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.
May we talk about set points?
Replies
-
May I ask what may be an ignorant and totally irrelevant question? I clearly do not know what you folks do, but, assuming these set points do have validity, wouldn't that be irrelevant for anything other than maybe diagnosing a medical condition or similar?
What I mean is this. Months ago I had set my goal to 176lbs, and reached it. Not reaching that goal due to a hypothetical set point at 180lbs would not have stopped me from striving to continue a healthy lifestyle. That didn't occur, but even if it had, it wouldn't have been a good and valid reason to stop.
So what would be the reason behind identifying a set point, other than to "maybe" give me a reason why I hit a plateau?
Again, sorry if it's a ridiculous question. I'm just trying to learn something here.
Thanks
edit: did I kill the thread?
1 -
May I ask what may be an ignorant and totally irrelevant question? I clearly do not know what you folks do, but, assuming these set points do have validity, wouldn't that be irrelevant for anything other than maybe diagnosing a medical condition or similar?
What I mean is this. Months ago I had set my goal to 176lbs, and reached it. Not reaching that goal due to a hypothetical set point at 180lbs would not have stopped me from striving to continue a healthy lifestyle. That didn't occur, but even if it had, it wouldn't have been a good and valid reason to stop.
So what would be the reason behind identifying a set point, other than to "maybe" give me a reason why I hit a plateau?
Again, sorry if it's a ridiculous question. I'm just trying to learn something here.
Thanks
edit: did I kill the thread?
Medical conditions should be considered and there are some, for example some chromosomal disorders, that are known to have weight gain or obesity as symptoms and some medications are also known to do this. However, the theory of organismic set point here is often misinterpreted to mean that there are some powerful biological forces that are keeping us from losing weight and we can't fight against them because are bodies are going to always find away to get back to some preordained weight. This isn't really the way the results should be interpreted because the primary mechanism of weight gain in the study was still overeating.
What the rat studies really showed was that the HT is part of a well-known hormonal regulatory loop and that altering the HT can disrupt the loop and cause lab rats to eat massive amounts of food. Many seem to interprets this backwards as if this loop itself causes us to stay at a particular weight or weight range no matter how hard we try to fight it. However, a big difference between these rats and us is that rats are in-tune with internal eating cues while we are more influenced by environmental eating cues (except for infants). So yes, there is something that can be said for an organismic set point but we've already shown that behavior can override any such thing bi-directionally.
In end you can weigh more, weigh less, or weigh the same depending on your lifestyle so the organismic set point is just an interesting footnote for us in reality.4 -
@Wheelhouse15 Got it, and thank you for explaining it in a way I can understand
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I was slim and at a good weight for the first 40 years of my life, didn't know what a calorie was and never had to diet. I packed on over 50lbs with my first pregnancy with a 6lb 10 little girl, which dropped off effortlessly within a few months. There was 2 years after i hit 40 that yes i started eating more and turned into a sloth to the tune of 30lbs gained.
Wouldnt my set point be the weight my body remembered for all of those years before gaining weight? How can 2 years override 40? And why oh why do i now have to count every calorie and exercise my butt off to lose a few pounds, why is it so hard now and yet so simple back then?
Your lifestyle changed.
Also, your body doesn't "remember" how much you use to weigh. People who become obese develop more fat cells which, although they can empty out, never go away but your body doesn't have any mechanism by which to recall previous body mass or to autoregulate itself back toward that weight.
The reason it's harder now than before is because your lifestyle and diet are different than they were before.4 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »May I ask what may be an ignorant and totally irrelevant question? I clearly do not know what you folks do, but, assuming these set points do have validity, wouldn't that be irrelevant for anything other than maybe diagnosing a medical condition or similar?
What I mean is this. Months ago I had set my goal to 176lbs, and reached it. Not reaching that goal due to a hypothetical set point at 180lbs would not have stopped me from striving to continue a healthy lifestyle. That didn't occur, but even if it had, it wouldn't have been a good and valid reason to stop.
So what would be the reason behind identifying a set point, other than to "maybe" give me a reason why I hit a plateau?
Again, sorry if it's a ridiculous question. I'm just trying to learn something here.
Thanks
edit: did I kill the thread?
Medical conditions should be considered and there are some, for example some chromosomal disorders, that are known to have weight gain or obesity as symptoms and some medications are also known to do this. However, the theory of organismic set point here is often misinterpreted to mean that there are some powerful biological forces that are keeping us from losing weight and we can't fight against them because are bodies are going to always find away to get back to some preordained weight. This isn't really the way the results should be interpreted because the primary mechanism of weight gain in the study was still overeating.
What the rat studies really showed was that the HT is part of a well-known hormonal regulatory loop and that altering the HT can disrupt the loop and cause lab rats to eat massive amounts of food. Many seem to interprets this backwards as if this loop itself causes us to stay at a particular weight or weight range no matter how hard we try to fight it. However, a big difference between these rats and us is that rats are in-tune with internal eating cues while we are more influenced by environmental eating cues (except for infants). So yes, there is something that can be said for an organismic set point but we've already shown that behavior can override any such thing bi-directionally.
In end you can weigh more, weigh less, or weigh the same depending on your lifestyle so the organismic set point is just an interesting footnote for us in reality.
I misread organismic :blushing:7 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »May I ask what may be an ignorant and totally irrelevant question? I clearly do not know what you folks do, but, assuming these set points do have validity, wouldn't that be irrelevant for anything other than maybe diagnosing a medical condition or similar?
What I mean is this. Months ago I had set my goal to 176lbs, and reached it. Not reaching that goal due to a hypothetical set point at 180lbs would not have stopped me from striving to continue a healthy lifestyle. That didn't occur, but even if it had, it wouldn't have been a good and valid reason to stop.
So what would be the reason behind identifying a set point, other than to "maybe" give me a reason why I hit a plateau?
Again, sorry if it's a ridiculous question. I'm just trying to learn something here.
Thanks
edit: did I kill the thread?
Medical conditions should be considered and there are some, for example some chromosomal disorders, that are known to have weight gain or obesity as symptoms and some medications are also known to do this. However, the theory of organismic set point here is often misinterpreted to mean that there are some powerful biological forces that are keeping us from losing weight and we can't fight against them because are bodies are going to always find away to get back to some preordained weight. This isn't really the way the results should be interpreted because the primary mechanism of weight gain in the study was still overeating.
What the rat studies really showed was that the HT is part of a well-known hormonal regulatory loop and that altering the HT can disrupt the loop and cause lab rats to eat massive amounts of food. Many seem to interprets this backwards as if this loop itself causes us to stay at a particular weight or weight range no matter how hard we try to fight it. However, a big difference between these rats and us is that rats are in-tune with internal eating cues while we are more influenced by environmental eating cues (except for infants). So yes, there is something that can be said for an organismic set point but we've already shown that behavior can override any such thing bi-directionally.
In end you can weigh more, weigh less, or weigh the same depending on your lifestyle so the organismic set point is just an interesting footnote for us in reality.
I misread organismic :blushing:
LOL I'm assuming a few other did too!
1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »May I ask what may be an ignorant and totally irrelevant question? I clearly do not know what you folks do, but, assuming these set points do have validity, wouldn't that be irrelevant for anything other than maybe diagnosing a medical condition or similar?
What I mean is this. Months ago I had set my goal to 176lbs, and reached it. Not reaching that goal due to a hypothetical set point at 180lbs would not have stopped me from striving to continue a healthy lifestyle. That didn't occur, but even if it had, it wouldn't have been a good and valid reason to stop.
So what would be the reason behind identifying a set point, other than to "maybe" give me a reason why I hit a plateau?
Again, sorry if it's a ridiculous question. I'm just trying to learn something here.
Thanks
edit: did I kill the thread?
Medical conditions should be considered and there are some, for example some chromosomal disorders, that are known to have weight gain or obesity as symptoms and some medications are also known to do this. However, the theory of organismic set point here is often misinterpreted to mean that there are some powerful biological forces that are keeping us from losing weight and we can't fight against them because are bodies are going to always find away to get back to some preordained weight. This isn't really the way the results should be interpreted because the primary mechanism of weight gain in the study was still overeating.
What the rat studies really showed was that the HT is part of a well-known hormonal regulatory loop and that altering the HT can disrupt the loop and cause lab rats to eat massive amounts of food. Many seem to interprets this backwards as if this loop itself causes us to stay at a particular weight or weight range no matter how hard we try to fight it. However, a big difference between these rats and us is that rats are in-tune with internal eating cues while we are more influenced by environmental eating cues (except for infants). So yes, there is something that can be said for an organismic set point but we've already shown that behavior can override any such thing bi-directionally.
In end you can weigh more, weigh less, or weigh the same depending on your lifestyle so the organismic set point is just an interesting footnote for us in reality.
I misread organismic :blushing:
LOL I'm assuming a few other did too!
I totally did too. I had to reread a couple of times1 -
Setting any medical condition aside, set point is another way of saying that we are eating too much to lose weight.2
-
Traveler120 wrote: »I've had multiple "set points". 152, 147, 138, 125, 118, 116 lbs. To me, set points are just plateaus. You get to decide if you want to change it. I'm now 113 but haven't been here long enough to call it a set point. I want my final set point to be 110-113 lbs.
I think some people naturally have them and some must not. Those who don't have set points will say "there is no such thing". I have plateaus that last for a long, long time. It can be as long as a decade staying in the same 5 pound range for me. Perhaps most people who have successful set points simply are not on MFP?
It is acceptable to say "plateau" on general forums. But if one says that their body fights to maintain a "set point" then there will be objections by those who don't maintain long weight plateaus.
I've had set points over the years also. When I was 135 pounds and 5'8" the set point worked in my favor. Now that I'm plateaued up at a higher "set point" (or whatever preferred definition one wants to use) my body fights me to plateau there.
This is my experience. I've never been overweight BMI until I hit my 50's. I've succeeded so far in getting BMI from 25 to 24, and am plateaued at this set point. So now my goal is to lower BMI to mid normal around BMI 22-23 and establish homeostasis at that lower BMI. I believe if I can keep it off for a long enough time that I will establish a new and lower maintenance "set point". It's all about semantics and misunderstandings on MFP.
I don't gain or lose huge amounts at any time, nor do I enjoy eating large amounts of food. My belief is that people get obese because they lose their lower set points and over ride them. But some people don't seem to ever remember having one, so I'm stumped when people don't think that there is any such thing. If you have a set point you just know. If you don't, then there is no convincing otherwise.
Belief does not make it fact.
A "set point" just means that CICO needs to be adjusted to the acquired results, or we need to go to the doctor and find out what's wrong with us.
Since science is science and none of us get to defy this, then set point would apply to all or none at all. Nobody gets to be a special snowflake in the weight management game.
0 -
Here's my simplified version of this *kitten* set point theory!
I can lose or gain weight at will. I can get down to just about any weight i want, but it's hard work and i'm always hungry. My appetite doesnt correspond to maintaining a 140lb or whatever weight, so i eventually crack and stop fighting against my hunger . The weight I'm at now is easy to maintain, i get to eat whatever i want and stay satisfied, which does not happen at a 10lb lower weight.
Long story short, i like food too much to maintain a skinny body. I don't have the drive or willpower to stay there anymore.1 -
Traveler120 wrote: »I've had multiple "set points". 152, 147, 138, 125, 118, 116 lbs. To me, set points are just plateaus. You get to decide if you want to change it. I'm now 113 but haven't been here long enough to call it a set point. I want my final set point to be 110-113 lbs.
I think some people naturally have them and some must not. Those who don't have set points will say "there is no such thing". I have plateaus that last for a long, long time. It can be as long as a decade staying in the same 5 pound range for me. Perhaps most people who have successful set points simply are not on MFP?
It is acceptable to say "plateau" on general forums. But if one says that their body fights to maintain a "set point" then there will be objections by those who don't maintain long weight plateaus.
I've had set points over the years also. When I was 135 pounds and 5'8" the set point worked in my favor. Now that I'm plateaued up at a higher "set point" (or whatever preferred definition one wants to use) my body fights me to plateau there.
This is my experience. I've never been overweight BMI until I hit my 50's. I've succeeded so far in getting BMI from 25 to 24, and am plateaued at this set point. So now my goal is to lower BMI to mid normal around BMI 22-23 and establish homeostasis at that lower BMI. I believe if I can keep it off for a long enough time that I will establish a new and lower maintenance "set point". It's all about semantics and misunderstandings on MFP.
I don't gain or lose huge amounts at any time, nor do I enjoy eating large amounts of food. My belief is that people get obese because they lose their lower set points and over ride them. But some people don't seem to ever remember having one, so I'm stumped when people don't think that there is any such thing. If you have a set point you just know. If you don't, then there is no convincing otherwise.
Belief does not make it fact.
A "set point" just means that CICO needs to be adjusted to the acquired results, or we need to go to the doctor and find out what's wrong with us.
Since science is science and none of us get to defy this, then set point would apply to all or none at all. Nobody gets to be a special snowflake in the weight management game.
I originally assumed everyone has maintenance weight points, but people keep alluding that they do not. I certainly do, so according to your special snowflake analogy it must be available for all.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Here's my simplified version of this *kitten* set point theory!
I can lose or gain weight at will. I can get down to just about any weight i want, but it's hard work and i'm always hungry. My appetite doesnt correspond to maintaining a 140lb or whatever weight, so i eventually crack and stop fighting against my hunger . The weight I'm at now is easy to maintain, i get to eat whatever i want and stay satisfied, which does not happen at a 10lb lower weight.
Long story short, i like food too much to maintain a skinny body. I don't have the drive or willpower to stay there anymore.
Right. That is the point where I am now. It is monumentally difficult to lose the last 10 pounds but takes no effort to maintain this current weight.1 -
Traveler120 wrote: »I've had multiple "set points". 152, 147, 138, 125, 118, 116 lbs. To me, set points are just plateaus. You get to decide if you want to change it. I'm now 113 but haven't been here long enough to call it a set point. I want my final set point to be 110-113 lbs.
I think some people naturally have them and some must not. Those who don't have set points will say "there is no such thing". I have plateaus that last for a long, long time. It can be as long as a decade staying in the same 5 pound range for me. Perhaps most people who have successful set points simply are not on MFP?
It is acceptable to say "plateau" on general forums. But if one says that their body fights to maintain a "set point" then there will be objections by those who don't maintain long weight plateaus.
I've had set points over the years also. When I was 135 pounds and 5'8" the set point worked in my favor. Now that I'm plateaued up at a higher "set point" (or whatever preferred definition one wants to use) my body fights me to plateau there.
This is my experience. I've never been overweight BMI until I hit my 50's. I've succeeded so far in getting BMI from 25 to 24, and am plateaued at this set point. So now my goal is to lower BMI to mid normal around BMI 22-23 and establish homeostasis at that lower BMI. I believe if I can keep it off for a long enough time that I will establish a new and lower maintenance "set point". It's all about semantics and misunderstandings on MFP.
I don't gain or lose huge amounts at any time, nor do I enjoy eating large amounts of food. My belief is that people get obese because they lose their lower set points and over ride them. But some people don't seem to ever remember having one, so I'm stumped when people don't think that there is any such thing. If you have a set point you just know. If you don't, then there is no convincing otherwise.
Belief does not make it fact.
A "set point" just means that CICO needs to be adjusted to the acquired results, or we need to go to the doctor and find out what's wrong with us.
Since science is science and none of us get to defy this, then set point would apply to all or none at all. Nobody gets to be a special snowflake in the weight management game.
I originally assumed everyone has maintenance weight points, but people keep alluding that they do not. I certainly do, so according to your special snowflake analogy it must be available for all.
Everyone has a TDEE and an associated weight that corresponds to eating at that TDEE or maintenance level. Is that what you're now referring to? But again, the maintenance range is within the control of the individual, based on their intake and activity level. That some ranges are more comfortable and simpler to maintain is more about building good habits and having consistent routines than it is a physiological homeostasis as you've suggested.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Here's my simplified version of this *kitten* set point theory!
I can lose or gain weight at will. I can get down to just about any weight i want, but it's hard work and i'm always hungry. My appetite doesnt correspond to maintaining a 140lb or whatever weight, so i eventually crack and stop fighting against my hunger . The weight I'm at now is easy to maintain, i get to eat whatever i want and stay satisfied, which does not happen at a 10lb lower weight.
Long story short, i like food too much to maintain a skinny body. I don't have the drive or willpower to stay there anymore.
Right. That is the point where I am now. It is monumentally difficult to lose the last 10 pounds but takes no effort to maintain this current weight.
I wouldn't call a 24 bmi a point of "last 10 pounds" unless you were a contest bodybuilder.
Saying that it's more effort than you want to expend is fair. I wouldn't say that it's likely monumental.
Sorry, I know this is likely coming across as mean, but I've been there when I thought my weight was stuck at the upper range of my normal BMI too because... yeah, woman, in her 50's, bad thyroid, this was a point where my weight settled for a long time before... you name it, I told myself that.
All sweet little lies. It also didn't take monumental effort. It took small, gradual habit adjustments that I made incrementally to make the difference.6 -
Thanks. My body works to keep me within a certain maintenance range. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to lose weight and keep it there. Whereas it takes virtually no effort to stay at current weight. Ugh.WinoGelato wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »I've had multiple "set points". 152, 147, 138, 125, 118, 116 lbs. To me, set points are just plateaus. You get to decide if you want to change it. I'm now 113 but haven't been here long enough to call it a set point. I want my final set point to be 110-113 lbs.
I think some people naturally have them and some must not. Those who don't have set points will say "there is no such thing". I have plateaus that last for a long, long time. It can be as long as a decade staying in the same 5 pound range for me. Perhaps most people who have successful set points simply are not on MFP?
It is acceptable to say "plateau" on general forums. But if one says that their body fights to maintain a "set point" then there will be objections by those who don't maintain long weight plateaus.
I've had set points over the years also. When I was 135 pounds and 5'8" the set point worked in my favor. Now that I'm plateaued up at a higher "set point" (or whatever preferred definition one wants to use) my body fights me to plateau there.
This is my experience. I've never been overweight BMI until I hit my 50's. I've succeeded so far in getting BMI from 25 to 24, and am plateaued at this set point. So now my goal is to lower BMI to mid normal around BMI 22-23 and establish homeostasis at that lower BMI. I believe if I can keep it off for a long enough time that I will establish a new and lower maintenance "set point". It's all about semantics and misunderstandings on MFP.
I don't gain or lose huge amounts at any time, nor do I enjoy eating large amounts of food. My belief is that people get obese because they lose their lower set points and over ride them. But some people don't seem to ever remember having one, so I'm stumped when people don't think that there is any such thing. If you have a set point you just know. If you don't, then there is no convincing otherwise.
Belief does not make it fact.
A "set point" just means that CICO needs to be adjusted to the acquired results, or we need to go to the doctor and find out what's wrong with us.
Since science is science and none of us get to defy this, then set point would apply to all or none at all. Nobody gets to be a special snowflake in the weight management game.
I originally assumed everyone has maintenance weight points, but people keep alluding that they do not. I certainly do, so according to your special snowflake analogy it must be available for all.
Everyone has a TDEE and an associated weight that corresponds to eating at that TDEE or maintenance level. Is that what you're now referring to? But again, the maintenance range is within the control of the individual, based on their intake and activity level. That some ranges are more comfortable and simpler to maintain is more about building good habits and having consistent routines than it is a physiological homeostasis as you've suggested.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Here's my simplified version of this *kitten* set point theory!
I can lose or gain weight at will. I can get down to just about any weight i want, but it's hard work and i'm always hungry. My appetite doesnt correspond to maintaining a 140lb or whatever weight, so i eventually crack and stop fighting against my hunger . The weight I'm at now is easy to maintain, i get to eat whatever i want and stay satisfied, which does not happen at a 10lb lower weight.
Long story short, i like food too much to maintain a skinny body. I don't have the drive or willpower to stay there anymore.
Right. That is the point where I am now. It is monumentally difficult to lose the last 10 pounds but takes no effort to maintain this current weight.
I wouldn't call a 24 bmi a point of "last 10 pounds" unless you were a contest bodybuilder.
Saying that it's more effort than you want to expend is fair. I wouldn't say that it's likely monumental.
Sorry, I know this is likely coming across as mean, but I've been there when I thought my weight was stuck at the upper range of my normal BMI too because... yeah, woman, in her 50's, bad thyroid, this was a point where my weight settled for a long time before... you name it, I told myself that.
All sweet little lies. It also didn't take monumental effort. It took small, gradual habit adjustments that I made incrementally to make the difference.
I don't care if you don't think that 10 pounds less than I am right now is enough. I will be happy to lose 10 pounds. If I could lose more I would be even happier. I'm concentrating on these current 10 pounds that won't budge.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll, how many years have you been at your current weight?0
-
Traveler120 wrote: »I've had multiple "set points". 152, 147, 138, 125, 118, 116 lbs. To me, set points are just plateaus. You get to decide if you want to change it. I'm now 113 but haven't been here long enough to call it a set point. I want my final set point to be 110-113 lbs.
I think some people naturally have them and some must not. Those who don't have set points will say "there is no such thing". I have plateaus that last for a long, long time. It can be as long as a decade staying in the same 5 pound range for me. Perhaps most people who have successful set points simply are not on MFP?
It is acceptable to say "plateau" on general forums. But if one says that their body fights to maintain a "set point" then there will be objections by those who don't maintain long weight plateaus.
I've had set points over the years also. When I was 135 pounds and 5'8" the set point worked in my favor. Now that I'm plateaued up at a higher "set point" (or whatever preferred definition one wants to use) my body fights me to plateau there.
This is my experience. I've never been overweight BMI until I hit my 50's. I've succeeded so far in getting BMI from 25 to 24, and am plateaued at this set point. So now my goal is to lower BMI to mid normal around BMI 22-23 and establish homeostasis at that lower BMI. I believe if I can keep it off for a long enough time that I will establish a new and lower maintenance "set point". It's all about semantics and misunderstandings on MFP.
I don't gain or lose huge amounts at any time, nor do I enjoy eating large amounts of food. My belief is that people get obese because they lose their lower set points and over ride them. But some people don't seem to ever remember having one, so I'm stumped when people don't think that there is any such thing. If you have a set point you just know. If you don't, then there is no convincing otherwise.
Belief does not make it fact.
A "set point" just means that CICO needs to be adjusted to the acquired results, or we need to go to the doctor and find out what's wrong with us.
Since science is science and none of us get to defy this, then set point would apply to all or none at all. Nobody gets to be a special snowflake in the weight management game.
I originally assumed everyone has maintenance weight points, but people keep alluding that they do not. I certainly do, so according to your special snowflake analogy it must be available for all.
Well, no......
Just because you believe it applies to you does not make it fact.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll, how many years have you been at your current weight?
My current weight is in flux because I'm dropping body fat.
As far as my habits? They've been keyed in for two years now.
My weight is a matter of adjustments to the habits I already have, not my body having a mind of its own, Deb.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Here's my simplified version of this *kitten* set point theory!
I can lose or gain weight at will. I can get down to just about any weight i want, but it's hard work and i'm always hungry. My appetite doesnt correspond to maintaining a 140lb or whatever weight, so i eventually crack and stop fighting against my hunger . The weight I'm at now is easy to maintain, i get to eat whatever i want and stay satisfied, which does not happen at a 10lb lower weight.
Long story short, i like food too much to maintain a skinny body. I don't have the drive or willpower to stay there anymore.
Right. That is the point where I am now. It is monumentally difficult to lose the last 10 pounds but takes no effort to maintain this current weight.
I wouldn't call a 24 bmi a point of "last 10 pounds" unless you were a contest bodybuilder.
Saying that it's more effort than you want to expend is fair. I wouldn't say that it's likely monumental.
Sorry, I know this is likely coming across as mean, but I've been there when I thought my weight was stuck at the upper range of my normal BMI too because... yeah, woman, in her 50's, bad thyroid, this was a point where my weight settled for a long time before... you name it, I told myself that.
All sweet little lies. It also didn't take monumental effort. It took small, gradual habit adjustments that I made incrementally to make the difference.
I don't care if you don't think that 10 pounds less than I am right now is enough. I will be happy to lose 10 pounds. If I could lose more I would be even happier. I'm concentrating on these current 10 pounds that won't budge.
No, I never said it wasn't "enough" . I just said it wasn't what's usually considered "the last 10 pounds".
It's only the last 10 pounds you personally want to lose. AND THAT IS FINE. Your body, your choice to do with it what you will.
I do think it's clear to make the distinction here, though, that you are not looking to diet down to some rock bottom BMI or body fat %. You're not claiming a difficulty in doing that. That would be an argument I think most people would find compelling, because getting extra lean is hard.3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »May I ask what may be an ignorant and totally irrelevant question? I clearly do not know what you folks do, but, assuming these set points do have validity, wouldn't that be irrelevant for anything other than maybe diagnosing a medical condition or similar?
What I mean is this. Months ago I had set my goal to 176lbs, and reached it. Not reaching that goal due to a hypothetical set point at 180lbs would not have stopped me from striving to continue a healthy lifestyle. That didn't occur, but even if it had, it wouldn't have been a good and valid reason to stop.
So what would be the reason behind identifying a set point, other than to "maybe" give me a reason why I hit a plateau?
Again, sorry if it's a ridiculous question. I'm just trying to learn something here.
Thanks
edit: did I kill the thread?
Medical conditions should be considered and there are some, for example some chromosomal disorders, that are known to have weight gain or obesity as symptoms and some medications are also known to do this. However, the theory of organismic set point here is often misinterpreted to mean that there are some powerful biological forces that are keeping us from losing weight and we can't fight against them because are bodies are going to always find away to get back to some preordained weight. This isn't really the way the results should be interpreted because the primary mechanism of weight gain in the study was still overeating.
What the rat studies really showed was that the HT is part of a well-known hormonal regulatory loop and that altering the HT can disrupt the loop and cause lab rats to eat massive amounts of food. Many seem to interprets this backwards as if this loop itself causes us to stay at a particular weight or weight range no matter how hard we try to fight it. However, a big difference between these rats and us is that rats are in-tune with internal eating cues while we are more influenced by environmental eating cues (except for infants). So yes, there is something that can be said for an organismic set point but we've already shown that behavior can override any such thing bi-directionally.
In end you can weigh more, weigh less, or weigh the same depending on your lifestyle so the organismic set point is just an interesting footnote for us in reality.
I misread organismic :blushing:
LOL I'm assuming a few other did too!
Judging by the number of likes and awesomes, I would guess at least six! :laugh:1 -
GottaBurnEmAll, how many years have you been at your current weight?
I'd like to answer this one again too.
I've currently been maintaining an initial 70 pound loss for 14 months.
I've currently been maintaining an additional 10 pounds beyond that for 11 months.
I've currently been maintaining an additional 10 pounds beyond that since June.
My current weight ranges from that point to 4 pounds below it, and I am still losing.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll, how many years have you been at your current weight?
I'd like to answer this one again too.
I've currently been maintaining an initial 70 pound loss for 14 months.
I've currently been maintaining an additional 10 pounds beyond that for 11 months.
I've currently been maintaining an additional 10 pounds beyond that since June.
My current weight ranges from that point to 4 pounds below it, and I am still losing.
Interesting, may I ask whether you have intentionally reduced your deficit since June?0 -
GottaBurnEmAll-- How long did it take to get your initial 70 pound gain? Did it happen quickly or slowly over time?0
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll, how many years have you been at your current weight?
I'd like to answer this one again too.
I've currently been maintaining an initial 70 pound loss for 14 months.
I've currently been maintaining an additional 10 pounds beyond that for 11 months.
I've currently been maintaining an additional 10 pounds beyond that since June.
My current weight ranges from that point to 4 pounds below it, and I am still losing.
Interesting, may I ask whether you have intentionally reduced your deficit since June?
At some points. I have also had long breaks of eating at maintenance due to wanting to train for running. Mostly, I've been eating at a consistent deficit, though and just being happy with losing slowly since I am in fact losing just vanity weight at this point.
It should be noted that I've been losing body fat consistently, even though the scale fluctuates. Bras I bought in June? I no longer fill the cups. Pants I bought no longer fit as tightly.
I'm at the point in my losses and activity levels (running and progressive weight lifting) where it's not all just about the scale.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll-- How long did it take to get your initial 70 pounds overweight? Did it happen quickly or slowly over time?
Years. Years and years. I had been overweight my whole life. I was thin-ish (around the top range of healthy BMI for my height) when I got married, in 1991 for about a year.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll-- How long did it take to get your initial 70 pounds overweight? Did it happen quickly or slowly over time?
Years. Years and years. I had been overweight my whole life. I was thin-ish (around the top range of healthy BMI for my height) when I got married, in 1991 for about a year.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll, how many years have you been at your current weight?
I'd like to answer this one again too.
I've currently been maintaining an initial 70 pound loss for 14 months.
I've currently been maintaining an additional 10 pounds beyond that for 11 months.
I've currently been maintaining an additional 10 pounds beyond that since June.
My current weight ranges from that point to 4 pounds below it, and I am still losing.
Interesting, may I ask whether you have intentionally reduced your deficit since June?
At some points. I have also had long breaks of eating at maintenance due to wanting to train for running. Mostly, I've been eating at a consistent deficit, though and just being happy with losing slowly since I am in fact losing just vanity weight at this point.
It should be noted that I've been losing body fat consistently, even though the scale fluctuates. Bras I bought in June? I no longer fill the cups. Pants I bought no longer fit as tightly.
I'm at the point in my losses and activity levels (running and progressive weight lifting) where it's not all just about the scale.
That is a good point to be. I am interested to hear if you have raised your metabolic rate higher than it was in the past? You have a fairly high TDEE maintenance point right now, correct? How long did it take for you to raise that? What is your BMR, RMR and NEAT? I want to know because you and I are close in age. You seem to have done a great job overcoming some obstacles.
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll-- How long did it take to get your initial 70 pounds overweight? Did it happen quickly or slowly over time?
Years. Years and years. I had been overweight my whole life. I was thin-ish (around the top range of healthy BMI for my height) when I got married, in 1991 for about a year.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll, how many years have you been at your current weight?
I'd like to answer this one again too.
I've currently been maintaining an initial 70 pound loss for 14 months.
I've currently been maintaining an additional 10 pounds beyond that for 11 months.
I've currently been maintaining an additional 10 pounds beyond that since June.
My current weight ranges from that point to 4 pounds below it, and I am still losing.
Interesting, may I ask whether you have intentionally reduced your deficit since June?
At some points. I have also had long breaks of eating at maintenance due to wanting to train for running. Mostly, I've been eating at a consistent deficit, though and just being happy with losing slowly since I am in fact losing just vanity weight at this point.
It should be noted that I've been losing body fat consistently, even though the scale fluctuates. Bras I bought in June? I no longer fill the cups. Pants I bought no longer fit as tightly.
I'm at the point in my losses and activity levels (running and progressive weight lifting) where it's not all just about the scale.
That is a good point to be. I am interested to hear if you have raised your metabolic rate higher than it was in the past? You have a fairly high TDEE maintenance point right now, correct? How long did it take for you to raise that? What is your BMR, RMR and NEAT? I want to know because you and I are close in age. You seem to have done a great job overcoming some obstacles.
It's funny, I just calculated all this based on a body fat calculator HeyBales posted in another thread. Going with conservative estimates, my BMR is 1264, (don't know my RMR) and my TDEE is anywhere from 1737 to 1958 depending on the day. I tend to stick right around 1800 in thinking about my calorie allowance and working out what my deficit will be.
I have no idea what my metabolic rate used to be. I do know I'm more active than I used to be.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll-- How long did it take to get your initial 70 pounds overweight? Did it happen quickly or slowly over time?
Years. Years and years. I had been overweight my whole life. I was thin-ish (around the top range of healthy BMI for my height) when I got married, in 1991 for about a year.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll, how many years have you been at your current weight?
I'd like to answer this one again too.
I've currently been maintaining an initial 70 pound loss for 14 months.
I've currently been maintaining an additional 10 pounds beyond that for 11 months.
I've currently been maintaining an additional 10 pounds beyond that since June.
My current weight ranges from that point to 4 pounds below it, and I am still losing.
Interesting, may I ask whether you have intentionally reduced your deficit since June?
At some points. I have also had long breaks of eating at maintenance due to wanting to train for running. Mostly, I've been eating at a consistent deficit, though and just being happy with losing slowly since I am in fact losing just vanity weight at this point.
It should be noted that I've been losing body fat consistently, even though the scale fluctuates. Bras I bought in June? I no longer fill the cups. Pants I bought no longer fit as tightly.
I'm at the point in my losses and activity levels (running and progressive weight lifting) where it's not all just about the scale.
That is a good point to be. I am interested to hear if you have raised your metabolic rate higher than it was in the past? You have a fairly high TDEE maintenance point right now, correct? How long did it take for you to raise that? What is your BMR, RMR and NEAT? I want to know because you and I are close in age. You seem to have done a great job overcoming some obstacles.
It's funny, I just calculated all this based on a body fat calculator HeyBales posted in another thread. Going with conservative estimates, my BMR is 1264, (don't know my RMR) and my TDEE is anywhere from 1737 to 1958 depending on the day. I tend to stick right around 1800 in thinking about my calorie allowance and working out what my deficit will be.
I have no idea what my metabolic rate used to be. I do know I'm more active than I used to be.
Okay. Yours is really similar to mine. That is encouraging.0 -
My weight history @ 5'8"
Average weight Age Ranges
145 pounds-- Ages 17-19
135 pounds-- Ages 20-25
140 pounds-- Ages 26-32
145 pounds-- Ages 33-37
150 pounds-- Ages 38-40
155 pounds-- Ages 41-44
160 pounds-- Ages 45-47
165 pounds-- Ages 48-53
155 pounds-- Ages 54 to present
My weight has always "settled" within a 4-5 pound maintenance point range within each of these age ranges. I would love
to get back down to 145. When I was between 145-150 I felt really great. 0
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