This question has been edited to reflect a wider applicability to the Fitness SE however it has been closed without due consideration to those edits.
The question is in the same vein as the following;
Given the sheer number of closed questions based on "not being a medical professional" then user should not be advising on the clinical results of submerging the body in cold water.
Given the sheer number of closed questions based on "not being a medical professional" then user should not be advising on the clinical psychiatry or psychological approaches of dealing with stress.
Given the sheer number of closed questions based on "not being a medical professional" then user should not be advising on the speciality of qualified podiatrists and chiropodists.
We could extend this list to essentially incorporate any profession regulated by a register of a professionals or official body including personal training and exercise guidance.
If someone is not a registered Personal Trainer why should the Fitness SE community allow a layman to write a professionally uninformed response but then deny similar responses if they are about pain alleviation, exercise technique or common ailments?
A quick scan of the questions here yields far more closed and off topic flags than any other Stack Exchange site I have been part of.
This is a serious question about what Fitness SE stands for and why it has arbitrarily applied rules.
Physical Fitness is commonly defined as "...a general state of health and well-being and, more specifically, the ability to perform aspects of sports, occupations and daily activities." Occasionally we may add "...without fatigue."
It seems this community simply takes a lucky dip at whether something is in the remit of medical advice or not.
Bouldering more efficiently to prevent injury is off topic but advising on the curing flatfoot is not. A sterling example is
How can advising someone on the recovery rates of the human respiratory system be on-topic? It's a highly complex study of epidemiologic research.