8 replies to this topic

[Michael]

All:

There is a special subtopic in the supps section for members to post their supp regimen for comment, inquiry, and critique; I'd like to have the same thing set up for CR diets.

If you'd like to see a new forum section, please show:
1) Why it makes sense to introduce a new section (Can the topic be addressed under an existing heading?)

I get requests for this myself, as does my Beloved, and it's a subject of significant interest on the CR list and (informally) in the CR and Nutrition topics already (but just scattered in with the regular posts).

It doesn't fit well under any existing heading: all specific-individual-diet posts get mixed in with more topic-specific posts in Nutrition and in CR, and clearly the nutritional issues in CR diets are distinct from general Nutrition subjects.

Ie, not the diet of people just eating healthy AL diets, nor people who think they're on CR but just idly throw up a summary of their eating pattern, but diets of people who are serious about doing CR, rigorously defined as such: Calorie Restriction with Adequate Nutrition, documented with COM data.

The rule will be that posts must include dietary records run through nutrition software for a representative day or (preferred) average data for a week, to show quantitatively intake of Calories and essential nutrients.

2a) That there are already plenty of topics (more than 20) which would fit better into the new section

There are actually very few, but (again) plenty of evidence of interest, and a clear need; and I do expect that 'if you build it, they will come.'

OR
2b) That you have a lot of great material, which you would like to contribute in the new section, and you pledge to keep the new section alive.

The former, in the sense that I'll do mine, but obviously it doesn't make sense for one individual to be providing a substantial amount of material to this or (I would have thought) any topic.

Certainly, I would work to keep the section alive by inviting people etc, but I'd much rather have quality than quantity: I would put a pinned note to this effect on the subforum, and moderate the topic accordingly, moving general nutrition posts into the "Nutrition" forum.

Edited by Michael, 15 October 2010 - 06:50 PM.
Clarifying, and addressing specifically the guidance for such requests per Caliban

[chrono]

Caliban, thanks for the clarification; I've been wondering if Forum Issues was still for suggestions as well, since the name was changed.

I think this is an excellent idea, and could potentially attract some more serious contributors.

My one question is about the somewhat rigorous exclusion criteria; in the regimen forum, there's no requirement for "only serious" supp/noot users. We get a lot of hit-and-run, kind of "I'm a college student, will these 10 things help me study?" kinds of threads. But I don't feel as though they detract from the quality enough to warrant excluding them. In fact, I move threads there that are only applicable to a single person's case, to keep the main fora more generally informational. The more serious threads always get the most attention, as long as the user posts a "what I just changed" post to bump it to the top of the list. The star ratings also help, in this case.

Can you explain why excluding more casual CR users would increase quality to an extent that it would justify the exclusion? I guess there's something to be said in this case for encouraging people to "do it right" by only allowing a certain format, but it would also be nice to keep the "help me get started" (personal-only) threads out of the main forum. It will also be hard to define what "rigorous CR" is, as I recall seeing several uncivil debates about it in the past. If we do decide to go with that, I'd suggest you post some explicit guidelines in the sticky, to avoid confusion and hurt feelings from rejected threads. I'd also include instructions for getting editing/mod powers for the thread, as I've done in the regimen section.

Edited by chrono, 15 October 2010 - 01:23 AM.

[Michael]

My one question is about the somewhat rigorous exclusion criteria; in the regimen forum, there's no requirement for "only serious" supp/noot users. We get a lot of hit-and-run, kind of "I'm a college student, will these 10 things help me study?" kinds of threads. But I don't feel as though they detract from the quality enough to warrant excluding them.

Yes, and that's fine, because people are interested in that, as are similar questions about diet -- in the Nutrition forum. However, CR is a quite specific kind of diet, where first and foremost the issue is to ensure Calorie Restriction with Adequate Nutrition, and you can't meaningfully discuss that balance in the absence of hard data: are you getting your vitamins and minerals, or not? Are you meeting your Calorie targets, or not? And now, arguably: is your protein intake excessive? (You need GRAMS, not "I get most of my protein from fish").

Having a general description of a healthy- (or unhealthy-) looking diet and discussion of how to improve it is certainly a subject of interest in the general nutrition discussion, but useless for CR discussion. You have to have these minimum issues addressed before you can even begin tweaking around the edges ("get some lycopene!" "what, no fruit?" "There's an awful lot of dairy there"); they are the baseline, minimum threshold issues that need to be addressed, quantitatively, for CR practice.

In fact, I move threads there that are only applicable to a single person's case, to keep the main fora more generally informational. The more serious threads always get the most attention, as long as the user posts a "what I just changed" post to bump it to the top of the list. The star ratings also help, in this case.

Not at all clear what you're saying, here.

Can you explain why excluding more casual CR users would increase quality to an extent that it would justify the exclusion?

If a person is not doing this basic crunching, s/he may be eating healthily, and may be eating few Calories, but is not doing CR (casual or no) by definition, except by luck. BELIEVE me: anyone who's ever actually crunched hir healthy-looking low-Calorie diet discovers it's full of holes, and crunching is the only way to find them.

I guess there's something to be said in this case for encouraging people to "do it right" by only allowing a certain format, but it would also be nice to keep the "help me get started" (personal-only) threads out of the main forum.

Yes, but 'help get me started' only is meaningful if we know where you're starting .

It will also be hard to define what "rigorous CR" is

The subtopic rules are an operational defintion .

If we do decide to go with that, I'd suggest you post some explicit guidelines in the sticky, to avoid confusion and hurt feelings from rejected threads.

I did propose that, NB.

I'd also include instructions for getting editing/mod powers for the thread, as I've done in the regimen section.

I'm not opposed to doing that -- but why, exactly?

[chrono]

Most of my question about exclusion was in wondering if the "CRAN" part of the "CRAN documented with COM data" requirement implied that a poster would have to be at a certain 'level' of calorie restriction to qualify for inclusion here. There are many people who use CRON-o-meter and track their nutrition accurately, who may not be as hard-core as yourself and a lot of the CRSociety folks, or doing CR by one definition. For example: if I'm on a basic, traditional low-fat, calorie-target (think Weight Watchers), and tracking my nutrition using CRON-o-meter, am I doing CR? Also, from some of your own excellent posts, my impression is that the best way to begin CR is very gradually, so some people who start their tracking may not be restricting calories to any meaningful percentage. I was wondering about how "CR" was defined in this case, moreso than the tracking requirements (which are quite easily defined), and that this is what should be defined explicitly. May not be an issue at all, but just something that occurred to me, and would be helpful to clarify in such a requirement.

I'd also include instructions for getting editing/mod powers for the thread, as I've done in the regimen section.

I'm not opposed to doing that -- but why, exactly?

To use Funk's regimen thread as an example, the format that seems to be most useful is to maintain the first post of the topic as what the current regimen/diet is, and to post additions/removals/updates over time. Otherwise, the first post in the thread has a lot of outdated information, and is only useful as a point of reference for where a person began. An updated first post makes it quickly apparent what a person's entire, current program is, and scrolling through to the end of the thread will reveal what updates the person has made recently, and how their program changed over time. Of course, it's up to you to decide if this is applicable to what you're picturing, but I'd suggest that it's a powerful feature allowed by the format.

My discussion of the usefulness of a more 'personally-oriented' subforum in the supplements section was in wondering if a general diet regimen subforum would be useful here, as well; I realize that you're only proposing CR, but would it make more sense to start a "diet regimens" subforum, with CR regimens as a subforum of that?

Edited by chrono, 15 October 2010 - 08:44 PM.

[caliban]

Having more 'elite' sections where posting is restricted to high-quality contributions is definitely in line with future editorial policy, as long as such sections are actively maintained.

If there will likely be very few topics at first, are you sure you want to go for a whole sub-forum straight away, would it make sense to keep a few 'flagged' topics in the CR section (with a clearly visible tag that makes them stand out like the 'suggestion' tag attached to this topic)?

[chrono]

If there will likely be very few topics at first, are you sure you want to go for a whole sub-forum straight away, would it make sense to keep a few 'flagged' topics in the CR section (with a clearly visible tag that makes them stand out like the 'suggestion' tag attached to this topic)?

Michael should still answer, but my thought is that a specific subforum will be more likely to encourage contributions (as there would be a "place" for it), especially for people who are not yet members (thinking CRsociety folks). Pinning individual regimens might be slightly inappropriate, in the context of how pinned threads are usually used. Besides, Michael is pretty popular, so if he's moderating and participating, I would imagine that interest will rise pretty quickly.

Michael, would you consider making an announcement about this on the CRsociety list, if there is a subforum? As you said in your first post, it seems like a forum is a much better place than a mailing list for this kind of discussion, so it might be mutually beneficial.

(also, changed tag to Suggestion, as I created it more with this suboforum in mind)

Edited by chrono, 18 October 2010 - 12:26 AM.

[Michael]

Most of my question about exclusion was in wondering if the "CRAN" part of the "CRAN documented with COM data" requirement implied that a poster would have to be at a certain 'level' of calorie restriction to qualify for inclusion here.

Ah. As I've said many times, I really don't think one CAN quantify "%CR" in humans, and I don't think that being able to do so would be of much practical utility IAC. I do have some ideas on how to determine whether you're on CR at all, but I have no intention of enforcing them and couldn't IAC (one could make it up ). No, I just want it to be data-driven, and working from CR + AN, and not useless abstractions.

if I'm on a basic, traditional low-fat, calorie-target (think Weight Watchers), and tracking my nutrition using CRON-o-meter, am I doing CR?

If you're meeting your nutrition requirements, and are doing it for purposes of retarding the aging process rather than just to look beter in a Speedo, I would say 'yes' for the purposes of the forum (see my full criteria above for a fuller answer, but again, I see no need to insist on those for this subforum). Indeed, almost ANY CR diet looks something like SOME popular weight loss diet, whether it's Atkins, Ornish, South Beach, etc.

Also, from some of your own excellent posts, my impression is that the best way to begin CR is very gradually

Right: and as you say, someone could just be getting started, or already be overweight and still working hir way down).

I'd also include instructions for getting editing/mod powers for the thread, as I've done in the regimen section.

I'm not opposed to doing that -- but why, exactly?

To use Funk's regimen thread as an example, the format that seems to be most useful is to maintain the first post of the topic as what the current regimen/diet is, and to post additions/removals/updates over time. Otherwise, the first post in the thread has a lot of outdated information, and is only useful as a point of reference for where a person began.

Well, you don't need Mod powers to do that: one can already do that just by editing one's own post, no?

My discussion of the usefulness of a more 'personally-oriented' subforum in the supplements section was in wondering if a general diet regimen subforum would be useful here, as well; I realize that you're only proposing CR, but would it make more sense to start a "diet regimens" subforum, with CR regimens as a subforum of that?

I think, from what is obviously a very particular POV, both that it's more *needed* in the CR section, will be more likely to be noticed there, and helps to avoid confusion or cross-contamination.

If there will likely be very few topics at first, are you sure you want to go for a whole sub-forum straight away, would it make sense to keep a few 'flagged' topics in the CR section (with a clearly visible tag that makes them stand out like the 'suggestion' tag attached to this topic)?

But if they don't have constant new traffic, they'll just be bumped down the page and become invisible, won't they? And IAC, I'd rather have all such cases organized together, so people could compare and find them easily in one place, without glomming them together in a single thread.

(I actually don't see a problem with implementing a subforum even if there is very low traffic, unless it's just a big PIA for you guys to implement).

[chrono]

To use Funk's regimen thread as an example, the format that seems to be most useful is to maintain the first post of the topic as what the current regimen/diet is, and to post additions/removals/updates over time. Otherwise, the first post in the thread has a lot of outdated information, and is only useful as a point of reference for where a person began.

Well, you don't need Mod powers to do that: one can already do that just by editing one's own post, no?

No, this isn't the case. We can edit posts perpetually because we're moderators, but regular users can only edit their posts for an hour, and members for 24h. This is to prevent altering of past discussions, which could potentially be confusing/misleading.

At present, users must request this ability in their regimen thread (which is why I have the pinned announcement in the Supps subforum), and only full members may do so. It's considered one of the membership "perks," but depending on how essential you feel this function is, we may want to discuss allowing it for non-full members in the case of regimens.

would it make sense to keep a few 'flagged' topics in the CR section (with a clearly visible tag that makes them stand out like the 'suggestion' tag attached to this topic)?

But if they don't have constant new traffic, they'll just be bumped down the page and become invisible, won't they?

What caliban was suggesting was the possibility of pinning/stickying the threads, until there were more than a couple. If you look at the Forum Issues topic listing, there are 3 "Pinned" threads that remain at the top, even if they're never updated. But my thought was that these are usually used for general forum information, so pinning regimens would be somewhat unorthodox. In suggesting this, caliban may have been thinking that pinned threads would likely get more views, because not everyone clicks on a subforum; but I think I agree with a full subforum right off the bat.

Edited by chrono, 18 October 2010 - 01:18 AM.

[caliban]

The rule will be that posts must include dietary records run through nutrition software for a representative day or (preferred) average data for a week, to show quantitatively intake of Calories and essential nutrients.

Thats a pretty tough rule, I worry that few contributors will be able to participate in this, and the sub-forum will be hard to find and look rather deserted.

But if they don't have constant new traffic, they'll just be bumped down the page and become invisible, won't they?

looking at the current CR forum, if these threads have a post per week they are immediately visible, and even if they are just updated once per month, they would still be on the first page for most people.

What caliban was suggesting was the possibility of pinning/stickying the threads, until there were more than a couple.

no, I wasn't. I was suggesting "a clearly visible tag that makes them stand out like the 'suggestion' tag attached to this topic" -- but we could deviate from the general rule about pinned threads as well for this project.

I have added the special tag "CR diet" which can only be used in the CR forum. Why not trial it for a couple of days/weeks and if there are lots of these floating around, we'll move them into a subforum straight away!