Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday May 26 2019, @07:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the fit-of-pique dept.

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


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by pipedwho on Monday May 27 2019, @01:01AM (2 children)

    by pipedwho (2032) on Monday May 27 2019, @01:01AM (#848048)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @03:35AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @03:35AM (#848083)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @06:36PM (#848224)

      You need to spend more time looking at studies and less time trolling.