Andrew Huberman· PhD
Consistency is key here. If you are not consistent, then the law of diminishing returns certainly applies. So 80% or 90% of the benefit over many, many months is far better than 100%, but only half the time.
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
Consistency is key here. If you are not consistent, then the law of diminishing returns certainly applies. So 80% or 90% of the benefit over many, many months is far better than 100%, but only half the time.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Because anything that can add consistency, as you pointed it out, is going to greatly increase the probability of reaching one's goals.
at the end of the day the one you do consistently will benefit you more than the one you do inconsistently
being consistent is almost more important than how high you start
so if someone starts and they do something for three months and they don't enjoy it and so they drop off again it's not like they're just going to stay at that level that level is going to drop back down and so being consistent is almost more important than how high you start
it doesn't have to be 150 minutes a week of exercise. It's really consistency.