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
-
stevencloser wrote: »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.
Whatever you want to call it is fine with me. It served me well for many years.
1 -
queenliz99 wrote: »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!
Happy you are at a new set point. I never said it can't be changed.
0 -
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.
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.
It's not used in any consistent way. It's often used to support the claim that people can't maintain weight loss, for example, which is what I'm arguing against.
I don't think my weight in my teens and 20s (which is one I can maintain pretty easily under the right conditions) was necessarily a set point. When I changed my habits one way, I gained. If I'd changed my habits in another way I'd have lost. I don't think either would have necessarily been hard to do, and I don't think being in equilibrium means your body is fighting a change. (I don't disagree that there are ways in which a body fights a change, and I think this happens to everything.)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.
Where I disagree is the thing about paying attention and listening to your body=getting back to set point. That you maintain easily at a particular weight doesn't mean your body is pushing you to stay there or that listening to your body=maintaining. I maintained easily because my activity and habits and desire for food put me there. Had I changed this -- for example, had I lived like I did during a 2 week service project to Nicaragua later (when I lost weight without trying), I probably would have lost; had I lived like I did in my 30s when I gained weight (less activity, more wining and dining because of work), I would have gained sooner, I think. I think it's common to hit an equilibrium that is going to vary based on environment and habits, but that one doesn't have to think about weight to avoid gaining doesn't to me mean the body is resisting it in some special way.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
Whatever you want to call it is fine with me. It served me well for many years.
Well, that's important. It's not your body fighting you to stay at a certain weight, it's you not being used to something. Big difference.5 -
Guess you didn't read the last line of the abstract.Set point theory:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2253845
So change dietary composition and have hormones change and "set point" won't be acheived. Even aging alone changes "set point". Metabolic rate obviously lowers and continued eating like one did in their 20's would result in weight gain.Current working hypotheses include roles for nutrients, dietary composition and organoleptic properties, hormones, neural pathways, various brain nuclei, and many neurotransmitters in the regulation of food intake. It is concluded that regulation of body weight in relation to one specific parameter related to energy balance is unrealistic. It seems appropriate to assume that the level at which body weight and body fat content are maintained represents the equilibria achieved by regulation of many parameters.
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
7 -
But that's a physical skill. Maintaining weight is more of a conscious effort of controlling your CICO and while it can become habitual, it needs to be adjusted if parameters in someone's life changes (IE hormonal changes, aging, stress incress, health issues). Playing an instrument is a skill that doesn't need to be adjusted much unless something impairs them (arthritis, loss of a finger, etc.)stevencloser wrote: »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.
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
0 -
+1stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
Whatever you want to call it is fine with me. It served me well for many years.
Well, that's important. It's not your body fighting you to stay at a certain weight, it's you not being used to something. Big difference.
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
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
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.
It's not used in any consistent way. It's often used to support the claim that people can't maintain weight loss, for example, which is what I'm arguing against.
I don't think my weight in my teens and 20s (which is one I can maintain pretty easily under the right conditions) was necessarily a set point. When I changed my habits one way, I gained. If I'd changed my habits in another way I'd have lost. I don't think either would have necessarily been hard to do, and I don't think being in equilibrium means your body is fighting a change. (I don't disagree that there are ways in which a body fights a change, and I think this happens to everything.)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.
Where I disagree is the thing about paying attention and listening to your body=getting back to set point. That you maintain easily at a particular weight doesn't mean your body is pushing you to stay there or that listening to your body=maintaining. I maintained easily because my activity and habits and desire for food put me there. Had I changed this -- for example, had I lived like I did during a 2 week service project to Nicaragua later (when I lost weight without trying), I probably would have lost; had I lived like I did in my 30s when I gained weight (less activity, more wining and dining because of work), I would have gained sooner, I think. I think it's common to hit an equilibrium that is going to vary based on environment and habits, but that one doesn't have to think about weight to avoid gaining doesn't to me mean the body is resisting it in some special way.
Not only is it used to claim that people can't maintain weight loss, further explanation of the "set point theory" in some circles continues that after weight regain, the body then achieves a new HIGHER "set point". You can only ever reset your set point ever and ever higher.
This is so patently ridiculous an argument, to believe you can't lower but only raise such a thing as a set point (as if there's such a thing in the first place) that I thought my face was going to freeze into position with my mouth agape when I first read about it.7 -
Hmm...well I find it kind of funny that the idea is being discarded as an "excuse".
Sure, you could use it as an excuse I guess. Or you could see it as a "reason this isn't easy", which is not the same as a "reason this can't be done".
I thought the science was pretty clear as far as the metabolism adapting and the body fighting back to maintain equilibrium. Pretty sure there have been multiple studies including at least one that said people that are formerly fat have to eat less to maintain the same weight as people that haven't been fat.
I have hit a wall as far as weight loss before, and I've also had plateau points where I've stayed for long periods of time.
Could be that theory believers have bodies that freak out more about weight loss (you are starving me to death!) and therefore adapt more.
Doesn't mean we can't lose; may mean we have to eat less/exercise more than some other same sized people though.
Is it that crazy to think there is a continuum of physiological response to dieting?4 -
Set point theory:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2253845
A good paper that examines also alternative and more recent theories:
http://dmm.biologists.org/content/4/6/7330 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Set point theory:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2253845
A good paper that examines also alternative and more recent theories:
http://dmm.biologists.org/content/4/6/733
The "settling point model" that they propose in the article might meet with less objections from people who do not like the phrase "set point". I think people just assume that a set point is something that doesn't change, however it actually can. As difficult as is for detractors to believe, some people's bodies like to settle in and don't like to fluctuate in weight more than a few pounds. Unfortunately mine has "settled" at a weight I don't prefer. Lol.
2 -
Guess you didn't read the last line of the abstract.Set point theory:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2253845
So change dietary composition and have hormones change and "set point" won't be acheived.Even aging alone changes "set point". Metabolic rate obviously lowers and continued eating like one did in their 20's would result in weight gain.Current working hypotheses include roles for nutrients, dietary composition and organoleptic properties, hormones, neural pathways, various brain nuclei, and many neurotransmitters in the regulation of food intake. It is concluded that regulation of body weight in relation to one specific parameter related to energy balance is unrealistic. It seems appropriate to assume that the level at which body weight and body fat content are maintained represents the equilibria achieved by regulation of many parameters.
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
That is what happened to me. There are other variables affecting the set point that were not in place when I was younger that have come into play.
0 -
But that's a physical skill. Maintaining weight is more of a conscious effort of controlling your CICO and while it can become habitual, it needs to be adjusted if parameters in someone's life changes (IE hormonal changes, aging, stress incress, health issues). Playing an instrument is a skill that doesn't need to be adjusted much unless something impairs them (arthritis, loss of a finger, etc.)stevencloser wrote: »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.
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
Yes to bolded part. I'm saying that I do not need to make much of an effort to maintain my weight. Aging, chronic stress, mild insulin resistance, and other factors tampered with my set point and raised it.
NOW, in order to lower my weight to get to a new "set point", I have to artificially "reset" my body by making positive health changes like reducing stress, exercising, and eating less. My TDEE has lowered, so currently I must eat less to maintain than I did in my 20s or 30s.
I had never utilized calorie counting or needed to until I hit my 50s. I lost 10 pounds using calorie restriction and hit a one year plateau. Then my body happily decided to make this a new set point. But I'm not finished or giving up hope yet.
I don't know whether to keep fighting and try to lose more or accept this maintenance weight set point. I still feel too "thick" at high-normal BMI and am not satisfied to stay here. This has been my experience and why I turned to MFP. I'm not blaming set point or taking the easy way out. It is hard to fight against but not insurmountable.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Set point theory:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2253845
A good paper that examines also alternative and more recent theories:
http://dmm.biologists.org/content/4/6/733
The "settling point model" that they propose in the article might meet with less objections from people who do not like the phrase "set point". I think people just assume that a set point is something that doesn't change, however it actually can. As difficult as is for detractors to believe, some people's bodies like to settle in and don't like to fluctuate in weight more than a few pounds. Unfortunately mine has "settled" at a weight I don't prefer. Lol.
Yeah, probably the settling model is more in line with the cico reductionism that we can observe here. But, frankly, their opinion is irrelevant.0 -
But that's a physical skill. Maintaining weight is more of a conscious effort of controlling your CICO and while it can become habitual, it needs to be adjusted if parameters in someone's life changes (IE hormonal changes, aging, stress incress, health issues). Playing an instrument is a skill that doesn't need to be adjusted much unless something impairs them (arthritis, loss of a finger, etc.)stevencloser wrote: »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.
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
How about driving a car? You get a new one and it handles differently and you need to get used to that until you could basically do it in your sleep.1 -
I think the science around "set point" is pretty convincing. When we examine the behaviours of profoundly obese adults, we find that , with fairly minimal interventions, the weight is shed surprisingly quickly. Bringing in limited exercise, limiting calories by a small amount triggers large weight loss, often from the critical fat areas first (visceral fat, belly fat, neck/face/chest fat). Likewise, when chronically underfed people are re-fed, we can observe the body using these calories very efficiently to repair damage and lay down stores.
We can also see as people approach ideal weight, their weightloss/gain slows. How many as a proportion of users here are bemoaning the last 5KG's for example?
The problem I think is that the species set point has been disrupted by changing lifestyles. The massive increase in metabolic diseases across mammals, not just humans, I think, shows that something is going wrong environmentally. Maybe the increase in processed foods and sugars across all domesticated animals, not just humans, is causing some form of metabolic upset?
2 -
-
trigden1991 wrote: »
My "set habit" keeps me within a few pounds even when I actively try to break out of it.
Somehow that doesn't sound the same. I'll stick with "set point" rather than trying to be MFP PC.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
But that's a physical skill. Maintaining weight is more of a conscious effort of controlling your CICO and while it can become habitual, it needs to be adjusted if parameters in someone's life changes (IE hormonal changes, aging, stress incress, health issues). Playing an instrument is a skill that doesn't need to be adjusted much unless something impairs them (arthritis, loss of a finger, etc.)stevencloser wrote: »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.
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
How about driving a car? You get a new one and it handles differently and you need to get used to that until you could basically do it in your sleep.
Here's a better analogy for "set point" method:
You have a thermostat in your living room that you have set to 68 degrees Fahrenheit. The furnace kicks in when it drops below that set point. Now, you could turn on the furnace manually or turn it off to change the temperature to be what you want. But it is easier to have it set up on "auto" with the thermostat.
0 -
I think that some of this back and forth could be solved if we discuss the point where we're talking about when this "set point" comes into play.
As I mentioned above, I do find the argument for a certain amount of minimal body fat being a set point compelling. That is that there's a bottom range of weight that's a set point (on the low end) where it takes a much more concerted effort than most people are unwilling to make to get below.
Where I think most of us (at least I know this is true of me) are having difficulty in this discussion, is with the idea of some sort of set point being where a person is in anyway carrying extra weight.
I have 5 extra stubborn pounds that just don't want to shift no matter what I'm doing. I might very well be at my body's "set point", but I'm 116 pounds and would be at a 20.5 BMI if it weren't for scoliosis stealing 2 inches off my height.
I find the argument for set points at high BMI's uncompelling.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I think that some of this back and forth could be solved if we discuss the point where we're talking about when this "set point" comes into play.
As I mentioned above, I do find the argument for a certain amount of minimal body fat being a set point compelling. That is that there's a bottom range of weight that's a set point (on the low end) where it takes a much more concerted effort than most people are unwilling to make to get below.
Where I think most of us (at least I know this is true of me) are having difficulty in this discussion, is with the idea of some sort of set point being where a person is in anyway carrying extra weight.
I have 5 extra stubborn pounds that just don't want to shift no matter what I'm doing. I might very well be at my body's "set point", but I'm 116 pounds and would be at a 20.5 BMI if it weren't for scoliosis stealing 2 inches off my height.
I find the argument for set points at high BMI's uncompelling.
BMI should not be used to compare/contrast anything.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I think that some of this back and forth could be solved if we discuss the point where we're talking about when this "set point" comes into play.
As I mentioned above, I do find the argument for a certain amount of minimal body fat being a set point compelling. That is that there's a bottom range of weight that's a set point (on the low end) where it takes a much more concerted effort than most people are unwilling to make to get below.
Where I think most of us (at least I know this is true of me) are having difficulty in this discussion, is with the idea of some sort of set point being where a person is in anyway carrying extra weight.
I have 5 extra stubborn pounds that just don't want to shift no matter what I'm doing. I might very well be at my body's "set point", but I'm 116 pounds and would be at a 20.5 BMI if it weren't for scoliosis stealing 2 inches off my height.
I find the argument for set points at high BMI's uncompelling.
BMI should not be used to compare/contrast anything.
Um, how to phrase this...
Yes. You are correct.
Let me try to word this delicately, because I'm tip-toeing.
I find the argument for a set point at a high BMI, even within normal range, when it is representative of high body fat, uncompelling.
Better?7 -
I think the set point theory is a decent idea, but it ends there. "The body wants to maintain weight balance". No, the body wants to maintain energy balance. It does that by building fat and burning fat, in the presence of excess energy input and a deficiency in energy input, respectively. It really is THAT simple.4
-
My opinion on set point theory is all it does is create an artificial mental barrier about what you can acheive9
-
My opinion on set point theory is all it does is create an artificial mental barrier about what you can acheive
It does the opposite for me. I know that if only I can lose weight and keep it off for six months to a year that my body will accept the reset and work to maintain my new maintenance "set point".
My opinion is that people who say that they "gained all the weight back and then some" have not put the set point method to use in their favor. In other words, it is possible to "reset" your set point thankfully!
ETA link:
Break through set point
http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/BIDMCInteractive/BreakThroughYourSetPoint/WeekOneTheScienceofSetPoint.aspx
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
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.
It's not used in any consistent way. It's often used to support the claim that people can't maintain weight loss, for example, which is what I'm arguing against.
I don't think my weight in my teens and 20s (which is one I can maintain pretty easily under the right conditions) was necessarily a set point. When I changed my habits one way, I gained. If I'd changed my habits in another way I'd have lost. I don't think either would have necessarily been hard to do, and I don't think being in equilibrium means your body is fighting a change. (I don't disagree that there are ways in which a body fights a change, and I think this happens to everything.)
Where I disagree is the thing about paying attention and listening to your body=getting back to set point. That you maintain easily at a particular weight doesn't mean your body is pushing you to stay there or that listening to your body=maintaining. I think it's common to hit an equilibrium that is going to vary based on environment and habits, but that one doesn't have to think about weight to avoid gaining doesn't to me mean the body is resisting it in some special way.
We can agree to disagree on this. The very essence of set point theory is maintenance over a very long term.
The body CAN work to establish equilibrium, and does work against disturbing homeostasis. It prefers a set point. Some individuals like to overeat and go over their TDEE maintenance calories on a consistent basis and therefore override their set points and gain weight. Plus they do not allow enough time for the body to settle in, reach equilibrium, or even get a chance to establish a set point to begin with because they yo yo, IMO.
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I think that some of this back and forth could be solved if we discuss the point where we're talking about when this "set point" comes into play.
As I mentioned above, I do find the argument for a certain amount of minimal body fat being a set point compelling. That is that there's a bottom range of weight that's a set point (on the low end) where it takes a much more concerted effort than most people are unwilling to make to get below.
Where I think most of us (at least I know this is true of me) are having difficulty in this discussion, is with the idea of some sort of set point being where a person is in anyway carrying extra weight.
I find the argument for set points at high BMI's uncompelling.
I know that you are in your late 30s and have not hit this problem yet. But I CAN assure you that it is possible to have a set point in the higher BMI ranges.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I think that some of this back and forth could be solved if we discuss the point where we're talking about when this "set point" comes into play.
As I mentioned above, I do find the argument for a certain amount of minimal body fat being a set point compelling. That is that there's a bottom range of weight that's a set point (on the low end) where it takes a much more concerted effort than most people are unwilling to make to get below.
Where I think most of us (at least I know this is true of me) are having difficulty in this discussion, is with the idea of some sort of set point being where a person is in anyway carrying extra weight.
I find the argument for set points at high BMI's uncompelling.
I know that you are in your late 30s and have not hit this problem yet. But I CAN assure you that it is possible to have a set point in the higher BMI ranges.
Try again. I'm 54.
I can assure you, the last time I was at the weight my body seems to be settling at now thanks to my current habits, I was 11 years old and hadn't even hit puberty yet. I was also 2 inches taller.13 -
My opinion on set point theory is all it does is create an artificial mental barrier about what you can acheive
It does the opposite for me. I know that if only I can lose weight and keep it off for six months to a year that my body will accept the reset and work to maintain my new maintenance "set point".
My opinion is that people who say that they "gained all the weight back and then some" have not put the set point method to use in their favor. In other words, it is possible to "reset" your set point thankfully!
ETA link:
Break through set point
http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/BIDMCInteractive/BreakThroughYourSetPoint/WeekOneTheScienceofSetPoint.aspx
No people who gain all the weight back and more gained it because they were not eating at their maintenance not because they didn't establish a set point.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I think that some of this back and forth could be solved if we discuss the point where we're talking about when this "set point" comes into play.
As I mentioned above, I do find the argument for a certain amount of minimal body fat being a set point compelling. That is that there's a bottom range of weight that's a set point (on the low end) where it takes a much more concerted effort than most people are unwilling to make to get below.
Where I think most of us (at least I know this is true of me) are having difficulty in this discussion, is with the idea of some sort of set point being where a person is in anyway carrying extra weight.
I find the argument for set points at high BMI's uncompelling.
I know that you are in your late 30s and have not hit this problem yet. But I CAN assure you that it is possible to have a set point in the higher BMI ranges.
Try again. I'm 54.
I can assure you, the last time I was at the weight my body seems to be settling at now thanks to my current habits, I was 11 years old and hadn't even hit puberty yet. I was also 2 inches taller.
Nice! My cell phone doesn't give me particulars on profiles. I have to switch to iPad to do that. Okay. So we are very different. We think differently. Our dietary requirements are different. And your body doesn't respond to set points. No worries. I believe you in your individual experiences. I had mentioned upthread that some people must not have set points.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