Andrew Huberman· PhD
So age is one of those things. And also, this recognition, much like the emphasis at NIH with rodent studies and human studies, that you can't just say, "You're studying men". You need a rationale, if you're only [mumbles].
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.
So age is one of those things. And also, this recognition, much like the emphasis at NIH with rodent studies and human studies, that you can't just say, "You're studying men". You need a rationale, if you're only [mumbles].
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.