Andrew Huberman· PhD
Uh these were conscientious objectors. So I would presume at that time we weren't sending women to Vietnam. So it would be just men.
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.
Uh these were conscientious objectors. So I would presume at that time we weren't sending women to Vietnam. So it would be just men.
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.
And they did what are called nitrogen balance studies, which today the protein community despises and says this is a horrific way to determine protein needs. But in the day was super clever.
And they took these conscientious war objectors and put them in these suits for months and they lowered their protein to zero. At which point they realized, "Wow, this is fascinating. The losses that you have from protein decrease as you lower your protein to zero because your body realizes you need to be more efficient with what you had."