0

Question here.

It is about Fitness&Nutrition. We have already similar open threads, see the related. Now the issue is the slant. I propose its change to "historical" where questioner makes it clear that s/he is interested in the historical evolution, comparing societies and perhaps covering some books that claim (without evidence) that some uncivilized societies have no XYZ problem as in in civilized socities (a straw-man in a way). Perhaps, the most popular book is currently the "Born to run" -book, idealizing the far-away-living people... does there exist any evidence for its claims about harmfulness?

Related Information

  1. A paper covering this topic more throroughly (alert first draft, may contain spelling errs etc but the importance of opening this question should be clear) here.

  2. Duplicate question with the current slant, here, about aspartame but address also artificial sweeteners.

4
  • Do you have any evidence of aspartame being dangerous or whether shady protein packages are an exceptional case?
    – Ivo Flipse
    Commented Dec 31, 2011 at 5:45
  • 1
    @hhh I don't agree with the edit. You've just changed one opinion to another (and completely rewritten it in the process) without relating it a specific fitness goal. This site is also not meant to debunk or debate myths either.
    – user241
    Commented Dec 31, 2011 at 14:36
  • @hhh BTW, aspartame is not the only nasty out there. I'll take it over, say, fructose, and splenda/sucralose is also an unknown...
    – G__
    Commented Dec 31, 2011 at 21:16
  • Strawman, strawman -- look at the site already, it already has this kind of questions open. Now it is a dupe (not offtopic) -- the question is about the slant, I am proposing "historical" slant. The aspartame thread is now in the "Related" -section.
    – user2598
    Commented Jan 5, 2012 at 9:27

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

It is an interesting question, but it boils down to general health and food safety, not a question of fitness, and thus off-topic according to the site scope defined in the FAQ. Specifically:

  • nutrition unrelated to exercise, such as food safety, nutritional needs for children, etc.

So any proposal to open that question, as is, would have to re-open the broader discussion of site scope, and address whether food safety as a whole belongs here (it does not IMO).

2
  • ...what about this question here? Go on and close it if you believe in your writing even yourself. I think the main reason to close the question is "duplicate" until better phrased. The only reason to open the question is probably historical (comparing different societies), we have already good thread about the "artificial sweeteners" such as aspartame. (I know there is more exact term than just "historical" for the thing, now just blackout but hopefully you got the point about evolutionary process.)
    – user2598
    Commented Jan 5, 2012 at 9:30
  • @hhh Indeed, that falls under the same guidelines (which were not in place back when that question was posted). I see that it has already been closed. Also, once you reach 500 rep you'll be able to vote to close questions yourself. In the meantime, you can flag questions that you think should be closed for one reason or another.
    – G__
    Commented Jan 5, 2012 at 17:09

You must log in to answer this question.