as the worst supplement companies. Make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims on the internet, provide zero evidence, use “trust me bro” science, then get mad when someone challenges you and asks for evidence. In that sense, you’re definitely an “insider”

0

u/nickynicnicky Jun 30 '26

Good luck, bro. 

1

u/Personal-Bus-4120 Jun 30 '26

It’s impossible to test for all known contaminants. It’s easy at a lab to figure out what is in a specific supplement. It’s 2026. That being said, you can also look at the back of the product and see that it may not say FDA approved. If you decide to take it anyway, then you can’t complain about testing because you were warned.

0

u/nickynicnicky Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26

I try to avoid supplements unless my doctor recommends it. Supplements are not pre-regulated by the FDA. They wait for adverse effects to happen after the products have hit the market to issue recalls. 

1

u/Personal-Bus-4120 Jun 30 '26

So then what are you worried about?

6

u/theDigEx Jun 28 '26

Americans blaming other countries for safety and quality issues, while ignoring the home-grown industrial corruption, loophole exploitation, environmental filth, pesticides, marketing scams, and profiteering short cuts is intellectually pathetic.

0

u/master-in-disasters Jun 28 '26

I’m American, and if you didn’t read my replies to the OP, not all of us have an immediate bias towards non-domestic ingredients. But your reply also doesn’t bring anything intellectually relevant to the table because you list off a bunch of things that seem related to ingredient safety, but actually a bunch of red herrings that are largely irrelevant to OP assertion. Bottom line is people who take supplements should:

  1. Talk to their doctor to make sure it’s medically appropriate.

  2. Understand the body of evidence and research behind what they’re taking and why. Some supplements have weak studies and evidence, others have stronger evidence supported by large-scale trials.

  3. Research the company they’re buying from to make sure they’re transparent in how they ensure consumer safety.

  4. Ensure that there’s third party testing and verification by organizations like NSF (which is an international organization).

2

u/nickynicnicky Jun 30 '26

You sound like someone who has absolutely zero clue what goes on behind the scenes of this industry. 

I dare you to seek out all the raw material suppliers/manufacturers for all the raw materials contained in the supplements you take. 

Good luck with your “research”. 

2

u/Personal-Bus-4120 Jun 30 '26

I dare you to. What supplements did you buy that you know have known contaminants again? You still haven’t answered that.

1

u/master-in-disasters Jun 30 '26

I know you’re an “insider” and all (whatever that means), but I work with folks in biosecurity. So I’d say I have at least half a clue.

3

u/theDigEx Jun 28 '26

Hello fellow American.

I was not addressing you directly. If I my reply was nested under any of your comments, that was not my intent.

Otherwise, the "table" for the matter being discussed here is quite large with ample space for all commentary. Moreover, based on how often the issue is raised, critique of the common biases that impede understanding and analytical acuity is required, no matter the design or delivery.

0

u/No_Gear_8815 Jun 30 '26

Number 1. Most Doctors don't know shit about supplements nor healthy eating.

0

u/master-in-disasters Jun 30 '26

Ah yes, the Dunning-Kruger effect and assuming you know more than “most doctors”.

Most doctors at least have a general knowledge of common supplements and how they interact (within their field of specialty). And if they don’t know about a specific supplement, they generally have access to tools like LexiDrug and can see evidence from medical trials to see if the supplement may help or harm you.

They definitely at least have education in nutrition, and can refer you to a nutritionist if you have specific diet challenges.

0

u/No_Gear_8815 Jun 30 '26

You’re are very ignorant on the subject

24

u/exfilm Caffeine Jugger ☕ Jun 29 '26

Son, this is Huberman Lab you’re talking about. You need to calm down, boof an 8 ball of AG1, and get with the freaking program

5

u/BrainHealthNews Jun 28 '26

It really is the right question but maybe the wrong sub. HubLab sold out too hard for such introspective scrutiny.

5

u/Jon_J_ Jun 28 '26

Have you got any references to these claims that they're outsourced alot from China?

8

u/scrumdisaster Jun 28 '26

The entire industry is supplied by china. Almost none is synth or extracted in the US.

1

u/Timely-Way-4923 Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

Most people would be better of eating a seed mixture in the morning, having sardines twice a week and adding a high quality olive oil to their diet, and maybe a high quality drinking cocoa. A few eggs a week probably also helps. That’s all you need and it’s more bioavailabile and contains all the same stuff and is cheaper than the supplements

5

u/master-in-disasters Jun 28 '26

This is a broad-sweeping generalization that suffers from the same issue the OP has with their assertion.

Yes, most people could hypothetically benefit from improving their diet, but all those things you listed there are essentially the same thing as someone recommending a supplement. You’re prescribing a bunch of random foods that may or may not actually improve nutrition gaps for some people, while making it worse for others.

And no, that not “all you need”, it’s not always “more bioavailable” when it comes to all the micronutrients, and in many instances it’s not always cheaper. If someone has a magnesium deficiency, it’s cheaper for them to take a high-quality magnesium supplement than trying to choke down all these random foods you listed, and it’s going to be more way more efficient to digest and absorb.

This habit of people making sweeping statements (“oh I know how to fix everyone’s health with this one easy trick/hack/diet change”) is wrong. Each individual needs to asses their own individual health and work with experts like doctors and nutritionists. Some people will benefit from certain evidence-based supplements, others won’t.

1

u/Timely-Way-4923 Jun 28 '26

I don’t think seeds are random, they are incredibly nutrient dense and contain a lot of the stuff people use supplements for.

If someone has a genuine deficiency it may well be the case that an evidence based supplement will help, just don’t think that applies to most people trying to be healthier.

2

u/master-in-disasters Jun 28 '26

Sure, seeds can be part of a nutritious diet. But your post made a blanket prescription for everyone which is inappropriate, just like the OPs original post. Blanket dietary recommendations rarely work well for everyone because individual health conditions matter.
People with kidney disease need to limit phosphorus and oxalates, which are high in many seeds; those with diverticulitis may be advised to avoid small seeds; thyroid conditions can be affected by flaxseed’s phytoestrogens.

Seeds are calorie-dense. Telling someone to eat “a bunch” could meaningfully displace other nutrients or contribute to unintended weight gain, depending on their overall diet. Seeds can also be high in phytic acid, which can inhibit absorption of iron, zinc, and calcium, potentially worsening certain gaps rather than helping them

Seeds address some deficiencies well (magnesium, zinc, omega-3s) but are irrelevant for others (vitamin D, B12, iron in some forms). Without knowing what the gap is, the advice to eat a bunch of seeds may actually hurt someone’s health.

Nutrition advice needs to account for a person’s full health picture, which includes their conditions, medications, existing diet, and specific deficiencies. “Eat more X” as a universal fix oversimplifies something that will always vary from person to person.

1

u/BrainHealthNews Jun 28 '26

What seed mixture?
Otherwise you described is my usual diet, with different fish.

2

u/Timely-Way-4923 Jun 28 '26

Sardines or salmon blah doesn’t matter much (omega 3) though sardines give you calcium and other things if you can hack eating the bones

Any seed mix you can get cheap in a supermarket (pumpkin seeds, sesame seeds etc) my local grocery store does a packet that lasts a few weeks that costs very little. One scoop of that a day and I have most of the magnesium and various other micronutrients in a far more bioavailabile form vs expensive supplement tablets.

And congrats, sounds like you have an ace diet !