Andrew Huberman· PhD
The hair loss 50 years ago, well, not 50 years ago, but 500 years ago, was probably more significant, because on average, 500 years ago, people were more sensitive to androgens.
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
The hair loss 50 years ago, well, not 50 years ago, but 500 years ago, was probably more significant, because on average, 500 years ago, people were more sensitive to androgens.
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.
The hair loss 50 years ago, well, not 50 years ago, but 500 years ago, was probably more significant, because on average, 500 years ago, people were more sensitive to androgens.