SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CrossFit, Inc. Suspends Use of Facebook and Associated Services
CrossFit has announced in a press release that it has closed its Facebook accounts as of May 22, 2019. CrossFit is an almost 20 year old branded fitness regimen. Its press release goes into quite a bit of detail into the problems caused by use of Facebook and its subsidiary services such as Instagram and enumerates eight specific examples of deal-breakers.
Earlier on SN:
Facebook Still Tracks You After You Deactivate Your Account (2019)
Didn't Think Facebook Could Get Any Worse? Think Again. (2018)
Why No One Trusts Facebook (2014)
CrossFit, Inc. Suspends Use of Facebook and Associated Properties After Unexplained Ban
CrossFit, Inc. defends relentlessly the right of its affiliates, trainers, and athletes to practice CrossFit, build voluntary CrossFit associations and businesses, and speak openly and freely about the ideas and principles that animate our views of exercise, nutrition, and health. This website—and, until recently, CrossFit's Facebook and Instagram accounts—has long catalogued CrossFit's tireless defense of its community against overreaching governments, malicious competitors, and corrupt academic organizations.
Recently, Facebook deleted without warning or explanation the Banting7DayMealPlan user group. The group has 1.65 million users who post testimonials and other information regarding the efficacy of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. While the site has subsequently been reinstated (also without warning or explanation), Facebook's action should give any serious person reason to pause, especially those of us engaged in activities contrary to prevailing opinion.
https://www.crossfit.com/battles/crossfit-suspends-facebook-instagram
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pipedwho on Sunday May 26 2019, @09:54PM (7 children)
It depends on how they formulate their 'low carb' diet requirements. If it's like some over the top programs advocating just fat/meat minus large amounts of good stuff (vegies, nuts, etc), then that is bad. Simply cutting down the carb/sugar intake while keeping other healthy options is supported by science.
The problem with trusting applied 'science' and 'opinion' is that the average layman has no real way to differentiate between someone spouting half understood 'pseudoscientific' methods (ie. science of one element applied to unrelated elements), and options that are actually valid within the requirements of the application.
The media deals with scientific studies in the same way it deals everything. It reports all sorts of opinions and soundbites with incomplete access to the available (or any) evidence. So you get some innocent dude getting tagged as a pedophile on the front page of the local paper (even though any criminal investigation is incomplete and the evidence is slim to non-existent), and you get some controversial non-replicated study being written up as irrefutable fact. If the media reported after appropriate scientific (or legal) process has run its course, then this wouldn't be a problem. But, sadly, the media is concerned with eyeballs, which means reporting controversial views whether they are true or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @10:04PM (6 children)
No, you can easily learn yourself you need to cut carbs to under ~100g (~400 cal) per day. Do this for one week (or even just 3 days for many people). Then you will learn that most of what you thought was hunger your whole life is addictive cravings these people people tricked you into thinking was just a part of life.
The scam they have been pulling is huge. So many health issues are caused by this... they are making money off both sides by selling both the addictive food and the "healthcare".
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Sunday May 26 2019, @10:31PM (4 children)
Absolutely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @10:44PM (3 children)
Sorry, but your original post is in opposition with your agreement to my post. In "real science" (govo-corporate funded) they still call "low carb" less than 50% calories from carbs. There is definitely nothing from them agreeing with what I said.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Monday May 27 2019, @01:01AM (2 children)
What you said is a subset of what is supported by current scientific research. You're also not advocating a hard and fast regimen of speculatively chosen foods to supplant an otherwise 'balanced' diet. The research is not fully complete, so changes to specifics will obviously alter adherence to the exact details of the studies. However, the generalities drawn are pointing in the same direction that you've stated. Extrapolating further is where the 'science' boundary is crossed.
Where things go 'pseudoscientific' is when people see a partial or unrelated result in a study and refactor it as a black and white something else. Then we end up with heavily marketed zero carb diets that pick and choose which foods to include and exclude based on other scientifically unsupported factors (probably based on which companies/industries sponsored their work). A classic is crossing over a study for sports nutrition targeting a particular olympic athlete and applying it to the general public that is not otherwise engaging in anywhere near the same energy expenditure or activity.
I do not support "real science" by committee. Especially corporate funded studies that selectively publish only when the results benefit the sponsor (most? all? of them). Things like your proposal for experimentation is valid. It's when 'someone' comes along proposing their own diet with strict rules that purports to be based on scientific research, while actually flying in the face of actual science in every way possible. Sadly, a tiny 5 page book with some basic guidelines on how to eat well will not end up with "New York Times #1 best seller! Over 1 miliion copies sold!" printed on the cover.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @03:35AM (1 child)
What I said is not at all a subset of what is supported by current scientific research. They have refused to study it altogether and instead pretend to study it by coming up with their own fake definition of low carb.
I didn't bother to read the rest of your post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @06:36PM
You need to spend more time looking at studies and less time trolling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @01:35AM
Beans and rice works well for my body (or just white rice), and I don't get thos cravings from that. I never understood the appeal of sugar coated breakfast cereals. I swear those things make you more hungry than you started out!