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
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think people are saying that that happens, but it's not a "set point" in the way that some think about it -- that your body just wants to stay at that weight -- but an equilibrium based on activity and how you like to or are in the habit of eating. That you've (and I've) had it happen at different weights at different times seems to me to indicate it's not about a specific weight, and same with the fact that the population as a whole has gotten so much fatter so quickly.
I've maintained at a variety of different equilibriums without thinking about it at different times, but I don't think I couldn't have easily gained or lost at those times had I changed my calorie intake or activity.
I like that word "equilibrium".
0 -
I can't speak for anybody else, but my own body has definitely seemed to have "set points" - a point at which I'll naturally maintain without consciously control diet or activity. The most obvious one was the healthy weight I was at for many years - I stayed within in a few pounds through various "lifestyle changes", through being highly active, being unwell and very inactive, and so on.
Funnily enough, I had a similar thing happen at my heaviest - I maintained within a few pounds for a few years, without thinking about it.
I do understand that some people are saying that they've never had a set point, and it has all been about how much conscious control they've had over eating and activity. So I think it may just be an individual thing.
This is almost identical to my experience.0 -
I can't speak for anybody else, but my own body has definitely seemed to have "set points" - a point at which I'll naturally maintain without consciously control diet or activity. The most obvious one was the healthy weight I was at for many years - I stayed within in a few pounds through various "lifestyle changes", through being highly active, being unwell and very inactive, and so on.
Funnily enough, I had a similar thing happen at my heaviest - I maintained within a few pounds for a few years, without thinking about it.
I do understand that some people are saying that they've never had a set point, and it has all been about how much conscious control they've had over eating and activity. So I think it may just be an individual thing.
Not sure if set points actually *are* a thing (which I, for one, doubt) but if they exist, how can that set point fluctuate from - in your example - one at your lightest weight and another at your heaviest? Isn't a set point, by its very definition, *set?* <confused>1 -
The body's set point can change and "set" again up or down.
ETA-- replace "set point" with "plateau point". One can have a long term plateau at different weights. When the body strives to stay within a certain range without calorie counting, I consider that my current set point.2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I can't speak for anybody else, but my own body has definitely seemed to have "set points" - a point at which I'll naturally maintain without consciously control diet or activity. The most obvious one was the healthy weight I was at for many years - I stayed within in a few pounds through various "lifestyle changes", through being highly active, being unwell and very inactive, and so on.
Funnily enough, I had a similar thing happen at my heaviest - I maintained within a few pounds for a few years, without thinking about it.
I do understand that some people are saying that they've never had a set point, and it has all been about how much conscious control they've had over eating and activity. So I think it may just be an individual thing.
Not sure if set points actually *are* a thing (which I, for one, doubt) but if they exist, how can that set point fluctuate from - in your example - one at your lightest weight and another at your heaviest? Isn't a set point, by its very definition, *set?* <confused>
For instance: My weight (let's pretend) is 148 and is stuck there for a long time. I would have to fight against the set point actively until I got down to, let's say, 139 pounds. I would have to work very hard against my body's natural tendency to want to go back to the original set point. It might take a while of actively fighting it to stay down. But after a time it will become a natural set point and will fight to stay there.1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I can't speak for anybody else, but my own body has definitely seemed to have "set points" - a point at which I'll naturally maintain without consciously control diet or activity. The most obvious one was the healthy weight I was at for many years - I stayed within in a few pounds through various "lifestyle changes", through being highly active, being unwell and very inactive, and so on.
Funnily enough, I had a similar thing happen at my heaviest - I maintained within a few pounds for a few years, without thinking about it.
I do understand that some people are saying that they've never had a set point, and it has all been about how much conscious control they've had over eating and activity. So I think it may just be an individual thing.
Not sure if set points actually *are* a thing (which I, for one, doubt) but if they exist, how can that set point fluctuate from - in your example - one at your lightest weight and another at your heaviest? Isn't a set point, by its very definition, *set?* <confused>
That's how I see set points. You don't do anything to change them, they just are. If my weight is a set point, it wouldn't matter if I ate more or less, exercised more or less, the weight would remain the same. I wouldn't have to struggle to lose weight, to change how much I eat and how much I exercise, I would be 133# whether I'm running marathons every week or sitting on my butt 20 hours a day, or if I'm eating 4,000 or 1,200 calories a day.2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I can't speak for anybody else, but my own body has definitely seemed to have "set points" - a point at which I'll naturally maintain without consciously control diet or activity. The most obvious one was the healthy weight I was at for many years - I stayed within in a few pounds through various "lifestyle changes", through being highly active, being unwell and very inactive, and so on.
Funnily enough, I had a similar thing happen at my heaviest - I maintained within a few pounds for a few years, without thinking about it.
I do understand that some people are saying that they've never had a set point, and it has all been about how much conscious control they've had over eating and activity. So I think it may just be an individual thing.
Not sure if set points actually *are* a thing (which I, for one, doubt) but if they exist, how can that set point fluctuate from - in your example - one at your lightest weight and another at your heaviest? Isn't a set point, by its very definition, *set?* <confused>
That's how I see set points. You don't do anything to change them, they just are. If my weight is a set point, it wouldn't matter if I ate more or less, exercised more or less, the weight would remain the same. I wouldn't have to struggle to lose weight, to change how much I eat and how much I exercise, I would be 133# whether I'm running marathons every week or sitting on my butt 20 hours a day, or if I'm eating 4,000 or 1,200 calories a day.
Then that's where the interpretations conflict. One's body makes sure that one eats the right amount of calories when maintaining at a set point. Of course if you eat over TDEE calories you will gain weight. It's just that the body sends satiety signals properly.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I can't speak for anybody else, but my own body has definitely seemed to have "set points" - a point at which I'll naturally maintain without consciously control diet or activity. The most obvious one was the healthy weight I was at for many years - I stayed within in a few pounds through various "lifestyle changes", through being highly active, being unwell and very inactive, and so on.
Funnily enough, I had a similar thing happen at my heaviest - I maintained within a few pounds for a few years, without thinking about it.
I do understand that some people are saying that they've never had a set point, and it has all been about how much conscious control they've had over eating and activity. So I think it may just be an individual thing.
Not sure if set points actually *are* a thing (which I, for one, doubt) but if they exist, how can that set point fluctuate from - in your example - one at your lightest weight and another at your heaviest? Isn't a set point, by its very definition, *set?* <confused>
That's how I see set points. You don't do anything to change them, they just are. If my weight is a set point, it wouldn't matter if I ate more or less, exercised more or less, the weight would remain the same. I wouldn't have to struggle to lose weight, to change how much I eat and how much I exercise, I would be 133# whether I'm running marathons every week or sitting on my butt 20 hours a day, or if I'm eating 4,000 or 1,200 calories a day.
Sounds magical, and also, BS. The only way you don't gain weight eating 3x more food is if your activity increases proportionately.0 -
^You CANNOT eat 3 x more food than you need without gaining, btw. You have to eat within maintenance TDEE calories at a set point.
It is like being on auto pilot. Instead of having to manually calculate calories in MFP, the body does it intinctively. My goodness what did people do before scales and mfp were invented?2 -
Traveler120 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »I can't speak for anybody else, but my own body has definitely seemed to have "set points" - a point at which I'll naturally maintain without consciously control diet or activity. The most obvious one was the healthy weight I was at for many years - I stayed within in a few pounds through various "lifestyle changes", through being highly active, being unwell and very inactive, and so on.
Funnily enough, I had a similar thing happen at my heaviest - I maintained within a few pounds for a few years, without thinking about it.
I do understand that some people are saying that they've never had a set point, and it has all been about how much conscious control they've had over eating and activity. So I think it may just be an individual thing.
Not sure if set points actually *are* a thing (which I, for one, doubt) but if they exist, how can that set point fluctuate from - in your example - one at your lightest weight and another at your heaviest? Isn't a set point, by its very definition, *set?* <confused>
That's how I see set points. You don't do anything to change them, they just are. If my weight is a set point, it wouldn't matter if I ate more or less, exercised more or less, the weight would remain the same. I wouldn't have to struggle to lose weight, to change how much I eat and how much I exercise, I would be 133# whether I'm running marathons every week or sitting on my butt 20 hours a day, or if I'm eating 4,000 or 1,200 calories a day.
Sounds magical, and also, BS. The only way you don't gain weight eating 3x more food is if your activity increases proportionately.
I know that, which is why weight set points are BS to me. Of course, people prefer to be told their weight is at a set point rather than they are eating too much.8 -
hotel4dogs wrote: »Do others believe in "set points"? I have been reading a bit about them, and I think I have hit one. It seems that there are several weights that my body just likes, and it's harder to either lose or gain weight when I'm at a set point.
I think it's what makes maintaining so hard, if you are not at a "set point".
Here's some background information:
http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/BIDMCInteractive/BreakThroughYourSetPoint/WeekOneTheScienceofSetPoint.aspx
Thank you for the link. I like the suggestions that they give about forming a new set points.2 -
^You CANNOT eat 3 x more food than you need without gaining, btw. You have to eat within maintenance TDEE calories at a set point.
It is like being on auto pilot. Instead of having to manually calculate calories in MFP, the body does it intinctively. My goodness what did people do before scales and mfp were invented?
Let's see, probably worked harder and ate less? Technology has done wonderful things to push humanity along and to make them fat.2 -
I'm going to work on lowering mine. Thanks!0
-
^You CANNOT eat 3 x more food than you need without gaining, btw. You have to eat within maintenance TDEE calories at a set point.
It is like being on auto pilot. Instead of having to manually calculate calories in MFP, the body does it intinctively. My goodness what did people do before scales and mfp were invented?
Let's see, probably worked harder and ate less? Technology has done wonderful things to push humanity along and to make them fat.
Different subject0 -
No such thing. The body regulates energy based on what you consume and how much activity you do. If there was truly a set point, your body would fight to not gain or lose weight. And that doesn't happen based on how many calories one consumes over or under maintenance.
As for "plateaus", it's improbable for many people. There are stalls, but plateaus are really hard to attain. You'd have to be like a machine for 6 weeks with NO CHANGE in any part of your routine and no one can accurately say how one's hormones will be from day to day. Even just an incident of confrontation that causes one ire will throw off one's cortisol level versus other days.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
I believe in set points.
I've dieted for most of my life, resigned to the fact I'd be heavy forever.
July 2015 I found MFP. Now I'm when I should have been my entire life..... it took logging, the support of friends here and information like set point weight trifles to help me understand fit and slim was possible. And I could beat yoyo dieting....
I can eat now, within reasonable limits and feel better when I'm active! I'm at a healthy, maintainable set point weight. Finally.
1 -
In other words you're eating maintenance. Increase or decrease your calories for a period of time and the body responds in kind.I believe in set points.
I've dieted for most of my life, resigned to the fact I'd be heavy forever.
July 2015 I found MFP. Now I'm when I should have been my entire life..... it took logging, the support of friends here and information like set point weight trifles to help me understand fit and slim was possible. And I could beat yoyo dieting....
I can eat now, within reasonable limits and feel better when I'm active! I'm at a healthy, maintainable set point weight. Finally.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
There are no set points, only set habits.15
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »I can't speak for anybody else, but my own body has definitely seemed to have "set points" - a point at which I'll naturally maintain without consciously control diet or activity. The most obvious one was the healthy weight I was at for many years - I stayed within in a few pounds through various "lifestyle changes", through being highly active, being unwell and very inactive, and so on.
Funnily enough, I had a similar thing happen at my heaviest - I maintained within a few pounds for a few years, without thinking about it.
I do understand that some people are saying that they've never had a set point, and it has all been about how much conscious control they've had over eating and activity. So I think it may just be an individual thing.
Not sure if set points actually *are* a thing (which I, for one, doubt) but if they exist, how can that set point fluctuate from - in your example - one at your lightest weight and another at your heaviest? Isn't a set point, by its very definition, *set?* <confused>
For instance: My weight (let's pretend) is 148 and is stuck there for a long time. I would have to fight against the set point actively until I got down to, let's say, 139 pounds. I would have to work very hard against my body's natural tendency to want to go back to the original set point. It might take a while of actively fighting it to stay down. But after a time it will become a natural set point and will fight to stay there.
Or maybe it just takes you a while to get used to eating the correct number of calories to maintain that new weight?7 -
^You CANNOT eat 3 x more food than you need without gaining, btw. You have to eat within maintenance TDEE calories at a set point.
It is like being on auto pilot. Instead of having to manually calculate calories in MFP, the body does it intinctively. My goodness what did people do before scales and mfp were invented?
Let's see, probably worked harder and ate less? Technology has done wonderful things to push humanity along and to make them fat.
Different subject
No, it explains why the population is on average overweight now and wasn't before.
Being at equilibrium with dialed in (or simply comfortable) habits of exercise and eating does not mean it's hard to gain or lose weight. If someone wants to call this a set point, great, whatever, but it doesn't mean it's extra hard to lose weight vs. how we normally think of it. And it's not the same thing as a plateau. I've been hanging out at between 125 and 130, which is a normal place for me to be stuck -- I've been stuck for years here before. It's not a plateau, it's because my exercise and activity puts me at maintenance for this weight. I was the same weight through my late teens and 20s and would have said then that I was lucky that I could eat what I wanted and not gain weight, which made the fact that I was a bit fatter than ideally I would have liked (not overweight, just not my ideal) worth it. Looking back, that was nonsense -- eating more or moving less I would have gained (as I eventually did when my lifestyle changed) and of course if I'd seriously tried losing weight (which I never did), I could have. Thinking you have no control can be comfortable, though.2 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »I can't speak for anybody else, but my own body has definitely seemed to have "set points" - a point at which I'll naturally maintain without consciously control diet or activity. The most obvious one was the healthy weight I was at for many years - I stayed within in a few pounds through various "lifestyle changes", through being highly active, being unwell and very inactive, and so on.
Funnily enough, I had a similar thing happen at my heaviest - I maintained within a few pounds for a few years, without thinking about it.
I do understand that some people are saying that they've never had a set point, and it has all been about how much conscious control they've had over eating and activity. So I think it may just be an individual thing.
Not sure if set points actually *are* a thing (which I, for one, doubt) but if they exist, how can that set point fluctuate from - in your example - one at your lightest weight and another at your heaviest? Isn't a set point, by its very definition, *set?* <confused>
For instance: My weight (let's pretend) is 148 and is stuck there for a long time. I would have to fight against the set point actively until I got down to, let's say, 139 pounds. I would have to work very hard against my body's natural tendency to want to go back to the original set point. It might take a while of actively fighting it to stay down. But after a time it will become a natural set point and will fight to stay there.
Or maybe it just takes you a while to get used to eating the correct number of calories to maintain that new weight?
You totally don't get what a set point is.1 -
You definitely had a set point while you were in your late teens and early 20s. Of course a set point is not set in stone. If you conciously eat less you will lose. If you eat more you will gain. But the body will try to get you back to the set point if you pay attention and listen to it. There are some who don't seem to have one, though.lemurcat12 wrote: »^You CANNOT eat 3 x more food than you need without gaining, btw. You have to eat within maintenance TDEE calories at a set point.
It is like being on auto pilot. Instead of having to manually calculate calories in MFP, the body does it intinctively. My goodness what did people do before scales and mfp were invented?
Let's see, probably worked harder and ate less? Technology has done wonderful things to push humanity along and to make them fat.
Different subject
No, it explains why the population is on average overweight now and wasn't before.
Being at equilibrium with dialed in (or simply comfortable) habits of exercise and eating does not mean it's hard to gain or lose weight. If someone wants to call this a set point, great, whatever, but it doesn't mean it's extra hard to lose weight vs. how we normally think of it. And it's not the same thing as a plateau. I've been hanging out at between 125 and 130, which is a normal place for me to be stuck -- I've been stuck for years here before. It's not a plateau, it's because my exercise and activity puts me at maintenance for this weight. I was the same weight through my late teens and 20s and would have said then that I was lucky that I could eat what I wanted and not gain weight, which made the fact that I was a bit fatter than ideally I would have liked (not overweight, just not my ideal) worth it. Looking back, that was nonsense -- eating more or moving less I would have gained (as I eventually did when my lifestyle changed) and of course if I'd seriously tried losing weight (which I never did), I could have. Thinking you have no control can be comfortable, though.
1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »I can't speak for anybody else, but my own body has definitely seemed to have "set points" - a point at which I'll naturally maintain without consciously control diet or activity. The most obvious one was the healthy weight I was at for many years - I stayed within in a few pounds through various "lifestyle changes", through being highly active, being unwell and very inactive, and so on.
Funnily enough, I had a similar thing happen at my heaviest - I maintained within a few pounds for a few years, without thinking about it.
I do understand that some people are saying that they've never had a set point, and it has all been about how much conscious control they've had over eating and activity. So I think it may just be an individual thing.
Not sure if set points actually *are* a thing (which I, for one, doubt) but if they exist, how can that set point fluctuate from - in your example - one at your lightest weight and another at your heaviest? Isn't a set point, by its very definition, *set?* <confused>
For instance: My weight (let's pretend) is 148 and is stuck there for a long time. I would have to fight against the set point actively until I got down to, let's say, 139 pounds. I would have to work very hard against my body's natural tendency to want to go back to the original set point. It might take a while of actively fighting it to stay down. But after a time it will become a natural set point and will fight to stay there.
Or maybe it just takes you a while to get used to eating the correct number of calories to maintain that new weight?
You totally don't get what a set point is.
Don't presume that your misinterpretation of my comment is representative of my lack of knowledge.
You are claiming that your body is fighting against what you want it to have as a set point, until you have put in enough time maintaining that weight for it to become your new set point. What I'm saying is that during this time, while you are fighting to keep your body at that weight, you are making a concerted effort to keep to a specific calorie goal to maintain. After a while, you are subconsciously becoming accustomed to this caloric target and will become accustomed to eating that amount.
I get what you are claiming a set point to be. I'm saying that there are subconscious factors at play. Finding a coloured egg doesn't prove the existence of the Easter bunny.15 -
Set point theory:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22538452 -
Set point theory:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2253845
Sorry, but I'm failing to see the part where only some people have them. That's also an incredibly old reference and still refers to set-point as a theory.4 -
Set point is used an excuse for not losing weight. I always thought my set point was 140 pounds. I could never get below 140. I exercised like a fiend but never broke 140. 20 years of exercise, 20 years of "eating right." But because of the good people of MFP, I learned that using a food scale to track my calorie intake accurately I finally lost 25 pounds. And now maintaining my new "set point" of 120. No excuses! Happy dance!4
-
Isn't 'set point' really just a trendy word for maintenance level?3
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »Isn't 'set point' really just a trendy word for maintenance level?
Oooh, wait! Wut? Nuh uh!1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »I can't speak for anybody else, but my own body has definitely seemed to have "set points" - a point at which I'll naturally maintain without consciously control diet or activity. The most obvious one was the healthy weight I was at for many years - I stayed within in a few pounds through various "lifestyle changes", through being highly active, being unwell and very inactive, and so on.
Funnily enough, I had a similar thing happen at my heaviest - I maintained within a few pounds for a few years, without thinking about it.
I do understand that some people are saying that they've never had a set point, and it has all been about how much conscious control they've had over eating and activity. So I think it may just be an individual thing.
Not sure if set points actually *are* a thing (which I, for one, doubt) but if they exist, how can that set point fluctuate from - in your example - one at your lightest weight and another at your heaviest? Isn't a set point, by its very definition, *set?* <confused>
For instance: My weight (let's pretend) is 148 and is stuck there for a long time. I would have to fight against the set point actively until I got down to, let's say, 139 pounds. I would have to work very hard against my body's natural tendency to want to go back to the original set point. It might take a while of actively fighting it to stay down. But after a time it will become a natural set point and will fight to stay there.
Or maybe it just takes you a while to get used to eating the correct number of calories to maintain that new weight?
You totally don't get what a set point is.
Don't presume that your misinterpretation of my comment is representative of my lack of knowledge.
You are claiming that your body is fighting against what you want it to have as a set point, until you have put in enough time maintaining that weight for it to become your new set point. What I'm saying is that during this time, while you are fighting to keep your body at that weight, you are making a concerted effort to keep to a specific calorie goal to maintain. After a while, you are subconsciously becoming accustomed to this caloric target and will become accustomed to eating that amount.
I get what you are claiming a set point to be. I'm saying that there are subconscious factors at play. Finding a coloured egg doesn't prove the existence of the Easter bunny.
So basically what Deb is claiming is a set point is like learning to ride a bike, or playing an instrument etc. At first it takes conscious effort to do and is hard and after a while it becomes second nature like breathing, provided you keep up with doing it.1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Isn't 'set point' really just a trendy word for maintenance level?
Yup.1
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
- 424 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