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
-
singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.4 -
I understand why people need for setpoints to be valid, but I see little to no evidence of setpoints actually existing. It is simply astounding to see the lengths people will go to deflect accountability.
Individuals cannot monitor their own behavior without inserting bias, hence the massive amount of threads "I know I'm only eating 1200 calories/day and killing myself at the gym, but why am I gaining weight?"
13 -
No that would be establishing a HABIT. The habit of eating the right amount of calories keeps one's weight stable.
Lol. Again, your body reacts to stimuli. Feed it less you lose weight. Feed it more you gain. Feed it enough it maintains. It doesn't STAY THE SAME for the first two, so why are you stating that it will with this dumb "set point" theory?singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
Exactly. It wants me to maintain.
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
I understand the mechanics of weight loss and weight gain. I'm not saying CICO does not come into play. I'm only stating that establishing a set point can help maintain weight within a couple pounds up or down.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mielke1.htm
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
Please read down in the article (paragraph #8) where it talks about when the body is at maintenance and is no longer going up or down more than a couple pounds, then a set point has been established.
Did you read part two where the author stated this:In review, a set point is establishing and meeting a goal in conditioning of your body or a level of fitness - and then maintaining it.
He's not even defining set point the way you are. It's all habit-focused according to him.
Editing to add when he stated this:Establishing set points takes careful planning and plenty of dedication to reach them. It takes hard work to stay at a set point too.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
No that would be establishing a HABIT. The habit of eating the right amount of calories keeps one's weight stable.
Lol. Again, your body reacts to stimuli. Feed it less you lose weight. Feed it more you gain. Feed it enough it maintains. It doesn't STAY THE SAME for the first two, so why are you stating that it will with this dumb "set point" theory?singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
Exactly. It wants me to maintain.
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
I understand the mechanics of weight loss and weight gain. I'm not saying CICO does not come into play. I'm only stating that establishing a set point can help maintain weight within a couple pounds up or down.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mielke1.htm
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
Please read down in the article (paragraph #8) where it talks about when the body is at maintenance and is no longer going up or down more than a couple pounds, then a set point has been established.
Did you read part two where the author stated this:In review, a set point is establishing and meeting a goal in conditioning of your body or a level of fitness - and then maintaining it.
He's not even defining set point the way you are. It's all habit-focused according to him.
Editing to add when he stated this:Establishing set points takes careful planning and plenty of dedication to reach them. It takes hard work to stay at a set point too.
So pick your goal weight and then adjust your habits to meet then maintain it?
Easter bunny!5 -
stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.4 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
No that would be establishing a HABIT. The habit of eating the right amount of calories keeps one's weight stable.
Lol. Again, your body reacts to stimuli. Feed it less you lose weight. Feed it more you gain. Feed it enough it maintains. It doesn't STAY THE SAME for the first two, so why are you stating that it will with this dumb "set point" theory?singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
Exactly. It wants me to maintain.
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
I understand the mechanics of weight loss and weight gain. I'm not saying CICO does not come into play. I'm only stating that establishing a set point can help maintain weight within a couple pounds up or down.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mielke1.htm
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
Please read down in the article (paragraph #8) where it talks about when the body is at maintenance and is no longer going up or down more than a couple pounds, then a set point has been established.
Did you read part two where the author stated this:In review, a set point is establishing and meeting a goal in conditioning of your body or a level of fitness - and then maintaining it.
He's not even defining set point the way you are. It's all habit-focused according to him.
Editing to add when he stated this:Establishing set points takes careful planning and plenty of dedication to reach them. It takes hard work to stay at a set point too.
So pick your goal weight and then adjust your habits to meet then maintain it?
Easter bunny!
Yes. If you want to lower your set point you can lose weight. Then take a diet break and work on maintaining the new set point for about 6 months. Then the weight won't bounce quickly back up. If you use the set point method of losing weight you try not to lose more than 10% of your body weight at a time before the next plateau at a lower set point.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep it.1 -
I most definitely have one. Until just a few years ago, when I injured my knee and could not run, I almost never gained a pound -- weighed almost the same as I weighed in college. This was not from conscious effort or discipline. I suspect that when I gained weight, I just lost appetite and did not eat much until the weight went away.2
-
I ate whatever I wanted and stayed within the normal bmi range all of my life until I was 60 years.
Does that mean I had a set point? Or does it mean I just ate whatever it took to fuel my body by instinct. I didn't diet or worry about my size. When I got to the high end of normal, (now considered overweight I believe ), in my 60's I watched what I ate and lost and have had to keep monitoring calories in order to maintain a 'normal weight'.
Some might call those first 60 years as having a set point perhaps. It was a 15 pound weight range at the middle normal bmi for my hieght. I would imagine many people have had the same experience as me in regard to having been a normal weight most of their lives without bothering very much about diet and calorie counting.2 -
And that is DIRECTLY affected by CICO. Change CICO and that "set point" doesn't stay, it moves based on deficit or surplus.
No that would be establishing a HABIT. The habit of eating the right amount of calories keeps one's weight stable.
Lol. Again, your body reacts to stimuli. Feed it less you lose weight. Feed it more you gain. Feed it enough it maintains. It doesn't STAY THE SAME for the first two, so why are you stating that it will with this dumb "set point" theory?singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
Exactly. It wants me to maintain.
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
I understand the mechanics of weight loss and weight gain. I'm not saying CICO does not come into play. I'm only stating that establishing a set point can help maintain weight within a couple pounds up or down.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mielke1.htm
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
Please read down in the article (paragraph #8) where it talks about when the body is at maintenance and is no longer going up or down more than a couple pounds, then a set point has been established.
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
5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep it.
You are getting a new definition of set point from the Beth Israel article and making this up as you go along to suit your agenda.
The statement that I've quoted here has NOTHING to do with your body processes coming in to play to defend a weight, which is what set point theory is really about.8 -
Due to what? CONSISTENT CICO. Change CICO and the number on the scale changes. Change the numbers and the outcome is different not constant.stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
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 -
Lol, this is known as a moderate calorie deficit, then maintenance calories. It's not a "set point". Again, we aren't a room with a thermostat controlling the temperature. Your argument doesn't make sense because it dependent on CICO. And CICO can easily be manipulated by a few inconsistent days.nutmegoreo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
No that would be establishing a HABIT. The habit of eating the right amount of calories keeps one's weight stable.
Lol. Again, your body reacts to stimuli. Feed it less you lose weight. Feed it more you gain. Feed it enough it maintains. It doesn't STAY THE SAME for the first two, so why are you stating that it will with this dumb "set point" theory?singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
Exactly. It wants me to maintain.
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
I understand the mechanics of weight loss and weight gain. I'm not saying CICO does not come into play. I'm only stating that establishing a set point can help maintain weight within a couple pounds up or down.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mielke1.htm
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
Please read down in the article (paragraph #8) where it talks about when the body is at maintenance and is no longer going up or down more than a couple pounds, then a set point has been established.
Did you read part two where the author stated this:In review, a set point is establishing and meeting a goal in conditioning of your body or a level of fitness - and then maintaining it.
He's not even defining set point the way you are. It's all habit-focused according to him.
Editing to add when he stated this:Establishing set points takes careful planning and plenty of dedication to reach them. It takes hard work to stay at a set point too.
So pick your goal weight and then adjust your habits to meet then maintain it?
Easter bunny!
Yes. If you want to lower your set point you can lose weight. Then take a diet break and work on maintaining the new set point for about 6 months. Then the weight won't bounce quickly back up. If you use the set point method of losing weight you try not to lose more than 10% of your body weight at a time before the next plateau at a lower set point.
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
3 -
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep 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
4 -
A biological set point is a stable condition where the body maintains itself in a process of homeostasis.1
-
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep 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
1 -
People habitually eat pretty much a certain way for long periods of time. Some are systematic (meaning they eat the same thing day in and day out at particular times) and some by portion control. Habitual behavior is what changes someone's weight over time. Whatever the means, this doesn't just happen in the US. It happens all over the world. Go to other countries outside of the US and the portions are much smaller and less calorie dense. Hence the less issues with obesity.
It's not uncommon for someone up to college, eating whatever they want and because they are active, they regulate around the same weight for years. Then they get a job, reduce that activity, but still eat the same way habitually, and put on a lot of weight. If there was truly a set point, the body would have compensated by burning more calories from less activity to compensate for the calories, but it doesn't do that.
People can stay at the same weight for years, but again it's due to behavior they've developed for years. Most people that stay lean for decades have ONE THING IN COMMON...................they don't surplus their calories much.
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 3 -
What? And the way that they can stay at homeostasis, according to you, is due to habits? And the body doesn't communicate through internal mechanisms such as regulation of appetite, energy expenditure, and hormones? It is all just about "habits"?
1 -
Absolutely (unless there's some major shift that's permanent). If one habitually eats maintenance calories for the daily activity they do habitually (whether that be work, exercise, sitting on the couch, etc.) then weight should stay approximately the same.What? And the way that they can stay at homeostasis, according to you, is due to habits? And the body doesn't communicate through internal mechanisms such as regulation of appetite, energy expenditure, and hormones? It is all just about "habits"?
The same goes for being overweight or underweight. They stick to those habitual behaviors that keep them that way, and they won't change. It's not as complicated as people try to make it sound in the magazines, blogs, fitness sites, etc.
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
3 -
Absolutely (unless there's some major shift that's permanent). If one habitually eats maintenance calories for the daily activity they do habitually (whether that be work, exercise, sitting on the couch, etc.) then weight should stay approximately the same.What? And the way that they can stay at homeostasis, according to you, is due to habits? And the body doesn't communicate through internal mechanisms such as regulation of appetite, energy expenditure, and hormones? It is all just about "habits"?
The same goes for being overweight or underweight. They stick to those habitual behaviors that keep them that way, and they won't change. It's not as complicated as people try to make it sound in the magazines, blogs, fitness sites, etc.
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
Evidence for autoregulation (in addition to "habits" and overeating). The article says hedonic overeating overrides the settling point. It appears BOTH come into play.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.12246/full2 -
It's not a perogative. There's no actual science to show that it exists within the human body. You don't have to believe it, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep 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
Realize that I've trained with just about every type of person in my tenure as a PT. And whatever goal it is they are trying to attain, there really are no set limits when it comes to changing someones weight or body (with the exception of 0 bodyfat and even very low body fat that's not sustainable).
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 -
It's not a perogative. There's no actual science to show that it exists within the human body. You don't have to believe it, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep 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
Realize that I've trained with just about every type of person in my tenure as a PT. And whatever goal it is they are trying to attain, there really are no set limits when it comes to changing someones weight or body (with the exception of 0 bodyfat and even very low body fat that's not sustainable).
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
Of course one can lose weight and maintain homeostasis at a lower set point!0 -
It's not a perogative. There's no actual science to show that it exists within the human body. You don't have to believe it, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep 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
Realize that I've trained with just about every type of person in my tenure as a PT. And whatever goal it is they are trying to attain, there really are no set limits when it comes to changing someones weight or body (with the exception of 0 bodyfat and even very low body fat that's not sustainable).
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
Of course one can lose weight and maintain homeostasis at a lower set point!
So after all this....are you saying that a "set point" is simply a stable weight range?!?!?!
I can't even.....10 -
And how does one maintain a stable weight? By balancing intake and activity. Habits, whether conscious or unconscious. Lifestyle. It's not the body doing the driving. It's the owner of the body.5
-
Absolutely (unless there's some major shift that's permanent). If one habitually eats maintenance calories for the daily activity they do habitually (whether that be work, exercise, sitting on the couch, etc.) then weight should stay approximately the same.What? And the way that they can stay at homeostasis, according to you, is due to habits? And the body doesn't communicate through internal mechanisms such as regulation of appetite, energy expenditure, and hormones? It is all just about "habits"?
The same goes for being overweight or underweight. They stick to those habitual behaviors that keep them that way, and they won't change. It's not as complicated as people try to make it sound in the magazines, blogs, fitness sites, etc.
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
Evidence for autoregulation (in addition to "habits" and overeating). The article says hedonic overeating overrides the settling point. It appears BOTH come into play.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.12246/full
The "theoretical" setting point. They never establish that there is such as thing, as their references only point to early '90's papers that call set point a "theory".
This is all just guess work.
Yes, the body has a complex series of hormonal feedback mechanisms in regards to weight management. That piece seemed to want to tie the feedbacks to the set point theory and make them work in tandem. I don't think it proved any such thing, at least from my cursory glance at it.
Furthermore, those feedback mechanisms respond to changes in behaviors too. I didn't see any evidence that they were self-initiated in a drive to maintain a set point in what you linked. Anecdotal reference to holiday weight gain and loss isn't proof.
My kids naturally regulate their weights/appetites too because I never messed with their natural hunger signals by making them eat. Does this mean they have a "set point". No. It means they have healthy eating habits. Sometimes they eat more, and then they balance it out by eating less other times. Naturally, without thinking about it. Because they have healthy relationships with food.2 -
Okay let's make this simple.
It's not a perogative. There's no actual science to show that it exists within the human body. You don't have to believe it, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep 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
Realize that I've trained with just about every type of person in my tenure as a PT. And whatever goal it is they are trying to attain, there really are no set limits when it comes to changing someones weight or body (with the exception of 0 bodyfat and even very low body fat that's not sustainable).
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
Of course one can lose weight and maintain homeostasis at a lower set point!
How many kids (under the age of 15) pay close attention to what they eat and how many calories they are consuming? I'm gonna bet near ZERO. So given that, if a kid is OBESE, how do you explain the "set point" theory here? That these kids NATURALLY are obese? Or is there an issue of how many calories they are allowed to consume? And is that a habitual behavior or a natural behavior?
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
3 -
Okay let's make this simple.
It's not a perogative. There's no actual science to show that it exists within the human body. You don't have to believe it, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep 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
Realize that I've trained with just about every type of person in my tenure as a PT. And whatever goal it is they are trying to attain, there really are no set limits when it comes to changing someones weight or body (with the exception of 0 bodyfat and even very low body fat that's not sustainable).
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
Of course one can lose weight and maintain homeostasis at a lower set point!
How many kids (under the age of 15) pay close attention to what they eat and how many calories they are consuming? I'm gonna bet near ZERO. So given that, if a kid is OBESE, how do you explain the "set point" theory here? That these kids NATURALLY are obese? Or is there an issue of how many calories they are allowed to consume? And is that a habitual behavior or a natural behavior?
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
The kids are at a high set point and need to come down.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/body-weight-set-point/0 -
Or maybe they don't have a set point.
I can't agree with the idea that it's all about habits, as it doesn't explain why my weight didn't change for so many years, despite many changes in habits, including diet and activity habits, different jobs, different living arrangements, etc. I did lose a little with illness and gained quite a lot in pregnancy, but always returned to within about the same four pounds (round about 120 pounds), without trying to. You'd expect that if it was all about habits, then a change in habits might have made me lose or gain, but it didn't.
This is just anecdotal. It might not be backed up by research, but it's hard to explain if there's no such thing as set point.
One of the other threads brought up the documentary about why thin people aren't fat. That was interesting in this context. It had "naturally" thin people overeat to gain weight. They found it very difficult to consciously overeat and gain weight.0 -
Okay let's make this simple.
It's not a perogative. There's no actual science to show that it exists within the human body. You don't have to believe it, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep 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
Realize that I've trained with just about every type of person in my tenure as a PT. And whatever goal it is they are trying to attain, there really are no set limits when it comes to changing someones weight or body (with the exception of 0 bodyfat and even very low body fat that's not sustainable).
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
Of course one can lose weight and maintain homeostasis at a lower set point!
How many kids (under the age of 15) pay close attention to what they eat and how many calories they are consuming? I'm gonna bet near ZERO. So given that, if a kid is OBESE, how do you explain the "set point" theory here? That these kids NATURALLY are obese? Or is there an issue of how many calories they are allowed to consume? And is that a habitual behavior or a natural behavior?
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
The kids are at a high set point and need to come down.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/body-weight-set-point/
Did you even read that link and how it mentioned that habits determined the "set point"?2
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