There Are No Girls on the Internet - Andrew Huberman is the internet’s favorite guru. Should we trust him?

Episode Date: March 30, 2024

Andrew Huberman is having a rough one after New York Mag published a long read looking into his personal and professional life. Andrew Huberman’s Mechanisms of Control The private and public seductions of the world’s biggest pop neuroscientist. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/andrew-huberman-podcast-stanford-joe-rogan.html Andrew Huberman Has Supplements on the Brain: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-and-nutrition/andrew-huberman-has-bad-case-supplement-brain So, Should You Trust Andrew Huberman? https://slate.com/technology/2024/03/andrew-huberman-huberman-lab-health-advice-podcast-debunk.htmlSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer, Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter.

Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting. Think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than adds supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHeart's twice as large as the next two combined. Learn how podcasting can help your business.

Call 844-844-I-Hart. The story I've told myself can then shape my behavior, and that can lead me to sabotage the possibility of connection. This mental Health Awareness Month, tune into the podcast deeply well with Debbie Brown if you've been searching for a soft place to land while doing the work to become whole. This podcast is for you to hear more. Listen to Deeply Well with Debbie Brown from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. There Are No Girls on the Internet as a production of IHeart Radio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd, and this is There Are No Girls on the Internet. Welcome to our podcast.

There are No Girls on the Internet, where we explore the intersection of technology, social media, the Internet, and identity. So this is me doing my best impression of one of my favorite podcasters, Michael Hobbs. Mike, what do you know about Andrew Kuberman? Well, I'll do my best Peter. And as far as I know, I don't know a whole lot about him, but he's a podcaster, a scientist of some sort. And he seems to have a pretty big following in the health lifestyle space. That's pretty spot on. So, Andrew Huberman is a neuroscientist.

He has a very popular podcast. It's one of the most popular podcasts in the world. He currently is a professor of neurobiology and ophthalmology at Stanford University's School of Medicine. Ever heard of it? Yeah, a little old college called Stanford University. So since 2021, he has hosted a extremely popular health and science-focused podcast called Huberman Lab that is basically all about biohacking your life, your health, and your relationships, buttressed by science. He has the third most popular podcast in the United States on Spotify, and at least at one time, his podcast was the most followed on Apple. He has 5.1 million YouTube subscribers, and his Instagram account has like 5.5 million people.

A lot of people swear by his life advice. All different kinds of people listen to his podcast. I don't want to make it seem like it's just men. But it has really especially taken off with men. I have heard Huberman called goop for men. Goop as in like slimy gunk? Goop as in the lifestyle brand brought to us by Gwyneth Paltrow. But instead of telling women to like drink $55 smoothies or whatever or like

insert some crystals. Or insert some crystals into their. China, it's for men. So the reason why we're talking about Andrew Huberman is because he is in the zeitgeist right now after this very long, very well-written, very well-researched New York Mag article just dropped doing this deep dive into his personal life and his relationships with women. Now, I'm not even going to pretend to not be biased here. I live for a long read in New York Mag or The Cut specifically. Like, we are famous. of New York Mag in this house. If there's ever a long read in New York Mag, you know that's going to

be the kind of piece that everyone is talking about for a week. And the Huberman article is no exception. Yeah. It's such a well-written article. It reads like literature. Like there were so many sentences that I read as like, that's an amazing sentence. Such a nice read. And so for folks who are listening who have not read it, I do want to give the caveat that it's very long. I listened to the article, and that took about an hour. Like New York Mag has the option to have someone read it. That took about an hour. Reading it took a while, so like it is a long read.

But I thought it was worth it. And the piece has kind of invited scrutiny, not just into Andrew Schuberman's personal life, but it's professional work as a scientist and a podcaster too. Mike, you are a scientist. That's right. And you are a man. Also right.

So I thought that. you actually might be a good person to talk to about this. Like I said, should say up front that you have not deeply studied Huberman's science or his body of work, but you generally like have a sense of what is it is not okay or ethical in the eyes of science, correct? Yeah, or at least I, it's something that I spend a lot of time thinking about and reading about and, you know, who ultimately gets to say what, what is right? ethical is kind of an existential question. But yeah, those are things that I think about and feel like I have a good basis to evaluate things. So initially, I actually wasn't even going to get

into this on the show because, you know, at first, I was sort of seeing a lot of people's reactions to the piece and I thought people were saying like, oh, this is just frivolous. This is about dating life, whatever, whatever. And I was like, oh, we, I'm interested in this, but we shouldn't talk about it on the podcast. But it kind of was a little bit of a bug in my brain. And after reading the article, I noticed that I was thinking about it quite a lot. And I was sort of trying to put it in context with this current political and social and media moment that we're in where we have the rise of people like RFK. Like I do think we're in this sort of, I don't know, pseudoscience moment with men. You know, a lot of times when we're talking about medical misinformation, we're

talking about women. But I think we talk a lot less about how we see it moving with men. And I've this article just really kind of got me thinking about that. And it also spoke to something I've been noticing as this trend in podcasting for a while, like white guy tech or science podcaster who sort of talks to other white guy science or tech podcasters and thus enjoy this kind of like self-sustaining vibe as we are trustworthy white men of science and technology and knowledge. And you should listen to us. We're very learned men. And I really do see Huberman as fitting within that. Even though I do think that he kind of enjoyed maybe a more elevated position within that circle,

I know that he's the kind of podcaster who is friendly with folks like Joe Rogan. He goes on Rogan's show all the time. Tim Ferriss, who if you don't know who that is, he's another very popular kind of lifestyle entrepreneur guru podcaster. And Lex Friedman, who is the number one tech podcaster. in the world who in researching for this episode, I realized sometime between last night and maybe four months ago when I did a podcast episode about him, he blocked me on Twitter. Oh, man. How does that make you feel, Bridget? Honestly, confused because I went and checked. We have, I have never tweeted at him. I barely

tweet and I did a search and I was like, yeah, I've never mentioned him on Twitter. I have mentioned him on the podcast quite a few times. And so I have a difficult time imagining that Lex Friedman is listening to this podcast. But, you know, maybe he heard what I had to say about his show and didn't like it. It was like, let me just block her. Just reactively. Yeah, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So maybe he just like did not want to hear it. Lex, if you're listening, I'm sorry I made fun of your podcast. Anyway, I think we're kind of seeing Huberman's status as like a learned public man. And the way that we think about that status that is typically occupied by a certain type of white man, I think we're sort of seeing that unravel a little bit now with this

piece. We're seeing people kind of peek behind the curtain at that. Yeah, that New York mag piece certainly made it seem so, right? They, and they made the point specifically, sort of like the point that you just made that it's, it's not just like look at the messy details of this person's life, but really connects with his public persona and, I guess, brand that he is serving up to people. Yeah. And I guess I would posit that that is why any of this matters, why anybody should care. People might be thinking, well, why should I care how this podcaster treats the women in his personal life? I am not particularly interested in Andrew Huberman's personal or romantic life. I will in this episode get into some of what the article says about his relationships with women.

so folks have that context to understand why we're talking about this at all. But the reason that I'm interested in talking about him is because there is a ton of overlap in Huberman's podcasting and sort of public-sciencing work, for lack of a better phrase, and technology and popular attitudes that tech leaders hold. A lot of people in tech are listening to his show, Huberman Lab, and using that to guide their own thinking. This absolutely makes sense in a culture where you have this mix of productivity hacks that bleed over into like lifestyle or health hacks like keto and intermittent fasting and pills and potions and powders and quick fixes that promise quick success. Now, this is just my opinion as a casual observer of all

of this. I do think there is like a thread of fat phobia or like ableism in this. This idea that being physically fit is akin to also being professionally successful and thus being the happiest and best version of yourself, the version of yourself that has the, it's the healthiest and most full relationships. It sounds like this is a mindset that says all of that starts with being physically fit, physiologically fit, healthy. Yeah, I think you're right. And I think that is an idea that's been repackaged and resold many times over the past several hundred years, even before then probably, right? Like, the idea that physical health is tightly linked with spiritual health and virtue, that's an idea that grifters have been lucratively promoting for a long time.

So Huberman himself is like really jacked, and I can't help but think that that plays into all of this. As a writer, Maria Alex Beach put it on Twitter. He's the prototype of the American Beef Female, which we don't associate with scientists. The dissonance between how he looks and what he knows is compelling. He gathers our communal preoccupation with health, body, self-care, anti-aging, longevity, with our respect for those with wisdom and knowledge. Enchanted, we're easy to hustle. Essentially, he's the worst of us. That description from Maria Alex Beach, it makes me think of beast from the marble movies, like a big jacked beast of a man who's also a nerdy scientist. It's a type. So Huberman is.

is like the main guy of what's known as biohacking or trying to shift or improve your physiology and nervous system to function better. Now, on its face, this is not a bad thing, like, inherently. And in fact, I would actually argue that women are kind of the OG biohackers. Like, I remember back when a lot of the tech pros were skipping meals and instead drinking that drink soylent, which a lot of women were like, oh, you mean Slimfast? It was basically a degendered Slimfast that your mom maybe drank in the 80s, you know? So I think biohacking is something that I associate with women that has kind of been rebranded as for masculine men. Yeah, I think rebranded is a good way to put it because it's a term that I think is primarily used to market things. And yeah, the idea that

it's, you know, I hadn't thought about this, but originally was more associated with Women, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. You know, even back in the early 20th century, women were talking about the timing of menstrual cycles to avoid unintended pregnancies and speculating about a pill that might someday allow women to avoid them altogether, right? Like biohacking. Exactly. But the biohacking space has kind of been taken up by a real masculine energy, which, again, I think makes sense in this social media climate where people are always talking about, you know, high value men. and low-value men, there is a ton of overlap between the biohacking space and just a real toxic brand of masculinity. But in general, I think that men have kind of been an untapped market when it comes to stuff like lifestyle and diet advice.

As women, I can tell you, we have been inundated by that kind of junk since we were children. So we have a good sense of it. There's a lot of it out there that is directed toward us. I think that men is just a different market and maybe a little bit of an untapped market when it comes to lifestyle and diet advice specifically for men. So when someone like Huberman comes along and has this different vibe of lifestyle and diet advice for men, one that sort of gives the perception as being rooted in science, not just toxic masculinity, of course it takes off.

Huberman emerges in 2021 as this kind of kinder, gentlier, less bro-y version of biohacking. However, as Jonathan Jerry, science communicator with the Office of Science and Society at McGill University puts it, Huberman presents the same kind of stuff just in a less broie, less masculine package. Jerry writes, even though his podcast is firmly rooted in the masculine space of body optimization that has grabbed hold of large swaths of the tech sector, Huberman is a lot less broie than his fellow influencers. There's a real gentleness and care to his delivery. The packaging is less aggressive, but the content is a lot. does not stray far from Silicon Valley's love affair with the tweaking of healthy human biology.

And to add to that, I'll just say it. In my opinion, I think a lot of men in this space might just have issues with women. I think a lot of them maybe don't respect women that much. I think they maybe don't see women as equals. I think they maybe don't really value what women have to say, how women think. And so I think in that context, both professionally and maybe personally, it maybe does kind of matter how somebody like Andrew Huberman treats women. Like, to me, as you said, this is so much more than a, look how messy this guy's personal life is. Let's all gock at it story. It's a story that maybe answers some of the very long-held criticisms of Andrew Huberman's podcast,

like that he barely features any women experts for one. And it poses questions about what happens when people who have expertise in one area of study kind of dine out on that and make it seem like they know what they're talking about. out when it comes to everything. And on top of that, the dangers of building your life around the advice of somebody who the article suggests we may not even really know. So if you don't listen to Huberman's podcast, you might not know this, but lots and lots and lots of people deeply subscribe to Huberman's life advice. There's a term for it on TikTok, a Huberman husband, a man who follows Huberman's life advice, and that advice, like, has them getting up before sunrise,

has them waiting 90 minutes before having their first copy of the day, you know, has them getting like a specific kind of low angle sunlight and doing a high intensity workout and an ice bath in the morning and all of this stuff. So if all of these people are building their identities around this guy's guidance, which they absolutely are, I do think looking into how he thinks about women is worthwhile. Like I don't think that's a frivolous clickbait dive into someone's personal life

that is really unfair necessarily. Yeah, I think that's a fair point. I think anybody who positions themselves to a wide public audience as a person who has the answer, right? Like, who has wisdom that should be followed, that other people should shape their lives around, I think it's absolutely appropriate to scrutinize their words, their message, and the extent to which their personal values live up to what they are. publicly espousing. So there have been a lot of popular tech voices who disagree with you. Lex Friedman, for one, says that probing into Andrew Huberman's personal life is an invasion of privacy and essentially

a hit job, which, you know, I don't know. Like I can sort of see what they're saying in some regards, but I would point to the fact that Huberman's podcast is in part about having healthy relationships and emotional intelligence. So like if you build an entire big platform around how people should listen to you about how to have healthy relationships and a healthy emotionality, maybe looking into how you have built relationships and how you show up emotionally is fair game. Like on this podcast that I host, I intentionally almost never talk about my personal relationships on the podcast. So guess what? Like nobody's digging into my personal relationship history because I'm not saying, listen to me when it comes to personal relationships. It never comes up. So like, I do kind of feel like

if you build an entire platform that it's about listening to you and modeling after what you say, it does seem kind of fair to me to look into it. And if you don't want people looking into it, you don't have to build that kind of platform. Let's take a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guide, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman, help make you funnier.

This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey. Day and head writer Streeter Seidel help an a cappella band with their between songs banter. There's that worst singer in the group? The worst? Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard you only got in because

your parents made a huge donation The group. The yard herds, right? That's the name. The Harvard yard, but they're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle aged, one erection. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

Humor me. I need some jokes to make me seem funny. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ads supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. us only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business.

Think IHeart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Let us show you at iHeartadvertising.com. That's iHeartadvertising.com. Last night, a blown call changed a game. This morning, the internet lost its mind. Highlights are trending, opinions are flying, and nobody's telling you exactly what happened.

That's where Sports Slice comes in. I'm Timbo. Every episode, we're cutting through the noise, Breaking down the plays, the controversies, and the stories behind the headlines. We go straight to the source, the athlete themselves. Their locker room stories, their reactions, the stuff nobody gets to hear. The laughs, the drama, the triumphs, the moments that never make the highlight real. From viral moments to historic games, from buzzer beaters to controversial calls, we break it down,

give you context, and ask the questions everybody wants answered. Sports slice brings you closer to the action with stories told by the people who live them. Listen to Sports Slice on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more, follow Timbo Sliced Life 12 and the TikTok podcast network on TikTok. And we're back. And I guess I would say that beyond his dating life, this piece is really looking at the values of this person who has risen to be one of the country's biggest pop scientists who specifically has become a guru to others. So like, if this person is a guru to millions of people, it matters if this person is also a liar. It matters if this person is also a grifter.

Here's how the New York Mag piece puts it. Huberman sells a dream of control down to the cellular level, but something has gone wrong. In the midst of immense fame, a chasm has opened between the podcaster preaching dopominergic restraint and a man with newfound wealth, with access to a world unseen by most professors. The problem with a man who is always working on himself

is that he may also be working on you. Dun, dun, dun. So let's get into exactly what. what is in this article. The majority of this piece and the messiest bits, frankly, are about his chaotic romantic life. Basically, Huberman is accused of dating at least six women at the same time, all while giving the women the impression that they are monogamous. He maintains this via a very elaborate system of deception and lies. The women are all kind of like him. They're all very health conscious. They're all described as the kind of people who are really particular about

what they put in their body. So because they were all told that they were exclusive with Huberman, They all had unprotected sex with him, not being told that he was also having unprotected sex with a lot of other women at the same time. You know, these women were living this kind of intentional lifestyle that he preaches on the show. And here is Andrew, in my opinion, kind of sabotaging that by depriving them of the ability to make health choices for their own bodies through deception. Like, I don't think that is a frivolous thing for anybody to be doing, let alone a scientist whose whole thing is you should be really mindful about what you put in your body, unless that thing you're putting in your body is me. Yeah, earlier on you asked about ethics, and it's a complicated thing for anyone to know what is ethical or not, but it's also like not that complicated in some ways.

And if you want a big, bright red warning flag that an ethical boundary is being crossed, just keep an eye out for deception, right? Like, if there's deception happening, you should really question whether what's going on is ethical. Yeah, so that's like, that feels like a pretty strong line here that has been crossed. Well, according to these women in this article, there was a lot of, lot of deception going on. Let's get into it. Basically, he was not treating these women with respect, to say the least. So here's a couple of bits from the article that really drive that point home. It is suggested that he may have given at least one of these women, an STD, HPV specifically.

In 2021, one woman tested positive for a high-risk form of HPV, one of the variants linked to cervical cancer. I had never tested positive, she says, and had been tested regularly for 10 years, A spokesperson for Huberman says he has never tested positive for HPV. According to the CDC, there is currently no approved test for HPV in men. When the woman brought this up, she says that Andrew told her that you could contract HPV from many things. I'm sure he did say that. Yeah.

Maybe you got it from a toilet seat, maybe. I don't know. Yeah, I don't know what you do. So there's one woman who has kids from a previous relationship, and she says that Huberman fixated on this and that it's something they thought about a lot. At one point, she says that he told her that being in a relationship with her was like bobbing for apples in feces. Apparently, things only got worse when they moved in together. Sarah was in fact changing. She felt herself getting smaller, constantly appeasing. She apologized again and again and again. I have been selfish,

childish, childish, and confused, she said. As a result, I need your protection. A spokesperson for Huberman denies Sarah's accounts of their fights, denies that his rage intensified with cohabitation, denies that he fixated on Sarah's decision to have children with another man, and denies that he said that being with her was like bobbing for apples and feces. Which, side note, if somebody that I am in a romantic relationship with ever tells me that being with me is like bobbing for apples and feces, I have every bit of information I need about how this person feels about me. There is no other piece of clarifying information or context that is needed for me to understand how they feel and what's going on.

It's also such a strange phrase. Like, I have to imagine that it was said in anger. Like, he was probably pretty mad when he said that. It's not the sort of thing you say when you're feeling great. You think he said it as like pillow talk, a sweet whisper? I don't. I think he probably said it when he was mad. But to be so mad to say something like that and then use the term feces,

there are so many other words in the English language that align more with like emotions of anger and rage than feces. So it's like this weird artificial layer of, like, restraint or scientific jargon to, like, put a clean face on just really saying a terrible thing to a woman. Well, when asked about that comment, a spokesperson for Huberman said, quote, Dr. Huberman is very much in control of his emotions, which if there's ever a situation in my life, life where a spokesperson has to be telling the public that Bridget Todd is very in control of her emotions. I don't want to know what's going on. Wolf. Yeah.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that. So apparently, Huber was actively undergoing IVF with this woman while also maintaining other relationships behind her back. A point that he doesn't even really disagree with. He disputes that they were trying to start a family together. But his spokesperson clarified that they did not. want to try for a baby together that he, quote, decided to create embryos by IVF. I don't know how that is different than intending to sort of family with her.

I guess that specific point is important to him in some way. I don't know how that. It's like that claim is not really in dispute, but like it's important to him to be like, oh, we didn't want a baby. We were just doing IVF. There seems to be some like weird feelings around children going on with that whole story around that woman. Like the idea that a major source of friction in their relationship was that he disapproved of her decision to have kids with a different man before they ever met.

That just feels kind of weird. Yeah. So if you've ever been played by a player, this next one is going to sound real familiar to you. Huberman relied on pretty sexist and misogynistic tropes about women being crazy. to keep the women from finding out about each other. So the piece reads, whenever Sarah had suspicions about Andrew's interaction with another woman, he had a particular way of talking about the woman in question.

She says he said the women were stalkers, alcoholics, and compulsive liars. He told her that one woman tore out her hair with chunks of flesh attached to it. A story like that's got to be true. He told her a story about a woman who fabricated a story about a dead baby to, quote, entrap him. A spokesperson for Huberman denies the account of the denigration of women, and the dead baby story and says that the hair story was taken out of context. So curious to know the actual, like, what is that story in context? You know how women are always ripping their hair out with chunks of their own flesh?

You know how women are. Biches be crazy. Bishes be tearing out chunks of hair with flesh attached. Literally just like raving lunatics all the time. Most of the time Sarah believed him, the women were probably crazy. He was a celebrity. He had to be careful. So this is something that I have learned from like not to be true, not to try to be like a relationship guru, but any man who tells you that like, oh, there's just a bunch of crazy women in my orbit. All the women around me are crazy.

That man is a liar. Like that man is not telling the truth. That man is a liar. That is like one of my like deeply held red flags in life. Because even if that were true, what's going on with you that you just are the kind of person who like all these crazy women just flock to you? Like that doesn't, even if that was true, which it almost, which I think it's all, it almost never is. Even that is not great. It only holds up if one has a worldview that all women are crazy, right?

It's not that I have created this social dynamic where I'm surrounded by crazy women. Just all women are crazy. And they can't help but be attracted to me. You know how I am. So that's where we're at. I'm just surrounded by all these crazy women. That's the way that that makes sense. Yes.

I am the healthy normal one and all these women, you know how women are. This reminds me so much of a story from my personal life involving friends where there was a friend breakup and between a man and a woman. And the woman, her account was like very specific. She had so many details. He did X, Y, Z to me. He did this offense, this offense. On that day, this offense. And then his account was like, she was crazy.

Like that was the whole like, like she had a dossier of. of his specific wrongdoings, and he was just like, she's crazy. So this is another pretty common thing, I think. Huberman apparently had a type. He went after these dynamic, assertive, confident women, and then he wanted these women to be kind of submissive to him. The piece reads, multiple women recall him saying he preferred the kind of relationship

in which the woman was monogamous, but the man was not. He told me, says Mary, that what he wanted was a woman who was submissive, who he could slap on the ass in public and who would be crawling on the floor for him when he got home. A spokesperson for Huberman denies this. Also, I feel for this poor spokesperson who was like, Dr. Huberman never said he wanted a woman who would be crawling on the floor for him when he got home. I am curious about the spokesperson because they're quoted so many times in this article. And I mean, I don't have the sense, I guess I don't really know how big his operation is,

but like I kind of get the sense that a lot of these guys don't have like huge PR teams. So like who is this spokesperson? What were they doing before they woke up to find themselves in this maelstrom of allegations to deny? Well, not responding in real time. I can tell you that because the person who wrote this article for New York Magh says that they gave Hummermans team two days to read the full thing and respond to any of the allegations. And they basically like, this is what they got. So, you know, curious to me too. So one other thing to note about the way that he treats the women is that he juggled them in this way that is kind of weirdly almost impressive.

Here's one passage. There was a day in Texas when after Sarah left his hotel, Andrew slept with Mary and texted Eve. They found days in which he would text nearly identical pictures of himself to two of them at the same time. They realized that the day before he had moved in with Sarah and Berkeley, he had slept with Mary. and he also had been with her in December, 23, the weekend before Sarah caught him on the couch with a sixth woman. They realized on March 21st, 2021, a day of admittedly impressive logistical jiu-jitsu.

While Sarah was in Berkeley, Andrew had flown Mary from Texas to L.A. To stay with him in Topanga. While Mary was there, visiting from thousands of miles away, he left her with his dog Costello. He drove to a coffee shop where he met Eve. They had a serious talk about their relationship. They thought they were in a good place.

He wanted to make it work. Phone died, he texted Mary. who was waiting back at the place in Topanga, and later to Eve, thank you for being so next level gorgeous and sexy. My God, this sounds stressful. It does. And it truly is impressive to balance all of this and make it all work. I think the most shocking thing in this is that he, like,

he flew this woman from Texas to L.A. to be with him, left her to watch his dogs or he could go meet up with another woman, did not have sex with that woman. just had a very long, serious talk about their relationship. Have you ever seen that episode of Seinfeld where George wants to get, he's dating two women and he's trying to like get them both to like break it off because it's too much work and neither of them will do it. And so he's just trying to like balance these two relationships. And he finds himself being like, oh, I thought like, I'm seeing God's spell with one and going ice skating with the other. And Jerry's like, which is which?

And he's like, doesn't matter. That's what I feel like is going on here. It would be so much easier to just be honest with all of them. Be like, listen, I'm dating all of you. Either you're down with it or you're not. Like, maintaining the deception in the ruse sounds like it is so stressful that I cannot imagine it is more satisfying than this being like openly, ethically non-monogamous with all of them. Yeah, that's true. He's a famous, smart, good-looking, wealthy guy.

If he just wanted to have a bunch of open relationships with hot women, he's. could probably accomplish that, right? I think so, but that's what I'm saying. Like, I don't, I think that he could have that if you wanted that easily. I don't think he wants that. I don't think, I don't think it's about that. I think that it's about control and feeling like I am a, I am like a optimized, smart guy who was able to stay one step ahead of all of these women, which side no,

he fucking wasn't. But, like, I think that's part of it. I think the control and the deception is. part of it because he could easily have that if you wanted that. I also think like, and this is just like what I've seen from being in relationships, I do think there's a kind of person who likes the idea of having open relationships with people where everybody is on the up and up and knows what's going on while simultaneously liking the idea of like settling down, starting a family, doing IVF. Like he wouldn't be the first person who maybe has conflicted

desires at the same time. Like that's not, that's not like, difficult for me to imagine. That makes a lot of sense. And, you know, in his mind, he's smart enough to have it all, right? Like, yeah, the idea that we all have conflicting desires want a lot of things, but have to make tradeoffs because you can't have it all. It is seductive to think that maybe you could have it all.

All you need to do is be sufficiently. good at lying. Yeah. And like, again, I think this is all part of his, the ethos that he preaches, that you can hack yourself. There's some sort of like way to gamify life in this way. You can gamify life that you can have a series of fulfilling sexual and romantic relationships with a bunch of women and also settle down and have that woman be monogamous to you and like have your kid. I don't think that the way that he is treating these women is completely removed from the ethos that he preaches on the show. I think they are connected.

And that is why it's interesting to dive into how these women do say that he showed up. So these women all found out about each other through Instagram, which, again, I don't want to sound like I'm giving romantic advice. But some advice I do have is that if you are someone who is like live and foul, I guess I'll say, you can't have Instagram. If you are someone who is like, like doing something in a relationship that you know you're not supposed to be doing, you can't have an iPad, you can't have it,

you can't have Instagram. You need to be really careful about how you show up digitally because that's how they get you. Wait, you can't have an iPad? If you are a serial cheater, iPads like, you know, you're texting on your phone, some setting is tripped that you forgot about and there's,

now it's on the iPad that's back at your apartment. it. I'm just saying, like, if you are someone who is showing up in relationships in a certain kind of way and people don't, and the other person is not aware of that, and that is a deception that you are trying to, like, juggle and maintain, technology is something you have to be extra special careful about, and it sounds like he was not extra special careful about it. Listeners, thank you for joining us on how to cover your tracks with Bridget Todd. It's 2024. If you're going to be doing it, like, also Huberman, I feel like no one is better at navigating Instagram than women, right?

Like, I have told my friends like, oh, I want to find so-and-so. They've got him pulled up in a minute. They're like, here he is. Here's everybody he's ever known. Here's everything about him. He went to Cabo last week. Like, here's his aunt. Like, I think that Huberman thought he was smarter than all of these women.

And nobody is smarter than a group of like, confident, poised, self-assured women who are good at Instagram. Nobody is smarter. Like, I don't care how many degrees you have. I don't care if you're at Stanford. You are not smarter than a group of women who have Instagram. Not going to argue. Feeling a little intimidated, frankly. Yeah.

I'll find out stuff about you. Mike, you better watch out. So basically, one of these women noticed that another woman was, like, constantly watching her Instagram story, but never commenting and just, like, lurking. She realized that this woman also was followed by Dr. Huberman. And so eventually she just DMed her and said, is there anything that you'd rather ask me directly? Which I think that is such a baller move. And I just think it goes to show like he tried to put all this like sexist, misogynistic junk in these women's heads to keep them thinking that like

all of the other women were just like jealous stalkers. And it didn't work. These women all join a group chat together. They start comparing timelines. That's when they realized, oh, he's playing all of us. But peace actually ends on kind of a sweet note. note, these women all become friends. They have a very active group chat, which again, it just goes to show, like, if you're going to pull this shit, don't pull it with a bunch of smart, confident women. They'll just get to the bottom of it together and join forces.

And then, like, you will be a forever running joke in their group chat forever. The women in, they have this active group chat. To this day, they send pictures of each other's pets to each other, and they use the reply that they say that Andrew would use whenever they would send him racy picks, which is, Hmm. Yeah, it's, the article does end in a really surprising way. It's like, this group of women became friends and they're all doing fine, which I think makes this story a little bit different than some others where it's like powerful, influential man, you know, has problems with women, right? When those stories break. Often there's some kind of, like, allegations of. of abuse of some kind or there's like a lawsuit of some kind. It doesn't sound like these women are seeking any kind of like restitution or really anything.

It just seems like they were more than happy to talk to this reporter. And that's something that I want to talk about because if I were to say the thing that the so what of this article, I think these women are trying to say this person that millions of people have held up as a guru, the values that he preaches on the show are not the values that he lives by in his actual life. Like, I would say that it's a bit subtle, but I think that's the so what of the inclusion of all of these details about his romantic life is that Huberman is somebody who preaches a really specific, like, life routine and mindset built around personal discipline and being really mindful of all the different kinds of things that you light into your life that spike dopamine

from coffee to booze. Like the piece points out that he seems to show disdain for anybody who drinks, even a small amount. But in his personal life, he's may me not practicing a lot of the kind of personal discipline around things that spike his dopamine, in this case, relationships. Like, one of the women says that he told her that he thought he was a love addict. So you have this guru preaching an ethos around being mindful about what you led into your physical orbit, while also like binging on women and relationships and not being forthcoming about it. That kind of makes his whole body of advice, I guess it kind of calls it into question. Yeah. And I mean, we can even zoom out another level from Huberman in particular to just like gurus in general.

It's a pretty well-worn trope, almost the cliche, that, you know, some guru who has the answer, who is preaching, restraint, and control is sleeping with a bunch of women who follow his advice. Tale as old as time. So this is how he's alleged to have treated women that he is romantically and sexually involved with in the piece. but, and this is something I don't feel like has gotten enough attention, this kind of casual lack of respect for women seems to bleed over into his professional life as well. There is this anecdote where he reached out to a woman scientist

about collaborating together. They set a time to meet. Huberman doesn't show. This is a real theme in the piece. Huberman, like, making plans with men and women, and then just flaking and people saying, like, he's totally unreliable. So the scientist emails him after he cancels on their time to meet and says, well, I guess you're not serious about collaborating together, which, again,

I respect that. Like, if somebody last minute canceling on somebody who was, like, pretty busy and pretty, like, has a pretty full schedule, I could understand why she was like, yeah, I guess you don't really feel seriously about working together. Andrew Huberman clearly felt some type of a way about this. Rather than just let it go, he and another male scientist, Stanford trained psychiatrist, Paul Conte, did an episode of Huberman's podcast. about aggressive drive in which Huberman makes this woman whose time he wasted the poster child

for toxic aggression in the workplace. He tells the story of her emailing him and saying, I guess you aren't serious about working together and says, so to me, Huberman said on the podcast, that seems like an example of somebody who has a, well, strong, aggressive drive. And when disappointed, lashes back or is passive. There's some way in which this person doesn't feel good enough no matter what this person has achieved. So then there is a sense of the need and right to over control. Sure, said Huberman. So now we're going to work together, right? So I'm exerting significant control over you, right? And then maybe he's not aware of it. In this case, Andrew said, it was a she. So this woman, explained Conti, based entirely on Andrew's description

of two emails, had allowed her unhealthy, quote, excess aggression to be eclipsing the generative drive. She required that Andrew bow down before her in service of the ego because she did not feel good about herself. This conversation extends for an extraordinary nine minutes. Both men egging each other on, diagnoses after diagnoses, salient perhaps for reasons other than those the two identify. We learn that this woman lacks gratitude, generative drive and happiness. She suffers from envy, low pleasure drive, and general unhappiness. It would appear at a distance to be an elaborate fantasy of an insane woman built upon a single behavior. At some point in time, a woman decided she did not want to work with a man who didn't show up. Like, where does this

dude get off? It's worth pointing out, uh, following that, that story that his expertise is in vision, right? Like he's a neuroscience about vision. So talking about drives, like the pleasure drive, aggressive drive. These are not areas of, you. his expertise and, you know, they're actually closer to my expertise. And a lot of that stuff is often like just so stories, right? Like it's kind of sounds like a common sense idea. You make up a story that fits this concept that you've introduced. So yeah, it all makes sense. Yeah. And the just so story is that can you believe a woman talk to me like that? Andrew Huberman? Like, I think this guy got that email from this woman scientist, and I think it stung more because

it came from a woman. And he's somebody who doesn't respect women. So he had to, like, use his massive platform to speculate on her, like, low pleasure drive and stuff and how she, like, needed him to sacrifice his ego and crawl to her and blah, blah, blah, bow down. Like, it really is so misogynistic and sexist. And I think it really feeds back into the way that these women were saying that he treated them as well. I'm also not confident that this colleague exists or that any of that actually happened. I mean, we have no evidence that it did other than him saying so. It feels very much like a story that somebody might make up.

To prop themselves up to talk about how everybody else is less than. And all those less than happen to be women. It fits. More after a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guide. not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an Acapella band with their between songs banter.

There's the worst singer in the group? The worst? Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, uh, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. The yard birds, right? That's the name. The Harvard yard, but they're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle-aged, one erection.

Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Humor me. I need some jokes to make me seem funny. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts. an ad-supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined.

So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think IHart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Let us show you at iHeartadvertising.com.

That's iHeartadvertising.com. Last night, a blown call changed a game. This morning, the internet lost its mind. Highlights are trending, opinions are flying, and nobody's telling you exactly what happened. That's where Sports Slice comes in. I'm Timbo. Every episode, we're cutting through the noise. Breaking down the plays, the controversies, and the stories behind the headlines.

We go straight to the source, the athlete themselves. Their locker room stories, their reactions, the stuff nobody gets to hear. The laughs, the drama, the triumphs, the moments that never make the highlight real. From viral moments to historic games, from buzzer beaters to controversial calls, we break it down, give you context and ask the questions everybody wants answered. Sports Slice brings you closer to the action with stories told by the people who live them. Listen to Sports Slice on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more, follow Timbo Slic Life 12 and the TikTok podcast network on TikTok.

Let's get right back into it. Another big piece of this that I want to make sure it's not overshadowed because his piece is largely, but not entirely about his romantic issues, is how his character reflects. on the work that he puts out on the podcast, which is maybe not great. The New York mag piece gets into this writing, Huberman's specialty lies in a narrow field, vision system wiring. How comfortable one feels with the science propagated on Huberman Lab depends entirely on how much leeway one is willing to give a man who expounds for multiple hours a week

on subjects well outside of his area of expertise. His detractors note that Huberman extrapolates wildly from limited animal studies, posit certainty where there is ambiguity, and stumbles when he veers too far from his narrow realm of study. But even they will tend to admit that the podcast is an expansive, free, or as he puts it, zero cost, compendium of human knowledge. There are quack guests, but these are greatly outnumbered by profound, complex, patient, and often moving descriptions of biological process.

So this entire thing has really shined a light on his financial relationship with supplement companies, namely athletic greens, which is now called AG1, which is a big, sponsor of his podcast. He is also their scientific advisor. I don't know what that means. Mike, do you have any idea? Yeah, that's a reasonable thing for people to be a, you know, scientific advisor to this or that. I'm not going to ding him for that. That's reasonable. I mean, there is a bit of a potential conflict of interest. Like, when he promotes the product on the show, do his listeners know that? If they decide to buy it, it gets into some more ethical gray area there, but just being a scientific advisor, that's a reasonable thing.

Okay, well, we'll get into that. So I should say, big caveat, I am a podcaster. If you listen to this podcast, we obviously, you know we do ads. Oh, we do ads. We do ads. Nobody would accuse us of not too big ass. So I'm not really in a position where I can fault people for taking money to keep the good folks who help make their show paid and, like, keep the show going.

However, if you are a scientist and your entire show is about your expertise as a scientist, I do think there is a different thing where maybe there should be a little bit more scrutiny over exactly what you were saying, like how you were using your position as a scientist to hawk things, especially something that is maybe a bunk product. AG1 is kind of maybe a not so good product and that it makes a lot of big claims that have dubious backing. Here's what the New York MAG article says about Huberman's relationship with AG1. On every episode of his zero-cost podcast, Huberman gives a lengthy endorsement of a powder formerly known as Athletic Greens,

now known as AG1. It's one thing to hear athletic greens promoted by Joe Rogan. It is perhaps another to hear someone who sells himself as a Stanford University scientist, just back from the lab, proclaim that this $79 a month powder, quote, covers all your foundational nutritional needs. in an industry not known for its integrity, AG1 is, according to writer and professional debunker, Derek Burr's, one of the most egregious players in the space. So I will say as a podcaster, one of my pet peeves is podcasters who are like, we make this podcast for free. No, if you have ads, you really don't.

Like if you are a podcaster who supports your work via ads, listeners are not listening to that show for free. they are kind of paying for it via their attention with the ads. And so I really hate that claim that, like, it's a free podcast. I'm making this content for you for free. If you have ads, you're really not. That's really just not true. Yeah. And it's a good system, right?

The listeners don't have to pay money. The ads support the show. You know, they pay us a small amount to make the show. I feel like listeners probably, I feel like there are listeners out there who maybe don't think it's a great system. People are always like, I hate your ads. Fair, but, you know, they, you know, the ads, I don't know. I also don't love listening to ads, but it's kind of the system we got.

There's some others out there. Love to, you know, talk more about it. But I guess the point I'm trying to make is that ads aren't inherently harmful. But where it does get dubious is when it's these health. supplements that are sold as having like health properties that just really are not backed up by evidence. And it really betrays a lack of concern for listeners, I think. And as a scientist, for a scientist to shill for nutritional supplements that do not have a strong evidence backing. In fact, I have a dubious, dubious evidence behind them. And my understanding is that what's

actually in AG1 is a proprietary blend, so people don't even know. But for a scientist to back that, it casts a doubt over everything else they say, or at least it should, right? Like, apparently that is the standard of evidence that they need to support a claim, right? And so that same standard, does that same low standard of evidence apply to all of the scientific claims that he's making on his show, one would assume it probably does. So, yeah, it just really, I personally think that for a scientist to promote dubious nutritional supplements, just undercuts everything else they might have to say about any other topic.

Well, one of my favorite science podcaster is Wendy Zuckerman of the Science Norses podcast, which I love. The piece quotes a time when she kind of like called Huberman out on this. She pointed out that her podcast would never. endorse a product with such a dubious science behind it. And Huberman said, that's the good news about podcasts. People can choose which podcast they want to listen to. Yeah. And that makes it clear right there, makes it crystal clear how he sees this. His scientific integrity was being publicly called into question, which is like the worst thing that could happen to a scientist. And he responds by pointing

to the popularity of his podcast, right? He doesn't even address it. He's just like, well, you know, people like my show. So I guess that makes it right. I mean, to me, it's like being like, you know, what it is, Wendy. I'm trying to get paid. So I should say, I don't know a ton personally about AG1. I read a couple of really good articles that make a lot of good points about AG1. We'll put it in the show notes.

One of them is by Jonathan Jerry, that science communicator from McGill University we quoted earlier. He did a really great deep dive we'll put in the show notes about how dubious AG1 is and the entire supplements industry is. You know, it's pretty much unregulated. And you might be thinking,

well, supplements might not work or they might not do what they said they're going to do, but it couldn't hurt, right? Well, using your credentials as a scientist to point people who are looking for quick ways to optimize their health down the road to supplements is not without risk, as dietary supplements are not regulated as strictly as pharmaceutical drugs and can routinely contain ingredients not listed on the bottle or not contain the main ingredient listed at all, which has been replaced by a cheaper look-alike. Supplements derived by herbs can cause all sorts of harm, including toxicity to the liver, a recent paper highlights rising cases of liver injury caused by these products. And even outside of like liver injury or the supplements being

toxic in some way, which hopefully is pretty rare, I think much more commonly people get harmed by thinking that they are protecting themselves in some way when in fact they're not, right? Like I think it's an idea that by having a healthy, immune system, people will be protected against COVID, which is true. But then I think that can, in a lot of cases, show up where people will take supplements that they think are supercharging their immune system in some way and then decline to get the COVID vaccine, which is actually demonstrated conclusively by evidence to reduce the chance of harm. So there's, I think there's a lot of opportunity cost that comes from this widespread promotion of supplements that don't work.

Yes. And like if you have $80 a month to spend toward a health intervention, if you're putting that toward the thing that doesn't work over the thing that maybe does work and has been demonstrated by science to work, that is a problem. If he as a scientist is encouraging you to do that, I do think that's a problem. And I think especially in the podcast space, like, as a podcaster, you do have a different relationship to your audience. You know, I think that, like, it is an intimacy medium. It is a medium where people are hearing you in an intimate way in your earbuds. So listeners, they might really have a trust relationship with you. Like, I think a lot of people really trust Huberman. Jerry, that science communicator from McGill, makes it really clear that a scientist using the medium of podcasting to build trust in people.

the vast majority of whom are not scientists themselves, only to lead them to a path of supplements that personally enrich Andrew Heberman just really isn't cool. It's not like we're talking about Joe Rogan, who also hawks AG1. We're talking about a Stanford scientist. As Jerry writes, inside the walls of academia, there are guardrails.

On a podcast, however, anything goes, and the credibility of academia goes a long way to lend authority to supplement endorsements. Yeah, absolutely. true. It's unfortunate. Yeah, I mean, the piece by Jerry really is like, he basically is like, I'm disappointed to see somebody who is such a gifted science communicator and like does have a very good body of work in his specific lane, kind of selling that short for a check from the supplement industry that is so shady and so not transparent and using science to do that. So like,

it's not like these people are calling him a fraud. They're saying the opposite. Because you are somebody who knows what they're doing and is very gifted, it is that much more disappointing to see you lowering yourself to this. Yeah, absolutely. I have not reviewed his work at any sort of detail, but I looked through where he's publishing. He's publishing in like top tier journals like nature and neuroscience. Like this, that's, you don't get published there if you're doing bad work. So clearly he's a talented scientist. Clearly he's very charismatic. and persuasive and able to speak to lots of people. And so it is disappointing to see somebody with those talents just use it for personal enrichment

at the expense of the people who are trusting them. So there have been a lot of accusations that his podcast is full of pseudoscience. Like he uses all the right kind of science-y-sounding jargon for claims that are maybe dubiously backed up by science. I am not a scientist so I don't really feel able to say. And Mike, as you were saying, Like, you have not actually, like, studied his body of work, right?

Yeah, that's right. I just kind of reviewed where he was publishing, but I didn't click into anything because that's not an area that I really have the expertise to even evaluate. So let's hear from somebody who does have the expertise to evaluate, and that is Dr. Andrea Love, an immunologist and a microbiologist, who has been, like, she has been debunking Huberman's bad science for a long time on her substack. She is not a Johnny Come Lately who is jumping on the big. Van Wagon. She has been here for a while.

I get this, like, folks should follow her substack and follow her on Twitter. I get the sense that she is somebody who has been like, being like, Huberman sucks. Huberman sucks for a long time. And now everybody is like, finally on her side and she's like, now it is my time to shine. There is

no better feeling. Dr. Andrea Love, I hope you are like basking in this because when somebody, when people, when the general public finally crosses over and sees what you see, that's how I always felt about Ellen, by the way. I was an Ellen truther for a very long time. When the public

finally got there, I was like, yes. Let the hate flow through your veins. Oh, man, I remember that. That was like, I can't remember a time when I saw you so happy. Thank you. So, in a piece, the Dr. Love wrote for Slate called, So Should You Trust

Andrew Huberman? She really breaks it down. She writes, in reality, his podcast is focused on pseudoscience. He often makes claims that appears scientific but lack evidence, plausibility and validity. Pseudoscience presents unsubstantiated conclusions, but it can be incredibly hard to distinguish from conclusive evidence. It contains grains of truth, but those grains of truth are exaggerated beyond the point of

usefulness, even so far as to lead away from the truth. Huberman fills his podcast with confident displays of pseudoscience. Top with the appeal to authority he garners by regularly repeating his academic credentials to gain your trust. Wow. That sounds so similar to the way we talk about conspiracy. theories. I was thinking the same thing. So she basically accuses Huberman of not carefully or fully citing studies and data to make prescriptive recommendations for lifestyle changes. He cherry picks

weak or irrelevant studies while discarding larger and more robust studies that demonstrate something different. If you're not conducting research or regularly dissecting scientific studies, this might not be obvious, but to scientists, it is. And that's something else that I think is interesting here is that I bet that listening to his show or hearing somebody parrot what he says, if you are a scientist or a doctor, is probably frustrating as hell. When I was prepping for this episode, one of the questions I had was, how do other neuroscientists feel about his work and his podcast? And there were a lot of them on Reddit saying that, like, oh, people will hear one kind of not totally correct thing on his podcast and then try to tell

her incorrectly about her own job in a way that conveys authority because they heard it on Huberman's podcast. Like that has to be so frustrating. Yeah. I mean, that technique of cherry picking results from small studies that support the conclusion you're trying to make while disregarding wider bodies of evidence that support a different conclusion, again,

tale as old as time. It's a super common tactic. Like if you aren't concerned with the balance of evidence, which is what science is supposed to be looking at to try to reach consensus. on things. But if you weren't concerned about that and you just want to like cherry pick some weird result that supports whatever theory you've got, sky's the limit on whatever you might want to find and say. Lengthwise, this episode is actually starting to feel a bit like a Huberman Lab episode and that it's getting a little bit long. I have a ton more to say. So let's

cut here. And this will be a two-parter. So come back next week for the conclusion. of what exactly is going on with Andrew Huberman. If you're looking for ways to support the show, check out our merch store at tangoity.com slash store. Got a story about an interesting thing in tech or just want to say hi? You can reach us at hello at tangooty.com. You can also find transcripts for today's episode at tangoody.com. There are no girls on the internet was created by me, Bridget Todd.

It's a production of IHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. Edited by Joey Pat. Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Tari Harrison is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Amato is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from Iheart Radio, check out the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Another podcast from some SNL late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smigel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an Acapella with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter.

Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Why are we all so obsessed with romance? On the Radio 831 podcast, join us, Sanjana Basker and Tyler McCall, as we unpack all the trending tropes, fuzzy adaptations, book talk drama,

and celebrity love stories with hot takes and sharp guests. Each episode digs into what these stories reveal about desire, fantasy, identity, and how we love now. Listen to the Radio 831 podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, it's Edwin Castro, also known as Castro 1021. And I'm Conky, his best friend and business manager. And we've got a new show called The 1021 Podcast.

I'm taking you behind the scenes on how I became one of Twitch's most popular streamers. We also love sports. And with the World Cup right around the corner, we'll be breaking down the biggest storylines ahead of the big tournament here in the USA. Listen to the 1021 podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast.

Guaranteed human.