Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Your body's "set point"
karmelpopcorn
Posts: 77 Member
This topic is an expansion of what is being discussed with regard to the Biggest Loser, "that the brain’s weight-regulation system considers your set point to be the correct weight for you, whether or not your doctor agrees". (Click link to see the article where I pulled that quote).
The NPR radio show "Forum" had a good discussion on the topic today.
What I take from the conversation is that once you have allowed yourself to become overweight or obese, you have already done some damage. New fat cells can be created as you gain weight, but they do not disappear when you lose. Hormones play a large role in hunger signals to help us gain back weight, metabolism slows down, etc.
I like to see results on the scale, but I don't think of myself as being on a diet. And frankly, results on the scale are extremely slow, and sometimes all I can do is maintain. But I have a feeling getting to and staying at my goal weight comfortably may not happen.
The NPR radio show "Forum" had a good discussion on the topic today.
What I take from the conversation is that once you have allowed yourself to become overweight or obese, you have already done some damage. New fat cells can be created as you gain weight, but they do not disappear when you lose. Hormones play a large role in hunger signals to help us gain back weight, metabolism slows down, etc.
I like to see results on the scale, but I don't think of myself as being on a diet. And frankly, results on the scale are extremely slow, and sometimes all I can do is maintain. But I have a feeling getting to and staying at my goal weight comfortably may not happen.
2
Replies
-
I read a book by Dr. George L. Blackburn who likened losing weight to a rubber band. The further you go from your set point, the further and tighter that rubber band stretches and wants to shoot back to its original form. His suggestion was to lose weight slowly, lose 10% at a time, then maintain that 10% for at least six months before trying for another 10%.
I think set point is simply homeostasis. A tenant of nature, homeostasis wants things to stay the same. Whether it is regulating body temperature or body weight, the human body has numerous mechanisms to adapt and keep everything the same internally for survival as external factors change.4 -
In my experience, if I can get to a weight and stay there for a while (few months to a year or more), my "set point" shifts and my body seems to settle into that weight. It becomes harder to gain or lose. My "set point" used to be mid-160s, but for the past 3-4 years it's been around 140. I would have to try really hard to get back up to the 160s.
Part of it might be hormonal/physiological, but I think a lot of it is that I've developed and cemented new habits for eating and exercise, so deviating from those habits is difficult. For example, I have less of a sweet tooth and prefer smaller portions. I still love candy and stuff, but I used to put 4 packets of Equal in a venti Americano from Starbucks, whereas now I can't drink more than a tall, and I don't sweeten it at all. Both options are basically calorie free, so it's not a matter of making myself have less to save calories. It's about how my eating habits and preferences have changed.4 -
In my experience, if I can get to a weight and stay there for a while (few months to a year or more), my "set point" shifts and my body seems to settle into that weight. It becomes harder to gain or lose. My "set point" used to be mid-160s, but for the past 3-4 years it's been around 140. I would have to try really hard to get back up to the 160s.
Part of it might be hormonal/physiological, but I think a lot of it is that I've developed and cemented new habits for eating and exercise, so deviating from those habits is difficult. For example, I have less of a sweet tooth and prefer smaller portions. I still love candy and stuff, but I used to put 4 packets of Equal in a venti Americano from Starbucks, whereas now I can't drink more than a tall, and I don't sweeten it at all. Both options are basically calorie free, so it's not a matter of making myself have less to save calories. It's about how my eating habits and preferences have changed.
This is my experience and I tend to agree with your explanation (it also is consistent with my experience). However, this does also go along with the research (I don't have the link but it's been linked a bunch of places) that the initial drop in leptin, etc. tends to go away about about a year.3 -
If there was a set point, it should work both ways, no? Meaning if you gain weight, your body would try to get you back down to whatever your setpoint is. Funny how that seems to happen to no one.
Personally, the fact that I lost 50 pounds (over 20% of my starting weight), and am maintaining that with absolutely no problem without even counting most of the time and not being overly hungry and that for my second year now, tells me this is all humbug/another way to not take responsibility for one's actions.23 -
stevencloser wrote: »If there was a set point, it should work both ways, no? Meaning if you gain weight, your body would try to get you back down to whatever your setpoint is. Funny how that seems to happen to no one.
Personally, the fact that I lost 50 pounds (over 20% of my starting weight), and am maintaining that with absolutely no problem without even counting most of the time and not being overly hungry and that for my second year now, tells me this is all humbug/another way to not take responsibility for one's actions.
Well put.
I know that I do have a place in the lower weight ranges that I find very easy to maintain. It's still a chubby weight, though. I have a feeling it has to do with being comfortable with a certain activity level and portion size and not some magical set point.3 -
I've often wondered about set points. Not in the sense of some magical number that is impossible get below, but rather as weights that you spent considerable time at previously, that when you get there again you body resists further loss, at least for a time. In gaining and losing weight over the course of four pregnancies it's been my experience that certain weights are harder for me to get past: 180 lbs is one of them. I spent about a year at that weight after a motorcycle accident. After each pregnancy, I'd lose wieght no problem until I hit 180, then I'd bounce around losing and regaining the same 2-3 lbs for several weeks. Then it would seem like my body would sigh and say "fine, if you insist" and I'd lose weight steadily again. Until 165 lbs. I was 165 lbs most of my adult life (from high school graduation until the motorcycle accident). Then the same thing would happen - bounce around the same 2-3 lbs for several weeks until I "convinced" my body it was okay to let go of that weight. Then I'd lose steadily again until 150 lbs (where I was through most of high school). Same thing would happen again.
I noticed this phenomenon while losing weight after all four pregnancies, and at the exact same weights. I know with time, consistency, and most of all patience, the "set point" will get busted through, but I can definitely understand how people get frustrated when it happens. This last time (after baby number four) I was expecting it and was mentally prepared for it, so I was able to relax about it. Made it not seem as frustrating, but I look back at the notebook that I record my weight in, and, yeah, same pattern as the other times. "Stalling" at the same places each time. Set point, or just diet fatigue (carb creep, allowing more cheats, less motivated and needing a break)? Not sure. But it is funny that it seems to occur that the exact same weights each time for me.7 -
I think it has to do with eating habits and activity, but I find the same thing. 130 was the weight I maintained for years, then I gradually gained, lost down to 120 (I was really active) and floated back to 125-130 and stayed there for ages. I am doing the same thing this time -- I think it's just about what level of eating and activity I'm comfortable with or maybe even what body feels right/okay/normal to me vs. too heavy. Complacency is a huge part of why I can't get myself to work to go lower this time.
I haven't noticed that I get hungrier at the lower weight, but I have noticed that when fat and less active I can easily do something like 1200 and now there's no way, even on an off day. But that could be that I'm not motivated to lose as much as I was.2 -
Set point theory works with weight gain as well.
See this:
http://www.obesityaction.org/educational-resources/resource-articles-2/weight-loss-surgery/body-weight-set-point-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-know
I think the best real world example of this is post-holiday weight gain. After an indulgent 2-3 weeks around the time of Christmas/New Years, the scale will reflect those indulgences, but your natural appetite will decrease. Have you ever over-indulged, only to not care about food nor wish to have another drink or treat for a period of time after? This is subtle and most people may not consciously register this decrease in desire for food, but it does happen. Follow this decrease in appetite and the scale will go back down without effort.
I think it's important to point out that this is short term gain, over a short period of time ingesting far more calories than we would normally. The body WILL help pull you back from this.
Set point theory holds with slow, small, incremental weight gain over the course of years, too. The proverbial 20-40 pound weight gain over 20 years. The theory holds, because this gain was so slow that the body adapted smoothly and homeostasis was never threatened.
An understanding of set point theory, homeostasis, metabolism, hormones, and neurotransmitters that influence appetite and weight are facts, nothing more, nothing less. The complexities are one piece of the obesity puzzle. Other puzzle pieces include behavior, environment, medical conditions, genetics, emotions, and nutrition; each of which has an entire body of research and debate within their field.
I see set point theory and the drive for homeostasis as information that can help us better understand the science of human beings and being human.
When it comes to weight loss and weight gain, do the laws of thermodynamics win at the end of the day? Yes. However, there is nothing wrong with understanding, learning about, and expanding on our body of knowledge regarding the science of body weight.
ETA quotes from the article pertaining to set point theory in relation to weight gain:
"The factors influencing body weight are symmetrical, working in both directions. That is, when weight-stable individuals are paid to eat more food and gain weight, they are able to do it; but throughout time, the process becomes harder and harder and they typically fail at some point and fall back to the lower weight they were carrying before the period of overeating occurred, and they accomplish this by eating less food than normal."
and
"If a person’s weight starts creeping up, the body secretes more leptin and insulin, and these in turn act on the brain to reduce food intake; similarly, when weight is reduced by dieting or other means, the reduced hormone levels signal the brain to increase appetite. Because of these processes, it is difficult for most people to maintain a weight that is different from their set point for long periods of time."1 -
stevencloser wrote: »If there was a set point, it should work both ways, no? Meaning if you gain weight, your body would try to get you back down to whatever your setpoint is. Funny how that seems to happen to no one.
I don't think it works that way. You can grow new fat cells, but when you lose weight, you do not see a decrease in fat cells. That's why I think it is easier to change your set point up rather than down.
I appreciate your comments. I have been slowly losing from my highest at 196, to now somewhere in the 170s, using high fiber, vegetables, exercise, CICO, etc. as my strategies to maintain before losing again. After reading these articles, I'm happier about my slow loss, and even maintenance.1 -
I totally agree with set point and homeostasis. Especially when one is listening to one's body. I was at the same set weight from 13-35. I never thought about calories nor logged any exercise. I simply went about my life exercising when I felt like it and eating what I wanted, when I wanted it. If I wasn't hungry, I didn't eat. It took major sickness or major work to move the scale in either direction and it quickly returned to normal. As I stopped listening to my body and began eating when not hungry and not exercising, the weight slowly crept up (15lbs) over a span of 5 years or so.1
-
mom23mangos wrote: »I totally agree with set point and homeostasis. Especially when one is listening to one's body. I was at the same set weight from 13-35. I never thought about calories nor logged any exercise. I simply went about my life exercising when I felt like it and eating what I wanted, when I wanted it. If I wasn't hungry, I didn't eat. It took major sickness or major work to move the scale in either direction and it quickly returned to normal. As I stopped listening to my body and began eating when not hungry and not exercising, the weight slowly crept up (15lbs) over a span of 5 years or so.
But you are only describing CICO. Your weight stayed the same because your CI and CO were in balance. Then you began eating more and moving less and thus switched to CI>CO.1 -
Set point is a bunch of bull crap. I lost weight...I've maintained for three years pretty easily simply by living a more healthful lifestyle than I was before...set point is just more excuses. People gain weight back because they fail miserably at actually adopting a healthier lifestyle...they talk a lot of talk, but can't walk it.8
-
IdLikeToLoseItLoseIt wrote: »
I think the best real world example of this is post-holiday weight gain. After an indulgent 2-3 weeks around the time of Christmas/New Years, the scale will reflect those indulgences, but your natural appetite will decrease. Have you ever over-indulged, only to not care about food nor wish to have another drink or treat for a period of time after? This is subtle and most people may not consciously register this decrease in desire for food, but it does happen. Follow this decrease in appetite and the scale will go back down without effort.
There's a few problems here.
1) 2-3 Weeks isn't going to reflect in much gain
2) You said yourself "indulgent", i.e. more than you'd usually eat to begin with, meaning once you go back to your normal habits you're bound to go back down to begin with
3) Your own conscience telling you to eat less after the time of indulgence making you voluntarily eat less, not the against your will going back to your old weight thing that set point would be6 -
Dictionaries and the definitions of words are our friends.
conscious (my word) -
adjective
1.
aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2.
fully aware of or sensitive to something (often followed by of):
conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past.
3.
having the mental faculties fully active:
He was conscious during the operation.
4.
known to oneself; felt:
conscious guilt.
5.
aware of what one is doing:
a conscious liar.
6.
aware of oneself; self-conscious.
7.
deliberate; intentional:
a conscious insult; a conscious effort.
conscience (your word) -
noun
1.
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action:
to follow the dictates of conscience.
2.
the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3.
an inhibiting sense of what is prudent:
I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.
4.
conscientiousness.
5.
Obsolete. consciousness; self-knowledge.
6.
Obsolete.
One would not be CONSCIOUS of secreting more leptin and insulin as a result of weight gain, nor would we be CONSCIOUS of leptin and insulin acting on the brain leading to reduce food intake.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »If there was a set point, it should work both ways, no? Meaning if you gain weight, your body would try to get you back down to whatever your setpoint is. Funny how that seems to happen to no one.
Happens to rats - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3543262
Probably people after similar overfeeding too..... back to Google......2 -
IdLikeToLoseItLoseIt wrote: »Dictionaries and the definitions of words are our friends.
conscious (my word) -
adjective
1.
aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2.
fully aware of or sensitive to something (often followed by of):
conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past.
3.
having the mental faculties fully active:
He was conscious during the operation.
4.
known to oneself; felt:
conscious guilt.
5.
aware of what one is doing:
a conscious liar.
6.
aware of oneself; self-conscious.
7.
deliberate; intentional:
a conscious insult; a conscious effort.
conscience (your word) -
noun
1.
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action:
to follow the dictates of conscience.
2.
the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3.
an inhibiting sense of what is prudent:
I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.
4.
conscientiousness.
5.
Obsolete. consciousness; self-knowledge.
6.
Obsolete.
One would not be CONSCIOUS of secreting more leptin and insulin as a result of weight gain, nor would we be CONSCIOUS of leptin and insulin acting on the brain leading to reduce food intake.
I'm sure you think your point was perfectly clear, but I'm afraid I cannot tell from the context just why you posted the definition of two words I'm sure we all understand. Is this intended to disagree with stevencloser's most recent post? I do not believe he was confusing the two terms, but intentionally using a different one to give his understanding of what happens.
It actually is common for people to gain weight over the holidays, also. I know I've read that there's a (small) average gain per year but that it's not normally throughout the year, but over the holidays specifically.1 -
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/64/8/2859.full looks at how some individuals have a bigger TDEE response to overfeeding or calorie restriction than others, postulating two phenotypes.
If TDEE responds to surplus or deficit it at least looks like a simple proportional control system for body weight.1 -
WiseBlueRaven wrote: »mom23mangos wrote: »I totally agree with set point and homeostasis. Especially when one is listening to one's body. I was at the same set weight from 13-35. I never thought about calories nor logged any exercise. I simply went about my life exercising when I felt like it and eating what I wanted, when I wanted it. If I wasn't hungry, I didn't eat. It took major sickness or major work to move the scale in either direction and it quickly returned to normal. As I stopped listening to my body and began eating when not hungry and not exercising, the weight slowly crept up (15lbs) over a span of 5 years or so.
But you are only describing CICO. Your weight stayed the same because your CI and CO were in balance. Then you began eating more and moving less and thus switched to CI>CO.
I would agree to a certain extent, but if I were to log a typical day from before, I ate between 3000-5000 calories per day. With a TDEE of supposedly around 1400, my slow weight gain did not follow the expected numbers.0 -
mom23mangos wrote: »I would agree to a certain extent, but if I were to log a typical day from before, I ate between 3000-5000 calories per day. With a TDEE of supposedly around 1400, my slow weight gain did not follow the expected numbers.
the link I posted above found wide variation " The mean energy deficit required to lose 1 kg of body weight was 4,935 kcal (2,239 kcal/lb; range 3,434–6,600 kcal/kg and 1,558–2,993 kcal/lb). "
0 -
I was under the impression he mistook the two words, as I was pointing out the internal mechanisms at work of which we are not aware. I could see how he used conscience as a synonym for guilt as a result of overindulgence, leading to behavior change. However, nothing I cited mentioned ones conscience, guilt, or cognitive awareness, but rather the physiological mechanisms at play in relation to body weight stability.lemurcat12 wrote: »IdLikeToLoseItLoseIt wrote: »Dictionaries and the definitions of words are our friends.
conscious (my word) -
adjective
1.
aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2.
fully aware of or sensitive to something (often followed by of):
conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past.
3.
having the mental faculties fully active:
He was conscious during the operation.
4.
known to oneself; felt:
conscious guilt.
5.
aware of what one is doing:
a conscious liar.
6.
aware of oneself; self-conscious.
7.
deliberate; intentional:
a conscious insult; a conscious effort.
conscience (your word) -
noun
1.
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action:
to follow the dictates of conscience.
2.
the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3.
an inhibiting sense of what is prudent:
I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.
4.
conscientiousness.
5.
Obsolete. consciousness; self-knowledge.
6.
Obsolete.
One would not be CONSCIOUS of secreting more leptin and insulin as a result of weight gain, nor would we be CONSCIOUS of leptin and insulin acting on the brain leading to reduce food intake.
I'm sure you think your point was perfectly clear, but I'm afraid I cannot tell from the context just why you posted the definition of two words I'm sure we all understand. Is this intended to disagree with stevencloser's most recent post? I do not believe he was confusing the two terms, but intentionally using a different one to give his understanding of what happens.
It actually is common for people to gain weight over the holidays, also. I know I've read that there's a (small) average gain per year but that it's not normally throughout the year, but over the holidays specifically.
0 -
IdLikeToLoseItLoseIt wrote: »
I was under the impression he mistook the two words, as I was pointing out the internal mechanisms at work of which we are not aware. I could see how he used conscience as a synonym for guilt as a result of overindulgence, leading to behavior change. However, nothing I cited mentioned ones conscience, guilt, or cognitive awareness, but rather the physiological mechanisms at play in relation to body weight stability.lemurcat12 wrote: »IdLikeToLoseItLoseIt wrote: »Dictionaries and the definitions of words are our friends.
conscious (my word) -
adjective
1.
aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2.
fully aware of or sensitive to something (often followed by of):
conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past.
3.
having the mental faculties fully active:
He was conscious during the operation.
4.
known to oneself; felt:
conscious guilt.
5.
aware of what one is doing:
a conscious liar.
6.
aware of oneself; self-conscious.
7.
deliberate; intentional:
a conscious insult; a conscious effort.
conscience (your word) -
noun
1.
the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action:
to follow the dictates of conscience.
2.
the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3.
an inhibiting sense of what is prudent:
I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.
4.
conscientiousness.
5.
Obsolete. consciousness; self-knowledge.
6.
Obsolete.
One would not be CONSCIOUS of secreting more leptin and insulin as a result of weight gain, nor would we be CONSCIOUS of leptin and insulin acting on the brain leading to reduce food intake.
I'm sure you think your point was perfectly clear, but I'm afraid I cannot tell from the context just why you posted the definition of two words I'm sure we all understand. Is this intended to disagree with stevencloser's most recent post? I do not believe he was confusing the two terms, but intentionally using a different one to give his understanding of what happens.
It actually is common for people to gain weight over the holidays, also. I know I've read that there's a (small) average gain per year but that it's not normally throughout the year, but over the holidays specifically.
I think he was giving his own explanation of what happens, no set point required. I'm sure he didn't think you were talking about conscience. His English is impressive.0 -
I think this is why the concept of a body weight set point is so incredibly amazing. Imagine the margin of error for maintaining ones weight over the course of so many years. Even an extra 50 calories per day would lead to a 5 pound gain per year, yet our bodies are capable of maintaining this tight control over weight. Set point theory/homeostasis and CICO/laws of thermodynamics are not exclusive, they're part of the same amazing internal 'thermostat' at play. I think that's fascinating to no end!mom23mangos wrote: »I totally agree with set point and homeostasis. Especially when one is listening to one's body. I was at the same set weight from 13-35. I never thought about calories nor logged any exercise. I simply went about my life exercising when I felt like it and eating what I wanted, when I wanted it. If I wasn't hungry, I didn't eat. It took major sickness or major work to move the scale in either direction and it quickly returned to normal. As I stopped listening to my body and began eating when not hungry and not exercising, the weight slowly crept up (15lbs) over a span of 5 years or so.
1 -
IdLikeToLoseItLoseIt wrote: »Dictionary definitions because you think I don't know what I'm saying
I said conscience. You know, the little voice in your head telling you what's right and wrong.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »If there was a set point, it should work both ways, no? Meaning if you gain weight, your body would try to get you back down to whatever your setpoint is. Funny how that seems to happen to no one.
Happens to rats - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3543262
Probably people after similar overfeeding too..... back to Google......
Yeah, personally, it seems to work both ways for me.1 -
It's hard to say- at one point I was 330, then pushed hard to lose. Once I got to 300, I felt I had achieved something - and I guess didn't try so hard. For the next three years - I stayed between 292 and 299, without counting calories or exercising. Was that a set point, or my sublimilal micro adjustment of food to maintain weight?2
-
Kevin Hall has a patent application in and has published on the setpoint issue. He believes that the setpoint response, whatever it may be, is greater than the metabolic response to calorie restriction.
So if for example restricting calories takes 50 or 100 cals/day off the metabolic rate he believes that the response to weight loss would be to eat 300 or 500 cals/day more.
Not sure this has been demonstrated in an RCT like the rats, but his idea is that we will eat more if your weight is below setpoint and less if it is above. If the "gain" of the controller is say 50 cals/day per lb then if you're underweight (compared to setpoint) by 20 lbs you would eat 1000 cals/day more than maintenance.
I don't know if setpoint advocates believe the controller gets broken in obesity, or has the setpoint changed, but someone who is 100 lb overweight does seem to overeat rather than undereat. Why is the 300 lb man in the donut line, for example ? Does he need a software update ?
Or is the hypothesis that the control regime respons to rate of change of weight, rather than absolute weight, so if you're losing weight you eat more regardless of whether you are under or over your "ideal" weight.2 -
karmelpopcorn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »If there was a set point, it should work both ways, no? Meaning if you gain weight, your body would try to get you back down to whatever your setpoint is. Funny how that seems to happen to no one.
I don't think it works that way. You can grow new fat cells, but when you lose weight, you do not see a decrease in fat cells. That's why I think it is easier to change your set point up rather than down.
I appreciate your comments. I have been slowly losing from my highest at 196, to now somewhere in the 170s, using high fiber, vegetables, exercise, CICO, etc. as my strategies to maintain before losing again. After reading these articles, I'm happier about my slow loss, and even maintenance.
It *does* seem to work that way for me.
Once I reached a healthy weight, I spent most of my adult life hovering around 125-135 (depending on exercise type - heavier exercise, slightly higher weight. Less muscle, lower weight) when not pregnant. I gained a lot with 4th baby when I was older, postpartum hit 150lb at 39 years old. I started back light exercise again, nothing extreme, didn't pay attention to diet, and settled back to 125 by 41 years old. I was confused at having to buy different clothes - thought I had dropped 5lb until I did the math and realized it was so much.
So I would say my body has a set range, if not a "point". Also I would note I was around 20% bodyfat at 125lb and STILL around 20% bodyfat at 136lb, so it seems to have a "set composition" as well. I think if I gave up the yoga and lifting, and just did aerobic stuff, I would lose both lean mass and fat and go right back to the 125.
I do understand that you can add fat cells but not lose them, short of liposuction! That is a biological reality. Also agree on slow changes being safer and healthier. But my body still seems to want to settle back to its comfort zone. Down maybe even more than up, in my experience. Like it doesn't want to fund all that extra mass.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Set point is a bunch of bull crap. I lost weight...I've maintained for three years pretty easily simply by living a more healthful lifestyle than I was before...set point is just more excuses. People gain weight back because they fail miserably at actually adopting a healthier lifestyle...they talk a lot of talk, but can't walk it.
To the point ....but true!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it has to do with eating habits and activity, but I find the same thing. 130 was the weight I maintained for years, then I gradually gained, lost down to 120 (I was really active) and floated back to 125-130 and stayed there for ages. I am doing the same thing this time -- I think it's just about what level of eating and activity I'm comfortable with or maybe even what body feels right/okay/normal to me vs. too heavy. Complacency is a huge part of why I can't get myself to work to go lower this time.
I haven't noticed that I get hungrier at the lower weight, but I have noticed that when fat and less active I can easily do something like 1200 and now there's no way, even on an off day. But that could be that I'm not motivated to lose as much as I was.
This has been my experience as well. 130 is an easy point for me to maintain because it's where my natural inclination toward movement and my natural inclination toward eating align. It takes much more diligence at a lower weight for me to maintain it.
In for more of this discussion, it's very interesting. Plus I need science to argue with my mother the next time she claims she can't lose weight because set point.0 -
At my highest weight, I hung out there for quite a bit of time because I was eating that much to maintain that weight. It was effortless. It wasn't, however, my set point. I'm down about 55lbs right now and am more or less maintaining here right now as well.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions