Andrew Huberman· PhD
After an onslaught of mainstream articles questioning protein needs, it’s time to question the questioning with a critical look at existing data.
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.
After an onslaught of mainstream articles questioning protein needs, it’s time to question the questioning with a critical look at existing data.
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.
Show me the data. Can anybody send me? And it was sincere. I said, "This is an open call." And I sent it to like some of the top people in the world, um, including those who who are a little bit hesitant on protein intake or denigrated. Um, and I said, "Can anybody send me one or more papers that are intervention studies, not observational ones, that are in humans, ideally randomized, but I'll take an intervention even if it's not randomized, but it's got to be controlled. Controlled intervention study in humans feeding different levels of protein in which the different levels of protein intake are separable from other effects that show delotterious effects on a clinically or intrinsically meaningful endpoint.
And by the way, if new data emerge, I'm always happy to change my mind. I've changed my mind about so many things. It is absurd the number of things I've changed my mind on.