Intermittent fasting - 24 hours
juniper41
Posts: 3 Member
Hello... I see a lot of discussion about intermittent fasting but only 16 hours at a time. I researched a bit when I was starting out and found there are different methods and what is recommended for people over 40 is to fast for 24 hours a couple times a week, and even doing a 48 hour fast once every week or two.
If you have tried different methods what were your results like? I feel like not much is changing with my body except that my energy level is awesome the next day. I am very careful to make sure I’m keeping calorie levels where they should be. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
If you have tried different methods what were your results like? I feel like not much is changing with my body except that my energy level is awesome the next day. I am very careful to make sure I’m keeping calorie levels where they should be. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
5
Replies
-
I don't think any credible sources recommend people over a certain age fast for a full day or more every week.
If you feel like doing that gives you personally some kind of benefit, that's great! I feel best when I fuel my body daily, and haven't seen any verifiable evidence to convince me otherwise.20 -
I experimented with different fasting approaches as potentially a way I could control my caloric intake, but 16:8 is the one that stuck. I've done it almost every day for almost 7 months and am still going strong with it, 62 pounds lost so far. Actually, it's evolved into 17:7 because I find it easier as far as hunger and cravings to keep the gap between my two main meals at 7 hrs instead of 8. When I tried more radical fasts (e.g. 5:2), I felt like they were difficult and not worth the feelings of deprivation. 16:8 doesn't feel the least bit deprivational to me; I prefer to eat that way. The key is to find a system you like so that you can repeat it happily, whatever it is. Fasting for more than 16 hrs just doesn't make me happy, and honestly I don't think all that many people continue over time with full day fasts and the like, whereas 16:8 is kind of an easy way to diet, as far as time-restricted dieting goes.9
-
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.16
-
How can someone disagree with an OP's question? Questions do not contain assertions to disagree with, they're just questions.
Time for the Disagree button to go the way of the Woo.4 -
Just to clarify... I do still eat every day. The reason I stuck with the 24 hour fast this far is because i find it is far easier than a 16 hour fast. I fast from lunch to lunch the following day which makes it 24 hours yet I eat every day. I get a little bit of hunger around dinner time that passes within 2 hours, then in the morning I have zero hunger or cravings until lunch time where I eat a light linch to ease back into regular eating. It does not set me up to “binge”, rather I don’t feel like eating much unlike the 16 hour fasts do for me.
I’m surprised people here don't seem to know about 24 hour fasting. Google it, it’s called the 5:2 intermittent fasting method.8 -
Just to clarify... I do still eat every day. The reason I stuck with the 24 hour fast this far is because i find it is far easier than a 16 hour fast. I fast from lunch to lunch the following day which makes it 24 hours yet I eat every day. I get a little bit of hunger around dinner time that passes within 2 hours, then in the morning I have zero hunger or cravings until lunch time where I eat a light linch to ease back into regular eating. It does not set me up to “binge”, rather I don’t feel like eating much unlike the 16 hour fasts do for me.
I’m surprised people here don't seem to know about 24 hour fasting. Google it, it’s called the 5:2 intermittent fasting method.
Did you forget about the bit where you were talking of 48-hour fasting? Also, the 5:2 intermittent fasting is not going 24 hours without food 2 days a week. It is eating a restrictive amount of food for 2 days (normally somewhere around 25% of normal calorie intake, which equates to around 3000 calories a week for the 'average' person) and maintenance for the remaining 5. Some people find this easier and less restrictive than reducing their calories by 400-500 calories every day.16 -
Just to clarify... I do still eat every day. The reason I stuck with the 24 hour fast this far is because i find it is far easier than a 16 hour fast. I fast from lunch to lunch the following day which makes it 24 hours yet I eat every day. I get a little bit of hunger around dinner time that passes within 2 hours, then in the morning I have zero hunger or cravings until lunch time where I eat a light linch to ease back into regular eating. It does not set me up to “binge”, rather I don’t feel like eating much unlike the 16 hour fasts do for me.
I’m surprised people here don't seem to know about 24 hour fasting. Google it, it’s called the 5:2 intermittent fasting method.
I have never heard anyone call 5:2 a 24 hour fast. I see how it could be characterized that way now that you typed it out I guess if you only eat once on your fasting days (although you can do 5:2 without ever fasting for 24 hours). I still would not do it myself, as i don't feel well when I eat that little in a day. And I have not seen any reputable sources recommend 5:2 (or any other IF protocol) for people over a certain age.9 -
Just to clarify... I do still eat every day. The reason I stuck with the 24 hour fast this far is because i find it is far easier than a 16 hour fast. I fast from lunch to lunch the following day which makes it 24 hours yet I eat every day. I get a little bit of hunger around dinner time that passes within 2 hours, then in the morning I have zero hunger or cravings until lunch time where I eat a light linch to ease back into regular eating. It does not set me up to “binge”, rather I don’t feel like eating much unlike the 16 hour fasts do for me.
I’m surprised people here don't seem to know about 24 hour fasting. Google it, it’s called the 5:2 intermittent fasting method.
What you seem to be talking about is along the lines of OMAD, which is one meal a day. It's done in anywhere from a 20:4 window to a 23:1 window. Sounds like you are doing the latter. That's not really the same thing as fasting, ie abstaining from food for an entire day. And it's definitely not 5:2 fasting, which is what @Lillymoo01 described above.9 -
Agreed. What's being described here is OMAD.4
-
How can someone disagree with an OP's question? Questions do not contain assertions to disagree with, they're just questions.
Time for the Disagree button to go the way of the Woo.
Hell to the no! As of today I finally have myself a dislike stalker. It takes dedication to go through all of my old posts just to hit the dislike button. I am honoured. @juniper41 can I thank you for this blessing
9 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »How can someone disagree with an OP's question? Questions do not contain assertions to disagree with, they're just questions.
Time for the Disagree button to go the way of the Woo.
Hell to the no! As of today I finally have myself a dislike stalker. It takes dedication to go through all of my old posts just to hit the dislike button. I am honoured. @juniper41 can I thank you for this blessing
You have joined a rare and esteemed club. But in all honestly we in the Disagree-Stalked Club are probably only providing a training ground for the Disagree Stalker. Eventually stalkers end up on politics boards and the like, where they can let their passions run wild over things that people actually get passionate about. The notion that someone is chasing us all over MFP in order to register over and over and over that they disagree with our innocuous takes on, say, intermittent fasting or whether to log calories on Christmas Day just feels ... temporary. Like in those movies where the serial killer is shown as a child, turning a crayon-made drawing into his teacher and it's something disturbing though the drawing itself is harmless, and you just know that the serial killer is gonna take it to the next level at some point in the story, in search of that emotional catharsis.
Or maybe a better analogy would be those Seinfeld episodes where the people at the old folk's village are engaged in bitter political battles and machinations over ... absolutely nothing LOL4 -
To be fair to the disagree-er, OP's post did contain more than a question - it also contained the information that 24 or 48 hour fasts are recommended for people over 40.
Which is something I disagree with - I doubt any reputable sources recomend this.15 -
Seriously.
I didn’t make any recommendations, just saying what I had researched. A few months ago I had never even heard of intermittent fasting and found there are many methods. Thanks for the ONE actual answer I got. You guys are all so welcoming and positive on my first (and last) post. 
Now how can I delete the community, I don’t need this in my life if I can’t even ask a question. 7 -
You asked for people's opinions, and I thought you got some solid responses. I'm not sure what you were looking for that has made you so disappointed? There is a lot of bad info on the internet, and this community tries to combat that whenever possible so people don't waste time making themselves miserable thinking there is one true way they have to follow. Most of us speak from experience.
Intermittent fasting of any kind is a great way for some people to control appetite and hit their calorie goal, for others it can have the complete opposite affect.
There has been some research suggesting fasting can have some health benefits, but there has also been research showing no benefit, so right now it's inconclusive. Unfortunately, there are lots of "experts" online who latch onto the studies that say what they want, ignore studies that disagree, and promote methods to gain a following and make money.
If fasting makes you feel good and helps you get to and maintain a healthy weight, and you follow it in hopes some of the possible extra benefits might pan out to be true, that's great. But for many of us, fasting simply doesn't agree with us, and there is currently no conclusive science that suggests it's worth struggling to make it work if it doesn't come naturally. It's also the current popular health & fitness sales pitch, in the process of taking over from keto, which took over from Paleo. All viable options, but none the one true way. That's not judging you or your method or opinion, it's just the facts as I see them. Best of luck.19 -
Just to clarify... I do still eat every day. The reason I stuck with the 24 hour fast this far is because i find it is far easier than a 16 hour fast. I fast from lunch to lunch the following day which makes it 24 hours yet I eat every day. I get a little bit of hunger around dinner time that passes within 2 hours, then in the morning I have zero hunger or cravings until lunch time where I eat a light linch to ease back into regular eating. It does not set me up to “binge”, rather I don’t feel like eating much unlike the 16 hour fasts do for me.
I’m surprised people here don't seem to know about 24 hour fasting. Google it, it’s called the 5:2 intermittent fasting method.
I have never heard anyone call 5:2 a 24 hour fast. I see how it could be characterized that way now that you typed it out I guess if you only eat once on your fasting days (although you can do 5:2 without ever fasting for 24 hours). I still would not do it myself, as i don't feel well when I eat that little in a day. And I have not seen any reputable sources recommend 5:2 (or any other IF protocol) for people over a certain age.
I would agree it's not the 5:2 method. It's Brad Pilon's eat stop eat, and really just yet another type of IFing. His premise is that you only do it 1-2 times a week, and that 24 hours means you never go a full day without eating (stop eating after dinner one day and then have dinner the next day, 24 hours later). I don't do it (and have no interest in IFing), but I don't think done that way it's any better or worse than any other form of IFing.
I wouldn't do a 48 hour fast and don't see the point of these longer and longer fasts that seem to be getting trendy, but actually skipping food for a whole day (which I've done for religious reasons) ends up being something like a 36 hour fast or even more depending on when you eat dinner and breakfast.
Totally agree that I don't see what age has to do with it, and I don't think Pilon's plan has anything to do with age.
YouTuber Unnatural Vegan (who is generally pretty sensible) says she used the 1 day a week 24 hour fast as an easy way (for her) to reduce cals for a week, and I have a friend who swears by 5:2 for herself (she never was obese and just finds it easier to have 2 low days and eat what she wants on other days to control vanity weight -- I don't think that would work for me and I suspect I'd not like it). My friend does not fast for 24 hours but usually eats a little something for breakfast and dinner.7 -
paperpudding wrote: »To be fair to the disagree-er, OP's post did contain more than a question - it also contained the information that 24 or 48 hour fasts are recommended for people over 40.
Which is something I disagree with - I doubt any reputable sources recomend this.
Many of us disagreed with the OP but didn't hit the Disagree button. That button has turned into a way for the impulsive, excessively negative Woo'ers of the Times of Yore to reincarnate themselves, slamming on their mouse button every time they find something they don't agree with, or someone they're in a huff about, or whatever. God only knows what motivates those people to surf this forum all day long looking for posts to slam. I mean, it's a diet forum, not a politics board.
There should be no negative feedback button of any kind on a forum full of people discussing vulnerable, personal matters like their bodies and insecurities and successes and failures, and trying to be hopeful and positive. The Disagree button is 100 % negative, just as the Woo button was. It contributes nothing to group discussion other than to make some people feel bad. Adults are capable of disagreeing with someone without slamming on a button, and since only adults are allowed here, there is no reason to have that button.
The Disagree button will be gone in a year or two. MFP fought its own users on the stupid Woo button but gave in in the end. The same will happen with this one.5 -
-
Fair enough. I thought the OP was basically talking about OMAD because she said she eats something every day, but it was a bit fuzzy because she was also talking about other fasting styles. Eat Stop Eat - never heard that phrase before, has a nice zing to it LOL4 -
paperpudding wrote: »To be fair to the disagree-er, OP's post did contain more than a question - it also contained the information that 24 or 48 hour fasts are recommended for people over 40.
Which is something I disagree with - I doubt any reputable sources recomend this.
Many of us disagreed with the OP but didn't hit the Disagree button. That button has turned into a way for the impulsive, excessively negative Woo'ers of the Times of Yore to reincarnate themselves, slamming on their mouse button every time they find something they don't agree with, or someone they're in a huff about, or whatever. God only knows what motivates those people to surf this forum all day long looking for posts to slam. I mean, it's a diet forum, not a politics board.
There should be no negative feedback button of any kind on a forum full of people discussing vulnerable, personal matters like their bodies and insecurities and successes and failures, and trying to be hopeful and positive. The Disagree button is 100 % negative, just as the Woo button was. It contributes nothing to group discussion other than to make some people feel bad. Adults are capable of disagreeing with someone without slamming on a button, and since only adults are allowed here, there is no reason to have that button.
The Disagree button will be gone in a year or two. MFP fought its own users on the stupid Woo button but gave in in the end. The same will happen with this one.
Back before the woo and disagree buttons, people who posted incorrect information were met with pages and pages of posts telling them they were wrong. Now they just get a bunch of disagree reactions on their post, and a couple of posts spelling out why. As someone who was here for all of it, I can assure you the current system is a vast improvement, the fact that a few people misuse it not withstanding. I'm a pretty sensitive person and the fact that I've had some woo/disagree stalkers in my time has never scared me into not participating.
The OP read like it was recommending something, and people disagreed with that recommendation. It sounds like OP didn't intend it to make the statement some of us read it as. This type of misunderstanding and differences of opinion is perfectly normal in a public conversation, and IMHO is healthy. I for one would not choose to be a part of a forum that required everyone to be positive and supportive, even if the information and opinions being discussed were misleading or wrong. I wasted way too much time chasing fads and bad info to put up with that. Being told I was wrong about stuff here played a huge roll in my success!
ETA: Sorry for the off topic post OP. There is a ton of good info and support in this forum, and I really do hope you stick around and profit from it like so many of us have :drinker:24 -
paperpudding wrote: »To be fair to the disagree-er, OP's post did contain more than a question - it also contained the information that 24 or 48 hour fasts are recommended for people over 40.
Which is something I disagree with - I doubt any reputable sources recomend this.
Many of us disagreed with the OP but didn't hit the Disagree button. That button has turned into a way for the impulsive, excessively negative Woo'ers of the Times of Yore to reincarnate themselves, slamming on their mouse button every time they find something they don't agree with, or someone they're in a huff about, or whatever. God only knows what motivates those people to surf this forum all day long looking for posts to slam. I mean, it's a diet forum, not a politics board.
There should be no negative feedback button of any kind on a forum full of people discussing vulnerable, personal matters like their bodies and insecurities and successes and failures, and trying to be hopeful and positive. The Disagree button is 100 % negative, just as the Woo button was. It contributes nothing to group discussion other than to make some people feel bad. Adults are capable of disagreeing with someone without slamming on a button, and since only adults are allowed here, there is no reason to have that button.
The Disagree button will be gone in a year or two. MFP fought its own users on the stupid Woo button but gave in in the end. The same will happen with this one.
I disagree (and clicked the disagree button) for all the reasons kimny72 mentioned. Who cares if a few renegades are going to use it indiscriminately. It is an easy way to register legitimate disagreement and if someone, like kimny72, has already stated the reasons why I feel that way, I don't have to type out a whole post.
Also, there is a lot of woo and misinformation that gets posted around here. A mechanism for registering disagreement is a good thing in my view.20 -
paperpudding wrote: »To be fair to the disagree-er, OP's post did contain more than a question - it also contained the information that 24 or 48 hour fasts are recommended for people over 40.
Which is something I disagree with - I doubt any reputable sources recomend this.
Many of us disagreed with the OP but didn't hit the Disagree button. That button has turned into a way for the impulsive, excessively negative Woo'ers of the Times of Yore to reincarnate themselves, slamming on their mouse button every time they find something they don't agree with, or someone they're in a huff about, or whatever. God only knows what motivates those people to surf this forum all day long looking for posts to slam. I mean, it's a diet forum, not a politics board.
There should be no negative feedback button of any kind on a forum full of people discussing vulnerable, personal matters like their bodies and insecurities and successes and failures, and trying to be hopeful and positive. The Disagree button is 100 % negative, just as the Woo button was. It contributes nothing to group discussion other than to make some people feel bad. Adults are capable of disagreeing with someone without slamming on a button, and since only adults are allowed here, there is no reason to have that button.
The Disagree button will be gone in a year or two. MFP fought its own users on the stupid Woo button but gave in in the end. The same will happen with this one.
I disagree (and clicked the disagree button) for all the reasons kimny72 mentioned. Who cares if a few renegades are going to use it indiscriminately. It is an easy way to register legitimate disagreement and if someone, like kimny72, has already stated the reasons why I feel that way, I don't have to type out a whole post.
Also, there is a lot of woo and misinformation that gets posted around here. A mechanism for registering disagreement is a good thing in my view.
And yet the OP, brand new to the forum, got drowned in Disagrees for asking a legit question and has now decided, after what, an hour here, to leave, due to the negative reaction. So there is the Disagree button in action, in all its glory: running a new user off. People hitting a button to disagree with something that wasn't even an assertion of some kind, but a question.
I am on a variety of other fora; none of them have negative sanction buttons and somehow everyone manages to get along, argue, disagree, be friends, and so on, without a button. There is more comity and camaraderie on those fora and I think MFP's insistence on having a penalty button is part of the reason for that.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »To be fair to the disagree-er, OP's post did contain more than a question - it also contained the information that 24 or 48 hour fasts are recommended for people over 40.
Which is something I disagree with - I doubt any reputable sources recomend this.
Many of us disagreed with the OP but didn't hit the Disagree button. That button has turned into a way for the impulsive, excessively negative Woo'ers of the Times of Yore to reincarnate themselves, slamming on their mouse button every time they find something they don't agree with, or someone they're in a huff about, or whatever. God only knows what motivates those people to surf this forum all day long looking for posts to slam. I mean, it's a diet forum, not a politics board.
There should be no negative feedback button of any kind on a forum full of people discussing vulnerable, personal matters like their bodies and insecurities and successes and failures, and trying to be hopeful and positive. The Disagree button is 100 % negative, just as the Woo button was. It contributes nothing to group discussion other than to make some people feel bad. Adults are capable of disagreeing with someone without slamming on a button, and since only adults are allowed here, there is no reason to have that button.
The Disagree button will be gone in a year or two. MFP fought its own users on the stupid Woo button but gave in in the end. The same will happen with this one.
I disagree (and clicked the disagree button) for all the reasons kimny72 mentioned. Who cares if a few renegades are going to use it indiscriminately. It is an easy way to register legitimate disagreement and if someone, like kimny72, has already stated the reasons why I feel that way, I don't have to type out a whole post.
Also, there is a lot of woo and misinformation that gets posted around here. A mechanism for registering disagreement is a good thing in my view.
And yet the OP, brand new to the forum, got drowned in Disagrees for asking a legit question and has now decided, after what, an hour here, to leave, due to the negative reaction. So there is the Disagree button in action, in all its glory: running a new user off. People hitting a button to disagree with something that wasn't even an assertion of some kind, but a question.
I am on a variety of other fora; none of them have negative sanction buttons and somehow everyone manages to get along, argue, disagree, be friends, and so on, without a button. There is more comity and camaraderie on those fora and I think MFP's insistence on having a penalty button is part of the reason for that.
That reaction is on the OP.
I've been on a variety of other forums, including a book one, and this is the most mild in its disagreements (and tends to be the most oversensitive in the reaction to reasoned disagreement) of any.
I'm on record as strongly disagreeing with the choice to have anonymous reactions, but really, not being able to deal with people disagreeing with one is pathetic. I've seen regular posters disagreed with for purely factual and correct information (earlier today, Lynn for explaining why Vit A from animals or supplements is possible to OD on but not "Vit A" from veg).
I'd be in favor of getting rid of all reaction buttons, but don't assume you won't have as many or more people quitting because people express disagreement with something (which I think was more of the issue in this thread). A lot of people think being disagreed with is inherently mean and wrong, even if that position is basically a denial that facts exist.
For the record, I'm more likely to explain my disagreement than to just hit disagree, and plenty of people get mad at that and then (I suspect) disagree with posts of mine that are just personal opinion and thus subjective. It's not like the reaction is usually the issue, vs. (gasp!) daring to say "no, that's not correct."9 -
I'm with Kimny: Before there was a negative click-reaction, things were worse, more insults, more fights, more repetition of the same tedious disagreements. Having a negative click-reaction keeps threads shorter, and disputes calmer.
OP: If an eating schedule with firm rules helps you manage calories, and isn't too extreme (doesn't negatively affect energy level for example), it's a good thing for you.
The science is ambiguous about objective benefits of fasting, with evidence advocates of either side, yea or nay, can cite.
Speaking as an older person myself (64 now), I personally find that my older self is a little bit less physically resilient than my younger self. My body handles stresses of any sort less well, and takes longer to bounce back. (That's actually the most important difference I see, in myself, with age.)
You know you best, but I personally would avoid IF strategies on that basis unless persuaded that they were for some health reason essential to me, or gave me some truly major over-riding calorie control benefit.
Since a more flexible eating schedule worked fine for me to lose and maintain, that's what I do.
I'm confident you can figure out what works best for you. :flowerforyou:10 -
I've been on a variety of other forums, including a book one, and this is the most mild in its disagreements (and tends to be the most oversensitive in the reaction to reasoned disagreement) of any.
I'm on record as strongly disagreeing with the choice to have anonymous reactions, but really, not being able to deal with people disagreeing with one is pathetic. I've seen regular posters disagreed with for purely factual and correct information (earlier today, Lynn for explaining why Vit A from animals or supplements is possible to OD on but not "Vit A" from veg).
We've certainly beat this dead horse to a bloody pulp; it's well into "He's dead, Jim" territory, but I'll just respond to this with one final point. In no way am I suggesting that people shouldn't articulately disagree with posts they disagree with. What I'm saying is that having a button that's undeniably turning into an "I don't like this post and/or poster" button - just like its forefather the Woo button - invites abuse and trolls, and isn't helpful to comity and collaboration on a board where people are seeking answers on sensitive topics about their bodies, and others are trying to help out. I get what Kimmy is saying, that it's needed shorthand on a forum where the same kinds of questions come up over and over, and the same kind of explanations would otherwise need to be typed a billion times. I get that. But like the Woo before it, this button has quickly evolved into a generic social media downvote function, and like every board where the downvote shows up, it has a negative impact. Is it worth it? I think not; you and others think it is. Fair enough.
I would rather see MFP put its development time into fixing the food database search function than into badges and social media buttons.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »To be fair to the disagree-er, OP's post did contain more than a question - it also contained the information that 24 or 48 hour fasts are recommended for people over 40.
Which is something I disagree with - I doubt any reputable sources recomend this.
Many of us disagreed with the OP but didn't hit the Disagree button. That button has turned into a way for the impulsive, excessively negative Woo'ers of the Times of Yore to reincarnate themselves, slamming on their mouse button every time they find something they don't agree with, or someone they're in a huff about, or whatever. God only knows what motivates those people to surf this forum all day long looking for posts to slam. I mean, it's a diet forum, not a politics board.
There should be no negative feedback button of any kind on a forum full of people discussing vulnerable, personal matters like their bodies and insecurities and successes and failures, and trying to be hopeful and positive. The Disagree button is 100 % negative, just as the Woo button was. It contributes nothing to group discussion other than to make some people feel bad. Adults are capable of disagreeing with someone without slamming on a button, and since only adults are allowed here, there is no reason to have that button.
The Disagree button will be gone in a year or two. MFP fought its own users on the stupid Woo button but gave in in the end. The same will happen with this one.
I disagree (and clicked the disagree button) for all the reasons kimny72 mentioned. Who cares if a few renegades are going to use it indiscriminately. It is an easy way to register legitimate disagreement and if someone, like kimny72, has already stated the reasons why I feel that way, I don't have to type out a whole post.
Also, there is a lot of woo and misinformation that gets posted around here. A mechanism for registering disagreement is a good thing in my view.
And yet the OP, brand new to the forum, got drowned in Disagrees for asking a legit question and has now decided, after what, an hour here, to leave, due to the negative reaction. So there is the Disagree button in action, in all its glory: running a new user off. People hitting a button to disagree with something that wasn't even an assertion of some kind, but a question.
I am on a variety of other fora; none of them have negative sanction buttons and somehow everyone manages to get along, argue, disagree, be friends, and so on, without a button. There is more comity and camaraderie on those fora and I think MFP's insistence on having a penalty button is part of the reason for that.
The way the OP reacted indicates that she never wanted advice. Just a pat on the back saying that what she was doing was the best way of going about it and that everything she had researched was correct. It is not the fault of those that responded that she reacted the way she did. We were not abusive and we did not put her down. Just tried to help her with information which was not bro-science.
Personally, I don't mind the disagree button. It is far better than a tirade of posts after yours telling you how wrong you are. It also shows others that maybe that post should not be taken seriously if it has many people in disagreement. Also, my self-worth is not dictated by whether others agree with me or not. People disagreeing with my posts is water off a ducks back. If you can not accept that the opinions of others differ from yours then maybe public forums are not the place for you.11 -
@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.12 -
@lgfrie I totally hear what you're saying but to be fair you weren't here for what led to the negative buttons. I wish I could transport you back in time to like 4 years ago on these forums. Threads routinely climbed to hundreds of posts in an hour or two, starting with a newbie giving bad advice or making a fad diet fueled statement, followed by dozens of well-meaning posts all posted within about 5 minutes of each other all telling the newbie they were wrong, followed by the newbie feeling attacked by several pages of posts getting defensive, then white knights galloped in to protect them, and then the thread would devolve into sarcastic memes and cat pictures, and it would finally get closed and then nuked. It got nasty, and no one learned anything from those threads as any good advice was drowned in the deluge. It was super easy for a creative troll to blow up a thread with one post. And as a newbie myself, THAT almost scared me away. It felt a little like Thunderdome
I feel like this might sound like I'm picking a fight, but honestly I'm just trying to provide context. I know there are some long timers who would rather do away with the negative reaction as well. (And I'm hoping if we keep chatting about it, OP will wander back and decide to stick around
)
I don't think there is a perfect way to protect newbies until they learn the tone and tenor of a forum. I firmly believe if you're new to an online community you should lurk for a few days at least to get a feel for how to proceed and what to expect when you do post.
I agree with your last paragraph 100%
13 -
I've been on a variety of other forums, including a book one, and this is the most mild in its disagreements (and tends to be the most oversensitive in the reaction to reasoned disagreement) of any.
I'm on record as strongly disagreeing with the choice to have anonymous reactions, but really, not being able to deal with people disagreeing with one is pathetic. I've seen regular posters disagreed with for purely factual and correct information (earlier today, Lynn for explaining why Vit A from animals or supplements is possible to OD on but not "Vit A" from veg).
We've certainly beat this dead horse to a bloody pulp; it's well into "He's dead, Jim" territory, but I'll just respond to this with one final point. In no way am I suggesting that people shouldn't articulately disagree with posts they disagree with. What I'm saying is that having a button that's undeniably turning into an "I don't like this post and/or poster" button - just like its forefather the Woo button - invites abuse and trolls, and isn't helpful to comity and collaboration on a board where people are seeking answers on sensitive topics about their bodies, and others are trying to help out. I get what Kimmy is saying, that it's needed shorthand on a forum where the same kinds of questions come up over and over, and the same kind of explanations would otherwise need to be typed a billion times. I get that. But like the Woo before it, this button has quickly evolved into a generic social media downvote function, and like every board where the downvote shows up, it has a negative impact. Is it worth it? I think not; you and others think it is. Fair enough.
I would rather see MFP put its development time into fixing the food database search function than into badges and social media buttons.
The forums are a 3rd party product (Vanilla forums). Other than integration time (likely relatively minor), those things don't much compete for MFP developers' time, I suspect.8 -
@lgfrie I totally hear what you're saying but to be fair you weren't here for what led to the negative buttons. I wish I could transport you back in time to like 4 years ago on these forums. Threads routinely climbed to hundreds of posts in an hour or two, starting with a newbie giving bad advice or making a fad diet fueled statement, followed by dozens of well-meaning posts all posted within about 5 minutes of each other all telling the newbie they were wrong, followed by the newbie feeling attacked by several pages of posts getting defensive, then white knights galloped in to protect them, and then the thread would devolve into sarcastic memes and cat pictures, and it would finally get closed and then nuked. It got nasty, and no one learned anything from those threads as any good advice was drowned in the deluge. It was super easy for a creative troll to blow up a thread with one post. And as a newbie myself, THAT almost scared me away. It felt a little like Thunderdome
I feel like this might sound like I'm picking a fight, but honestly I'm just trying to provide context. I know there are some long timers who would rather do away with the negative reaction as well. (And I'm hoping if we keep chatting about it, OP will wander back and decide to stick around )
I don't think there is a perfect way to protect newbies until they learn the tone and tenor of a forum. I firmly believe if you're new to an online community you should lurk for a few days at least to get a feel for how to proceed and what to expect when you do post.
I agree with your last paragraph 100%
^^This, 100%
Trust those of us who have been around a good long while, it was worse. Back when I joined 5 years ago, paleo was the big thing, and as an archaeologist, I kind of have some issues with that particular fad diet. Most of my early posts no longer exist for the simple reason that they were in paleo threads that ended up getting nuked after their inevitable descent into dumpster fires. A particularly fond memory (/sarcasm) is when one zealot decided to try to intimidate me using information he'd found via Google (I foolishly had just enough information in my profile to allow that - joys of an uncommon name and profession in a small country). It was innocuous info, and I laughed at his pathetic attempt, but that's the kind of thing that used to happen when things got out of hand. I'll take a 'disagree' (which I also laugh at) any day.13 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »To be fair to the disagree-er, OP's post did contain more than a question - it also contained the information that 24 or 48 hour fasts are recommended for people over 40.
Which is something I disagree with - I doubt any reputable sources recomend this.
Many of us disagreed with the OP but didn't hit the Disagree button. That button has turned into a way for the impulsive, excessively negative Woo'ers of the Times of Yore to reincarnate themselves, slamming on their mouse button every time they find something they don't agree with, or someone they're in a huff about, or whatever. God only knows what motivates those people to surf this forum all day long looking for posts to slam. I mean, it's a diet forum, not a politics board.
There should be no negative feedback button of any kind on a forum full of people discussing vulnerable, personal matters like their bodies and insecurities and successes and failures, and trying to be hopeful and positive. The Disagree button is 100 % negative, just as the Woo button was. It contributes nothing to group discussion other than to make some people feel bad. Adults are capable of disagreeing with someone without slamming on a button, and since only adults are allowed here, there is no reason to have that button.
The Disagree button will be gone in a year or two. MFP fought its own users on the stupid Woo button but gave in in the end. The same will happen with this one.
I disagree (and clicked the disagree button) for all the reasons kimny72 mentioned. Who cares if a few renegades are going to use it indiscriminately. It is an easy way to register legitimate disagreement and if someone, like kimny72, has already stated the reasons why I feel that way, I don't have to type out a whole post.
Also, there is a lot of woo and misinformation that gets posted around here. A mechanism for registering disagreement is a good thing in my view.
And yet the OP, brand new to the forum, got drowned in Disagrees for asking a legit question and has now decided, after what, an hour here, to leave, due to the negative reaction. So there is the Disagree button in action, in all its glory: running a new user off. People hitting a button to disagree with something that wasn't even an assertion of some kind, but a question.
I am on a variety of other fora; none of them have negative sanction buttons and somehow everyone manages to get along, argue, disagree, be friends, and so on, without a button. There is more comity and camaraderie on those fora and I think MFP's insistence on having a penalty button is part of the reason for that.
The way the OP reacted indicates that she never wanted advice. Just a pat on the back saying that what she was doing was the best way of going about it and that everything she had researched was correct. It is not the fault of those that responded that she reacted the way she did. We were not abusive and we did not put her down. Just tried to help her with information which was not bro-science.
Personally, I don't mind the disagree button. It is far better than a tirade of posts after yours telling you how wrong you are. It also shows others that maybe that post should not be taken seriously if it has many people in disagreement. Also, my self-worth is not dictated by whether others agree with me or not. People disagreeing with my posts is water off a ducks back. If you can not accept that the opinions of others differ from yours then maybe public forums are not the place for you.
Perfectly stated!3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions