Intermittent fasting - 24 hours

2»

Replies

  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    @lgfrie I know you are a poster that gets a lot of disagrees so you are coming at this from a different experience than I am. However, I don't think a majority of those are because they don't like you. It is simply because people disagree with what you have written. Why? They either contain bro-science which can not be backed up with peer-reviewed research, or you have inferred (whether intentional or not) that what works best for you, works best for all. That being said, you still have some posts which contain some sound advice.

    ****edit. I'll also add that although I disagree with some of what you write I do not dislike you in any way. The tone of your posts shows a person who is gentle and compassionate. A person who is thoughtful of others and a person with a helpful nature. These qualities are far more important to me than whether they think the same way as I do in regards to weight loss.

    Bro-science? Okey doke.
  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    If you're not prepared to consider that you're getting disagrees because of the content of your posts, and learn from that, expect to continue getting disagrees.

    This is unpleasant. Perhaps that is what you wanted. I'm out.

  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    chris_in_cal wrote: »
    A question folks. I've been posting on MFP for about ten years. I've posted a couple hundred times (I guess)...I am interested in IF which got me reading this thread....but that really isn't what this thread is about, is it?

    Is it possible to identify who clicked the buttons on my posts? In the newsfeed it identifies who clicked 'like' or who made a comment, but in these forum posts "insightful" "disagree" etc. can I "the poster" see who clicked the button.

    I've tried and not been able to see who made the clicks. Assuming it is not possible to identify who made the click, I gotta ask, who cares that some anonymous person clicked a button under one of my posts? After not being able to identify who made the clicks, since then I've just ignored them on my posts. Who cares? What are the consequences of getting clicks?

    If they are anonymous, I just don't get how anyone can really feel anything about a post getting anonymous clicks?

    I'm open to the possibility that I am very much missing the point, but I don't get it.

    --A very active, long time MFPer, who just doesn't get the intense feelings over this?

    Nope, the mods can see who reacted, but we cannot.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,238 Member
    edited December 2019
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    I woild hate for them to de-anonymize the reactions, because I know I would be tempted at least sometimes to see who had clicked disagree on some of my posts, and that could not lead anywhere good.

    Right now, a small number of disagrees on a post sparks only amusement or puzzlement in me, and a large number gets me re-reading my post to see if I misspoke or was unclear or said something that could be hurtful or hostile (hopefully unintentionally so).

    I think it would be much easier to take a disagree personally if you knew where it was coming from. I would prefer to assume that the unexplained disagrees are coming from people who aren't engaging with actual posts.

    Sorry Lynn, and yes, I hit the first disagree on your post on this :wink:

    I think that it would be beneficial to see who disagrees in terms of having a discussion and the ability to gauge whether a disagree is worth thinking about and discussing, or if it is a disagree that you can just send to the big bit-bucket in the sky!

    Plus disagree/woo trolls would come out of the wood-work just like silverfish and cockroaches! --> insert a fake smiley to pretend that the intended insult wasn't :smiley:

    But, if the mods deleted all disagrees first before implementing visibility in order to honor the previously implied / expected partial (since mods have always been able to see who clicks what) anonymity... that would be fine too!
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    edited December 2019
    chris_in_cal wrote: »
    My ignorance has been bliss. I have literally not looked at these responses to my posts after I learned they were anonymous. Now you good thoughtful respondents are suggesting to look at them and perhaps a large number on one of my posts my afford me the chance to reconsider what I wrote, in light of the feedback, a chance to learn or grow...okay, I just might start being more aware.....Hug anyone?
    :smiley:

    Dude, you were fine until the last line. Kinda creepy honestly.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,091 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    No need to be sorry.... [snip].... If MFP were to take this step, would you also support deanonymization of the other four clicks? Why or why not? (If not, why should people be able to anonymously support a post containing statements that are being factually disputed, while people on the other side of the factual dispute should be denied anonymity?)

    I'm Canadian, therefore I am always sorry! :lol:

    You're right in my *quite possibly mistaken* belief that visibility would result in "grown up" behavior.

    No real feelings on the rest of them being visible.

    But I admit that in thinking about likes, hugs, etc, becoming visible I am reminded of something that happened a while back on MFP and with which I very substantially disagreed.

    Namely a back channel request to support post by a friend on the main boards, not because it was making an argument I agreed with and believed in, because and solely because it was by a friend and they were getting dog-piled (or cat piled in the pre-one-click-reaction days when the cat gifs would come out!)

    Suffice it to say that I have a major problem supporting a friend's position if I don't agree with it and I don't consider it truly supportive.

    And that I would be quite against clicking like or agree or insightful if I didn't actually agree, which would potentially make SOME friends unhappy, I guess, maybe?!?

    So on balance, and to my surprise, I guess, I am no on the visibility? Or at the very least conflicted!

    Yup -- people could also get upset with someone if they didn't click a positive button, even if they didn't click disagree.

    I gave you a hug, because I think if you're always sorry, you deserve a hug.

    I think I may have been Canadian in a former life, as I'm always saying I'm sorry IRL, and in the moment I say it, I do feel sorry, but then I find myself wondering why I'm sorry for someone else bumping into me.

    Also, I'm wondering if I need to be worried about my disagree stalker, as my last post hasn't been disagreed with yet. But maybe they're only taking a nap.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,322 Member
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    I don't know who actually would recommend this, but certainly not dieticians who have extensive training in the field. A binge/restrict cycle will be the most likely outcome.

    One or two 24 hour fasts followed by eating normally the other days is not binge, restrict. It is one of many ways to create a calorie deficit. If fasting 24 hours causes a person to binge, then it is probably not an effective way for that individual to create a calorie deficit. This approach to intermittent fasting is the one laid out in Eat Stop Eat where the pattern tends to be eat supper, then do not eat again until supper the next day (24 hours later). Thus, a person does eat every day, and the calorie goal for the non-fasting days would be ones maintenance. This can actually help some people in adhering to their long term calorie goals.
  • jdhcm2006
    jdhcm2006 Posts: 2,254 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    The way I look at it, if someone is so determined to click 'disagree' on even the most innocuous post I make, it's their time and energy wasted. I actually get a bit of amusement from the idea that my being here bothers them.

    Now if I were to get a large number of 'disagrees' on a post, I'd look to see if I had made a bad misstatement of fact or misjudged a post, but I wouldn't be thinking it's personal.

    Agreed. I had someone disagree with a post about an anecdote about my personal health. I found that funny bc there’s nothing to disagree about, my diagnosis is my diagnosis 🤷🏽‍♀️. You definitely can’t take disagree personally. You honestly shouldn’t take anything that happens on a chat board personally, but I guess that is easier said than done.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited December 2019
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    I don't think anyone who can't shrug off an anonymous disagree click is going to be able to shrug off an identified disagree click or a post explaining a disagree click, and I think some people who could shrug off the anonymous disagree click won't be able to shrug off an identified disagree click or a post explaining a disagree click. I say that as someone who shrugs off anonymous disagree clicks but suspect I would occasionally be in danger of participating in conflict escalation if I knew who to direct my defense of my disagreed-with post toward.

    I respect your view, but having been on forums where one could see who up and downvoted, the downvotes were pretty few, and I think it would also reveal who the trolls are (the people who follow specific posters around and click disagree on everything they say) if they continued to do it, which I would find valuable as it would reveal bad and childish behavior currently done anonymously.

    I also think it's really easy to assume that the person disagreeing is a specific person and being annoyed when in fact it's not that person at all, and would likely help with the silly disagreements we've been seeing more and more (yelling at a whole thread and the posters in it because of dislikes on a post leading lots of people to jump in to say they didn't do it but assume it was for various reasons).

    Also, it might allow for better clarification if no one does explain why the disagrees. (I think a decent amount of disagrees seem to be for carelessly read posts, and having the reaction not be anonymous might cause a bit more thought before clicking.)

    But I don't feel that strongly about it (or whether we have the disagree reaction or not, or any reactions for that matter). I basically agree that why should I put more thought into it than the person likely doing it, and that getting a disagree or two is no big thing (sometimes it could even be accidental). As others have said, if I were to get a bunch outside of a heated discussion with a similar number of people expressing disagreement for understood reasons in the thread, I'd likely consider whether I was unclear. I do not think it expresses dislike or hate or whatever it is.

    I have had posts with a few disagrees where I really didn't know why (and it was something more of interest than the usual "disagree" if I say "this is likely an unpopular opinion but peanut butter is overrated"* -- often they were posts where I was talking about some of my past overly neurotic food obsessions and why I decided they were bad for me where I wasn't sure if it was someone coming from a "clean eating is the only healthy eating" standpoint or, instead, someone who misunderstood me to be saying I currently thought about food the way I used to. Seeing who did it likely would have clarified that and better allowed me to clarify my point if I felt compelled to.

    *Are they disagreeing that it's an unpopular opinion or that it's overrated?
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,279 Member
    Lemurcat, I had a disagree-er recently.
    ( actually quite a few of my saying nothing much posts have had a single disagree lately so not sure if that is sign of a stalker?)
    Thread was an OP asking for clean snacks - I asked her to define for us what she meant by clean and also suggested fruit as a snack.

    Not sure what there is in that to disagree with??
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,279 Member
    .

    Query: If MFP were to take this step, would you also support deanonymization of the other four clicks? Why or why not? (If not, why should people be able to anonymously support a post containing statements that are being factually disputed, while people on the other side of the factual dispute should be denied anonymity?)

    Yes.

    Same reasons - is helpful to see who agreed or is in support.

    And sometimes I come back to a thread, conversation has moved on but I want a person who responded to me to know I read and appreciated their post.

Categories