The FastDay Forum

Nice one, I think that this is a good thing to do. People will always find negatives about everything whether we put forward our story or not, so why not do an update on how we are getting on? The naysayers will still be saying it, and all we are doing is putting our actual evidence on the table!

Hi Moogie,

As regards the thread “Talk Sport presenter asking for support on air”, I trust that all the negative comments that were levelled against me last week will be reinstated on the forum.

I notice that my comments were not only removed, but have disappeared from the “view your posts” section as well.

This I don’t understand. I have kept a separate record of all the exchanges, but that is not the point.

Of course, it was absolutely correct that you removed posts regarding extended fasting, but this is a different scenario altogether.

If details of the forum do reach the nationals, or, indeed, any magazine, it is only right that what is subsequently viewed by the public is unadulterated, and that includes the defamatory comment made about me being a “troll”.

The days of hiding behind Mickey Mouse names are over, as has recently been discovered lately in the press. Everyone on a forum must be confident in the knowledge that they are at liberty to express an opinion, however much of a bigot it might make them appear to be.

Ballerina states that there are hundreds of members who would come forward to support the 5:2 WOE. Are there? If so, how many of them are following Mosley’s “mantra”, and not introducing a load of variations, including other diets altogether?

If you are “torn to pieces”, using your own words, once something is in print, it doesn't matter how many people subsequently write to support or defend, the damage is done.

Just one look on the forum at the words "plateau, disappointed, weight gain, and stalled" will speak volumes. Be careful!

I began the 5:2 diet with my first fast on 28th February and have fasted for two days a week since. I have stuck as closely to 500 calories on my fast days as I felt I could without becoming obsessed if I went over by a few or even a couple of hundred calories.I have not counted calories on my feed days. I have to date lost one stone and 13 pounds. I am not an active member of the forum because it has worked for me, but I am very glad of its existence. When I first started this I read pretty much all the posts to glean as much info as possible and if I have had any questions it's so easy to find posts that have already addressed my concerns.
I have always had an unhealthy relationship with food, though until stopping smoking a year ago was only a few pounds overweight (surprisingly). Now, I haven't binged once since February 28th, I have eaten everything that I wanted, though more and more I find what I want are vegetables, fruit and raw nuts. I still love bread but I make spelt bread now and love the nuttiness of it. I am at my target weight now, but I can't conceive of stopping 5:2, it has become a way of life that has made me so happy. I think there will be plenty of people like me that have similiar experiences but aren't on the forum much because we have no problems.
I am so grateful to Moogie and everyone else who makes this forum a enjoyable, knowledgeable, friendly place to browse.
x

Hi Bixie,

I, too, contrary to what people think, love the 5:2 WOE. As I have posted, many times, I do a lot of sport, and it has really helped with my stamina.

You sound as though you eat healthily anyway, but my doubts about this WOE are more to do with very overweight people being led to believe that it is OK to continue eating very unhealthy foods.

I will continue with it, but only for the alleged health benefits.

If you go for it, tell us. If the reporting is negative we can all pile in (it seems there is a way to comment on most news stories now) and that should just put the egg on the face of the journo who is not looking at the evidence.

Good plan

[Moogie]

tomtank: I was not overly involved with the 'troll' situation but I'll go and have a look at what was discussed by staff. I do recall that the 'troll' name-calling was deemed unnecessary and believe that comment was removed. I wasn't aware that anything you said was removed but if it was I'm sure there was good reason. The staff here don't go about removing posts on a whim I can assure you. Unfortunately once a post has been deleted there is no way to reinstate it.

May I please just take a moment to ensure that you are aware of the meaning of the term 'troll' with reference to an internet discussion? I wouldn't want you to think that someone here had called you a troll in the sense of the hideous mythical creatures! A 'troll' or 'trolling' is when a user seems to be posting a controversial viewpoint with the intent of causing an argument. It's true that a number of your posts have come across as controversial and on some occasions it seems as if you're less than positive about 5:2 - sometimes the way you word things can appear a bit less tactful than they could be and because of this I can understand why someone might think it was trolling. It was felt that the comment was unjustified and to help calm the argument I gather the post was removed. For the most part this forum has been incredibly peaceful and friendly.

I do think that you're taking it a little too personally and that in general folks need to grow thicker skin when it comes to passing comments online. It's hardly as if someone has accused you of being some heinous criminal or that they've been insulting of a late relative. As far as I'm concerned saying you think that someone's a troll is no more than schoolyard name-calling at worst. Please don't take it to heart.

As for things being unadulterated, part of the job of moderators is to remove content which is in violation of the rules, be it adult content, trolling (and yes, calling someone a troll if they are not could in itself be classed as trolling), illegal activities etc as well as trying to keep the peace. Short of having every post here approved by a member of staff before it becomes visible it is very difficult to ensure that every post complies with forum policy before it is seen and possibly responded to. I'm sorry if you're not happy with how a situation was handled, but we haven't had any other complaints about it and I've learned the hard way that one cannot please everyone all the time. If you're unhappy with the way this place is run or with how you are getting on with other members you are more than welcome to vote with your feet, although I'm sure your interesting viewpoints would be missed.

as well as the tracker stats we have the questionnaire stuff

support forums of all sorts tend to be dominated by people seeking solutions to problems.

Thanks, Moogie, for your reply! I genuinely like the forum, although it may seem otherwise!

Several posts were removed from that thread, including two from people who wondered why I was a member.

I haven't time to respond fully to your post at the moment, but I will later today.

I think that the word "troll" was a little inappropriate, because of its use to describe those who write awful comments on deceased people'a Facebook pages etc.

Not for one moment did I think it referred to the fictional character you mentioned.

As you know, my main criticism of 5:2 is that very overweight people are not in a position, health-wise, to lose weight at a very slow rate, whilst continuing to eat some foods which are doing them harm.

[Moogie]

Thank you tomtank, I've got to get back to work now anyway, lunch break's just about over unfortunately. I suppose I don't think of the word troll in quite such a severe context as you generally, I don't know how long you've been on the web but back in the early days (I've been running site since '95) the meaning was more along the lines of what I posted earlier - and I don't think the person who posted it about you meant it in such a strong/nasty way.

I suppose it's like many words, varying in severity - take 'criminal' for instance. The same word lumps together someone who's nicked a chocolate bar from a sweetshop to someone who's raped and murdered dozens of victims. I guess 'troll' is the same now, from someone who is just 'stirring' for the heck of it (fairly harmlessly, but to the annoyance of others) to someone who's being a horrible, insensitive human being. I suppose the media has made the word troll more harsh than it used to be.

[wildmissus]

I'm glad you contacted a newspaper...yes there probably will be some backlash from it there usually is no matter what but the whole point is that you have the stats as evidence to back up your comments. I am also another one of the hundreds who will support you.

[carorees]

as well as the tracker stats we have the questionnaire stuff

support forums of all sorts tend to be dominated by people seeking solutions to problems.

@Moogieis it possible to use the tracker data to produce a bar graph showing how many users have an average weight loss per week of different amounts so that we can see how many people are really not losing weight? So perhaps the categories should be something like <100g/week, 101-300g/week, 301-500g/week, 501-700g/week, 701-900g/week, >900g/week. That way we could fairly easily end this debate about how many people are struggling to lose weight on 5:2!!! "Just give me the facts, ma'am, just the facts!"

It's a good idea Caroline but the data is always subject to the criticism that people may tend to post results when they get good ones, and people who give up will normally stop posting their results altogether. So while it shows that 5:2 works for many people, it doesn't really answer the question of how many it doesn't work for...

Moogie, another possibility if the Guardian show no interest would be Xanthe Clay at the Telegraph, she does 5:2 herself and has interviewed Dr M.

[Moogie]

I'll see what I can come up with, although meanwhile the frequency distribution chart gives a bit of an indication - weekly loss along the bottom. Okay, so that's not the number of users but the number of days worth of data contributing to the stats we can figure out a rough percentage...

32681 days worth of data for up to 0.1kg/week loss
(or only 14361 if you only count up to 0kg/gaining each week)
112806 days worth of data for losses over 0.1kg/week
(or 131126 if we're going for anything over 0!)

Which would make about 29% of the data for losses of under 0.1kg a week. Or, if we're doing it from 0kg, 11% with no loss, or gains.

Shouldn't be difficult to sort out a script later to calculate the total amount of users in each weight loss band though

Chores & dinnertime first!

[Moogie]

Thanks Dom, if I don't hear back from the Guardian by the middle of tomorrow (seems long enough, they should have plenty of people checking through the emails surely?) then I'll contact Xanthe.

[carorees]

It's a good idea Caroline but the data is always subject to the criticism that people may tend to post results when they get good ones, and people who give up will normally stop posting their results altogether. So while it shows that 5:2 works for many people, it doesn't really answer the question of how many it doesn't work for...

Moogie, another possibility if the Guardian show no interest would be Xanthe Clay at the Telegraph, she does 5:2 herself and has interviewed Dr M.

OK, so it doesn't give an accurate number of people failing on 5:2, but I suppose it does give an indication of the number of active forum members who are struggling and so may show how the number of posts asking about not losing weight is not representative of the forum as a whole?

I think Xanthe Clay would be a great person to contact as she is doing 5:2 and I love her recipes too!