There are consistent meta questions about the scope of this site. Even the mods ask questions in meta too. It seems to me that even a mod can't judge the scope of this site. What's the matter with the site? Should we consider sending this site back to Area 51 to redefine the scope?

I understand that it is up to the mods to judge whether the questions are on/off topic, but even the judges need something as a basis. It is clear that there are arguments over the scope.

The title of this site is "Fitness and Nutrition", so what is fitness and what is nutrition? According to the free online oxford dictionary:

fitness noun

1 the state of being physically healthy and strong

2 the state of being suitable or good enough for something

nutrition noun 1 the process by which living things receive the food necessary for them to grow and be healthy

And look at the FAQ of this site:

What kind of questions can I ask here?

Fitness and Nutrition - Stack Exchange is for physical fitness professionals, athletes, trainers, and those providing health-related needs. Topics include exercise and training, nutrition and diets, and activities related to strength, endurance, agility, and cardiovascular fitness.

So what is "those providing health-related needs"?

And diet:

diet noun

1 [countable, uncountable] the food that you eat and drink regularly

2 [countable] a limited variety or amount of food that you eat for medical reasons or because you want to lose weight; a time when you only eat this limited variety or amount

3 [singular] a diet of something (disapproving) a large amount of a restricted range of activities

These terms are all very confusing. Maybe we really need to shutdown this site to start over again. In my opinion, when I think of word "Fitness", I could think of a girl/boy doing moderate amount of exercise and control his/her calory intake by selecting healthy food. When I think like this, the orange/apple question is on topic......And when I think of the word "Nutrition", I am thinking carbos, fats, sugar, vitamins, minerals, don't you agree?

I was once an active user here, but then again some power user here really want to drive nutrition question out of here, so I am out of here too, until I would like to ask about some gym question.

  • 3
    are there specific questions you think should not have been closed? looking at your profile I see 17 questions of which only 2 are closed? Sep 20, 2011 at 7:37

2 Answers 2


This site is in Beta, and so a bit of self-examination is in order, and meta is the place for that. However, when I look at the list of meta questions, I see only one relating to broad scope definition (until this one) with any activity in the last 3 months.

The result of those discussions regarding nutrition is that nutrition questions are very much on topic as long as there is some reasonable connection to health and fitness.


Yes, Fitness & Nutrition is in a state of chaos. My impression from recent meta questions (OK, one more) is that there is no consensus on the site scope. Frankly, I don't know what the protocol is at this point:

  • Jeff "has been lobbying for the site to be shut down".
  • Some moderators with heavy activity are advocating repeatedly and strongly for the site to move towards Fitness, with Nutrition as a subtopic. I'm not sure what it would take for this to occur.
  • Other moderators from this site (some of whom are very active on other SE sites) are advocating that we keep all Nutrition questions. I'm not sure what it would take for this to occur, but it would require changing the FAQ at least, and some guidance on what constitutes an appropriate Nutrition question.
  • Some users and moderators have proposed changing to Fitness and Sports. There is some overlap between the people and reasoning of this idea and the second idea, but they are distinct proposals. I'm not sure what it would take for this to occur.
  • Polls have been proposed, but to my knowledge have not been taken. I'm not sure what it would take for this to occur.

Whichever option we go with, we need to decide. (With what method, I do not know.) Once decided, we need to modify the site title and FAQ appropriately. Currently, as you and others have pointed out, the FAQ has ambiguous terminology and does not fit the site title, and the very concept of the site and its user base has been thrown into question.

  • 1
    Would be interested in a link or proof of your first claim about Jeff.
    – going
    Sep 22, 2011 at 5:10
  • It's in his comments on this answer: Jeff Atwood says "@vperic in all honesty, I'm kind of lobbying for this site to be shut down -- I don't think it's working and should be sent back to square one." He's also very plain in comment-discussions elsewhere on meta that he doesn't think that the site is working. Sep 22, 2011 at 14:48
  • My opinion regarding Jeff's statement is that any solution is fine, as long as something happens. This is the gist of my answer: if the site is broken, then either fix it like any number of the many suggestions, or go ahead and shut it down. Sep 22, 2011 at 14:50
  • 1
    Thanks for pointing that out, its not something that would have been easy to dig out (I did some searching). I think your take on it is correct, something needs to be done. They have a similar problem on the Skeptics site. There is no definitive consensus on what is and what isn't on topic and it saps the fun out of the site when nobody is sure what is on topic.
    – going
    Sep 22, 2011 at 23:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .