stuck at your set point weight?
Millitantselina1
Posts: 4
Hi, just wondering if anyone had any tips or knows about what to do when you reach your set point weight and it becomes harder to loose the pounds? :grumble:
0
Replies
-
In for the stuck advice!0
-
totally sucks :-( I've been the same weight for 3 weeks, starting to loose the motivation now! haha0
-
You'll need to make your diary public and tell people what you've been doing so far. Height, weight, age, calorie goal, how much you exercise, do you follow MFP and eat back exercise calories or use TDEE-%? Do you use a food scale?0
-
What is a set point weight? I highly recommend adding more exercise. It can't hurt!0
-
Okay well I'm 27 years old and am 5ft 7. I started my diet using MFP a month ago with a calorie goal of 1200, I am using scales to weigh the food and scanning the packaging of whatever i eat so that the calorie intake is correct. I don't guess and if i don't know the calorie count for something i won't eat it as i don't want to risk putting it down wrong. I do an hour of exercise 5 days out of the week, this consists of walking, running and tennis (although in the last week I haven't as much as loosing the motivation). I started with the weight of 12st 10llbs. in the first week i dropped 4llbs and the week after 1llb. Ive been stuck on 12st 5llbs for 3 weeks now. on previous diets this is the weight i stop at and i usually end up loosing motivation and just stop my diet, despite adding more exercise (last diet I did swimming for an hour twice a day for 3 days out of the week and 2 days of 2 hour gym workouts). I really don't want to just stop this time round though. Ideally I would like to get down to 11st which would be a healthy weight for my height. Just wondered if anyone had the same expierence and what they did.0
-
Have you tried adding strength training or circuit training? I had to add a circuit training video to my routine and weight started falling off. I lost 17 pounds in 6 weeks.
I would suggest eating back maybe half of your exercise calories and incorporating circuit or strength training instead of only cardio. My body just does not like to loose weight if I only do cardio.0 -
thanks, I guess I could give it a go. what do you do for your strength/circuit training?0
-
i'm meant to be in maintenance now myself. original goal weight was 57 kg but i have settled at 59 as it seems to want to stay at 59 - 60 kg. annoys the hell out of me, i am trying everything i can to get back down to 57 kg at least (60 kg is in the overweight range for my BMI).
have been over training so i'm taking a break from exercise while i take another look at my calories but it's annoying. i've had trouble moving away from 1400 calorie limits just to maintain.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »There's no such thing. If you want to lose weight you need to consume less and/or move more.
People get stuck (for whatever reason),......... your comments are not helpful. If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all!
I would try the advice that you have been given re. circuit training etc
0 -
Millitantselina1 wrote: »Okay well I'm 27 years old and am 5ft 7. I started my diet using MFP a month ago with a calorie goal of 1200, I am using scales to weigh the food and scanning the packaging of whatever i eat so that the calorie intake is correct. I don't guess and if i don't know the calorie count for something i won't eat it as i don't want to risk putting it down wrong. I do an hour of exercise 5 days out of the week, this consists of walking, running and tennis (although in the last week I haven't as much as loosing the motivation). I started with the weight of 12st 10llbs. in the first week i dropped 4llbs and the week after 1llb. Ive been stuck on 12st 5llbs for 3 weeks now. on previous diets this is the weight i stop at and i usually end up loosing motivation and just stop my diet, despite adding more exercise (last diet I did swimming for an hour twice a day for 3 days out of the week and 2 days of 2 hour gym workouts). I really don't want to just stop this time round though. Ideally I would like to get down to 11st which would be a healthy weight for my height. Just wondered if anyone had the same expierence and what they did.
How can you be maintaining on 1200 calories?
I'm 5ft7 too, but 24 and 11st 7lbs, I have a desk job and do less exercise than you and am losing .5lbs a week on 1600 calories. 0 -
Set points are bunk.0
-
Just wait. You've already lost a ton of water weight, so that's all gone. Now you will start losing at a slower rate.
I haven't checked your numbers, but 1200 seems very low for someone who is 5'7" and active. I'm 5'4" and basically a sloth, and I eat 1390 every day and am losing a pound a week.
Fast weight loss is due solely to losing water weight, which you've already done. Now you have to wait, like the rest of us, for nature to do her thing at her pace -- burn off the fat sllloooowwwlllyy.0 -
I went a few days and your diary is empty, so how do you know your eating 1200 calories?0
-
herrspoons wrote: »There's no such thing. If you want to lose weight you need to consume less and/or move more.
People get stuck (for whatever reason),......... your comments are not helpful. If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all!
I would try the advice that you have been given re. circuit training etc
Yer funny.
This is a public forum. We'll all pretty much say anything we like, right?
The advice was spot on. Eat less, move more has countless BILLIONS of personal success stories, mmm-kay? Oh - and set points are actually bunk, too.
0 -
I don't call it a set point when I get stuck. I say it's your body changing gears. Tramp down a little harder on the exercise accelerator. (Just ignore any exercise water weight you gain on the scale and go by measurements and clothing fit.)0
-
Set point ranges make a lot of sense to me, and I've never seen them debunked. They are quite clear in rats, less so in humans.
OP, why do you think you are in your set point?0 -
Yeah set points aren't a thing IMO. And three weeks is nothing, especially since it looks like your logging isn't consistent.
I'd up your calorie intake to something more sustainable, and tighten up your logging. Weigh all your solids, measure all your liquids. Give it another few weeks.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »There's no such thing. If you want to lose weight you need to consume less and/or move more.
People get stuck (for whatever reason),......... your comments are not helpful. If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all!
I would try the advice that you have been given re. circuit training etc
He's right, there's no such thing as a "set point weight." Also, OP, 3 weeks is not enough time to truly plateau. Give yourself another 3 weeks to see results. Then readjust your calories or increase your activity.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Set point ranges make a lot of sense to me, and I've never seen them debunked. They are quite clear in rats, less so in humans.
OP, why do you think you are in your set point?
Minnesota starvation experiment.
The fact that you can get below a set point doesn't mean that we don't have set points.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Set point ranges make a lot of sense to me, and I've never seen them debunked. They are quite clear in rats, less so in humans.
OP, why do you think you are in your set point?
Minnesota starvation experiment.
The fact that you can get below a set point doesn't mean that we don't have set points.
Please provide a study that shows that set points exist.
Speaking from personal experience, I always thought my set point was 170-180 lbs, because I never got under that in my teens/early 20s. Then, in my late 20s, I actually counted calories, and worked out the numbers that I would need to get under 170. Guess what? I got down to 152 lbs without much struggle. So, I pretty much debunked my own "set point."
0 -
This is a pretty nice review. http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/301/3/R581
As stated above, set points clearly exist in other species, such as rats. They are less clear in humans.
Your story is part of why I think the set point range is probably more accurate. 152 may be on the lower end of your range. It would be challenging to maintain below your range, however, if set point theory holds.0 -
First of all, the lower weight could be within the set point range. In fact, if you are overweight or obese, you are probably above set point.
Set point is not meant to be all powerful. It won't overwhelm CICO, if you are practicing tight control.0 -
Whether or not set points exist (they don't), you do not maintain a weight of 173 (an overweight BMI at 5'7") on 1200 calories. I am an inch shorter and stayed at 170 for three weeks due to Christmas/thinking I could sneak unlogged goodies because 1200 is so far below maintenance. Does that ring a bell?
Bu then 3 pounds of that came off in about two days after I went back on the wagon.0 -
Exactly, it's a model to explain phenomena that are observed. I hope I haven't stated it as a fact. Like I stated in my original post, I personally haven't seen any thing that actually contradicts this model. If you want to share studies that contradict it, please do!0
-
herrspoons wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »This is a pretty nice review. http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/301/3/R581
As stated above, set points clearly exist in other species, such as rats. They are less clear in humans.
Your story is part of why I think the set point range is probably more accurate. 152 may be on the lower end of your range. It would be challenging to maintain below your range, however, if set point theory holds.
1) It's a model, not a fact.
2) The conclusion states that any short term biological drive can be easily overridden by willpower, drugs, etc. The body then adapts to its new intake.
Set points are just another excuse for people to think failing isn't their fault.
There are clearly lots of reasons why we have difficulty losing and maintaining weight loss, whether or not you think set point is one of them. Acknowledging reality does not need to be excuse making. It can also be motivation to keep up with tracking and all the other dietary and behavioral changes because it will take dedication and knowledge to maintain a significant weight loss.
0 -
Duplicate post0
-
girlviernes wrote: »This is a pretty nice review. http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/301/3/R581
As stated above, set points clearly exist in other species, such as rats. They are less clear in humans.
Your story is part of why I think the set point range is probably more accurate. 152 may be on the lower end of your range. It would be challenging to maintain below your range, however, if set point theory holds.
So, since I maintained at 210-220 lbs for years, my set point range is between 150 lbs and 220 lbs? That is much too large of a range to be meaningful in any way, wouldn't you agree?0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Exactly, it's a model to explain phenomena that is observed. I hope I haven't stated it as a fact. Like I stated in my original post, I personally haven't seen any thing that actually contradicts this model. If you want to share studies that contradict it, please do!
So, since I maintained around 200-220 lbs for years, that means my set point range is between 150 lbs and 220 lbs? That's too large of a range to be at all meaningful, wouldn't you say?
Yes. I don't think the range would be 70 lbs, although Speakman I think wrote some interesting theory as to why that could actually be the case.
There are a couple of models out there, one is that it is simply relatively easy to overcome the set point on the higher end rather than on the lower end. So you were above set point at 200-220, but because of overeating were able to stay above it. Some have also posited that set point can be reset, so you may have reset it higher, e.g. through the accumulation of additional fat cells.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Exactly, it's a model to explain phenomena that is observed. I hope I haven't stated it as a fact. Like I stated in my original post, I personally haven't seen any thing that actually contradicts this model. If you want to share studies that contradict it, please do!
So, since I maintained around 200-220 lbs for years, that means my set point range is between 150 lbs and 220 lbs? That's too large of a range to be at all meaningful, wouldn't you say?
Yes. I don't think the range would be 70 lbs, although Speakman I think wrote some interesting theory as to why that could actually be the case.
There are a couple of models out there, one is that it is simply relatively easy to overcome the set point on the higher end rather than on the lower end. So you were above set point at 200-220, but because of overeating were able to stay above it. Some have also posited that set point can be reset, so you may have reset it higher, e.g. through the accumulation of additional fat cells.
If a set point can be reset, and easily overcome, it's essentially meaningless, so I wouldn't worry about it.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Exactly, it's a model to explain phenomena that is observed. I hope I haven't stated it as a fact. Like I stated in my original post, I personally haven't seen any thing that actually contradicts this model. If you want to share studies that contradict it, please do!
So, since I maintained around 200-220 lbs for years, that means my set point range is between 150 lbs and 220 lbs? That's too large of a range to be at all meaningful, wouldn't you say?
Yes. I don't think the range would be 70 lbs, although Speakman I think wrote some interesting theory as to why that could actually be the case.
There are a couple of models out there, one is that it is simply relatively easy to overcome the set point on the higher end rather than on the lower end. So you were above set point at 200-220, but because of overeating were able to stay above it. Some have also posited that set point can be reset, so you may have reset it higher, e.g. through the accumulation of additional fat cells.
If a set point can be reset, and easily overcome, it's essentially meaningless, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Maybe I'm geeking out here a bit
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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