Edit: a bit of googling turns up a number of results. E.g https://www.reddit.com/r/HubermanLab/comments/18qrjzl/lustig...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stealing that one, thanks!
Important to note that whilst the podcast brings different opinions on different matters. It doesn't necessarily mean that Andrew or the podcast endorses those opinions.
If you are going to condemn processed foods, show me that it's worse to eat Quest Bars than fruit and nuts with honey.
I hold the problem is sugars (and alcohol).
The podcast mentions of a food classification system in the US called the NOVA system, which classifies foods in supermarkets based on the degree to which they have been processed based on the above scale.