stuck at your set point weight?

Options
2»

Replies

  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    Options
    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.
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    Options
    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.
  • obscuremusicreference
    obscuremusicreference Posts: 1,320 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    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.
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    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!
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    Options
    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.

  • fatcity66
    fatcity66 Posts: 1,544 Member
    edited February 2015
    Options
    Duplicate post
  • fatcity66
    fatcity66 Posts: 1,544 Member
    Options
    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?
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    Options
    fatcity66 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.
  • fatcity66
    fatcity66 Posts: 1,544 Member
    Options
    girlviernes wrote: »
    fatcity66 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.
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    Options
    fatcity66 wrote: »
    girlviernes wrote: »
    fatcity66 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 :)
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    Options
    The relevance of set point is that the body has homeostatic drives and it is part of the reason why tracking is so helpful. Most people don't accidentally lose weight. Additionally, some people think they should have perfect control over their body weight, and I think sacrifice too much to try to maintain below where the body want to be. Perhaps because I've trained in the field of eating disorders, and you definitely see the problems there.
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    Options
    Sure, I agree with you on this.
  • sgall123
    sgall123 Posts: 133 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'7 & weigh 156lbs (11st 2) I've been at this weight give or take a couple of pounds either side for well over a year now... I don't mind though as this is within the healthy weight range for my body..

    I've been maintaining this weight by doing 2 fast days a week (5.2) for the last 2 years & eating whatever I choose on the other 5 days..

    I now want to lose a final 7lbs but I'm struggling.. I know I've got too relaxed with my eating & I know if I want to drop that final 7lbs I'm gonna have to calorie count-no way around it!!..

    I've always believed calories in V calories out to lose weight.. I used to say my body is at its natural happy weight, but deep down I don't really believe that, I know I've stayed the same weight as I'm over doing it (usually when wine is involved the snacks come out) & this is hindering my last bit of weight loss even with 2 fast days!!

Categories