[Nathanael_M]

The stunning "gotcha" of this witch hunt (undoubtedly brought on by his proximity to individuals that the author doesn't like) is that Andrew Huberman was a bad boyfriend, weirdly flaky in his social life, and not an expert in all of the 100s of topics he discusses on his podcast (usually discussed with actual experts in the topics).

Okay...

Listen, if we stopped deriving information, education, or entertainment from people who have weird personal flaws, we would not read books, go to school, listen to music, or watch movies. Or have friends. What a silly article.

[bittercynic]

I've listened to a few episodes of the podcast, and enjoyed them, but I think he sometimes acts as though he is a model of how to live a healthy, well balanced life, and this article is a pretty convincing account that he isn't.

[coldtea]

Did people expected him to be some kind of ultra healthy, jacked up, Buddha-Christ figure in his daily life?

Of course he has flaws, he is human.

And his personal life is his personal life. Writing a news profile about his would be as moral or relevent as some newspaper writing one about yours or mine.

I'd be actually concerned about his public function: about how he sells some new "scientific" lifestyle advice every week, an endless cycle of shallow unsettled science, bro advice, fads, and basically selling hope.

[sshine]

> I'd be actually concerned about his public function: about how he sells some new "scientific" lifestyle advice every week

Why? It’s great advice.

His “sleep toolkit” episode taught me a lot about how to get better sleep.

[gaara87]

> but I think he sometimes acts as though he is a model of how to live a healthy

I think he more often tells listeners that x is the findings and suggests behavioral changes. Its hard to count the number of times his message comes across as "model your protocols after me".