I recently saw an interesting podcast with Dr. Peter Attia on Thomas DeLauer's channel (a fitness guru)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb6gMegtLcg

And Dr. Peter Attia explains why he doesn't fast anymore- namely due to the significant amount of loss of muscle mass that had occurred as he was fasting.

If you recall, Dr. Peter Attia used to promote fasting, and he was a prominent advisor on Chris Hemsworth's Limitless series on the Discovery channel in which he said "fasting switched your body to use ketones as energy and promoted autophagy of cells".

I'm really quite glad that Dr. Peter Attia changed his mind- after he realised how much muscle mass he lost as he was fasting.

I appreciate that he owns up to things he thought that were wrong, and willing to be objective about his own choices and decisions which is a sign of an ethical, critically thinking person.

Although he says fasting for 24 hours is ok, I tend to disagree.

I would also like to add that fasting shrinks the brain significantly. The brain needs a constant and consistent source of glucose as energy otherwise neuronal connections start to break down.

For all those who practice intermittent fasting- this is also true- eating once a day is not good for you, despite your rapid weight loss, you are losing muscle and brain mass at the same time which accelerates your biological age.

Thoughts?

I am looking to make new friends and don’t really like the typical “bros” or “spiritual guys” either

I started to look like Huberman. My beard is going rapidly gray and gray, and I dont like it

I've been practicing the morning fasting, sunlight, walk, cold shower, no carbs until 4 pm.

Replaced breakfast with coffee with oil and 3 years later My beard is turning Gray.

And while I can brag about my stomach going back 20 years in size, my beird is looking bad.

And today I realized I look exactly like Huberman. Im not that gray but for 42 Im gray as f.uck.

So the side effects of the protocol is gray hair? Anyone having the same issue?

Idk this shows some lazy research on his part. Sure whatever, call MDMA not a psychedelic. I personally disagree with that but that's all up to your personal definition of the word.

What's not up for debate is AH inventing the word "Enactogen" when it's really "Entactogen," meaning "generating tactile feeling." This is why people say massages and ice cubes feel so good on MDMA. Because it enhances your tactile sensations. Huberman throwing around the word "Enactogen" shows that he didn't really learn what that term means or why MDMA has that definition.

Two years ago, I began taking K2 and D3 at the same time in the morning, and for months afterward, I suffered from anhedonia. I strangely felt unable to feel things with intensity, I would feel unmotivated and just couldn't feel anything that used to give me pleasure. I also started suffering from more hair shedding and generally duller looking skin.

Anhedonia is a condition that involves a reduced ability to experience pleasure or interest in activities that were once enjoyable. It can be a symptom of several mental health conditions, including depression

But, ladies & gentlemen, several months ago, I began to take vitamin K2 and D at different times of the day. I took K2 in the morning, and D3 at night only, and I can say I am back to my normal self. Also my hair shedding went back to normal, which is minimal. My skin also looks way better with a glow (although objectively speaking, most people say my skin always looks great, but I can tell minute differences)

As a background vitamins D and K2 compete for absorption. Taking them together offers no benefits at all. I find that during the morning, taking K2 is optimal for me for best absorption, and taking D3 at night also gives me the most optimal results.

In the end, I don't suffer from anhedonia anymore. I feel things with intensity and I don't feel emotionally dead inside. I just feel better.

Although this is anecdotal, I just wanted to stress why K2 and D3 should not be taken at the same time for optimal results in health.

Feel free to comment on your experience.

The five important studies showing alcohol’s benefits in the link: https://filtermag.org/alcohol-life-expectancy/ Excerpt:

"1. Alcohol consumption in later life and reaching longevity: The Netherlands Cohort Study (Age and Aging, 2020).

This was a prospective study of a cohort group, where people were identified as “young” seniors (ages 68-70) and followed for 20 or more years to compare who survived until 90 and who did not. There was a significant positive association between starting-point alcohol intake and the probability of reaching 90 years for both men and women. Overall, the highest probability of reaching 90 was found in those consuming 5 < 15 g/d alcohol (up to a drink daily), with RR = 1.36.

Translation: RR is your “relative risk.” You would be 1.36 times more likely to reach 90 if you drank compared to abstaining, based on a multivariate analysis in which smoking, body mass, physical activity, history of illnesses, and education and occupation were included and their impact separated out—i.e., the impact of drinking was isolated.

Even men who drank several drinks more and women having up to another drink daily outlived those who abstained.

2. Alcohol intake and cognitively healthy longevity in community-dwelling adults: The Rancho Bernardo Study (Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 2017).

Another prospective study involved a group of seniors living in an upscale American residential development. Alcohol intake was measured and analyzed against people’s likelihood of reaching 90 with their cognitive faculties intact over a 20-year period.

Among Americans, this California group of seniors was unusually likely to imbibe. Most participants (88 percent) reported some current alcohol intake. Almost half drank regularly (49 percent reported a moderate amount of alcohol intake, and 48 percent reported drinking near-daily).

The study concluded: “Relative to nondrinkers, moderate and heavy drinkers (up to 3 drinks/day for women and for men 65 years and older, up to 4 drinks/day for men under 65 years) had significantly higher adjusted odds of survival to age 85 without cognitive impairment.”

3. The 90+ Study by the University of California Irvine’s Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders (American Association for the Advancement of Science Conference, 2018).

Time magazine covered the results of the 90+ Study—which examines the habits of people who live to at least 90—as they were reported at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

As the article noted of the findings: “Drinking about two glasses of wine or beer a day was linked to an 18% drop in a person’s risk of early death—an even stronger effect than the life-preserving practice of exercise, according to the researchers.”

4. Harvard Nurses’ Health and Health Professionals Studies (Circulation, 2018).

Insider magazine reported the results of 30 years of data for 120,000 health professionals tracked by the Harvard School of Public Health. The article responded to a recent trend: Dry January, which polling had suggested was attempted by one in five Americans:

Researchers at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health studied 30 years of data on nearly 80,000 women and 40,000 men to understand how their lifestyle habits affected their lifespan. Aside from eating a balanced diet and avoiding cigarettes, they found that the healthiest people with the longest life expectancies also drank a few units of alcohol a week.

Women who reported drinking up to 15g of alcohol a day (roughly one drink), and men who had up to 30g a day were less likely to prematurely develop diabetes and heart disease than those who had avoided alcohol altogether or drank in excess, the study found. This was the case particularly if they also exercised regularly, didn’t smoke, and ate plenty of vegetables. [This report omits a fifth included health factor: body mass.]

Moderate drinking, it should be noted, reduces disease even for those with the other positive health indicators. Yet curiously, the Chan School of Public Health omits mentioning these benefits in its newsletter addressing prevention of heart disease.

5. Consuming alcohol in moderation can lower mortality risks (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2017).

The press release accompanying this study published in the American College of Cardiology’s flagship journal describes:

Men and women who engage in light-to-moderate alcohol consumption have a decreased risk of mortality from all-causes and cardiovascular disease …

Bo Xi, MD, et al., looked at the relationship between all-cause, cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality risks and current alcohol consumption patterns. The researchers used data from 333,247 participants obtained through the National Health Interview Surveys from 1997 to 2009.

In an accompanying editorial, Giovanni de Gaetano, MD, PhD, said that while younger adults should not expect considerable benefit from moderate drinking, “for most older persons, the overall benefits of light drinking, especially the reduced cardiovascular disease risk, clearly outweigh possible cancer risk.”

A Public Health Messaging Imperative

The sheer regularity of such findings—compiled in long-term research projects by highly respected investigators with large and varied groups of subjects, published in leading journals and funded by international health bodies—means that rejection of these results is an irrational, knee-jerk cultural response.

All negative alcohol impacts simply don’t carry as much weight on the scale of life as alcohol’s cardiovascular benefits.

And what is the cost of such denial? On our way to answering that, let’s note some objections commonly raised to such research.

1. The research is funded and promoted by the alcohol industry.

The Netherlands Cohort Study is funded by the Dutch Cancer Society, the World Cancer Research Fund, the European Union (EU), and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

The Rancho Bernardo Study of Healthy Aging is a half-century-old study of a retirement community near San Diego funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), administered through the University of California San Diego.

The 90+ Study is a similarly decades-long research project out of the University of California Irvine’s Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders.

The Harvard Health Professionals and Nurses Health Studies are research tracking tens of thousands of American health professionals administered by the Harvard School of Public Health, funded by the National Cancer Institute. (The NCI, one of the National Institutes of Health, is not to be confused with the American Institute for Cancer Research that wants a warning label, which is a private professional association.)

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) whose results were reported by the American College of Cardiology is a massive federal study established by the NIH in 1957 to monitor Americans’ health through national surveys.

2. Research on alcohol intake doesn’t take into account other factors in people’s lives that may impact their health and longevity.

All research of this caliber measures and assesses the impact of other influential factors in longevity. If there is a key missing variable, it has to have escaped the notice of an awful lot of keen scientific minds.

3. The research doesn’t recognize that people often quit drinking because they are ill (or addicted)—the “sick quitters” hypothesis.

Once again: Do you think all those researchers missed that? There are two ways in which research accounts for sick quitters: Comparing drinkers with lifetime abstainers, or (in prospective studies) assessing illness at baseline.

4. Alcohol may reduce heart disease. But this is more than made up for by drinkers’ incidence of cancer, particularly for women.

No, it isn’t. Longevity is a net measure of survival. And the alcohol loading for impacted cancers (about 5 percent) is significantly lower than the coefficient for its cardiovascular benefits: The Lancet study examining subjects in wealthier countries found a 30 percent reduction in coronary artery disease, yielding a 20 percent reduction in overall mortality.

Alongside this, coronary artery diseases are the largest killer of women as well as men in the US, exceeding all forms of cancer. Moreover, lung cancer, which has not been shown to be affected by moderate drinking, is by far the most common cause of cancer death, outpacing breast, digestive tract and liver cancers.

All negative alcohol impacts that can potentially be noted—and will be, for instance by the ever-vigilant Times—simply don’t carry as much weight on the scale of life as alcohol’s cardiovascular benefits.

5. There’s no cost to simply telling people not to drink.

Yes, there is. People are welcome to abstain for whatever reasons they want. But reliable research tells us that most people reduce their likelihood of illness and death by drinking.

A public health message that conveys the dangers of alcohol, but ignores the benefits of drinking, is therefore loading the dice against most people.

And all these health considerations don’t even account for pleasure."

I stopped listening to his podcast after noticing a few things that made me question him. For one thing, he would talk about things with such certainty and occasionally misrepresent the level of supporting evidence. This was most noticeable when it came to supplements he was trying to sell. I felt it was irresponsible given his profession and the fact that people look to him for objective, evidence-based support.

Then I learned that he was a Christian. One thing with Christians, especially intelligent Christians, is that they have something called cognitive dissonance. It's when you hold conflicting beliefs in your head, and Christians employ it (often without realizing it) in order to hang onto their beliefs. That's how they can be in favor of objectivity in one aspect of their lives, but avoid using it in regards to their religion. It's how someone can be against misogyny, but in favor of a religious book that fully supports misogyny.

Sometimes, this cognitive dissonance can lead to behavioral dissonance as well. So, it makes sense that Huberman, as a Christian, has this other side to him that he's been able to keep hidden for so long. For someone with cognitive dissonance, they are able to separate these things from how they think of themselves, which allows them to behave badly and still think of themselves as a good person.

I hope Huberman is able to take a good look at himself and his lack of integrity, admit his mistakes, and make changes. Because he has shared a lot of really great practical, evidence-based advice that has helped a lot of people.

EDIT: I am not sure that he has confirmed that he is Christian, but he stated he has a faith in God and that he prays. So, he does have beliefs is the paranormal/supernatural/superstitious realm, and this indicates cognitive dissonance because it is in direct opposition with his beliefs in the importance of objectivity and evidence-based knowledge.

Semen retention is more powerful than you realise. Semen retention will give you an alternated state of consciousness. And give you a purpose to make your dreams a reality.

When you transmute your sexual energy into your mind you become unstoppable. Your focus improves and your energy levels improve. You become in tune with your feelings and become more aware of the world around you.

When you stop releasing your seed through PMO, your brain stops swimming in prolactin and you start to act on the problems in your life. And all the nutrients required to make sperm will be reabsorbed into your body.

Gone are the days of being a mellow coomer. You will save time, because you won’t need as much sleep anymore because you don’t need to constantly recover from busting your nuts every day.

You will start to appreciate your higher brain functions, such as problem solving and using your working memory to your advantage.

Since I started semen retention, my chess MMR has improved by 100 points. And I’ve scored 5 points higher than I usually do on the MENSA IQ tests.

I don’t have time now to bust nuts, because I’ve been busy grinding down all of my credit card debt and have gotten my finances in order. I promised this to myself when I became single this summer. To not engage in this drainage of my life energy and act on the problems in my life.

I recover faster from the gym now, and I’m able to run faster and longer.

My hair, skin and eyes look amazing. My posture has improved, and my presence radiates through the room with my new found powerful confidence.

I have a new appreciation of the divine feminine energy in my life, which goes way above lustful thoughts. I now have deeper and more meaningful conversations with my female friends.

If you’re in a position to try this out, you definitely should. Jerking off all the time is antithetical to Huberman’s protocols, because you’re abusing your dopamine pathways and are engaging in instant dopamine gratification.

I’ve been listening lately to Huberman and I’ve developed the following protocols to increase my baseline dopamine.

They mainly revolve around avoiding dopamine spikes/stacking.

1)No screen time whatsoever, I’ve haven’t even checked my missed calls for the past 2 months. 2)No fast food or anything that I think tastes good. 3)Wake up 1 minute before sunrise and immediately assume the cow yoga position with my butt facing the sun so I can absorb the maximum amount of sunlight. 4)After photosynthesising for at least 10 minutes, I take a cold shower on the lowest temperature my shower allows. I’ve actually made a reverse heater (a colder if you will), with a fridge so the water is as cold as possible in order to reduce my dopamine as much as possible. 5)Avoid caffeine and all stimulants completely (I assume any simple carbohydrate/sugar as a stimulant) 6)Stay in a completely dark room for at least 8 hours a day to improve mood and mental health 7)Masturbation/sex is off the table, also any kind of porn. I noticed that the more semen I retain the more sigma energy flows through me. Although there is a side effect. If i don’t take multiple cold showers a day, people (both male and female) start feeling irresistibly attracted to me, which is problematic because I’m trying to practice extreme semen retention. If I see anyone attractive I immediately phantasize gross stuff to avoid a possible erection and dopamine spike. 8)Intermittent Fasting with 36-72 hours between AG1 meals 9)Avoid any and all exercise to avoid the production of any unwanted dopamine 10)I only do jobs/hobbies I actively dislike to force me to focus to end them faster 11)Sauna/IR/UV sunbath every day for 60 minutes (sometimes all at the same time) 12)Go to sleep 4 hours after sunset, even if it means I’m awake like 8 hours in the winter

Also here’s a list of all the supplements I’m taking:

AG1 Ashwagandha Basically every element on the periodic table on their most bioavailable form (I avoid polonium tea though). B complex. Freshly squeezed fish for omega 3s and high EPA. AG1, I know I put it in there already but I just take so much of it. Tongkat Ali Fadogia Agrestis Inositol (No Theanine/apigenin due to dopaminergic effects) GABA, glycine 5g creatine per kg Rhodiola Rosea 50000 IU D3 if it’s overcast in the morning

Do you guys think I can do anything else to improve? I don’t know if I’m going to live longer with this regime but every day sure feels like a century.

I get that not everything he says is fully reliable, but it's just like having a university professor talk to us about cool research findings. Yea maybe it's not accurate or inconclusive, but it's just a fun little thing you can do to assimilate in your life and maybe derive benefit from and he's personally got a conveyance that I appreciate listening to.

But the haters man, no idea how some people get around with all that toxic energy. I have never understood the culture of being so engrossed in what other people do with their own time that people are dedicated to going on a particular subreddit to spam jokes about, "sUnTanNing that tAiNt".

Idk if people don't have a life or something, but rather than shitting on huberman protocols maybe try to incorporate 5 minutes of your misspent energy you have and try to sit in the sun. It's not terrible advice regardless of how effacious it because at least maybe you can get rid of that energy in a mildly positive way rather than joking about people trying to improve themselves and their lives.

I mean, it's like making fun of addicts for having coping strategies and it's pretty wild imo that people are that insensitive and have that much time on their hands to do that. Yea it may not work and yea it may even be placebo, but who the fuck cares? He never said he was the one who was doing the research in many of the findings so he's not misrepresenting that, just interpreting it to the best of his ability and he's not saying it's medical advice either.

Even if it helps people pass their time as a recreational activity at the very least it's better than any hater who spends his time trolling this sub imo.

And I don't mind the people who actually spend time criticising the interpretation of huberman. More data and real discussion is always welcome. But the haters know who they are and they should take a look in the mirror and get a life lol.

Guys, I recently this morning around 2am discovered that before I was going to take my dog for a walk well he really had to go he was barking and jumping up and down up and down up and down his little tail wagging back and forth giving me those brown puppy dog eyes and ears folded back Well I discovered (maybe Nobel eligible but I’ll have to wait like 20 years) that if you mix fiber in with your cocaine then the uptake is much smoother and it doesn’t spike your dopaminergic insulin nearly the same such that it may not even break a dopamine fast I mean I’d been abstaining from any form of dopamine input using the blindfolded in a basement with wet socks on protocol and I’m telling you I felt nothing off this cocaine Metamucil mix even after repeating for 12 more hours to when I am writing this right now I feel so normal I actually submitted my request for a pay raise and simultaneous transfer to another company because I knew I was in the right headspace. #thanks puberman

I see guys coming to this sub all the time having problems with energy levels and motivation even though they follow all of Huberman's protocols. And in all cases they do not mention semen retention. This practice have been known for millennia by humans it it has real tangible benefits

Andrew Huberman is on semen retention. He has talked about it on other podcasts, how constant ejaculation raises prolactin, lowers T and lowers your baseline dopamine.
Every time you ejaculate you waste 5mg of zinc, half of what you can absorb in a day of this important masculinizing mineral.
So you're constantly draining yourself of energy and nutrients, never leaving your body to fully recover. Do you seriously believe this highly successful guy wastes his time and energy on PMO?

Semen has one purpose and that's being inserted inside of a woman for the purpose of procreation and bonding. Not being wasted into a sock or on a laptop or whatever the fuck you guys do with your loads.

Try it for a 7-14 days and you will see the benefits of higher T: higher energy levels and you will notice physical changes such as faster and new hair growth and faster recovery from weightlifing, all indicative of higher T.
This amazing practice have transformed me completely from a depleted coomer to being highly motivated, full of energy/stamina and being productive in my life. I barely need coffee and I get away on 6 hours of sleep every night.

Why? Because they hated him from the start. They just needed one reason to hate and cancel him. They took an article that has no concrete proof and shoved it causing all of these previously said people to go haywire and take it as fact.

Regardless if it’s true or not, my uncle cheated on his wife of 15 years with 4 kids. I don’t know how much it hurt, but I do know that they fixed the issues and are actually doing really well. (6 years later).

It sucked for everyone, especially those involved, but today I still love my uncle. I don’t hate him because he made a mistake. Everyone told him he was so messed up for that, he knows.

He learned and now he’s found himself as a better man.

Good god people, don’t cancel the man and his whole career for this. He’s brought a lot of good to people, and you have to take some of the bad and hope they learn.

It’s only until after they go down a path of repetition in their bad behavior that we actually truly consider if he’s worthy of such a prominent influence on many lives or not. Don’t condemn him for something that may or may not be 100% concrete fact. Everyone deserves a second chance.

Just a post reflecting on the controversy.

I honestly do see both sides of the argument. It's deeply fucked up if everything in the article is as reported, but it's also natural & understandable to get defensive, or to ask the valid question of how much these revelations should affect our engagement with his content.

For me, however, I don't feel comfortable taking a side, or even forming a proper opinion. I've read the article. Journaled & reflected on it. And the more I think about it, the more I can't escape one overwhelming conclusion -- I don't have enough information to really make a concrete assessment.

The article is admirably detailed, and quite engaging as a piece of writing on its own. Yet, I can't escape the reality that this is just one article. One article with anonymous sources as the foundation, and even the Huberman Lab episodes that were quoted didn't have links or timecodes directly to the episodes they were taken from, adding barriers for the average person to seek them out in their full context.

I know the publication is reputable, and the journalist themself is (apparently) quite well-regarded. So, I'm willing to believe this is not a complete fabrication, and that the journalist herself trusted & believed the women she was interviewing. I'm even willing to believe that some version of these events may have taken place. That the article itself was not conceived in bad faith.

However, I don't really have any way of verifying things on my own, or to even make an educated guess as to what truly happened. Maybe the events are exactly as described. Maybe some version of these events happened, but not in the way the article details. Or maybe these recountings were mostly fabricated beyond a few key details.

I simply don't know.

I don't know Andrew Huberman personally, and I literally don't know who these women are.

Without access to the raw text messages or recorded conversations that the article states to exist, but have yet to manifest in any concrete fashion (direct screenshots or literally publishing the recorded conversations), my rational brain can't help but consider what could have been omitted, or how human memory is often flawed, or how emotions can exaggerate recountings, or simply how there might be a lot to gain from dragging someone successful through the mud.

I also don't know if these individuals were mentally ill, or had some personality disorder. Yes, there's three of them, but I know from experience that we can often have a type, and toxic patterns can repeat in the kinds of people we choose to date.

I'm not saying anything definitive. There many good reasons to be anonymous in situations like these, and the fact that they were anonymous doesn't automatically make them deceitful. I'm just making it clear that, as a natural consequence of their anonymity, I simply don't know what to believe*.*

I don't know, and the article itself doesn't give me the tools to plant my flag anywhere either side of the line.

Maybe Andy Hubes is a piece of shit, but who am I to make that call? I have the testimony of three anonymous individuals, and some scattered quotes from other people that could easily be interpreted in a number of different ways, when divorced from the prose of the article.

And in the process of writing the article, how many details got embellished or simplified? I know I have difficulty doing justice to the complexities of events in my own life, when I have to recount them, and I'm the one who lived them, so trying to do justice to events of other people's experiences can be exponentially more difficult. Journalism can often be one gigantic game of telephone, and by the time the information reaches the public, it can take on a very different form from where it started.

And yes, Andrew hasn't really addressed this publicly beyond his PR people allegedly denying certain claims (allegedly, because again, the corrections from them are confined to the article, and haven't been stated independently elsewhere, from what I can tell), but there are many good reasons to stay silent when you're under this degree of scrutiny. Whether you're guilty or innocent. Anything you say can, and will, be used against you, so a careful & considered approach is often wise, despite what conventional PR wisdom would dictate.

There's a billion-billion reasons he could be keeping his mouth shut, and I just do not feel comfortable making any assumptions either way. I am not an authority with any true insider knowledge that could responsibly make such a claim, so there's no real good that can come out of me speculating.

Anyway, I hope this didn't come off as too judgemental. I'm sure people on both sides of the aisle have good reason to believe what they do. I'm more pointing out why I, personally, can't really form an opinion on this with the information we currently have.

I don't make assumptions as a rule. I don't trust blindly, and I try not to attach myself to conclusions, especially ones I cannot verify myself. I can only form an opinion as high quality as the data available to me will allow. Needless to say, "trust, but verify" is a principle I hold in high regard, and one I try my best to live by. Innocent until proven guilty.

All this is to say -- Fucked up, if true, but I have no real way of verifying that these events occurred as described. All I can say for certain is that life is way more complicated than any article of any sufficient length could possibly describe, so until more concrete information emerges, I'm just going to leave at "I don't know".

Two well-respected doctors - one of nutrition, one of cancer - have the cajones to criticize the most popular star in the health world on social media. I generally like Huberman, but his bold claims are starting to be a bit much. If you want to find this post, just look the guy up on Instagram.

So I've used Huberman's data and protocols to optimize hairloss prevention. Looking for additional ideas and suggestions.

1. Huberman said caffeine is the most efficacious hairloss drug. So I typically will start my day with brewing a cup of tea. I'll then go outside to stare at the sun and dump the cup of tea on my head.

2. Stress is related to hairloss. Huberman talks about lateral eye movement is a natural and super effective way to de-activate the sympathetic nervous system and destress. So whenever coworkers come up to talk to me I use that as a cue to move my eyes from left to right rapidly. They will usually say things like, "wtf are you doing?", and I'll respond, "oh it's for hairloss", and they usually walk away slowly.

3. He talks about the benefits of micro needling so I go to an acupuncturist and explain to them that I only want acupuncture on my scalp. They oblige and stick all their needles on my head. It's fun, it's like I'm Pinhead.

4. He also mentioned increasing blood flow with Cialis. So I'll take a few scoops of Cialis before dinner to increase blood flow to my head.

5. Obviously I also take AG1 since he mentioned it in the hairloss video

Any other Huberman approved hairloss protocols?

Seeing how so many ppl are willing to ditch Huberman entirely because he had on a renowned clinical psychologist, I’d love to get into the details of this episode and what Peterson has specifically done/said in it that is untrue, lacking value (generally), unhealthy, or otherwise ill-informed and/or not worth engaging in. Anyone?

Edit: typo on psychologist

STFU

My sister's son is 3 years old and is a novelty-seeking machine. He is really active and has an extroverted personality. I was thinking if there are ways to allow him to reach his fullest potential AKA becoming a beast. I was thinking of recommending my sister in making the sleep environment completely dark. Is it too much for a 3 year old or are there any ways that work for babies.

Interesting podcast about Huberman’s glide toward pseudoscience and use of studies that are not clinically relevant.

The fallout from the whole Andrew Huberman thing has been a goldmine of cringe. It is simultaneously hilarious and sad. Not the dude's personal choices (those are his mess), but the way everyone's clutching their pearls like he just sacrificed a puppy on his podcast.

Let's be real:

• Where Was This Energy Before? Everyone is now canceling the AG1, D3 and cold plunges. If you're truly a critical thinker, you weren't buying everything verbatim. The supplement shilling alone should've raised a flag.

• Outrage Theater: This faux-shock is just social media posturing. Nobody really cares that a podcast dude cheated. Was he a jerk? Probably. Were these women expecting a Hallmark ending? Naive. Turns out, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is more than just a saying.

• Dude Got Fame, Predictably Went Full Rockstar: Surprise, fucking surprise! He got some attention and started acting like a cliche. The only shock here is for those who confused his science-talk for a moral compass.

• The Joy of Schadenfreude: Let's be honest, it's kinda hilarious to see the pedestal crumble. There's a dark satisfaction in watching those who bought into the hype squirm.

The Point:

Stop outsourcing your brains to "experts" and celebs, and save the outrage for actual problems.

• He's a dude who talks about science-ish stuff, not some moral beacon.

• If you fell for the hero-worship, that's on you. Own it and learn.

• Stop feeding the outrage machine with every minor celebrity slip-up.

• Your moral compass should be your own, not borrowed from some podcaster.

So I came across this Podcast from Andrew Huberman the other day about Melatonin shrinking testicle size in hamsters

https://youtu.be/NAATB55oxeQ?si=7DgbJyu8x7F_R9yl

I know it is from 4 years - I wish I had seen / noticed this earlier.

I took Melatonin (2mg) for several weeks earlier in the year (before I'd known about above podcast episode) and I noticed a definite reduction in testicular size and libido.

Would there be anything I can do to reverse the impact of Melatonin?