Andrew Huberman· PhD
So if you can get like three, three and three, you're probably in a pretty good spot. Five, five, and five is maybe better, but you don't need to go much past that.
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 if you can get like three, three and three, you're probably in a pretty good spot. Five, five, and five is maybe better, but you don't need to go much past that.
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 kind of rule thumb we use is is like three out of 10 in terms of soreness if you're more than three out of 10 in terms of soreness we're going to start asking questions if you're higher than six out of 10 we're probably not training