I've gotten tons of value from Huberman through the years, and I feel the charred meat claim is taken out of context. That topic has been discussed on his podcast, and both his solo and guest episodes are well researched; the show notes provide all the supporting information for the curious and nerdy reader. Credit is always fairly given, and the nuance is right there for anyone willing to actually listen before forming an opinion. Pulling one line out of a two-hour conversation and treating it as the whole message says more about the critic than the source.
Irina, thank you. Huberman has added value to health and longevity discussions focused on his neuroscience expertise, which I tend to take at face value unless/until a red flag arises. The charred meat criticism may be capricious. But I think it hits a nerve because it's of a piece. I believe Huberman is eminently fair game for criticism for the relentless focus on himself. This begins with not always being up front about the financial interests he holds in products he's actively promoting and, worse, platforming known longevity chiselers like David Sinclair, whom Matt Kaeberlein, if not others, have identified as willing to publicly lie to promote unproven theories (that financially benefit Sinclair himself). It's the very same problem I have with celebrity longevity doctors like Mark Hyman who treat their audiences like suckers who don't deserve the respect to be told when they're being sold something vs. being given only honest advice. If that doesn't qualify for legitimate skepticism, then Huberman's willingness to flex shirtless on YouTube with name-brand strength gurus does. Which, more or less fairly, opens the doorway to people critiquing his need to broadcast his thoughts on meat char, etc.
There's a he-man self-promoter reflex going on here, is my point, and it's deliberate (and, from the evidence, successful). That said, I admit I may have unfairly drafted off the NYT op-ed's criticism of the meat conversation. I was writing somewhat whimsically.
Disclosure: In Australia, I've cooked and eaten more slightly-charred filets in the past week than I had in the previous 3 months.
So true! While Attia, Huberman, Ferriss et al have basically become grifters IMO, I will say that Attia's Outlive book did provide lots of info that I found helpful. But he and many others seem to be in it now for nothing but a money grab that too many fall for. At 80, your advice has been invaluable for me. Fortunately I see a few others like Dr Howard Luks that are dispensing great info for older folks like myself. But as you've said along with another older guy I met at the beach this morning, just keep moving!
Tom, thanks for reading and for your thoughts here. Like you, I also found "Outlive" to be an excellent resource, when I first read it back in ~2023 and today. Attia's shortcomings and demonstrated blind spots in toxic masculinity culture, which he himself admits are troublingly large, shouldn't detract from the book, imo. Dr. Luks's post I also enjoyed but no longer have access to on Substack; he blocked me several months ago after I disputed the accuracy of some of his assertions on the aerobic benefits of strength training.
Paul, I Have been reading your articles on Substack for over a year now. I thought I was subscribed but I was not. I just did subscribe because I had to respond to this post.
As I understand it, you dispense information through Substack and perhaps other venues And use that to support yourself financially. The mega influencers like Huberman, Attia, etc. Do the same thing just at a much larger scale. And maybe less transparent than you. Any Thinking person can see this without you having to constantly remind us.
When you referred to char on steak as “cancer dust” to categorize what Andrew Hubermann is sharing with people, I was disgusted, and embarrassed for you. Such a massive misrepresentation.
I doubt I am alone amongst your readers/listeners when I admit that I have watched and gotten value from many of these people that you depict as charlatans to various degrees.
I don’t know what exactly Andrew Huberman had in mind when he started posting videos about human physical potential and mindfulness, but I doubt that he saw himself having a media empire of sorts. He has that because people have valued what he has shared. It has presented him with many ways to make money that create conflicts, any thinking person would see this Without your help.
I do seem to recall that your impetus for starting this was to create something financially viable to support yourself as the old model of newspaper media died off. I feel very confident when I say that we’re it not for these Mega popular (Or Formerly mega popular) dispensers of advice, the likelihood that I would know who you were or that “aging with strength” Would be able to support you financially approaches zero.
If you have a problem with one of their ideas, address the idea. Stop attacking what they helped build. They helped create a market that you are able to participate in. Humility is beautiful and honest.
By the way, here is what your friend “Claude” 4.6 had to say about comparing charred steak to “Cancer dust” :
“Ha, okay that’s a fun one! So they’re not entirely wrong — charred meat does contain
HCAs and PAHs, compounds that are classified as probable carcinogens. But “cancer dust” is definitely dramatic — the actual risk from occasionally eating a charred steak is pretty minimal, so yeah, that’s more flair than science.”
More real things, less flair Paul.
Unless your next gig is working at Chotchkey’s from the movie Office Space. If that is the case, don’t forget that 15 is the minimum so you only have 14 more statements of flair to get there.
Paul, I sincerely appreciate the things you share and look forward to seeing them in the future. Even if you must continue to throw stones at the other glass houses, I will continue to look for your common sense advice. Thank you.
Matt, I thank you for this. You and your close reading and tracking of my work over time is a gift, and I appreciate everything you wrote. I want to think through some of your points a little more and also wanted to respond to you now, as I have to other comments, to at least let you know I read them and hear you (and, you may not be surprised to learn) agree with a fair number of them. For the moment, I just appreciate your close read and your eminently fair criticisms.
Huberman, as I've noted in another comment to this post, offers value on a lot of topics within or adjacent to his expertise, which I don't question. (He's actually helped me figure out how to get to sleep faster on nights when I can't seem to relax.) As you point out, he hasn't been transparent, however, about financial interests in products he actively promotes and urges his viewers to buy. For me and others like me, that's disrespectful of one's audience. I disagree, therefore, with you about the idea that smart people know what to disregard about people like Huberman. Many smart people do. But many others, smart or just distracted or (like me) slightly gullible in believing anyone with Stanford PhD next his name, do not have the time, energy or ability to separate honest brokering of advice from double-dealing endorsements by Huberman Inc. of products that, often, aren't really proven to do what they claim to do. So I don't appreciate the opacity of his financial interests in products he may pitch for profit, and I believe it's a big, big problem. Perhaps even more than that, I find his willingness to be less than honest with his audience to be a huge capital-F failure. I was taught, and remain convinced, that one is the champion of one's audience/readers, at all costs. Otherwise, you're just a shill. Noblesse oblige.
On "cancer dust," yes, you got me. I was being intentionally provocative and slightly unrigorous. I love that you ran the phrase through Claude (although I admit I don't use anything lower than Opus 4.8) and am honestly relieved it didn't tell you to cancel your subscription immediately and call me a damned liar. I was writing with perhaps too much creative license for my subscriber base—of which I hope you will remain a part. I need and want readers like you to call me out when you think I'm in the weeds, out of bounds, jumping the shark...pick your metaphor.
Onward to your snort-laugh-out-loud reference to Chotchkey’s from "Office Space" and the priceless reference to "flair." I need to wear my flair sometimes, sir. I just do. But maybe we can agree to disagree on how flattering or not it looks, and still stay Substack buddies. I hope so. Also, I'll probably be more circumspect, knowing you're paying close attention.
I don't see myself throwing stones at glass houses while living in my own. I hold myself to a rather high no-bullshit standard, I hope you'd agree. And I'm man enough to admit I cooked, to a slight char, two Australian "eye of round" steaks since I landed in Sydney 10 days ago, and enjoyed them greatly. And yeah, I think of char as cancer dust, personally. But at least I'm not eating party-sized bags of Fritos.
Please keep letting me know how I'm doing. I appreciate you.
Thank you for the thoughtful and respectful reply and for responding my need to put a little bit of levity into anything now because everything’s way too serious.
To many conversations are approached like it’s the Cuban missile crisis.
Your response was really welcoming, especially because it wasn’t just a capitulation or a rejection of my argument. You disagree with some of what I said, admitted to some of what I suggested. And then made that small visit to the confessional of your own human hypocrisy about steak, char, and your own fall from grace. You’re still human, and to use simulation theory language, your nuance shows you’re not an NPC or at least not acting as one in this circumstance. We all have our NPC moments, phone calls to any large organization, navigating a phone tree menu is definitely something I pass off to the NPC character in my head.
Anyway, I digress. Stayed up past my bedtime, Huberman is very right about sleep and circadian rhythm.
Thanks again, I look forward to watching some of the videos now that I am subscribed.
I admit, I had to look up NPC. "non-player character"? I'm not a gamer so this doesn't automatically register, but I think I understand. I agree we all have our "NPC moments," as you say (my 11 combined hours on hold with the IRS's business tax line over the past two weeks would seem to qualify as not only an NPC moment but perhaps more like an NPC Broadway premier).
Let me know what you think of the videos. They're about to get a significant upgrade next month, as a paid-subscriber perk.
I’m not a gamer either, though my 3 boys were and still are. NPC is a functional term for gamers and for the simulation theory of existence. It is a fascinating lens to look at our experience through.
11 hours of IRS phone time! You are working through some tough karma my friend.
My major focus on my health is everything around Alzheimer’s. My mom and her sister both had it and I am trying to cultivate the lifestyle habits that will minimize its risk. It’s all such a glorious blessing to be here and have this existence. To extend a quote from Ram Dass, I want to really “Be here now” for as long as the fates allow.
I know you’ve done a lot of things with Alzheimer’s. Are you familiar with a book titled the end of Alzheimer’s by Dale E. Bredesen? He presents a very proactive approach to minimizing the risk of Alzheimer’s, and even claims to her reversed symptoms, simply through behavior and a fairly elaborate supplement mixture. Nothing wacky or proprietary that he is selling, but a pretty rigorous list of supplements.
It makes a lot of sense to me. At this point, I very much subscribe to the general idea that Alzheimer’s is most similar to type three diabetes. I’m sure you’ve seen people saying that.
Matt, thanks for the details. One of my favorite parts of creating AGING with STRENGTH is getting to know, albeit via electronic means, what angles of aging most concern and motivate my readers. (And what sets them off—eg, ”cancer dust). There’s so much more I need to learn and understand about Alzheimer’s. If you are don’t already, I encourage you to explore @Annie Fenn, MD’s Substack. Terrific, thorough & expert insights, no-b.s. (Dr. Fenn is also who got me thinking about the highly negative impacts of red-meat char, by way of AGEs, aka, advanced glycation end products.)
That's just it, Dr. Fenn: I'm still eating steak, charred with an acceptable level of "cancer dust" — the phrase Matt above skewered me about (pun intended). But I have cut back to about 1 filet per quarter, which works for me.
I've gotten tons of value from Huberman through the years, and I feel the charred meat claim is taken out of context. That topic has been discussed on his podcast, and both his solo and guest episodes are well researched; the show notes provide all the supporting information for the curious and nerdy reader. Credit is always fairly given, and the nuance is right there for anyone willing to actually listen before forming an opinion. Pulling one line out of a two-hour conversation and treating it as the whole message says more about the critic than the source.
Irina, thank you. Huberman has added value to health and longevity discussions focused on his neuroscience expertise, which I tend to take at face value unless/until a red flag arises. The charred meat criticism may be capricious. But I think it hits a nerve because it's of a piece. I believe Huberman is eminently fair game for criticism for the relentless focus on himself. This begins with not always being up front about the financial interests he holds in products he's actively promoting and, worse, platforming known longevity chiselers like David Sinclair, whom Matt Kaeberlein, if not others, have identified as willing to publicly lie to promote unproven theories (that financially benefit Sinclair himself). It's the very same problem I have with celebrity longevity doctors like Mark Hyman who treat their audiences like suckers who don't deserve the respect to be told when they're being sold something vs. being given only honest advice. If that doesn't qualify for legitimate skepticism, then Huberman's willingness to flex shirtless on YouTube with name-brand strength gurus does. Which, more or less fairly, opens the doorway to people critiquing his need to broadcast his thoughts on meat char, etc.
There's a he-man self-promoter reflex going on here, is my point, and it's deliberate (and, from the evidence, successful). That said, I admit I may have unfairly drafted off the NYT op-ed's criticism of the meat conversation. I was writing somewhat whimsically.
Disclosure: In Australia, I've cooked and eaten more slightly-charred filets in the past week than I had in the previous 3 months.
So true! While Attia, Huberman, Ferriss et al have basically become grifters IMO, I will say that Attia's Outlive book did provide lots of info that I found helpful. But he and many others seem to be in it now for nothing but a money grab that too many fall for. At 80, your advice has been invaluable for me. Fortunately I see a few others like Dr Howard Luks that are dispensing great info for older folks like myself. But as you've said along with another older guy I met at the beach this morning, just keep moving!
Tom, thanks for reading and for your thoughts here. Like you, I also found "Outlive" to be an excellent resource, when I first read it back in ~2023 and today. Attia's shortcomings and demonstrated blind spots in toxic masculinity culture, which he himself admits are troublingly large, shouldn't detract from the book, imo. Dr. Luks's post I also enjoyed but no longer have access to on Substack; he blocked me several months ago after I disputed the accuracy of some of his assertions on the aerobic benefits of strength training.
Watch out, the Huberman zealots will come for you
As long as they, unlike Huberman, keep their shirts on, it'll all work out.
Paul, I Have been reading your articles on Substack for over a year now. I thought I was subscribed but I was not. I just did subscribe because I had to respond to this post.
As I understand it, you dispense information through Substack and perhaps other venues And use that to support yourself financially. The mega influencers like Huberman, Attia, etc. Do the same thing just at a much larger scale. And maybe less transparent than you. Any Thinking person can see this without you having to constantly remind us.
When you referred to char on steak as “cancer dust” to categorize what Andrew Hubermann is sharing with people, I was disgusted, and embarrassed for you. Such a massive misrepresentation.
I doubt I am alone amongst your readers/listeners when I admit that I have watched and gotten value from many of these people that you depict as charlatans to various degrees.
I don’t know what exactly Andrew Huberman had in mind when he started posting videos about human physical potential and mindfulness, but I doubt that he saw himself having a media empire of sorts. He has that because people have valued what he has shared. It has presented him with many ways to make money that create conflicts, any thinking person would see this Without your help.
I do seem to recall that your impetus for starting this was to create something financially viable to support yourself as the old model of newspaper media died off. I feel very confident when I say that we’re it not for these Mega popular (Or Formerly mega popular) dispensers of advice, the likelihood that I would know who you were or that “aging with strength” Would be able to support you financially approaches zero.
If you have a problem with one of their ideas, address the idea. Stop attacking what they helped build. They helped create a market that you are able to participate in. Humility is beautiful and honest.
By the way, here is what your friend “Claude” 4.6 had to say about comparing charred steak to “Cancer dust” :
“Ha, okay that’s a fun one! So they’re not entirely wrong — charred meat does contain
HCAs and PAHs, compounds that are classified as probable carcinogens. But “cancer dust” is definitely dramatic — the actual risk from occasionally eating a charred steak is pretty minimal, so yeah, that’s more flair than science.”
More real things, less flair Paul.
Unless your next gig is working at Chotchkey’s from the movie Office Space. If that is the case, don’t forget that 15 is the minimum so you only have 14 more statements of flair to get there.
Paul, I sincerely appreciate the things you share and look forward to seeing them in the future. Even if you must continue to throw stones at the other glass houses, I will continue to look for your common sense advice. Thank you.
Matt, I thank you for this. You and your close reading and tracking of my work over time is a gift, and I appreciate everything you wrote. I want to think through some of your points a little more and also wanted to respond to you now, as I have to other comments, to at least let you know I read them and hear you (and, you may not be surprised to learn) agree with a fair number of them. For the moment, I just appreciate your close read and your eminently fair criticisms.
Huberman, as I've noted in another comment to this post, offers value on a lot of topics within or adjacent to his expertise, which I don't question. (He's actually helped me figure out how to get to sleep faster on nights when I can't seem to relax.) As you point out, he hasn't been transparent, however, about financial interests in products he actively promotes and urges his viewers to buy. For me and others like me, that's disrespectful of one's audience. I disagree, therefore, with you about the idea that smart people know what to disregard about people like Huberman. Many smart people do. But many others, smart or just distracted or (like me) slightly gullible in believing anyone with Stanford PhD next his name, do not have the time, energy or ability to separate honest brokering of advice from double-dealing endorsements by Huberman Inc. of products that, often, aren't really proven to do what they claim to do. So I don't appreciate the opacity of his financial interests in products he may pitch for profit, and I believe it's a big, big problem. Perhaps even more than that, I find his willingness to be less than honest with his audience to be a huge capital-F failure. I was taught, and remain convinced, that one is the champion of one's audience/readers, at all costs. Otherwise, you're just a shill. Noblesse oblige.
On "cancer dust," yes, you got me. I was being intentionally provocative and slightly unrigorous. I love that you ran the phrase through Claude (although I admit I don't use anything lower than Opus 4.8) and am honestly relieved it didn't tell you to cancel your subscription immediately and call me a damned liar. I was writing with perhaps too much creative license for my subscriber base—of which I hope you will remain a part. I need and want readers like you to call me out when you think I'm in the weeds, out of bounds, jumping the shark...pick your metaphor.
Onward to your snort-laugh-out-loud reference to Chotchkey’s from "Office Space" and the priceless reference to "flair." I need to wear my flair sometimes, sir. I just do. But maybe we can agree to disagree on how flattering or not it looks, and still stay Substack buddies. I hope so. Also, I'll probably be more circumspect, knowing you're paying close attention.
I don't see myself throwing stones at glass houses while living in my own. I hold myself to a rather high no-bullshit standard, I hope you'd agree. And I'm man enough to admit I cooked, to a slight char, two Australian "eye of round" steaks since I landed in Sydney 10 days ago, and enjoyed them greatly. And yeah, I think of char as cancer dust, personally. But at least I'm not eating party-sized bags of Fritos.
Please keep letting me know how I'm doing. I appreciate you.
Paul,
Thank you for the thoughtful and respectful reply and for responding my need to put a little bit of levity into anything now because everything’s way too serious.
To many conversations are approached like it’s the Cuban missile crisis.
Your response was really welcoming, especially because it wasn’t just a capitulation or a rejection of my argument. You disagree with some of what I said, admitted to some of what I suggested. And then made that small visit to the confessional of your own human hypocrisy about steak, char, and your own fall from grace. You’re still human, and to use simulation theory language, your nuance shows you’re not an NPC or at least not acting as one in this circumstance. We all have our NPC moments, phone calls to any large organization, navigating a phone tree menu is definitely something I pass off to the NPC character in my head.
Anyway, I digress. Stayed up past my bedtime, Huberman is very right about sleep and circadian rhythm.
Thanks again, I look forward to watching some of the videos now that I am subscribed.
Matt
I admit, I had to look up NPC. "non-player character"? I'm not a gamer so this doesn't automatically register, but I think I understand. I agree we all have our "NPC moments," as you say (my 11 combined hours on hold with the IRS's business tax line over the past two weeks would seem to qualify as not only an NPC moment but perhaps more like an NPC Broadway premier).
Let me know what you think of the videos. They're about to get a significant upgrade next month, as a paid-subscriber perk.
I’m not a gamer either, though my 3 boys were and still are. NPC is a functional term for gamers and for the simulation theory of existence. It is a fascinating lens to look at our experience through.
11 hours of IRS phone time! You are working through some tough karma my friend.
My major focus on my health is everything around Alzheimer’s. My mom and her sister both had it and I am trying to cultivate the lifestyle habits that will minimize its risk. It’s all such a glorious blessing to be here and have this existence. To extend a quote from Ram Dass, I want to really “Be here now” for as long as the fates allow.
I know you’ve done a lot of things with Alzheimer’s. Are you familiar with a book titled the end of Alzheimer’s by Dale E. Bredesen? He presents a very proactive approach to minimizing the risk of Alzheimer’s, and even claims to her reversed symptoms, simply through behavior and a fairly elaborate supplement mixture. Nothing wacky or proprietary that he is selling, but a pretty rigorous list of supplements.
It makes a lot of sense to me. At this point, I very much subscribe to the general idea that Alzheimer’s is most similar to type three diabetes. I’m sure you’ve seen people saying that.
Anyhow, happy to be penpals.
Matt
Matt, thanks for the details. One of my favorite parts of creating AGING with STRENGTH is getting to know, albeit via electronic means, what angles of aging most concern and motivate my readers. (And what sets them off—eg, ”cancer dust). There’s so much more I need to learn and understand about Alzheimer’s. If you are don’t already, I encourage you to explore @Annie Fenn, MD’s Substack. Terrific, thorough & expert insights, no-b.s. (Dr. Fenn is also who got me thinking about the highly negative impacts of red-meat char, by way of AGEs, aka, advanced glycation end products.)
Thanks for the mention Paul! And again, sorry to ruin your steak.🙂
That's just it, Dr. Fenn: I'm still eating steak, charred with an acceptable level of "cancer dust" — the phrase Matt above skewered me about (pun intended). But I have cut back to about 1 filet per quarter, which works for me.