[CRS_META] List Policy on Trimmng and Full Text WAS Re: [CR] [CRCOMMUNITY] Holick on Vitamin D in New England Journal of Medicine

[Michael Rae]

All:

Thou hast no right but to do thy Will.

First: I've moved this thread from the main list to Meta, as it's about 
List policy, not CR. Conrad, I've cc'ed you specifically in case you 
aren't familiar with this List policy (as your posting to the main List 
suggests) and aren't signed up. Here is info on this list and how to 
sign up:

http://calorierestriction.org/Mailing_Lists#crs_meta

CONRAD ROLAND wrote:
>> Michael Rae wrote:

>> I've not yet seen the full text of this new review (1), but it's from
>> Michael Holick, who along with Raymond Vieth has been at the forefront
>> of advocacy for a boost of vit D RDA to 800-1000 IU/D, and from the
>> given subheadings, it looks like ground that's been covered by these
>> gents many times before (so please, Al and others wth full-text access,
>> do NOT firehose the list with the full text or even large blocks of it,
>> which would be redundant to multiple previous postings of their work:
>> do, however, feel free to exerpt any SMALL quotes of genuinely novel
>> information).
> 
> I object to this kind of request by Michael Rae to RESTRICT INFORMATION
> normally supplied as full text by Dr. Al Pater.
> 
> This is not at all acceptable to me!

Conrad, it is, to begin with, against List policy even to post the full 
text of /scientific abstracts/ from MEDLINE to the List (see eg "Posting 
Medline And Other Abstracts of Published Articles" under the List rules:

http://calorierestriction.org/Mailing_Lists#rules

This is primarily for copyright reasons, but also because (especially 
with long articles) people getting the List in digest mode find it VERY 
difficult to wade thru' huge single posts.

Second, as I said, a full-text posting would be redundant to ground 
we've covered many times before, including (for better AND for worse) 
repeated postings of full-text reviews by Holick himself, as well as 
Vieth and others in the same camp. And the material Al DID choose to 
post this time could be acquired on any nutrition software for foods, 
and the label for supplements.

> Many List reader hesitate to go to the CR Archives, search for the relevant
> posts and citations, because it still takes patience and quite a bit of
> valuable time

Doubtless. Many of us resent going over the same old FAQ over and over 
again.

> I have posted about Vitamin D3 extensively several months ago, quoted
> professors Michael F. Holick and Reinhold Vieth (not "Raymond"!) many times,

Exactly my point (apologies, however to Dr. Vieth) ...

> and made the case for much higher intake of natural (through sun exposure)
> and supplemental Vitamin D3. Even 1000 IU/d may not be *nearly sufficient*
> for effective modifications of BMD, cancer prevention etc.

You're arguing here with Holick, not me ...
> 
> Professors Holick and Vieth, Garland and Grant do not normally publish "in
> relatively obscure fora....." [1]. The American Journal of Clinical
> Nutrition is not exactly an obscure forum

I'm sorry, but it quite IS an obscure forum, and I was careful to 
specify that I meant "the *relatively* obscure fora in which these guys 
usually get a hearing" (emphasis original). AJCN is indeed a place where 
they've published repeatedly; it has an Impact Factor of 5.8, whereas 
NEJM's is *44.0* -- well ahead of even most other major medical journals 
(JAMA and The Lancet are both in the mid-20s), and far ahead of any 
nutrition journal. This is not a slight against Holick, Vieth, or 
nutritioin journals: to be clear, I am disapointed that nutritioinal 
science gets such short shrift in medical education and practice, have 
long promoted a position close to Holick's and Vieth's, and am PLEASED 
that Holick's review has finally gotten a  high-impact journal as a venue.
> 
> I agree with Michael totally on one recurrent issue: Many CRS members do not
> read many of the posts and citations at all; as a result, we seem to revisit
> the same issues within weeks or, if we are very lucky, on a three to six
> months cycle. 
>
If you have an alternative solution in mind, this is indeed the forum on 
which to post it. If you feel passionately about it, eg, you might 
volunteer some time influshing out the CRS Wiki.

> Nobody is talking about "excessive exposure to sunlight", but *moderate*
> exposure, which depending on skin color and desired endogenous vitamin D3
> production, amounts to at least 10-15 minutes, better 20-30 minutes, and for
> dark-skinned people as long as 60-90 minutes or more.


Again, you're arguing here with HOLICK, not me ...

Love is the law, love under will.

-Michael

-- 
The MPrize <http://www.Mprize.org> : War Bonds for the Campaign Against 
Aging! Why I'm on board: http://www.cron-web.org/m-prize.html