“Science shows us this” … until it conflicts with my actions.
“Science based coach” … until I go down the biohack rabbit hole without stating known limits (which Is okay to do).
“Science based training” … which means I can act out of scope.
“Academia is broken”… yet we somehow know more than any other person who’s trained formally in specific fields.
I’ll be the first to admit I don’t agree with everything from my field. I am contrarian. But there is a difference in thinking outside the box or using data informed though processes + applications OR pushing for a better way to do things than what’s happening on this app anymore.
A lot of people scoff at me staying in academia. But there’s merit to getting gritty and doing the work. There’s layers to science the lay person or even person with a BS/MS Aren’t getting exposed to.
It’s easy to also be confident when you can trust your audience is “too stupid to question it” or knowing contrarian viewpoints without the nuance of why you think differently are attractive to those “seeking solutions”.
This entire rant is sparked by a post I saw where someone was promoting being a “fat burner” (a heavily flawed narrative in this space) by assessing your CO2 output (okay valid) because “fats made of carbons so you breath out more CO2 when burning fat”. Uh … that’s carb metabolism buddy.
^^ but it’s half science that sounds like truth and a hack that sells. Not my small font rant post on a long weekend holiday raising red flags up to consumers on this.
We NEED constructive conversations that drive better science + application. But we probably need less every day Joe’s with over confidence communication that . Which won’t stop any time soon. So stay cautious my friends — and never be afraid to ask “how”.