u/maxel100

Hearing that we might have to wait over a year for Jack to build the Hamish & Andy board game I thought I'd build one myself.

Been listening since the radio days and went down a rabbit hole building a browser board game out of the show's segments. It's free, no ads, no sign-up, works on your computer straight away — pass-and-play with mates or against AI versions of the boys. You play as a little 3D figurine of Hamish, Andy, Cacklin' Jack or Web Geezer Jez.

The goal: first to get 8 coins (or an 8-Coin) to win the game. You collect coins by doing challenges you land on as you travel around the board.

Here's what you'll land on:

☎ RANDOM JOHN — We've dialled three random numbers. Pick a call. If a John answers, that's a John Point (1 coin). But careful, one of the calls might be a Rob, and as we all know, a Rob takes a John Point away.

3 THE AHOYS — Three things, one connection. Can you solve how they are all linked?

SALACIOUS HEADLINES — Three headlines, two we made up, one that was genuinely printed by a real newspaper. Guess the real one/. I researched ~30 verified real front pages for this and the NT News ones are undefeated. No fake headline can compete with WHY I STUCK A CRACKER UP MY CLACKER.

WHO HAS MORE FOLLOWERS? — Dr. Oz vs Dr Pepper. Snoop Dogg vs Snoopy. The Rock vs Uluru (an actual rock). Post Malone vs Australia Post. Pick who has more Instagram followers and win a coin.

SPECIAL SKILLS — Can you complete the challenge to prove you have special skills? Balance a shoe on your head and hop in a circle. Throw food in the air and catch it in your mouth. Roll a toilet paper roll across the floor and knock over a bottle. Good luck!

DEEP CUTS — The fun "deep" hamish and andy references for the true true fans. Golden Day, Gap Byear, Ghosting, ConCon , Must Be Nice!, The Weasel, Burg Boys, Zio Pino's Pizza Lotto, the Mandated Break... plus the H&A Loyalty Card (permanent Power Move discount).

POWER MOVES (the strategy bit) - You can spend coins in the Power Move Shop: a Standard trap (1 coin — victims pay you tribute), or a Hostile Takeover (convert a rival's trap into YOURS). Victims have to pay coins so you have to determine if you want to set up traps or save for the win.

Play it here: https://hamishandandygame.com/

Please share any suggestions you have to make it better!

Cheers!

I listen to a ton of Huberman, but I kept hitting the same problem: you catch a claim in a clip or halfway through a 3-hour episode, you start adding it to your stack, and you never actually read the research.

So I built a tool that goes through his claims one by one, surfaces the relevant studies behind each, and ran it across about 970 of them.

Most of what he says scored well. A few examples:

• 150-200 min/week of Zone 2 cardio for insulin sensitivity and heart health: 92
• A 10-20 min walk after meals to blunt the glucose spike: 88
• ApoB as one of the best predictors of cardiovascular risk: 88
• Over-drinking plain water without electrolytes causing hyponatremia: 91

The more interesting ones were where the confidence seems to run ahead of the evidence, mostly around popular supplements and very specific protocol numbers:

• Fadogia Agrestis for testosterone, alone or stacked with Tongkat: 32 The testosterone effect and toxicity warning both come mostly from rodent studies. Very little human data either way.
• BPC-157 for tissue repair: 28 No good human trials for that use.
• CO2 "discard time" of 65-120s meaning full nervous-system recovery: 34 Those thresholds seem to come more from breathwork tradition than autonomic research. HRV is far better tested.

Across all ~970 claims, he averaged 74, which is honestly pretty good. He's more careful than critics give him credit for. The lower scores cluster mostly around specific supplements, exact doses, and oddly precise numbers where the direct evidence is much thinner.

How it works: for each claim, it searches the relevant literature through Consensus and puts the studies right next to what he said and the episode he said it in, so you can read the research yourself quickly.

It also gives each claim a 0-100 score based on things like human vs. rodent evidence, study quality, whether the actual dose/protocol was tested, and whether the wording matches the findings.

Treat the score as a starting signal, not a verdict. The studies are the real point.

Scope note: this includes his own podcast plus guest spots on other shows, so a few claims were said elsewhere.

Genuinely want this sub to poke holes in it:

• What scores look wrong?
• Are the linked studies the right ones?
• Is the score useful, or should it just show the research?
• What would make this trustworthy enough to use?

I built the site, it's free, no ads. Link in the comments. If there is any infomation you'd like me to test, link to studies or otherwise - please let me know!