Natural setpoint vs goal weight

karengetsfit

My whole adult life I've been battling the same 10 lbs. At 5' 5", if I eat what I want I'm around 130. When I consciously limit my intake I'm 120, but I have to be vigilant about it. Does anyone else feel like they have a natural set point and when you go below that weight, your body resists? I think my set point is around 127-133, and maintaining anything below 125 takes some effort and as soon as I ease up I go back up to ~130.

Mistapholeezkat

Same for me. I am the same height and if I eat what I want(within reason) I am 135-140. Eating whatever I wanted and often got me up to 165 five years ago. I have to make an effort to log everyday to stay at 130. I would love 125 but that takes a lot of exercise and still eating 1200 cals a day, so I feel that is not sustainable for me because I love food and drink

Zedeff

Your BMI at both weights (120, 130) is within the healthy range so I wouldn't stress too much about the "battle." There is some evidence for the set point theory but when you're talking about 5-8 lbs, this is probably more of a lifestyle issue. Kevin Hall's obesity model suggests that each pound of fat accounts for 10 calories per day of maintenance; you're nickle and diming when it comes to a 50-80 calorie per day maintenance change.

overin2015

I wonder if it just is a decision about whether the 10 extra pounds is worth the crazy effort it takes to maintain that at your healthy already weight. I bet you look fantastic at 130 so i wouldn't spend my life wasting one more day trying to kill myself to be "120" if you are healthy.

970Mikaela1

I know for me I can eat just about whatever I want and stay at 170. When I cut to 160 for the summer I have to be very very diligent in counting my intake.

minties82

I've never had a set point. I'm very short (148.5cm or about 4'11") but have a large frame as measured by wrist abd elbow. I wonder what mine will be?

My goal is 52kg/115lbs which is at the heavy end of a normal BMI for my height.

rhonderoo

I'm shorter, at 5'1" and have lost close to 100 lbs this year. But at 133 - 135, still at 1200 calories... my body seems to be done. I know I can shock my system and lose the last 15 lbs, but I hope that I don't have to do that to maintain 120... I'm hoping with the better weather and more activity, I can kick the last 10 - 15 lbs on 1200 - 1400 calories (depending on exercise). To answer the question, it appears my setpoint is 135... *sigh*

SezxyStef

not sure I subscribe to "set point"...I have weighed anywhere from 135-205 and based on my own experience I am comfortable anywhere between 135-165 and it doesn't take much effort to be at that weight range...and still eat whatever I want but not "over eating" that's when I gain. But I agree with a PP that said that the range is fine..not sure why at 5ft 5 you would want to be on the low end.

If you want to be smaller and can get past the "scale" start lifting.

SueInAz

overin2015 wrote: »

I wonder if it just is a decision about whether the 10 extra pounds is worth the crazy effort it takes to maintain that at your healthy already weight. I bet you look fantastic at 130 so i wouldn't spend my life wasting one more day trying to kill myself to be "120" if you are healthy.

I've been battling this for close to two decades and the "set point" slowly kept creeping up. I could get to the low 120s (I'm 5'3 with a medium-large frame) but as soon as I lost focus I'd be at 130+ again. This is exactly the reason I started lifting weights. Now I'm in the mid-130s, can wear the clothes I was wearing when I weighed in the mid-120s, and I don't have to deprive myself to maintain that weight. I'm much happier.

andielyn

karengetsfit wrote: »

My whole adult life I've been battling the same 10 lbs. At 5' 5", if I eat what I want I'm around 130. When I consciously limit my intake I'm 120, but I have to be vigilant about it. Does anyone else feel like they have a natural set point and when you go below that weight, your body resists? I think my set point is around 127-133, and maintaining anything below 125 takes some effort and as soon as I ease up I go back up to ~130.

Until I hit my mid-40's this was me, EXACTLY. I had to reply because it is uncanny--I literally was always 127-133, same height. I never "dieted". I really never tried to get below 125.

onyxgirl17

I believe my body gets comfortable with certain weights once it has reached them. It hasn't budged off 136 for a month. Once it gets going again it's fine. I want the set point to be lower though

Gska17

I was just wondering this same thing this morning as I'm two pounds away from my goal. I'm sure when I reach 135 I'll bounce between 135 and 140 during maintenance. FTR I'm 5'8.

(I've been down into the low 120s but it wasn't as a result of healthy habits. (Stress and anxiety, basically ate nothing. That weight just wasn't right for me.)

ana3067

970Mikaela1 wrote: »

I know for me I can eat just about whatever I want and stay at 170. When I cut to 160 for the summer I have to be very very diligent in counting my intake.

Because you are losing weight. Requires less food. Being lighter also requires less food to maintain.

ana3067

Starving african children natural setpoint 50lbs right?

You maintain "easily" on x weight because that's a calorie goal you are happy and comfortable eating for your activity levels. If being 10lbs lighter also means eating 100-200 calories less every day you may find it harder to maintain that new caloric intake thus it's not worth it. Your body doesn't defy physics so it's not going to NOT lose weight when you eat at a deficit. Once you eat at that new weight's maintenance, you're not going to gain just because your body for osme reason prefers when you're 160 vs 150lbs if you are eating calories to maintain your 150lb frame. Eat to maintain a 160lb frame at 150lbs and you will gain weight.

Simple.

kommodevaran

Setpoint is BS and the body doesn't "know" or "want" anything; it just reacts to what you do to it. It's very simple. Food tastes great and for most of us, we who love to eat, it takes more effort - calorie deprivation and/or exercise - to maintain a lower weight than a higher weight. The smaller body needs less calories too.

girlviernes

Setpoint is not BS, it's a hypothesis to explain how it is that weight tends to be relatively easily maintained within certain ranges and that these ranges seem to be person specific. The main thing is that there will be a weight below which you need to work inordinately hard to get to and stay at, and for most people, it's not worth it to aim for a goal weight below that level.

SergeantSausage

Set points are bunk.

You can be, within reason and with little effort, any weight you choose to be.

girlviernes

SergeantSausage wrote: »

Set points are bunk.

You can be, within reason and with little effort, any weight you choose to be.

Why the "within reason" qualifier?

970Mikaela1

ana3067 wrote: »

970Mikaela1 wrote: »

I know for me I can eat just about whatever I want and stay at 170. When I cut to 160 for the summer I have to be very very diligent in counting my intake.

Because you are losing weight. Requires less food. Being lighter also requires less food to maintain.

Less food makes me hangry...

ana3067

girlviernes wrote: »

SergeantSausage wrote: »

Set points are bunk.

You can be, within reason and with little effort, any weight you choose to be.

Why the "within reason" qualifier?

5'7 female wanting to be 80lbs isn't within reason. I'm taking it to mean you need to keep bodily health in mind when deciding on goal weight

Annr

I read in "The Best Life Diet" book by Bob Greene, that our set point in tied into our chemical impulses. Your body sends signals to other parts, your stomach, your brain to tell you when to eat, when to stop eating. I would imagine our set point is directly tied into our metabolism, how we use the food, and how it is stored. We are an amazing machine :-)

girlviernes

Yes, what I'm getting at is that the within reason qualifier is an acknowledgement that there is inherently a range of natural weight that one can go beneath. It's not only not healthy, but it is extremely difficult to achieve. Not merely a matter of a simple deficit for long enough. YES, it can occur, but there are multiple physiological and psychological defenses against this outcome. These physiological and psychological defenses will occur when you transgress some threshold of relative adipose stores that is monitored by the body. The point being, the body does regulate weight. Not perfectly, it is possible to overcome the regulation and become overweight or underweight.

970Mikaela1

ana3067 wrote: »

970Mikaela1 wrote: »

I know for me I can eat just about whatever I want and stay at 170. When I cut to 160 for the summer I have to be very very diligent in counting my intake.

Because you are losing weight. Requires less food. Being lighter also requires less food to maintain.

iifym calculator says difference is ~ 70 calories to maintain at 160 or 170.

Annr

girlviernes wrote: »

Yes, what I'm getting at is that the within reason qualifier is an acknowledgement that there is inherently a range of natural weight that one can go beneath. It's not only not healthy, but it is extremely difficult to achieve. Not merely a matter of a simple deficit for long enough. YES, it can occur, but there are multiple physiological and psychological defenses against this outcome. These physiological and psychological defenses will occur when you transgress some threshold of relative adipose stores that is monitored by the body. The point being, the body does regulate weight. Not perfectly, it is possible to overcome the regulation and become overweight or underweight.

I agree. I think the body is quite efficient. The problem is when you are trying to lose weight there is a fine line between eating not enough and your body going into self preservation, and holding onto everything and eating too much calories, and your body turning into a fat pantry. I have been just trying to listen to myself and what it is feeling. Using a hunger scale to determine just how hungry I am. Eating until I am comfortable (could eat a bit more). It guarantee's my next meal, and purpetuates the process of eating 3 meals a day.

SergeantSausage

girlviernes wrote: »

SergeantSausage wrote: »

Set points are bunk.

You can be, within reason and with little effort, any weight you choose to be.

Why the "within reason" qualifier?

Because I can't be 11 pounds, right?

Or 3,629 pounds, for that matter.

SergeantSausage

girlviernes wrote: »

Yes, what I'm getting at is that the within reason qualifier is an acknowledgement that there is inherently a range of natural weight that one can go beneath. It's not only not healthy, but it is extremely difficult to achieve. Not merely a matter of a simple deficit for long enough. YES, it can occur, but there are multiple physiological and psychological defenses against this outcome. These physiological and psychological defenses will occur when you transgress some threshold of relative adipose stores that is monitored by the body. The point being, the body does regulate weight. Not perfectly, it is possible to overcome the regulation and become overweight or underweight.

Because the physics of basic life support, not any of this "my body wants to be ... X... because 'setpoint' " malarkey.


And that "natural range" appears to be between about 70 and 1000 pounds to support adult human life for a few standard deviations of us Gaussian distributed adult humans being, mmm-kay?

Pick a weight in that range and have at it. Get busy.

Lounmoun

karengetsfit wrote: »

Does anyone else feel like they have a natural set point and when you go below that weight, your body resists?

I don't feel that my body works that way. I have stayed at different weights for years at a time with little effort even though the weights were very different. My body didn't decide that it liked 100 pounds for a few years when I ate what I felt like and then later my body liked 168 pounds for years. I ate too many calories and moved too little to stay at a lower weight.
You are choosing a level of eating and activity to maintain that particular weight. You are not stuck there because your body is resisting. If you want to get to and stay at a lower weight you will have to change your habits permanently to support that.

chrisdavey

Lyle McDonald doesn't agree with your setpoint is BS.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/set-points-settling-points-and-bodyweight-regulation-part-1.html/

All you need to know about it in that series.

kommodevaran

The Bergen-Belsen prisoners collectively disagree to the setpoint theory.

I was going to attach a picture, but... no. Just google images.

stevencloser

So far, my body didn't take my family hostage to make me go back to my old weight.

Cazzy34

There is a set point theory, I studied it many years ago at uni!

From what we were taught, I believe it is the point (or range) that your body is most comfortable and healthy, almost at your optimum for health. Some people think that this point is when your body is resistant to further weight changes or fitness gains. However this may not be where YOU want your body to be, which can be frustrating.

It in unlikely that a person is going to have a set point which classes them as obese or severely underweight. However it is known that this "set point" is relatively elastic and can and will change due to changes within your body! i.e. metabolic changes.

Think of it more like a sliding scale rather than an exact point.

There is a lot more science involved behind the theory too, looking at neurons and how your brain responds to these changes. Better get the scientists in haha