I’ve listened to Huberman for a few dozen hours and think he has useful info. But his supplement talk triggered my spidey sense, especially with his sponsors. I remember he was talking about how ashwaganda (or something like that) wasn’t good to take long term because of cortisol suppression and then added that the amount found in athletic greens is ok as it’s not high enough. I thought that was an odd comment and then later in the episode heard an add for athletic greens.

I think he means well, but I don’t think I can trust his advice because of all his supplement advertisers.

I had a loved one with a rare condition and would talk with their doctor about lots of different things to try as I was desperate, the doctor said something that sticks with me “look, these aren’t harmful unless you consider the cost of spending hundreds or thousands per month for supplements harmful.”

Athletic greens is $100/month/person. It’s not bad for you, but that’s a lot of money. Couple it with fancy fish oil, lots of resvetrol, NAD, and all the other stuff and you’re looking at a high bill. Huberman isn’t a doctor, but it’s expensive to experiment with all the stuff he talks about.

All that being said, he’s still in my podcast feed and I listen to an episode every once in a while. So I think he had good info, but just requires lots of confirmation and research.

I think it’s tough for podcasters in this space to make money because naturally supplement people want to advertise. And the targeted ads for Huberman listeners are super frequent and full of all sorts of bio hacks.

I honestly think your last two paragraphs nail it. From my experience he's quite clear about the marginal benefits from supplementation, and as long as he doesn't cross that line I'm perfectly happy to have him serving as a sort of one man literature review.

I also get the impression that his audience is a fairly affluent one, so I don't even have an issue with the price level of the supplements he's advertising. So far they seem legitimate (again, even if they're wildly expensive for any associated benefits) so as long as they don't cross into snake oil territory, I see zero issue with any of it.

The website https://www.consumerlab.com/ might be close to what you're looking for, though it does require a subscription. I started researching things there after learning that many powdered protein supplements contained high levels of heavy metals.

Seattle Public Library gives you free access if you’re a member. I suspect other libraries do as well!

https://www.spl.org/online-resources/consumer-and-diy

Thanks for this - you inspired me to finally get a library card!

Unfortunately I can’t find anything on ConsumerLab about my go-to unflavored whey protein powder (Natural Factors). I guess no news is better than bad news.

I personally use Labdoor: https://labdoor.com/rankings/protein

They do independent testing for supplements and provide rankings based on detected ingredient, heavy metals and adulterants per serving (I linked protein but they also test other types of supplements). My only complaint is that their database is limited so you may not find the brand you are looking for.

> Athletic Greens doesn't even try to suggest what amounts of different vitamins you get in a serving, apparently they just say it is a "proprietary blend".

I've never used athletic greens but I've heard of them from podcast ads.

The nutrition panel is on their site - the direct link is https://images.prismic.io/athletic-greens-new/293c294b-4f3f-...

Were you talking about something else or just didn't see the link to the details?

Thanks for pointing that out. I had seen a review on Youtube and the reviewer was saying AG didn't list the amounts, perhaps it was an older review, or he was full of it. I didn't look deeper myself.

How do you feel about Dr. Oz?

Not good. Why?

This is the first I'm hearing about Huberman his entertainment career compared to his professorial career sounds like Dr. Oz.

Oz promotes the wildest products as part of the grift but by all accounts isn't bad at being a physician (or escaped accountability thus far).

> Dr Huberman

He's not even an M.D.

But don't PhDs still get labelled as Dr?

Not generally in casual conversation, and certainly not in a medicine-adjacent/overlapping subject matter where it creates substantial confusion as to a person's authoritative clinical capacities.

This is an ongoing game played by "doctors" of chiropractic misleading the American public to perceive them as equivalent to M.D. Doctors. It's a cheap way to gain clout, but an M.D. is a professional doctorate, a PhD is not, the distinction matters here.

Beware of non-M.D.'s insisting on a Dr. prefix, or folks citing these people as such especially when it serves to bolster their medicine/health/nutrition claims. It at least suggests a desperation for authority.

Huberman's at best prefixed as Professor here IMO. Even that's being generous since he's an associate professor according to his wikipedia page.