This is by far the most honest and much-needed post I have read. I don't know much about Julie Fratantoni, but I completely agree about Andrew Huberman and Dominic Ng. Most of the neuroscientists are trained in a very niche topic, and even if they have a wider understanding of different topics, it's wild to have an authoritative stance on it. It's particularly amusing that you grow a mass following by using "Neuroscientist" as if it's supposed to add credibility to you. As you add, people use it to grow their following, become famous, and make quick bucks.
Logical fallacies like Appeal to Authority ("I'm a ____________") offer a shortcut to the hard work of evaluating claims of evidence and thinking critically about what to do. Shortcuts that reduce work and responsibility can be veeeery attractive!
Thanks for the cold water bath! Whenever I read "new" advice about how to live a healthier and happier life, it always seems to me a case of saying what everyone knows: eat a balanced diet; drink plenty of water; exercise regularly and walk instead of driving when you can; get enough sleep; stay engaged with family and friends (still working on this one myself); avoid alcohol and recreational drugs or at least significantly limit their consumption; stay mentally active—study a new language, learn chess, etc.
As a physicist, I was also firstly excited then really disappointed by Julie. I guess the thing I'm curious about is how the fall into grifting occurs, and why it occurs? Promotion feels like a drag for me - but I get the sense these people are rewarded for it. What is the psychology of "selling out"?
Also electrons, quarks, gluons and stuff... (whew! nearly forgot to add completely unrelated random physics nonsense!)
I'm curious about it too. I suspect part of it is the lack of accountability -- if you're not talking to scientific colleagues or don't feel like they're your main community, there's little social pressure to stick to the evidence. The incentives from a lay audience reward the most sensational stuff you say. So even without explicit decisions to grift, it's not too hard to see why a popularizer more interested in their fame than standing in the scientific community would quickly start saying questionable stuff. From there, my guess is it's just a gradual shift bit by bit, following the incentives, whether or not there's a conscious intent to deceive
Thanks for this. I’m not a neuroscientist but could still clock the grift from these people. What do you think about Daniel Amen? He had a cool Ted Talk but I’m skeptical when people basically say “everybody has it wrong but I’ve figured it out”.
I'm not familiar with Amen but that's a good criteria for being skeptical.
It seems Wikipedia also finds him questionable: "His marketing of SPECT scans and much of what he says about the brain and health in his books, media appearances, and marketing of his clinics have been condemned by scientists and doctors as lacking scientific validity and as being unethical"
Ya his Ted Talk was interesting, but right after I watched it I immediately asked ChatGPT "hey is this guy a grifter or is he legit?". Meaning, something about his presentation rubbed me the wrong way and made me think he was at least partly full of shit.
I haven't heard of him either! From a quick look, looks like he's not really a neuroscientist (in the "has done significant research meant for publication in scientific publications" sense. He has a master's degree). No problem with that, except he seems to market himself as a neuroscientist, which is a bit odd. Not sure about this dose framework thing, my guess would be it's bunk or at least grossly exaggerated, but haven't looked into it
I have read one of his books on Brain Food, where they give recipes to boost your brain health. The advice is so generic, I couldn't finish it. You simply can't give nutrition advice without consulting with a physician and proper blood examinations.
“As a neurologist,” I thank you for writing this. These people aggravate me. If I posted any of what they do, I’d lose my medical license and face prosecution. Ng should watch out since he has a medical degree. Amen is a MD with psychiatric training but he’s FOS too. There now is a physical therapist with a PhD claiming expertise because he has seen people with dementia and going viral because he has “cracked the code” that the president is getting anti amyloid treatment for dementia. It’s infuriating! 😡
Very interesting. As an engineer who’s naturally curious about how the brain works—and someone who loves learning about neuroscience—this really resonated with me. I especially appreciated the part where you talked about removing the catchphrases and looking at the material for what it actually is.
I wouldn’t call myself a big Huberman follower. I actually discovered him through my practice of Yoga Nidra and the way he brought it into his podcast. My simple rule in life is: if something works for me, then it’s good for me.
But recently I was genuinely surprised by the number of supplements mentioned on his podcast. It made me wonder—if he’s really taking all of those, how is he functioning day to day? I get the curiosity piece, and the desire to keep the inner scientist alive. That’s very aligned with what Buddha taught: if you haven’t experienced something yourself, it isn’t your truth. Don’t accept anything blindly.
But then there’s the other side of it: if everything becomes an experiment and every moment becomes calculated, are you even living? That’s the Mary Oliver part of me speaking.
And I really appreciated you pointing out that even as a scientist, you don’t have all the answers we’re searching for. You’re in the same boat as the rest of us—maybe with a few more answers in your domain, just as I might have a few in mine. That’s just life: everyone knows something you don’t.
Sharp critique of credential inflation in the wellness space. The "science garnish" framing is spot-on, basically neuroscience gets weaponized as rhetorical cover for generic or unsupported advice. The evolutionary trajectory from Ng to Fratantoni to Huberman shows how audience capture corrupts epistemic rigor over time. Wonder if the real issue is teh public's conflation of mechanistic explanations with actionable insights, neuroscience explains how but rarely prescribes what.
Thanks Tommy. I love the diversity of ideas that come with Substack. But, there is a lot of BS too, and having one field expert call out the BS of other field "experts" is an important part of keeping science and science-adjacent areas of Substack healthy. So keep up the good work.
As a Physicist (science of everything), I'm curious to learn more about your deep dive into research regarding gratitude and Huberman's claims. I've heard him talk about this topic and my usual skeptical attitude didn't kick in because a) claims that practicing gratitude improves happiness are so ubiquitous and b) it seemed intuitively correct to me.
Thanks! My criticism of Huberman on gratitude rituals is mostly that there's very little alignment between what he is saying and what the research he cites says. Mostly you're just hearing Huberman's vibe, and he is aiming for something that sounds good, whether true or not.
In terms of whether gratitude rituals work, the research is generally positive but weak. It depends on what you're measuring (e.g. it seems more effective for general well being than for anxiety or depression), and what you're comparing against (effects become much smaller and less consistent if you compare to an "active placebo" where you're comparing to a similar activity that lacks a "gratitude" component). All that's to say, they're generally probably a good thing! But also very easy to exaggerate their benefits, which aren't huge.
perhaps this trend is yet another manifestation of a broader trend where area expertise is being down-weighted in favor of sensationalism/brain candy (e.g., see our Secretary of HHS)
Such a great piece, Tommy. Thank you. I think the Internet—and social media specifically—has spawned millions of grifters like the ones you called out. So dark and insidious, this new tech-driven world can be. It used to be "buyer beware" but now I suppose it's "scroller/swiper/tapper beware."
Great article, thank you. "As a linguist", I can confirm that words matter. A lot.
As a linguist, I feel obliged to object that words don't exist! :D
(This is true in a very technical sense under a dozen of assumptions. In other words, this is the proper use of "as an X" :) )
This is by far the most honest and much-needed post I have read. I don't know much about Julie Fratantoni, but I completely agree about Andrew Huberman and Dominic Ng. Most of the neuroscientists are trained in a very niche topic, and even if they have a wider understanding of different topics, it's wild to have an authoritative stance on it. It's particularly amusing that you grow a mass following by using "Neuroscientist" as if it's supposed to add credibility to you. As you add, people use it to grow their following, become famous, and make quick bucks.
Logical fallacies like Appeal to Authority ("I'm a ____________") offer a shortcut to the hard work of evaluating claims of evidence and thinking critically about what to do. Shortcuts that reduce work and responsibility can be veeeery attractive!
I'm just here for the Pokémon memes.
You made me read so much of the post to get there, that I had to finish.
Great post, important topic, thank you.
My lure worked!
Thanks for the cold water bath! Whenever I read "new" advice about how to live a healthier and happier life, it always seems to me a case of saying what everyone knows: eat a balanced diet; drink plenty of water; exercise regularly and walk instead of driving when you can; get enough sleep; stay engaged with family and friends (still working on this one myself); avoid alcohol and recreational drugs or at least significantly limit their consumption; stay mentally active—study a new language, learn chess, etc.
It isn't brain science. Or rocket science.
As a physicist, I was also firstly excited then really disappointed by Julie. I guess the thing I'm curious about is how the fall into grifting occurs, and why it occurs? Promotion feels like a drag for me - but I get the sense these people are rewarded for it. What is the psychology of "selling out"?
Also electrons, quarks, gluons and stuff... (whew! nearly forgot to add completely unrelated random physics nonsense!)
I'm curious about it too. I suspect part of it is the lack of accountability -- if you're not talking to scientific colleagues or don't feel like they're your main community, there's little social pressure to stick to the evidence. The incentives from a lay audience reward the most sensational stuff you say. So even without explicit decisions to grift, it's not too hard to see why a popularizer more interested in their fame than standing in the scientific community would quickly start saying questionable stuff. From there, my guess is it's just a gradual shift bit by bit, following the incentives, whether or not there's a conscious intent to deceive
Thanks for this. I’m not a neuroscientist but could still clock the grift from these people. What do you think about Daniel Amen? He had a cool Ted Talk but I’m skeptical when people basically say “everybody has it wrong but I’ve figured it out”.
I'm not familiar with Amen but that's a good criteria for being skeptical.
It seems Wikipedia also finds him questionable: "His marketing of SPECT scans and much of what he says about the brain and health in his books, media appearances, and marketing of his clinics have been condemned by scientists and doctors as lacking scientific validity and as being unethical"
Ya his Ted Talk was interesting, but right after I watched it I immediately asked ChatGPT "hey is this guy a grifter or is he legit?". Meaning, something about his presentation rubbed me the wrong way and made me think he was at least partly full of shit.
I would also like to know your thoughts on TJ Power!
I haven't heard of him either! From a quick look, looks like he's not really a neuroscientist (in the "has done significant research meant for publication in scientific publications" sense. He has a master's degree). No problem with that, except he seems to market himself as a neuroscientist, which is a bit odd. Not sure about this dose framework thing, my guess would be it's bunk or at least grossly exaggerated, but haven't looked into it
Amen has some good ideas, but overall, his perspective is built on fairy dust. Using SPECT scans to analyze people as he does is simply malpractice!
I have read one of his books on Brain Food, where they give recipes to boost your brain health. The advice is so generic, I couldn't finish it. You simply can't give nutrition advice without consulting with a physician and proper blood examinations.
I blog about the connection between diet and brain function:
https://carbsyndrome.com/misdiagnosed-depression-carb-syndrome/
Ya his Ted Talk just made me think "if it's this easy and you can do all this stuff, why have I never heard this before"
“As a neurologist,” I thank you for writing this. These people aggravate me. If I posted any of what they do, I’d lose my medical license and face prosecution. Ng should watch out since he has a medical degree. Amen is a MD with psychiatric training but he’s FOS too. There now is a physical therapist with a PhD claiming expertise because he has seen people with dementia and going viral because he has “cracked the code” that the president is getting anti amyloid treatment for dementia. It’s infuriating! 😡
Very interesting. As an engineer who’s naturally curious about how the brain works—and someone who loves learning about neuroscience—this really resonated with me. I especially appreciated the part where you talked about removing the catchphrases and looking at the material for what it actually is.
I wouldn’t call myself a big Huberman follower. I actually discovered him through my practice of Yoga Nidra and the way he brought it into his podcast. My simple rule in life is: if something works for me, then it’s good for me.
But recently I was genuinely surprised by the number of supplements mentioned on his podcast. It made me wonder—if he’s really taking all of those, how is he functioning day to day? I get the curiosity piece, and the desire to keep the inner scientist alive. That’s very aligned with what Buddha taught: if you haven’t experienced something yourself, it isn’t your truth. Don’t accept anything blindly.
But then there’s the other side of it: if everything becomes an experiment and every moment becomes calculated, are you even living? That’s the Mary Oliver part of me speaking.
And I really appreciated you pointing out that even as a scientist, you don’t have all the answers we’re searching for. You’re in the same boat as the rest of us—maybe with a few more answers in your domain, just as I might have a few in mine. That’s just life: everyone knows something you don’t.
Anyone talking about “dopamine hits” is an idiot: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/07/28/addiction_fiction_dopamine_is_not_why_kids_love_tiktok_1124276.html
Sharp critique of credential inflation in the wellness space. The "science garnish" framing is spot-on, basically neuroscience gets weaponized as rhetorical cover for generic or unsupported advice. The evolutionary trajectory from Ng to Fratantoni to Huberman shows how audience capture corrupts epistemic rigor over time. Wonder if the real issue is teh public's conflation of mechanistic explanations with actionable insights, neuroscience explains how but rarely prescribes what.
As a neuroscientist Huberman is openly mocked by and gets in twitter fights with the circles I run in.
Great article!
Thanks Tommy. I love the diversity of ideas that come with Substack. But, there is a lot of BS too, and having one field expert call out the BS of other field "experts" is an important part of keeping science and science-adjacent areas of Substack healthy. So keep up the good work.
As a Physicist (science of everything), I'm curious to learn more about your deep dive into research regarding gratitude and Huberman's claims. I've heard him talk about this topic and my usual skeptical attitude didn't kick in because a) claims that practicing gratitude improves happiness are so ubiquitous and b) it seemed intuitively correct to me.
Thanks! My criticism of Huberman on gratitude rituals is mostly that there's very little alignment between what he is saying and what the research he cites says. Mostly you're just hearing Huberman's vibe, and he is aiming for something that sounds good, whether true or not.
In terms of whether gratitude rituals work, the research is generally positive but weak. It depends on what you're measuring (e.g. it seems more effective for general well being than for anxiety or depression), and what you're comparing against (effects become much smaller and less consistent if you compare to an "active placebo" where you're comparing to a similar activity that lacks a "gratitude" component). All that's to say, they're generally probably a good thing! But also very easy to exaggerate their benefits, which aren't huge.
“As a published philosopher” this article has some good epistemology in it 👍🏻
Great work
perhaps this trend is yet another manifestation of a broader trend where area expertise is being down-weighted in favor of sensationalism/brain candy (e.g., see our Secretary of HHS)
Such a great piece, Tommy. Thank you. I think the Internet—and social media specifically—has spawned millions of grifters like the ones you called out. So dark and insidious, this new tech-driven world can be. It used to be "buyer beware" but now I suppose it's "scroller/swiper/tapper beware."