New study, evidence of a body weight set-point

Options
jgnatca
jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
in Food and Nutrition
This is the result of an Alberta researcher's study, just published. This was a rat study, by the way.

TL:DR
Not all rats gobble up the cookie dough. Some like it, some do not.
Only the cookie dough lovers gained weight.
When returned to rat chow, the cookie dough lovers continued to over-eat. Brain scans showed their satiety signals were disrupted.
When re-introduced to cookie dough, the satiety signals in the fat rats was restored.
The study concludes that there is a body weight set-point that in vulnerable people, can be disrupted. By trying to re-set it to a lower weight we may be fighting our own physiology.

News article: http://www.theprovince.com/health/University+Alberta+research+could+help+fight+obesity/11527001/story.html

The study:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139462

These results have me asking a whole bunch more questions.
  • If one avoided high-calorie foods for life, the body weight set-point would never be disrupted?
  • Are there special snowflakes?
  • Are there protein-loving rats who would get fat on that?
  • Does dieting which involves removing all high-calorie choices, set us up for failure?
  • Might deceptive foods that taste rich and sweet but are low calorie, be helping rather than harming us?
  • If I feed my inner hedonist (within reason) promising never to deprive it, can I calm my neuron storm demanding I eat more?
«1

Replies

  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    One bumpity bump. Maybe I should have titled it "sugar" or "cleanse".
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    American Thanksgiving -- looks interesting, so I hope it's still around tomorrow when I have time.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    Oooooh. That's right.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    Happy thanksgiving.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    We're not mindless rats who keep on eating and eating. At least I hope most of us aren't.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,160 Member
    edited November 2015
    Options
    @jgnatca having grew up around all kinds of animals the 'Set Point' idea was always sensible to me. It is good to see the research you shared.

    In my case I do think I "broke" my original set point long ago. As my way of eating helps my health improve I do expect it to reset. I was always in the 170-185 pound range until my autoimmune related health issues kicked into high gear about 40 years ago. My current set point seems to be between 195-210 and I am cool with that as my autoimmune health issues continue to resolve by diet and movement. My peak weight was 250 pound a few time but never more. 210 pounds would be 50% of my life time range of weight.

    As more research is done we may learn 'plateaus' in weight loss are just new lower 'set points' and they should be looked at as temporary states initially and not to be fought with at first.

    If we have 'set points' for 'normal' body temperature, blood pressure, blood glucose levels with the last two very moveable by diet then why not with weight?

    merriam-webster.com/medical/set%20point
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Options
    This made me crave cookie dough....
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    @stevencloser It occurred to me also that one couldn't explain to the rat on chow that the fatty treats will be coming back. No potential for anticipation, hope for a "last meal".

    Rats aren't mindless.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    Lol @TavistockToad . I suspect my indulgence is something else. It's not cookie dough and it's not cilantro.
  • jim180155
    jim180155 Posts: 769 Member
    Options
    From what I've read, we all have set points. Our bodies seek homeostasis and fight change. They don't want to gain weight, nor do they want to lose weight. If we're overeating (eating in a surplus) our bodies respond with a faster metabolism and more NEAT (non-intentional, unconscious exercise, fidgeting and movement) to compensate. If we're under-eating (eating at a deficit) NEAT is reduced, and our metabolisms slow. The compensations only go so far, though. We can still lose weight. And as most of us know, we can still gain weight. It's just that the body's natural default is to do what it can to maintain homeostasis when our diets vary.

    By dieting down from say 200 to 150 lbs, our bodies adjust over time. Our old set point of 200 lbs is now 150 lbs, and from 150 lbs, our new set point, our bodies will fight change and will not want to get heavier or lighter.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    I am hoping this research and what we are finding out from the brain scans (where and how is the body fighting the change?) can lead to new treatments/methods of resetting our set-points.
  • youngmomtaz
    youngmomtaz Posts: 1,075 Member
    Options
    Bump for later. Interesting.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    edited November 2015
    Options

    This research - and other around satiety signaling outline some of the complexities of hunger and the related signaling. In my eyes, it doesn't demonstrate a body weight set point - it's a working hypothesis that the researchers did not test. If anything - they demonstrated further mechanisms of a satiety mechanism that is palate dependent.

    It doesn't in the least reduce the interest of the study which is more about determining some satiety signals and receptor loci.

    The research about these satiety centres isn't new - an some of it dates from 1985 according to the authors.
    Activation of central melanocortin receptors, particularly in the PVN, inhibits feeding, increases energy expenditure [15, 16] while activating NPY receptors promotes opposing responses [12, 17].

    Clearly - that some of the rats got fat at first demonstrates the ABSENCE of a set point for them. It could just as easily be a taste element - you could leave cookie dough around my house and one of my daughters and I would not eat it. We don't like the taste.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    @EvgeniZyntx I think our inner drives are way more powerful and insidious than we care to admit. "Just one more" can push the calorie load just that much farther. Somehow that cookie fails to get logged. The satiety set point pushes and pushes until, presto, the poor dieter ends up at the same weight she started out at. How did that happen? It was magiccccc.

    Perhaps this latest study is taking advantage of modern (superior) scanning techniques?

    Absence of a set point for an upper limit, I totally believe. For most of our evolutionary history getting too fat wasn't the problem. You and your daughter are skinny rats. I am too, at least when it comes to cookie dough.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    jgnatca wrote: »
    @EvgeniZyntx I think our inner drives are way more powerful and insidious than we care to admit. "Just one more" can push the calorie load just that much farther. Somehow that cookie fails to get logged. The satiety set point pushes and pushes until, presto, the poor dieter ends up at the same weight she started out at. How did that happen? It was magiccccc.

    Perhaps this latest study is taking advantage of modern (superior) scanning techniques?

    Absence of a set point for an upper limit, I totally believe. For most of our evolutionary history getting too fat wasn't the problem. You and your daughter are skinny rats. I am too, at least when it comes to cookie dough.

    I agree that drives are important factors, I'm not denying that. I have issues with the idea of what weight set point might be and how people sometimes use it as a crutch.

    As to my daughter and I, there are things we don't eat, but it doesn't mean we are skinny rats - we both have a tendency to be overweight. The two thinner sisters are less picky and more active ...

  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    I'm a "skinny rat" but overweight too. I suspect there are other foods I would happily over-consume.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    edited November 2015
    Options
    jgnatca wrote: »
    I'm a "skinny rat" but overweight too. I suspect there are other foods I would happily over-consume.

    So ... then are the factors found really about set-point or taste preference in the DR rats?
    I don't know but I think it is a major issue that the researchers failed to address.

    Having said that, lets assume that it isn't and that it is all about set-point. How does it help answer your questions?
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    The study inspired me to ask a whole bunch more questions.

    I want to know if the skinny rats have different tastes, or if they just are not affected as strongly as the fat rats.

    The set point revealed itself on the kibble diet, but was overcome when the cookie dough was re-introduced. Why?

    Researchers have to answer each question in turn. I did not expect these results to resolve everything.
  • alyssagb1
    alyssagb1 Posts: 353 Member
    Options
    jgnatca wrote: »
    Lol @TavistockToad . I suspect my indulgence is something else. It's not cookie dough and it's not cilantro.

    Is your indulgence usually kept in the sock drawer? :p
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    Lol @alyssagb1 I suspect my secret indulgence is rather mundane. Free swag at conventions.

Categories