IGX

The Grandmother of @F wrote:I'm Lauren's mom. I'll be 63 in a few days. I have been mobility restricted for almost 10 years. I'm awaiting surgery at the moment that will hopefully give me my freedom back.

My husband and I take care of Lauren and Greg's sweet and wonderful 4 kids as often as possible, usually at least 4 or 5 mornings a week. We bake cookies, blow bubbles, make art projects, and create big messes. They love us, and we love them. Recently when Greg stopped by he told me that he loves me and would do anything for me. I love Greg too, and I would do anything to see my family whole and happy again.

Crossfit as an entity got started in our spare bedroom in Santa Cruz about 1995. It was a completely different program then than it is now. At that time Greg and Lauren were building a downline for an MLM called Envion as their primary source of income.

Greg and Lauren trained me, and the workout was not the same as it is today. Crossfit as we know it today was incorporated in 2003 or 2004, if memory serves. Lauren and Greg worked non-stop all those years, side by side, sacrificing everything for their business. It was an amazing process to witness.

Would you like to call me out again, and continue your rumor smear campaign, Lizbeth Darsh? This is what you do for a career? I have words for you, but they are very un-grandma like. You have nothing to do with the admirable and diligent efforts and sacrifices that made Crossfit successful. You are the bottom feeder that is capitalizing on it, that's all.

CrapSammich wrote:

What a duck says wrote: . . .

EDIT:
Lauren's mom calling out Lisbeth Darsh...
https://www.facebook.com/CrossfittersAg ... 1814811498

Has grandma's quote been removed from FB already?

What a duck says wrote:

CrapSammich wrote:

What a duck says wrote: . . .

EDIT:
Lauren's mom calling out Lisbeth Darsh...
https://www.facebook.com/CrossfittersAg ... 1814811498

Has grandma's quote been removed from FB already?

It was not posted by the grandma, it was posted by someone else, it is still there when I go to that link (and refreshed just to check). I left out a short beginning of the comment.

Lisbeth Darsh wrote:So, I return and find that "Curly Fry" is messaging CrossFitters and slandering me and CF, Inc. -- all while I'm back East, burying my sister. Nice. Very classy.

May the universe extract its price for your lack of basic decency, "Curly Fry" ... And may God have mercy on your soul, because I surely won't.
[...]
We believe "Curly Fry" might be Lauren Jenai's mom. Several indicators seem to point to that.

Joey Powell wrote:'Curly Fry' is Lauren talking through her mom and her mom's facebook account. Totally a Lauren thing to do. Curly Fry: send Lauren out to play. Lauren: I want you to know, this is so fun to watch. How you have crumbled both locally and in this organization.

Curly Fry wrote:Actually, I logged on here to find a message from a "Crossfitter" named Sherris Minor who had written that she opposed harassment and didn't like what was going on. I thoght she meant the harassment Ugly Pig Face Darsh is conducting against the Anthos deal, so I messaged back. I got a response within instants so we went back and forth until I realized that I was bing accused of harassment. I haven't even logged on here in days or even weeks, so I was surprised. Then I saw this hysteria by
Lump Ass Darsh and realized that it was likely her using someone else's name. I don't even think anyone could type fast enough to alert her to the messages in time for the hysteria to begin.

I challenged Dirtball Darsh to post the actual words, because there is no harassment of anyone involved. Ansering messages is not harassment, Braindead Buffoon!
[...]
I'm calling that Beast on being a cancerous mole on Glassman's ass. And of spending her time monitoring my facebook page morning noon and night while she's supposed to be grieving for her sister. Then accusing me of harassing her during the funeral.

Kate Deeney wrote:I'm Lauren's mom. I'll be 63 in a few days. I have been mobility restricted for almost 10 years. I'm awaiting surgery at the moment that will hopefully give me my freedom back.

My husband and I take care of Lauren and Greg's sweet an
d wonderful 4 kids as often as possible, usually at least 4 or 5 mornings a week. We bake cookies, blow bubbles, make art projects, and create big messes. They love us, and we love them. Recently when Greg stopped by he told me that he loves me and would do anything for me. I love Greg too, and I would do anything to see my family whole and happy again.

Crossfit as an entity got started in our spare bedroom in Santa Cruz about 1995. It was a completely different program then than it is now. At that time Greg and Lauren were building a downline for an MLM called Envion as their primary source of income.

Greg and Lauren trained me, and the workout was not the same as it is today. Crossfit as we know it today was incorporated in 2003 or 2004, if memory serves. Lauren and Greg worked non-stop all those years, side by side, sacrificing everything for their business. It was an amazing process to witness.

Would you like to call me out again, and continue your rumor smear campaign, Lizbeth Darsh? This is what you do for a career? I have words for you, but they are very un-grandma like. You have nothing to do with the admirable and diligent efforts and sacrifices that made Crossfit successful. You are the bottom feeder that is capitalizing on it, that's all.
[...]
FYI, research indicates that Curly Fry is Joey Powell or someone associated with Joey Powell.

I'd Hit It wrote:Isn't Joey Powell the guy who accused CouchEx of stealing his business? Why is he attacking HQ and defending CouchEx? Is this an attempt to make CouchEx look bad? CFDrama is confusing.

What a duck says wrote:

I'd Hit It wrote:Isn't Joey Powell the guy who accused CouchEx of stealing his business? Why is he attacking HQ and defending CouchEx? Is this an attempt to make CouchEx look bad? CFDrama is confusing.

He is that guy. His post is confusing in that format, I didn't get it until I read the same comment on the actual FB thread. He's using the handles to address each person in turn, Curly Fry then Lauren. He is obviously still not happy with Lauren, and wanting to remain an affiliate for the time being, has sided with HQ.

What a duck says wrote:After reading that entire recent court doc, it would appear to me that Lauren's lawyers are wiping the goddam floors with @F/couch's merry band of dimwits.

EDIT:
Lauren's mom calling out Lisbeth Darsh...
https://www.facebook.com/CrossfittersAg ... 1814811498

The Grandmother of @F wrote:I'm Lauren's mom. I'll be 63 in a few days. I have been mobility restricted for almost 10 years. I'm awaiting surgery at the moment that will hopefully give me my freedom back.

My husband and I take care of Lauren and Greg's sweet and wonderful 4 kids as often as possible, usually at least 4 or 5 mornings a week. We bake cookies, blow bubbles, make art projects, and create big messes. They love us, and we love them. Recently when Greg stopped by he told me that he loves me and would do anything for me. I love Greg too, and I would do anything to see my family whole and happy again.

Crossfit as an entity got started in our spare bedroom in Santa Cruz about 1995. It was a completely different program then than it is now. At that time Greg and Lauren were building a downline for an MLM called Envion as their primary source of income.

Greg and Lauren trained me, and the workout was not the same as it is today. Crossfit as we know it today was incorporated in 2003 or 2004, if memory serves. Lauren and Greg worked non-stop all those years, side by side, sacrificing everything for their business. It was an amazing process to witness.

Would you like to call me out again, and continue your rumor smear campaign, Lizbeth Darsh? This is what you do for a career? I have words for you, but they are very un-grandma like. You have nothing to do with the admirable and diligent efforts and sacrifices that made Crossfit successful. You are the bottom feeder that is capitalizing on it, that's all.

Lulz at the Glassmans being knee-deep in MLM shit pre-@F. The last time MLMs were mentioned in the couch thread, it was by @F moderators in a very disparaging way--and wasn't true, ever. Pot, meet kettle. Now fuck off.

Abstract
A potential emerging problem associated with increasingly popularized extreme conditioning programs (ECPs) has been identified by the military and civilian communities. That is, there is an apparent disproportionate musculoskeletal injury risk from these demanding programs, particularly for novice participants, resulting in lost duty time, medical treatment, and extensive rehabilitation. This is a significant and costly concern for the military with regard to effectively maintaining operational readiness of the Force. While there are certain recognized positive aspects of ECPs that address a perceived and/or actual unfulfilled conditioning need for many individuals and military units, these programs have limitations and should be considered carefully. Moreover, certain distinctive characteristics of ECPs appear to violate recognized accepted standards for safely and appropriately developing muscular fitness and are not uniformly aligned with established and accepted training doctrine. Accordingly, practical solutions to improve ECP prescription and implementation and reduce injury risk are of paramount importance.

ABSTRACT
An epidemic in military cases of rhabdomyolysis is a reporting error at the expense of an under‑reporting of classic heat stroke, two potentially fatal types of exertional heat illness (EHI) indistinguishable in their initial and milder forms. The opinion of the authors of the subject paper that a companion increase in other exertional injuries might be looming is unsupported and contradicted by military studies. None of those studies includes any significant injuries in trials preliminary to replacing traditional military physical training (PT) with the CrossFit® conditioning program. EHI, which includes rhabdomyolysis, has been rising at 5.5% per year over the last eight years, and is correlated (R2 = 83.8% at a 6.5-year lag) with a sudden rise in military deaths attributable to the War on Terror. The authors’ opinion that CrossFit is a cause of increased injuries or illness absent any data is beyond science, and without data in a lead-lag relationship, it is a scientific error in causality.
CrossFit workouts are less extreme than those of ACSM-sanctioned military PT. It is safer than military PT because it tends to limit rhabdomyolysis, the rupturing of skeletal muscles, from developing into Acute Kidney Failure. CrossFit workouts typically last no more than about 20 minutes, which with normal hydration initially, minimizes the dehydration essential to rhabdomyolysis first interfering with normal kidney function. CrossFit workouts generally mix anaerobic and aerobic exercises, tending to neutralize metabolic acidosis. Therefore CrossFit minimizes the contribution of acidosis to the breakdown of urinary myoglobin into toxic elements in the pathogenesis of severe rhabdomyolysis. CrossFit workouts include individualizing through scaling or substitution of movements, as required, and always by prescribing an individual’s best effort. Individualizing marginally stresses each athlete to his current capabilities, tending to limit muscle damage to those microtears desirable in physical conditioning, a necessary state of mild rhabdomyolysis. Because the individual determines the intensity of each of his workouts, CrossFit is not suited to the regimentation of group drills that lead to overexertion, clustering of cases, and intermediate rhabdomyolysis recognizable by darkened urine.

What a duck says wrote:So the ACSM comes out this this:
Consortium for Health and Military Performance and American College of Sports Medicine Consensus Paper on Extreme Conditioning Programs in Military Personnel

Abstract
A potential emerging problem associated with increasingly popularized extreme conditioning programs (ECPs) has been identified by the military and civilian communities. That is, there is an apparent disproportionate musculoskeletal injury risk from these demanding programs, particularly for novice participants, resulting in lost duty time, medical treatment, and extensive rehabilitation. This is a significant and costly concern for the military with regard to effectively maintaining operational readiness of the Force. While there are certain recognized positive aspects of ECPs that address a perceived and/or actual unfulfilled conditioning need for many individuals and military units, these programs have limitations and should be considered carefully. Moreover, certain distinctive characteristics of ECPs appear to violate recognized accepted standards for safely and appropriately developing muscular fitness and are not uniformly aligned with established and accepted training doctrine. Accordingly, practical solutions to improve ECP prescription and implementation and reduce injury risk are of paramount importance.

While I don't have the full paper, everything above makes sense to me. So what does @FHQ do? Well, they have "Dr. J. A. Glassman, Chief Scientific Officer" (is that one of the $750k/year positions or what?), aka couch's daddy, aka previously published in the same e-magazine as simply "Jeff Glassman", put this 92-page obfuscation forward:
An Answer

ABSTRACT
An epidemic in military cases of rhabdomyolysis is a reporting error at the expense of an under‑reporting of classic heat stroke, two potentially fatal types of exertional heat illness (EHI) indistinguishable in their initial and milder forms. The opinion of the authors of the subject paper that a companion increase in other exertional injuries might be looming is unsupported and contradicted by military studies. None of those studies includes any significant injuries in trials preliminary to replacing traditional military physical training (PT) with the CrossFit® conditioning program. EHI, which includes rhabdomyolysis, has been rising at 5.5% per year over the last eight years, and is correlated (R2 = 83.8% at a 6.5-year lag) with a sudden rise in military deaths attributable to the War on Terror. The authors’ opinion that CrossFit is a cause of increased injuries or illness absent any data is beyond science, and without data in a lead-lag relationship, it is a scientific error in causality.
CrossFit workouts are less extreme than those of ACSM-sanctioned military PT. It is safer than military PT because it tends to limit rhabdomyolysis, the rupturing of skeletal muscles, from developing into Acute Kidney Failure. CrossFit workouts typically last no more than about 20 minutes, which with normal hydration initially, minimizes the dehydration essential to rhabdomyolysis first interfering with normal kidney function. CrossFit workouts generally mix anaerobic and aerobic exercises, tending to neutralize metabolic acidosis. Therefore CrossFit minimizes the contribution of acidosis to the breakdown of urinary myoglobin into toxic elements in the pathogenesis of severe rhabdomyolysis. CrossFit workouts include individualizing through scaling or substitution of movements, as required, and always by prescribing an individual’s best effort. Individualizing marginally stresses each athlete to his current capabilities, tending to limit muscle damage to those microtears desirable in physical conditioning, a necessary state of mild rhabdomyolysis. Because the individual determines the intensity of each of his workouts, CrossFit is not suited to the regimentation of group drills that lead to overexertion, clustering of cases, and intermediate rhabdomyolysis recognizable by darkened urine.

So, if @F doesn't have any science to back it up, well, nobody else does either. So much bullshit above, hard to know where to start.

What a duck says wrote:So the ACSM comes out this this:
Consortium for Health and Military Performance and American College of Sports Medicine Consensus Paper on Extreme Conditioning Programs in Military Personnel

Abstract
A potential emerging problem associated with increasingly popularized extreme conditioning programs (ECPs) has been identified by the military and civilian communities. That is, there is an apparent disproportionate musculoskeletal injury risk from these demanding programs, particularly for novice participants, resulting in lost duty time, medical treatment, and extensive rehabilitation. This is a significant and costly concern for the military with regard to effectively maintaining operational readiness of the Force. While there are certain recognized positive aspects of ECPs that address a perceived and/or actual unfulfilled conditioning need for many individuals and military units, these programs have limitations and should be considered carefully. Moreover, certain distinctive characteristics of ECPs appear to violate recognized accepted standards for safely and appropriately developing muscular fitness and are not uniformly aligned with established and accepted training doctrine. Accordingly, practical solutions to improve ECP prescription and implementation and reduce injury risk are of paramount importance.

While I don't have the full paper, everything above makes sense to me. So what does @FHQ do? Well, they have "Dr. J. A. Glassman, Chief Scientific Officer" (is that one of the $750k/year positions or what?), aka couch's daddy, aka previously published in the same e-magazine as simply "Jeff Glassman", put this 92-page obfuscation forward:
An Answer

ABSTRACT
An epidemic in military cases of rhabdomyolysis is a reporting error at the expense of an under‑reporting of classic heat stroke, two potentially fatal types of exertional heat illness (EHI) indistinguishable in their initial and milder forms. The opinion of the authors of the subject paper that a companion increase in other exertional injuries might be looming is unsupported and contradicted by military studies. None of those studies includes any significant injuries in trials preliminary to replacing traditional military physical training (PT) with the CrossFit® conditioning program. EHI, which includes rhabdomyolysis, has been rising at 5.5% per year over the last eight years, and is correlated (R2 = 83.8% at a 6.5-year lag) with a sudden rise in military deaths attributable to the War on Terror. The authors’ opinion that CrossFit is a cause of increased injuries or illness absent any data is beyond science, and without data in a lead-lag relationship, it is a scientific error in causality.
CrossFit workouts are less extreme than those of ACSM-sanctioned military PT. It is safer than military PT because it tends to limit rhabdomyolysis, the rupturing of skeletal muscles, from developing into Acute Kidney Failure. CrossFit workouts typically last no more than about 20 minutes, which with normal hydration initially, minimizes the dehydration essential to rhabdomyolysis first interfering with normal kidney function. CrossFit workouts generally mix anaerobic and aerobic exercises, tending to neutralize metabolic acidosis. Therefore CrossFit minimizes the contribution of acidosis to the breakdown of urinary myoglobin into toxic elements in the pathogenesis of severe rhabdomyolysis. CrossFit workouts include individualizing through scaling or substitution of movements, as required, and always by prescribing an individual’s best effort. Individualizing marginally stresses each athlete to his current capabilities, tending to limit muscle damage to those microtears desirable in physical conditioning, a necessary state of mild rhabdomyolysis. Because the individual determines the intensity of each of his workouts, CrossFit is not suited to the regimentation of group drills that lead to overexertion, clustering of cases, and intermediate rhabdomyolysis recognizable by darkened urine.

So, if @F doesn't have any science to back it up, well, nobody else does either. So much bullshit above, hard to know where to start.

Yes I Have Balls wrote:"It's the terrorists fault these soldiers are getting hurt." - JA Glassassination

protobuilder wrote:I dont click links, but does Daddy Glassman reference how much money he's paid annually by Crossfit, Inc, if any?

Is "Fitspo" the New Thinspo?

In case you don’t frequent the Internet much (HAHAHAHA), “thinspo” is short for “thinspiration,” traditionally a term used to describe images and ideas that help anorexic people to keep up their eating disorder (or, as pro-anorexia folks sometimes more innocuously call it, their chosen lifestyle). Most thinspo consists of images of very thin young women with visible skeletal features.

Thinspiration has been around for as long as there have been ED-addled teens on the Internets (to be fair, it predates the social web entirely), who have exchanged these images along with tips for successfully living with anorexia (or any assortment of other disordered eating patterns) as a valid life choice.

But recently, sites like Tumblr and Pinterest have made efforts to eliminate thinspo-tagged photos, owing to their presumed influence in encouraging young women to adopt disordered eating as a normalized and routine way of achieving or maintaining a certain appearance.

In February Tumblr updated its site terms to prohibit the sharing of any information -- “thinspo” images included -- that might encourage eating disorders. In March, Pinterest took the same route.

As a result, thinspo has become something of a reviled concept, and is being forced further and further underground as its adherents migrate from one site to the next. Of course, this doesn’t actually help anyone, much less the girls and women relying on this information to maintain their ED, nor does it accomplish anything in the way of eradicating pro-ED communities, and yet the thinspo banning continues because letting it stay looks too much like support for a practice that most people consider extremely destructive. And understandably so.

But it seems thinspo has a sister: rapidly replacing thinspo on social media sites is something called “fitspo” -- that is, fitness-based inspiration. Fitspo favors muscle over bone and carefully crafted bodily definition and shaping over straight-up skinnyness. (If you need a frame of reference for this, there’s a great gallery of fitspo-esque images, many of them advertisements, over on Blisstree.)

The idea is that fitspo is HEALTHY, see, which thinspo is ostensibly not, so everyone should be cool with this, right?

But in our rush to focus on health -- or at least the perceived appearance of health -- we’re simply setting up a new idealized figure to chase after, and not necessarily one that is any better for us.

What kind of monster is against health? This kind, I suppose. While I mightily dig the notion of individuals deciding what health means for them, and making whatever efforts they feel comfortable with to achieve that sensation, I do not think that fitspo images are actually advocating for broad individually-based standards of healthiness.

Quite the opposite: They advocate for a specific shape of health, and one that is possibly more damaging than thinspo ever was, because it is making “health” into an issue of appearance and not of how one feels or what one can do or what one’s laboratory findings say.

Think about it: “She looks so unhealthy!” has become a tricky insult couched in faux concern, levied at thin women and fat women alike. It’s really a semi-polite way of telling someone they are unattractive without calling them straight-up ugly, and cushioned by the assertion that we’re telling you this for your own good.

But, tellingly, we don’t do it the other way around. Nobody says, “Wow dude, she looks sooooo healthy. I bet her arteries are as smooth as marble and her resting heart rate is like, seven. I would kill for cardiovascular efficiency like that.”

That’s just sort of weird, isn’t it? Like a stalker who gets off on reading people’s medical records.

The obvious problem with idealized figures is that they are idealized: very few people can reasonably achieve them, and often depending on the amount of post-production tweaking done to a given photo, even the person providing the ideal does not look quite that way. Fitspo imagery is still about chasing a figure that may not be achievable, but in this case we’re actually affecting our cultural understanding of what it means to be healthy, turning it into something you can tell by looking at a person, as opposed to a concept self-determined and unique to each individual body.

And possibly most importantly: PRIVATE. Your health should be between you and your doctor; it should not be written across your “perfectly” formed ass for all the world to read. Can we please stop using "healthy" as a code word for "attractive"?

It is one thing to use other people’s stories and experiences to motivate oneself to feel as healthy as one possibly can; it’s another thing altogether to erase all the multitudinous factors that make up “health” and replace them with a picture of a woman from a Nike ad. Fitspo is no improvement on thinspo; if anything it’s more insidious because it exploits a concept we’re all obsessed with -- our health -- to create a new unattainable, damaging beauty ideal. And I’m just not OK with that.