Looking for some clarification of "Health"

[Ombrax]

This is a serious question prompted by the thought that I can't possibly be the only one who's been frustrated by the locked threads we've had here lately, some of which seemed to be addressing legitimate areas of interest. I looked through the FAQ's but didn't really find anything there.

Q: Do we have an explanation of what health topics are OK to discuss on this sub-forum and what aren't?

I understand that the mods are in a difficult position - they don't want to be responsible for an online site where unaccountable strangers with unknown backgrounds provide advice on potentially serious, even life-and-death, medical questions. On the other hand, since I'm also a cyclist, I'm a member of other forums where important exercise-related medical issues are discussed in a sober manner, and somehow the world doesn't stop spinning on it's axis there. We certainly don't want to paint ourselves into a corner where we can only discuss blisters and butt pain.

Any explanation of how it works would be helpful.

Thank-you.

[JaapvanE]

I understand that the mods are in a difficult position - they don't want to be responsible for an online site where unaccountable strangers with unknown backgrounds provide advice on potentially serious, even life-and-death, medical questions. On the other hand, since I'm also a cyclist, I'm a member of other forums where important exercise-related medical issues are discussed in a sober manner, and somehow the world doesn't stop spinning on it's axis there. We certainly don't want to paint ourselves into a corner where we can only discuss blisters and butt pain.

I agree with this. I was an admin and head of the moderators for nearly a decade on a totally different board, so I also appreciate the need to draw a line somewhere that is clear to anyone. Even when sometimes the need for clarity of that line causes issues with otherwise OK threads. Sometimes it is a fine line indeed.

However, I see questions of a similar nature, but worded differently, pop up and continue. In my book, pointing people to different opinions about what healthy training looks like in general without advice to the person specificly should be OK. So I also need some guidance what can and cacnnot be done here.

[mict450]

I remember reading "the rules" of the forum years ago. I don't remember if it was posted in the present forum or the old one.

I did a quick look around in the forum closet & can't seem to find any thing remotely like a list of does/don'ts. If my memory can be trusted, aside from observing the rules of polite interchange of ideas, the only 2 rules I remember are:

1. This is the Concept2 forum. Other brands of
exercise equipment were not to be discussed.
2. Medical advice was not to be solicited or offered.

I offer the above with the caveat that my memory may not be trustworthy. Most days I can't remember what I had for breakfast.

[Citroen]

If my memory can be trusted, aside from observing the rules of polite interchange of ideas, the only 2 rules I remember are:

1. This is the Concept2 forum. Other brands of exercise equipment were not to be discussed.
2. Medical advice was not to be solicited or offered.

Your memory is as good as mine.

This is exactly the rules I'm playing to. That thread I've locked stepped over the mark for rule #2.
I'll add rule #3

• Please play nicely with one another.

[JaapvanE]

If my memory can be trusted, aside from observing the rules of polite interchange of ideas, the only 2 rules I remember are:

1. This is the Concept2 forum. Other brands of exercise equipment were not to be discussed.
2. Medical advice was not to be solicited or offered.

Your memory is as good as mine.

This is exactly the rules I'm playing to. That thread I've locked stepped over the mark for rule #2.
I'll add rule #3

• Please play nicely with one another.

As it is "your house" we are playing, we obviously should abide by these rules.

I do have a question, not intended to move any lines drawn, but just to make sure I won't break any rules. People often ask how far they can push in a training program, and sometimes the response is "If you can recover from it, it is OK". People like Milan and Seiler indicate people don't have to, and that it might even be counterproductive, which I assume is clearly inside the realm of "optimal training" and not "medical advice". So I assume a debate there is OK.

However, people like James O'Keefe is a research cardiologist, participated in the Copenhagen Cohort studies and published about the effect of endurance sports on cardiovascular health. He also has a medical opinion about this, which he published and that is debated in the medical communities. Although I am certainly interested in the outcome of such debate, I'm not qualified to assess its current concensus. But when I look at other medical professionals publishing about longevity, his ideas are there. So I assume (just like with Milan and Seiler) that this idea has some merit. I feel uneasy withholding such information when people are told to "Go all out if you can recover from it" from a training perspective, where they might hurt themselves in the long run. It might be part of a medical debate, but for me it is an important perspective to at least offer as I think people should make informed decissions. Do you consider this a violation of rules?

[nick rockliff]

If I had any concerns about anything related to health. The last place I would go to for advice is a public forum!!

People seem to have lost their ability to do things for themselves.

[Citroen]

However, people like James O'Keefe is a research cardiologist, participated in the Copenhagen Cohort studies and published about the effect of endurance sports on cardiovascular health. He also has a medical opinion about this, which he published and that is debated in the medical communities. Although I am certainly interested in the outcome of such debate, I'm not qualified to assess its current concensus. But when I look at other medical professionals publishing about longevity, his ideas are there. So I assume (just like with Milan and Seiler) that this idea has some merit. I feel uneasy withholding such information when people are told to "Go all out if you can recover from it" from a training perspective, where they might hurt themselves in the long run. It might be part of a medical debate, but for me it is an important perspective to at least offer as I think people should make informed decissions. Do you consider this a violation of rules?

If James joins here and clearly states his qualifications then (we have to assume) his advice is good. If you post James's updates without adequate attribution then that's grey and will be considered for locking/deletion.

If I had any concerns about anything related to health. The last place I would go to for advice is a public forum!!

Thanks Nick. That just about says it all.

[Sakly]

If I had any concerns about anything related to health. The last place I would go to for advice is a public forum!!

People seem to have lost their ability to do things for themselves.

+1!

[JaapvanE]

If James joins here and clearly states his qualifications then (we have to assume) his advice is good. If you post James's updates without adequate attribution then that's grey and will be considered for locking/deletion.

Well, I typically point to his TED talks andlet the man speak for himself.

[gvcormac]

I'm not sure of the rules or the enforcement mechanism. When I started on this platform, a lot of my stuff just disappeared. Hasn't happened in a while.

Enforcement of policies like this is a tricky issue. The distinction between medical advice and non-medical advice is unclear. So is the distinction between discussion and advocacy of potentially risky behaviour (e.g. max HR measurement).

I don't have a ready answer. Do we have abstracts of particular messages that were allowed/disallowed when they should/shouldn't have been?

[Citroen]

I don't have a ready answer. Do we have abstracts of particular messages that were allowed/disallowed when they should/shouldn't have been?

It's quite simple my rules override everyone else's rules except PaulH and the Concept2 staff. If you don't like that you can

• Complain to me
• Complain to PaulH
• Complain to Concept2
• Lump it

[gvcormac]

I don't have a ready answer. Do we have abstracts of particular messages that were allowed/disallowed when they should/shouldn't have been?

It's quite simple my rules override everyone else's rules except PaulH and the Concept2 staff. If you don't like that you can

• Complain to me
• Complain to PaulH
• Complain to Concept2
• Lump it

Yes, but you do rely on automated filters, don't you?

When I joined it was not entirely clear to me what the rules were, or who was in charge.