[00:00] Dr. Andrew Huberman is a Stanford professor and&nbsp; one of the most famous scientists and podcasters&nbsp;&nbsp; in the world. With over 7 million subscribers&nbsp; on YouTube alone, his podcast racks up millions&nbsp;&nbsp;
[00:14] of regular listeners. But he has been the&nbsp; target of criticism over the years from&nbsp;&nbsp; some scientists and several hit pieces have&nbsp; appeared in the media. Now, to some extent,&nbsp;&nbsp; this is normal. Once you reach a certain level of&nbsp; visibility, you're going to have some haters. And&nbsp;&nbsp;
[00:29] some of the pieces are more about his personal&nbsp; life than anything he does professionally. So,&nbsp;&nbsp; we're not going to get into any of that. I think&nbsp; most people just want to know, is the content&nbsp;&nbsp; reliable or is it bro science? So today we take an&nbsp; objective look at some of Andrew Huberman's most&nbsp;&nbsp;
[00:46] controversial claims spanning caffeine, dopamine,&nbsp; testosterone, cold plunges, the AG1 supplement,&nbsp;&nbsp; and much more. Are the claims based on strong&nbsp; evidence or not so much? First up, testosterone&nbsp;&nbsp;
[01:02] supplements. So Huberman recommends a couple of&nbsp; supplements to boost testosterone with interesting&nbsp;&nbsp; names. Tongkat Ali and Fadogia Agrestis. Now, for&nbsp; people that aren't getting prescribed TRT but want&nbsp;&nbsp;
[01:15] the increase in testosterone, there are these&nbsp; plant compounds like Tongkat Ali and another one&nbsp;&nbsp; which is very interesting. It's a Nigerian shrub&nbsp; called fadogia aggrestis and it mimics luteinizing&nbsp;&nbsp;
[01:27] hormone which is the hormone that comes out of&nbsp; the hypothalamus that stimulates the testes if you&nbsp;&nbsp; got those and your ovaries if you've got those&nbsp; to make more testosterone or estrogen. And so&nbsp;&nbsp; those two herbal supplements together can give a&nbsp; significant boost in free and active testosterone.&nbsp;&nbsp;
[01:43] So, tongkat has some clinical evidence for it,&nbsp; but fadogia was shown to increase testosterone&nbsp;&nbsp; in a study from Nigeria where they gave it to rats&nbsp; for 5 days. As far as I can tell, it's never been&nbsp;&nbsp;
[01:57] tested in human beings or shown to work. He's&nbsp; also talked on different platforms about stories&nbsp;&nbsp; of people who say they took these supplements&nbsp; and their testosterone went up. I think he even&nbsp;&nbsp; talks about his own anecdote, but the problem with&nbsp; anecdotes is always the same. There's no control&nbsp;&nbsp;
[02:11] group. So, we don't really know what's causing&nbsp; what, especially because people are usually&nbsp;&nbsp; taking more than one supplement and there's other&nbsp; things going on. Just hard to tell. Okay. So what,&nbsp;&nbsp; right? So, people can try the supplement for&nbsp; themselves and if it increases their testosterone,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[02:25] great. If it doesn't, they wasted some money,&nbsp; maybe some time. No big deal, right? Well, the&nbsp;&nbsp; other problem with random supplements is safety.&nbsp; Because adverse effects, including serious ones,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[02:37] happen all the time with supplements, including&nbsp; natural supplements. And in fact, in the same rat&nbsp;&nbsp; studies, they show that if you extend the exposure&nbsp; for a few weeks, they see toxicity at the level of&nbsp;&nbsp;
[02:50] the testes, the liver, and the kidneys. the&nbsp; doses at which they start seeing toxicity&nbsp;&nbsp; roughly correspond to the doses that a lot of&nbsp; people are using to supplement Fadogia and some&nbsp;&nbsp;
[03:02] of the doses that Andrew Huberman talks about.&nbsp; Fadogia is usually taken at about 600 milligrams.&nbsp;&nbsp; So when we do the conversion, there's some&nbsp; equations to do this and I ran this real quick.&nbsp;&nbsp; And this 600 milligrams a day dose corresponds&nbsp; roughly to 50 mg per kilo per day in the rats. And&nbsp;&nbsp;
[03:23] that's a dose at which they report toxicity in the&nbsp; rats. Now obviously there's question marks here,&nbsp;&nbsp; biological differences between rats and humans.&nbsp; Maybe it's totally safe in the humans, we don't&nbsp;&nbsp;
[03:35] see the toxicity that we see in the rats. Or maybe&nbsp; we do. That's the point. We don't know. Now, I&nbsp;&nbsp; did notice that Andrew acknowledged on his podcast&nbsp; that we don't really know what happens safety-wise&nbsp;&nbsp; with Fadogia. the side effect profile of Fadogia&nbsp; aggrestis hasn't really been documented. So,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[03:52] it's a little unclear. I just want to emphasize&nbsp; that anytime someone's going to start taking&nbsp;&nbsp; supplements that or modifying sexual hormones,&nbsp; getting blood work done is extremely important.&nbsp;&nbsp;
[04:04] it for safety reasons and also just to know&nbsp; whether or not things are working. So I think&nbsp;&nbsp; that's good to state that caveat. It's better than&nbsp; not doing it. I would still have lots of concerns&nbsp;&nbsp; because what if you have damage somewhere in&nbsp; your body that doesn't show up in the blood work&nbsp;&nbsp;
[04:18] that you happen to run or what if it causes some&nbsp; irreversible damage? So you see something wrong or&nbsp;&nbsp; you feel something wrong, you stop the supplement&nbsp; but it never reverses completely. So this is why&nbsp;&nbsp; in medicine we do things pretty carefully and we&nbsp; don't recommend supplements to millions of people&nbsp;&nbsp;
[04:35] before there are some clinical trials in human&nbsp; beings, right? Just because it worked in rats&nbsp;&nbsp; in Nigeria once and there's some stories from&nbsp; friends, it's not really compelling. And let's&nbsp;&nbsp; not forget we don't know the safety profile, we&nbsp; also don't know the efficacy side, right? It's&nbsp;&nbsp;
[04:51] not like we know that it works we just don't know&nbsp; if it's safe, we don't know either one in human&nbsp;&nbsp; beings. I just want to emphasize guys, Huberman&nbsp; has many other recommendations on testosterone&nbsp;&nbsp; that are based on very strong evidence. So, he&nbsp; talks about maintaining low body fat. He talks&nbsp;&nbsp;
[05:06] about resistance training. He talks about the&nbsp; importance of sleep. He emphasizes lifestyle,&nbsp;&nbsp; that you're going to get most of your results from&nbsp; the basics, a healthy diet and exercise. And these&nbsp;&nbsp; supplements are going to give you maybe a small&nbsp; nudge. So, that's an important clarification. And&nbsp;&nbsp;
[05:22] he does that very clearly. So, I'm not trying to&nbsp; tell you that everything he says is bunk. Not at&nbsp;&nbsp; all. Right? He says lots of things that are solid.&nbsp; This is more random and maybe because it's random,&nbsp;&nbsp; it's become more famous and more controversial and&nbsp; people ask about it. Personally, I wish he would&nbsp;&nbsp;
[05:37] have kept it out, but that's me. By the way, I&nbsp; posted all of this breakdown, everything that&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm talking about in this video on X and I tagged&nbsp; Andrew and I asked him a number of questions and&nbsp;&nbsp; I asked him to comment. I haven't heard back, but&nbsp; if he ever wants to talk about any of this or has&nbsp;&nbsp;
[05:54] different arguments or disagrees or has seen&nbsp; different evidence, happy to chat anytime. Next,&nbsp;&nbsp; cold plunges and dopamine. So, this is another&nbsp; famous one. Andrew often talks about a study&nbsp;&nbsp;
[06:06] where cold exposure increased dopamine levels&nbsp; by 250%. The subjects also experienced a 250%&nbsp;&nbsp; increase in dopamine concentrations. And I do&nbsp; believe that these documented effects in humans&nbsp;&nbsp;
[06:22] explain much of the enhancement of attention and&nbsp; of feelings of well-being and mood that people&nbsp;&nbsp; typically experience after doing deliberate&nbsp; cold exposure. So this is technically true.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is referring to a study where they took&nbsp; 10 young men and they exposed them to baths,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[06:40] water of three different temperatures and&nbsp; the lowest one which was 14° C caused their&nbsp;&nbsp; baseline dopamine level to go up 2.5 times so&nbsp; 250%. But there's a number of problems with the&nbsp;&nbsp;
[06:54] implications here because this level of dopamine&nbsp; was measured in the plasma, in their blood, and&nbsp;&nbsp; dopamine doesn't cross the blood brain barrier.&nbsp; So it doesn't go from the plasma into the brain.&nbsp;&nbsp;
[07:06] So the dopamine that's produced and acts in the&nbsp; brain and the dopamine that's produced in the body&nbsp;&nbsp; and that's in the plasma, we say peripherally,&nbsp; these are two different compartments and they&nbsp;&nbsp; have different physiological functions. This&nbsp; dopamine in the body and the plasma is part&nbsp;&nbsp;
[07:23] of a stress response. So cold is a stressor.&nbsp; It fires up your sympathetic nervous system,&nbsp;&nbsp; kind of your fight or-flight response, and that&nbsp; causes some of these hormones to be produced by&nbsp;&nbsp;
[07:35] your adrenal glands that sit at top your kidneys:&nbsp; adrenaline, noradrenaline, and dopamine. And they&nbsp;&nbsp; have all kinds of physiological functions in&nbsp; the body. They regulate the muscle of the artery&nbsp;&nbsp;
[07:49] walls to contract and dilate. They also regulate&nbsp; kidney function and metabolism in general. So,&nbsp;&nbsp; it's a response to stress in the body. But this is&nbsp; completely different from the actions of dopamine&nbsp;&nbsp; in the central nervous system, which is what we&nbsp; typically associate with dopamine, the reward&nbsp;&nbsp;
[08:06] and the motivation and the pleasure, right?&nbsp; We normally think of dopamine as the pleasure&nbsp;&nbsp; hormone or the pleasure neurotransmitter. To me,&nbsp; it's a huge logical leap to associate these plasma&nbsp;&nbsp;
[08:18] levels of dopamine to these mood effects that we&nbsp; associate with dopamine in the nervous system.&nbsp;&nbsp; Here he is suggesting that connection again.&nbsp; What's interesting about deliberate cold exposure,&nbsp;&nbsp; you know, cold plunge or what have you, is that&nbsp; people generally report feeling very good almost&nbsp;&nbsp;
[08:36] like a mild euphoria for many hours afterwards,&nbsp; elevated focus many hours afterwards. And that&nbsp;&nbsp; maps beautifully onto the I can see those&nbsp; images in the the paper now of the you know&nbsp;&nbsp; the big dopamine increase and the norepinephrine&nbsp; increase and I think it's three graphs set above&nbsp;&nbsp;
[08:50] one another vertically in that paper where&nbsp; I mean this is long arcs of dopamine release&nbsp;&nbsp; way above baseline. Now, alertness and feeling&nbsp; awake after cold exposure, yeah, we would expect&nbsp;&nbsp;
[09:02] that even from the sympathetic nervous system&nbsp; stimulation. But as for any of these mood related,&nbsp;&nbsp; the euphoria, the pleasure, the drive, the&nbsp; motivation that we associate with dopamine in&nbsp;&nbsp;
[09:15] the central nervous system, I wouldn't conclude&nbsp; any of that link from this. And the first time&nbsp;&nbsp; I heard him suggest this, I thought this was too&nbsp; obvious of an oversight, that maybe I'm missing&nbsp;&nbsp;
[09:27] something and somebody would have said something.&nbsp; Turns out somebody did. Professor Steven Quartz,&nbsp;&nbsp; who has researched dopamine, he had a similar&nbsp; reaction, but he worded it much more strongly. He&nbsp;&nbsp; wrote, "These are obviously false and misleading&nbsp; statements. Plasma dopamine, so blood dopamine,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[09:43] cannot be used to infer central dopamine levels."&nbsp; By central, he's talking about central nervous&nbsp;&nbsp; system. Huberman even establishes this parallel&nbsp; between cold exposure and stimuli like nicotine&nbsp;&nbsp;
[09:57] and chocolate and sex and cocaine on the basis&nbsp; that all of them increase dopamine dramatically,&nbsp;&nbsp; like several fold, and even suggests that cold&nbsp; has an advantage because all these other stimuli,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[10:10] the effect on dopamine is transient. So it goes&nbsp; up a lot but it comes down pretty quickly. Whereas&nbsp;&nbsp; with cold he suggests the effect is maintained.&nbsp; Dopamine levels started to rise somewhat slowly&nbsp;&nbsp;
[10:22] and then continue to rise and reach levels&nbsp; as high as 2.5 times above baseline. That's&nbsp;&nbsp; a remarkably high increase. Remember if&nbsp; we go back to our examples of chocolate,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[10:36] sex a doubling above baseline, nicotine two and a&nbsp; half times above baseline, cocaine the increase in&nbsp;&nbsp; dopamine from cold water exposure of this kind was&nbsp; comparable to what one sees from cocaine except,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[10:51] except in this case it wasn't a rise and crash.&nbsp; It was actually a sustained rise in dopamine that&nbsp;&nbsp; took a very long time, up to three hours to come&nbsp; back down to baseline, which is really remarkable.&nbsp;&nbsp;
[11:05] And I think this explains some of the positive&nbsp; mental and physical effects that people report&nbsp;&nbsp; subjectively after doing cold water exposure. Now,&nbsp; I couldn't find the sources for these other claims&nbsp;&nbsp;
[11:18] on his podcast, in the description to the YouTube&nbsp; video or the website, but typically where we see&nbsp;&nbsp; this response, this big spike in dopamine that is&nbsp; transient, these are measurements in the brain of&nbsp;&nbsp;
[11:30] animals in the lab, typically rodents, rats or&nbsp; mice that have micro capillaries implanted into&nbsp;&nbsp; their brain and they're measuring dopamine levels&nbsp; in specific areas of the nervous system like the&nbsp;&nbsp;
[11:43] nuclear accumbens which is a part of the brain&nbsp; that plays an important role for dopaminergic&nbsp;&nbsp; signaling. So this has nothing to do with this&nbsp; paper in humans looking at plasma levels upon&nbsp;&nbsp;
[11:55] exposure to cold, completely different universes.&nbsp; So I think this all came from, there's all these&nbsp;&nbsp; stories of people saying they feel great and they&nbsp; feel euphoric after cold plunges or ice baths or&nbsp;&nbsp;
[12:08] whatever. And then someone found this increase&nbsp; in dopamine upon cold exposure. Ah, dopamine must&nbsp;&nbsp; explain the mood changes. But scientifically,&nbsp; I don't find this argument compelling at all.&nbsp;&nbsp;
[12:21] Another important thing to point out is this study&nbsp; with the cold exposures, they're long exposures,&nbsp;&nbsp; one hour in the cold water, whereas a lot of these&nbsp; protocols for ice baths and cold exposure that&nbsp;&nbsp;
[12:33] people are using are really short. In fact,&nbsp; Huberman recommends really rapid sessions,&nbsp;&nbsp; one to five minute sessions. So again, this has&nbsp; nothing to do with that paper. There's no reason&nbsp;&nbsp; to think that the changes they saw there would&nbsp; be seen with this type of protocol. So if you&nbsp;&nbsp;
[12:50] like ice baths or cold plunges, why not, go for&nbsp; it. And there are other demonstrated benefits.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's anti-inflammatory, speeds up recovery&nbsp; after intense exercise. Athletes use it. So&nbsp;&nbsp;
[13:02] there's other reasons to do it. This argument&nbsp; of the dopamine and the mood and the reward,&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't find it compelling. Next, the caffeine&nbsp; delay. This is one of Huberman's most popular&nbsp;&nbsp; and controversial claims. It's the idea that you&nbsp; want to wait after you wake up for an hour and a&nbsp;&nbsp;
[13:19] half to two hours before you have some caffeine to&nbsp; avoid the afternoon crash. Here he is explaining&nbsp;&nbsp; it. And there's actually a trick to avoid the&nbsp; daytime uh the afternoon crash. It's not a trick,&nbsp;&nbsp; it's biology. Caffeine is an adenosine antagonist.&nbsp; It basically as the longer you're awake, adenosine&nbsp;&nbsp;
[13:36] builds up in your bloodstream. It's what makes&nbsp; you feel fatigued. Caffeine essentially blocks&nbsp;&nbsp; the adenosine receptor, but then when caffeine&nbsp; wears off, the adenosine that's still around binds&nbsp;&nbsp; to that receptor and you crash. You feel really&nbsp; sleepy. So, one thing that you can do is when you&nbsp;&nbsp;
[13:51] wake up in the morning, don't ingest caffeine for&nbsp; the first 90 minutes or so. Like really push that&nbsp;&nbsp; off so that the adenosine and adenosine receptor&nbsp; interactions can all take place and dissipate.&nbsp;&nbsp; Then you drink caffeine. And what you'll find&nbsp; is that if normally you would crash around&nbsp;&nbsp;
[14:05] 2 or 3 in the afternoon, you don't experience&nbsp; that crash anymore because caffeine wears off,&nbsp;&nbsp; make perfect sense. Adenosine makes you tired,&nbsp; makes you sleepy. Caffeine inhibits adenosine.&nbsp;&nbsp;
[14:20] So if we wait a little bit in the morning before&nbsp; we have caffeine, it gives our body time to&nbsp;&nbsp; clear the remaining lingering adenosine so that&nbsp; later on in the day when the caffeine wears off,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[14:32] there's no adenosine around to make us tired in&nbsp; the afternoon. Seems to make perfect sense. But&nbsp;&nbsp; the reality is this is completely speculative and&nbsp; it's never been shown in humans to work this way.&nbsp;&nbsp; And researchers in this field have pointed out the&nbsp; logic he lays out there doesn't even make sense&nbsp;&nbsp;
[14:49] biologically. They write "changes in adenosine&nbsp; upon waking occur on the order of minutes not&nbsp;&nbsp; hours". So adenosine would clear pretty fast&nbsp; upon waking up. And since caffeine takes a while&nbsp;&nbsp;
[15:03] to take effect, it needs to be absorbed in your&nbsp; gut, go into the bloodstream, reach your brain,&nbsp;&nbsp; affect neurons. By that time, all the adenosine&nbsp; would have been cleared out before caffeine is&nbsp;&nbsp;
[15:15] doing anything. The researchers continue, "Any&nbsp; suggestion that adenosine is continuing to decline&nbsp;&nbsp; upon waking demonstrates a lack of understanding&nbsp; of the sleepwake cycle influence on adenosine and&nbsp;&nbsp;
[15:27] would form a poor basis for recommending delaying&nbsp; caffeine for an hour and a half to two hours in&nbsp;&nbsp; the morning". And finally, "a fundamental basis&nbsp; for suggesting that delaying caffeine in the&nbsp;&nbsp; morning prevents an afternoon crash is completely&nbsp; lacking". Now, there's many reasons why someone&nbsp;&nbsp;
[15:45] might feel better delaying caffeine, including&nbsp; just placebo effect and many others. So, just do&nbsp;&nbsp; whatever works for you. If you feel better having&nbsp; caffeine later in the day or not having it, great.&nbsp;&nbsp; Why not? If you feel better having it earlier,&nbsp; right after you wake up, we don't have convincing&nbsp;&nbsp;
[16:02] evidence to tell you that that's a problem. And&nbsp; in fairness, I've seen Huberman recently somewhat&nbsp;&nbsp; moderate or even walk back this claim, maybe&nbsp; as a result of the push back it got. I regret&nbsp;&nbsp;
[16:14] maybe even discussing it for people that crash in&nbsp; the afternoon. Often times, if they delay their&nbsp;&nbsp; caffeine by 60 and 90 minutes in the morning, they&nbsp; will offset some of that. But if you eat a lunch&nbsp;&nbsp;
[16:26] line, I think this one is similar to the dopamine.&nbsp; It's an overclaim, basically an idea that someone&nbsp;&nbsp; had and some stories, some anecdotes just&nbsp; presented confidently as a scientific fact. Not&nbsp;&nbsp;
[16:42] dangerous per se for most people at least, just&nbsp; a little random. And finally, let's look at AG1,&nbsp;&nbsp; the famous or infamous supplement. AG1&nbsp; stands for Athletic Greens, and it's a&nbsp;&nbsp;
[16:56] sponsor of Huberman's podcast, and it features&nbsp; him pretty prominently on their marketing and&nbsp;&nbsp; it's a green powder supplement and he advertises&nbsp; this supplement in the middle of his podcasts. So,&nbsp;&nbsp; you're watching him talking about some scientific&nbsp; topic and suddenly he's telling you about AG1.&nbsp;&nbsp;
[17:12] Leverage all sorts of aspects of the dopamine&nbsp; system in order to increase your motivation,&nbsp;&nbsp; especially when things get really hard or when&nbsp; you have the propensity to procrastinate, which is&nbsp;&nbsp; something that we'll get into a little bit later&nbsp; in the podcast. I'd like to take a quick break and&nbsp;&nbsp;
[17:26] acknowledge one of our sponsors, Athletic Greens.&nbsp; Athletic Greens, now called AG1. Now, I've never&nbsp;&nbsp; heard him cite any evidence that it works, that it&nbsp; does anything, but he makes all kinds of anecdotal&nbsp;&nbsp;
[17:38] claims that are pretty striking. I discovered AG1&nbsp; back in 2012, long before I ever had a podcast,&nbsp;&nbsp; and I've been taking it every day since. I find&nbsp; it improves all aspects of my health, my energy,&nbsp;&nbsp; my focus, and I simply feel much better&nbsp; when I take it. Obviously, we understand&nbsp;&nbsp;
[17:53] that this is a script. He's reading from some&nbsp; teleprompter. It's it's a commercial. It's an ad.&nbsp;&nbsp; But I personally, and let me know if you disagree&nbsp; with this, I find this a little distasteful.&nbsp;&nbsp;
[18:05] You're watching a scientist that you trust talking&nbsp; about a scientific topic and suddenly he starts&nbsp;&nbsp; telling you about this supplement he takes and is&nbsp; so great. This comes with a certain implied weight&nbsp;&nbsp;
[18:17] of science and evidence, that he has evaluated&nbsp; it, that he has gone over the evidence and the&nbsp;&nbsp; evidence is compelling, right? Just by nature of&nbsp; who he is, being a professional scientist. But&nbsp;&nbsp; the truth is this has very little evidence to back&nbsp; it up. So I found a couple trials looking at AG1,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[18:34] which is good, let me say first of all, because&nbsp; a lot of these proprietary supplements that&nbsp;&nbsp; are promoted by influencers are never tested in&nbsp; trials in human beings ever. So it's a complete&nbsp;&nbsp;
[18:47] crap shoot. Here the manufacturer, the company,&nbsp; actually bothered to run trials, which is good.&nbsp;&nbsp; And the largest one that I've seen came out last&nbsp; year, recent, 2025. And it's a randomized trial,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[18:59] triple blinded with a placebo control, so robust&nbsp; design. And they followed 120 participants for 3&nbsp;&nbsp; months. And the title that they chose is "AG1 does&nbsp; not negatively impact blood safety biomarkers",&nbsp;&nbsp;
[19:15] which is true, but it didn't impact them&nbsp; positively either. It didn't do anything.&nbsp;&nbsp; There were no significant changes to any of&nbsp; the metrics they measured. And bear in mind,&nbsp;&nbsp; AG1 is pretty pricey. I looked it up. Seems to&nbsp; be $99 for one pouch, which has 30 servings. So,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[19:33] it' be a month if you take it daily. That's for&nbsp; a single pouch. If you sign up for their monthly&nbsp;&nbsp; subscription ongoing thing, then it comes&nbsp; down to about $80 per pouch per month. So,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[19:46] it's almost $1,000 a year for this one supplement.&nbsp; It's pretty steep. Now, there's another trial that&nbsp;&nbsp; comes close to being a steel man argument. I&nbsp; was thinking, okay, how would you justify this&nbsp;&nbsp;
[19:58] or recommend this? What's the strongest argument&nbsp; we can find? There is one trial where they gave&nbsp;&nbsp; it to people on a poor diet, low in fruits and&nbsp; vegetables, basically a standard western diet.&nbsp;&nbsp; They gave them AG1 and the level in their blood&nbsp; of certain vitamins, vitamin C, folate which is a&nbsp;&nbsp;
[20:15] type of B vitamin, that went up a bit, and their&nbsp; homocysteine levels came down 10% which often&nbsp;&nbsp; happens when you increase B vitamins. So yeah, if&nbsp; you eat a poor diet and you're not down to change&nbsp;&nbsp;
[20:29] that, but you are down to take this supplement, I&nbsp; think it could help get a bit more vitamins, yeah,&nbsp;&nbsp; that's valid, I think. But bear in mind, you&nbsp; could do the same thing with a run-of-the-mill&nbsp;&nbsp; multivitamin and maybe a probiotic, right? You&nbsp; get these in your grocery store for 10 times,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[20:46] 20 times less. But Huberman tells his viewers that&nbsp; he puts AG1 at the top of his list. Whenever I'm&nbsp;&nbsp; asked if I could take just one supplement, what&nbsp; that supplement would be, I always say AG1. So,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[20:58] I don't really understand that, this is your&nbsp; number one? There's so many supplements with&nbsp;&nbsp; stronger evidence, with benefit demonstrated, that&nbsp; are much cheaper. I don't get it. How do you say&nbsp;&nbsp;
[21:10] this is number one? Look, Andrew Huberman is a&nbsp; very charismatic communicator. He's a very good&nbsp;&nbsp; speaker, very fluid speaker, and he has clearly&nbsp; motivated lots of people to live healthier lives,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[21:22] to sleep better, to exercise more, to be fitter,&nbsp; to be leaner, and that's fantastic. That's a great&nbsp;&nbsp; contribution. I think it's unfortunate, and&nbsp; I mean this as constructive criticism, that&nbsp;&nbsp; some of the claims that are peppered in there are&nbsp; based on weak evidence or no evidence sometimes,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[21:37] anecdotes or something in rats or an idea that&nbsp; somebody had. And this makes it really difficult&nbsp;&nbsp; for a viewer to separate. What's strong science,&nbsp; a strong recommendation, what's just a random idea&nbsp;&nbsp; that's never been tested or sometimes the evidence&nbsp; goes against it. A viewer can't tell. And viewers&nbsp;&nbsp;
[21:53] tune in to scientists precisely for us to do&nbsp; that leg work. It's implied that we've done that,&nbsp;&nbsp; right? And can separate the wheat from the chaff.&nbsp; So, in my opinion, Andrew's content is strongest&nbsp;&nbsp;
[22:06] without these exaggerations or more random&nbsp; bits and he has lots of advice that is based&nbsp;&nbsp; on strong science. He has a number of interviews&nbsp; with world-leading scientists. So, I would keep&nbsp;&nbsp;
[22:19] that. I would cherish that and I would be wary of&nbsp; these. For a lot more on the benefits of coffee,&nbsp;&nbsp; check out this previous video. And if you want&nbsp; to see another popular influencer scrutinized,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[22:32] fact checked, check out this video&nbsp; down here. And I'll see you in there.