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
-
Can we talk about trigger points for a second?
This thread is triggering my head:desk proclivity.
And I agree with what was said upthread about set points being used as just another barrier to weight management success.12 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
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"?
Yes. It is both. After I read the other article:
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
There is 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
Both come into play.0 -
There are autoregulations AND habits. Internal and external regulation. For the umpteenth time-- set points can be changed.
"Settling Point" seems to be the new name for it to be met with less semantic controversy.
I agree with Charlie about this being a head banging thread. My head is hurting. Haha
0 -
There are autoregulations AND habits. Internal and external regulation. For the umpteenth time-- set points can be changed.
"Settling Point" seems to be the new name for it to be met with less semantic controversy.
I agree with Charlie about this being a head banging thread. My head is hurting. Haha
If a set point can be changed, by the actions of the individual, IT IS NOT A SET POINT. That very sentence negates everything you've been trying to say in this thread....
Otherwise, ironic post is ironic.
15 -
There are autoregulations AND habits. Internal and external regulation. For the umpteenth time-- set points can be changed.
"Settling Point" seems to be the new name for it to be met with less semantic controversy.
I agree with Charlie about this being a head banging thread. My head is hurting. Haha
You are not understanding what you're reading, because the auto-regulation happens in response to external cues.
The driver drives the car, it's not on autopilot.
The behavoirs/habits a person has drives the responses the body has.
This explains why "settling points" can be changed. Because the body responds to what you decide to do... even if those choices aren't necessarily consciously made. Any action on your part causes a reaction within the body.
Therefore, there is no autonomous regulation on your body's part. You are entirely in control of the situation.
Edit: Two aspects being neglected here are psychology and environment. Obesogenic environments encourage hedonic eating in individuals with natural hunger/satiety cues who don't have to conscientiously monitor eating behaviors.
In individuals who have become obese, hunger/satiety cues are often "broken" and the feedback mechanisms need to be conscientious.
I have said before that I believe that everyone has a rock-bottom body fat percentage level that's genetic for them to carry, and in a natural environment, I'd agree they'd settle into a comfortable adult weight there. Is that a set point? Maybe. At the low end of BMI.
I cannot find any compelling argument for anyone to carry extra weight (body fat, not muscle mass) outside of those circumstances to have a higher "set point" for the reasons I just stated.
6 -
"Do others believe in "set points"? I have been reading a bit about them, and I think I have hit one. It seems that there are several weights that my body just likes, and it's harder to either lose or gain weight when I'm at a set point."
Quick answer - think of a set point as the thermostat in your house. Everyone's set point will differ, HOWEVER, some generalities hold true, the biggest one being your body will naturally settle to where it should weigh.
However, much of that "natural settlement" depends on many factors, the most important of which is your ATTITUDE. If you think you should weigh 200 pounds (as an example), you'll fight to get there, whether you should be there or not. Moving your set point is as much mental, therefore, as physical. I've had this fight with myself for the past few months, finally concluding that "If I believe it, I can achieve it"1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
I can't figure out why people are agreeing with this ridiculous statement. Many (most?) people continuously gain throughout their lives by "listening to their hunger signals." If "listening to your hunger signals" were at all useful, this site wouldn't exist.3 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
I can't figure out why people are agreeing with this ridiculous statement. Many (most?) people continuously gain throughout their lives by "listening to their hunger signals." If "listening to your hunger signals" were at all useful, this site wouldn't exist.
Most people have no clue about their hunger signals though. Mindless eating when you are not hunger is pretty normal now a days.
If you truly listened to your hunger signals you wouldn't be gaining weight. Not many people have enough self awareness to know if it is hunger, thirst, boredom, etc. It seems like people in the past had a better grasp on this. I can't trust mine as I am not properly attuned but there are people who can maintain for a long time by properly listening to them.3 -
singingflutelady wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
I can't figure out why people are agreeing with this ridiculous statement. Many (most?) people continuously gain throughout their lives by "listening to their hunger signals." If "listening to your hunger signals" were at all useful, this site wouldn't exist.
Most people have no clue about their hunger signals though. Mindless eating when you are not hunger is pretty normal now a days.
If you truly listened to your hunger signals you wouldn't be gaining weight. Not many people have enough self awareness to know if it is hunger, thirst, boredom, etc. It seems like people in the past had a better grasp on this. I can't trust mine as I am not properly attuned but there are people who can maintain for a long time by properly listening to them.
This presumes a lot of things, though. The culture in which I was raised with "the clean plate club" didn't really give rise to people with intact hunger signals. Not being allowed to eat because it wasn't yet meal time, being forced to eat when you weren't hungry because it was meal time? This was all common place.
I agree that we're all born with natural hunger signals, but a lot of how people are culturally conditioned to raise children with meal schedules and the like doesn't foster them remaining intact.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
I can't figure out why people are agreeing with this ridiculous statement. Many (most?) people continuously gain throughout their lives by "listening to their hunger signals." If "listening to your hunger signals" were at all useful, this site wouldn't exist.
Most people have no clue about their hunger signals though. Mindless eating when you are not hunger is pretty normal now a days.
If you truly listened to your hunger signals you wouldn't be gaining weight. Not many people have enough self awareness to know if it is hunger, thirst, boredom, etc. It seems like people in the past had a better grasp on this. I can't trust mine as I am not properly attuned but there are people who can maintain for a long time by properly listening to them.
This presumes a lot of things, though. The culture in which I was raised with "the clean plate club" didn't really give rise to people with intact hunger signals. Not being allowed to eat because it wasn't yet meal time, being forced to eat when you weren't hungry because it was meal time? This was all common place.
I agree that we're all born with natural hunger signals, but a lot of how people are culturally conditioned to raise children with meal schedules and the like doesn't foster them remaining intact.
I do agree and I should have added by past I mean farther back than that not in times of famine. Many people (myself) included had our signals messed up in our children.1 -
Calories-in-calories-out, combined with the fact that human beings are creatures of habit, mean that you are going to find that there is a weight that you naturally gravitate towards for a given set of eating and exercising habits. People tend to lose the extra weight after Christmas, or gain it back after a crash diet, as their behaviour returns to normal. So set points are just another way of saying that changing your habits and behaviour is hard.
But over a longer period (e.g. a decade), weight usually doesn't stay the same for too long because life changes: children are born, grow and leave home, opportunities for exercise wax and wane, food tastes and habits change, money comes and goes, or any of a million other changes that I can't think of right now.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
I can't figure out why people are agreeing with this ridiculous statement. Many (most?) people continuously gain throughout their lives by "listening to their hunger signals." If "listening to your hunger signals" were at all useful, this site wouldn't exist.
Most people have no clue about their hunger signals though. Mindless eating when you are not hunger is pretty normal now a days.
If you truly listened to your hunger signals you wouldn't be gaining weight. Not many people have enough self awareness to know if it is hunger, thirst, boredom, etc. It seems like people in the past had a better grasp on this. I can't trust mine as I am not properly attuned but there are people who can maintain for a long time by properly listening to them.
I did alternate day IF for my weight loss phase and every other day I ate under 500 calories (usually 3-400). I learned a lot about what true hunger was during this time, and afterwards I would have said that I was much more in tune with my body's hunger cues. However, now that I'm several years into maintenance, if I don't consciously keep track of my calorie intake and my weight, I still gain weight easily (saw this happen this summer, when I stopped tracking calorie intake). It's very hard to stick with the whole 'listen to your hunger signals' idea, and to only eat when you feel true hunger. I'm sure there's people out there who can do it, but for those of us who used to be overweight I wonder if it's feasible? The dismal success rate for long term maintenance of formerly overweight people is probably a clue that it's probably not for most.2 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
I can't figure out why people are agreeing with this ridiculous statement. Many (most?) people continuously gain throughout their lives by "listening to their hunger signals." If "listening to your hunger signals" were at all useful, this site wouldn't exist.
Most people have no clue about their hunger signals though. Mindless eating when you are not hunger is pretty normal now a days.
If you truly listened to your hunger signals you wouldn't be gaining weight. Not many people have enough self awareness to know if it is hunger, thirst, boredom, etc. It seems like people in the past had a better grasp on this. I can't trust mine as I am not properly attuned but there are people who can maintain for a long time by properly listening to them.
I did alternate day IF for my weight loss phase and every other day I ate under 500 calories (usually 3-400). I learned a lot about what true hunger was during this time, and afterwards I would have said that I was much more in tune with my body's hunger cues. However, now that I'm several years into maintenance, if I don't consciously keep track of my calorie intake and my weight, I still gain weight easily (saw this happen this summer, when I stopped tracking calorie intake). It's very hard to stick with the whole 'listen to your hunger signals' idea, and to only eat when you feel true hunger. I'm sure there's people out there who can do it, but for those of us who used to be overweight I wonder if it's feasible? The dismal success rate for long term maintenance of formerly overweight people is probably a clue that it's probably not for most.
I can't do it myself but my first comment was in response to someone saying they intuitively eat and don't gain so I was pointing out that that doesn't prove that there is a set point, rather that you naturally eat at maintenance. I never wanted to get into a huge conversation about hunger signals just wanted to make that comment lol2 -
Lol, no. It's a habitual behavior of eating. Children form habits based on their environment, NOT on what they naturally know. So please, stop with all this nonsense. You're re enforcing reasons why people don't believe they can actually do something to change.
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/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
Lol because habitually they don't eat till their full?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. And unless you logged that whole time of how you ate and the activity you did, how do you know that you subconsciously you were just eating enough to "feel" full enough?
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 -
Likely not because that would debunk her stance on "set points".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
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"?
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 -
It's not a "set point" that you're describing then. Every person has a maintenance level based on their weight, height, structure, age, gender and activity level. That maintenance level is determined by calorie intake and calories burned being equal. So it's STILL about counting calories and while people can eat where they feel full enough, changing what they eat (calorie density wise) even if they feel full enough, will impact how their weight moves.There are autoregulations AND habits. Internal and external regulation. For the umpteenth time-- set points can be changed.
"Settling Point" seems to be the new name for it to be met with less semantic controversy.
I agree with Charlie about this being a head banging thread. My head is hurting. Haha
Realize, I argued this same BS with my peers for years. Like you, they have no conclusive evidence that it exists. But we do have proof that habitual behavior is relevant to everything in our lives. Behaviors can be changed. And when that happens, outcomes are different.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
It's not a "set point" that you're describing then. Every person has a maintenance level based on their weight, height, structure, age, gender and activity level. That maintenance level is determined by calorie intake and calories burned being equal. So it's STILL about counting calories and while people can eat where they feel full enough, changing what they eat (calorie density wise) even if they feel full enough, will impact how their weight moves.There are autoregulations AND habits. Internal and external regulation. For the umpteenth time-- set points can be changed.
"Settling Point" seems to be the new name for it to be met with less semantic controversy.
I agree with Charlie about this being a head banging thread. My head is hurting. Haha
Realize, I argued this same BS with my peers for years. Like you, they have no conclusive evidence that it exists. But we do have proof that habitual behavior is relevant to everything in our lives. Behaviors can be changed. And when that happens, outcomes are different.
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 read back in the thread to shed some light on where she's coming from. It seems that she believes that set point carries with it a re-regulation of hunger and satiety signals so that calorie counting would be rendered unnecessary.
There are many reasons why this is faulty reasoning, the first being that hunger and satiety signals are quite easily led astray by a variety of factors, and in some people they can be literally broken.5 -
I'll argue again about the thermostat. Set it at whatever you want, but if the door and windows are open, the room will NEVER reach that "set point".Raptor2763 wrote: »"Do others believe in "set points"? I have been reading a bit about them, and I think I have hit one. It seems that there are several weights that my body just likes, and it's harder to either lose or gain weight when I'm at a set point."
Quick answer - think of a set point as the thermostat in your house. Everyone's set point will differ, HOWEVER, some generalities hold true, the biggest one being your body will naturally settle to where it should weigh.
However, much of that "natural settlement" depends on many factors, the most important of which is your ATTITUDE. If you think you should weigh 200 pounds (as an example), you'll fight to get there, whether you should be there or not. Moving your set point is as much mental, therefore, as physical. I've had this fight with myself for the past few months, finally concluding that "If I believe it, I can achieve it"
Your body's has one response..............surviving. There are no weights your body likes. It's what YOU LIKE that keeps you there.
People don't like doing things they don't have to do if they really don't have to do it. That's human nature. And getting down to lean body weight takes A LOT OF EFFORT and dedication. Unless you've been in single digit body fat numbers, you'll have NO IDEA what it takes to get there.
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
2 -
+1GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
I can't figure out why people are agreeing with this ridiculous statement. Many (most?) people continuously gain throughout their lives by "listening to their hunger signals." If "listening to your hunger signals" were at all useful, this site wouldn't exist.
Most people have no clue about their hunger signals though. Mindless eating when you are not hunger is pretty normal now a days.
If you truly listened to your hunger signals you wouldn't be gaining weight. Not many people have enough self awareness to know if it is hunger, thirst, boredom, etc. It seems like people in the past had a better grasp on this. I can't trust mine as I am not properly attuned but there are people who can maintain for a long time by properly listening to them.
This presumes a lot of things, though. The culture in which I was raised with "the clean plate club" didn't really give rise to people with intact hunger signals. Not being allowed to eat because it wasn't yet meal time, being forced to eat when you weren't hungry because it was meal time? This was all common place.
I agree that we're all born with natural hunger signals, but a lot of how people are culturally conditioned to raise children with meal schedules and the like doesn't foster them remaining intact.
We waste a lot of food in America, yet are hammered on not wasting it. The portion amounts that the American person eats (kids included) are usually more than double where it is in other parts of the world. Go figure why we're an obese nation.
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 -
And also, how would "set point" work with people who lost weight for 6 months, then gained back a significant amount. Is it their body wanting to be fat again? Or is it because they discontinued their habit of staying in control of calories?
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 -
And also, how would "set point" work with people who lost weight for 6 months, then gained back a significant amount. Is it their body wanting to be fat again? Or is it because they discontinued their habit of staying in control of calories?
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 thing that I've realized is that what DebSozo is arguing about is not a "set point", but rather about hunger/satiety signals regulating different weight levels.
She believes that people can retrain their hunger and satiety signals to achieve different certain weights so that you don't have to consciously regulate them.
Of course, if this logic played out and set point was a matter of hunger/satiety signals being in check and humming along smoothly leading to a desirable body weight ... why did she gain weight in the first place? How did her hunger/satiety signals get overridden?
To be clear, the point I'm making in pointing that out is the flaw in her logic that relying on hunger/satiety signals (or as she keeps saying, "autoregulation") as some sort of set point ignores very real factors like aging, an obesogenic environment, stress, and other things I'm sure I can't think of right now. These outside influences often override the feedback systems our body has in place, and since that can be done, it argues clearly against the idea of anything being "set".
2 -
There are autoregulations AND habits. Internal and external regulation. For the umpteenth time-- set points can be changed.
"Settling Point" seems to be the new name for it to be met with less semantic controversy.
I agree with Charlie about this being a head banging thread. My head is hurting. Haha
I used to get a lot of headaches. Then I realized my tail was attached to my *babysloth* and stopped chasing it.
5 -
My "set point" is around 150lbs. Why? Because my appetite seems to correspond with this weight, i'm completely satisfied with the amount of food i can eat maintaining this weight.
My goal weight of 143lbs = not satisfied, and i eventually start eating more until i'm satisfied and happy which brings me back to 150.0 -
And also, how would "set point" work with people who lost weight for 6 months, then gained back a significant amount. Is it their body wanting to be fat again? Or is it because they discontinued their habit of staying in control of calories?
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
Their body is trying to go back up to the previous higher set point. They would need to remain stable at the same weight for another 6 months or a year. Then the body will establish a new set point that it will help them maintain.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »My "set point" is around 150lbs. Why? Because my appetite seems to correspond with this weight, i'm completely satisfied with the amount of food i can eat maintaining this weight.
My goal weight of 143lbs = not satisfied, and i eventually start eating more until i'm satisfied and happy which brings me back to 150.
I do think that appetite has a lot to do with it. I just wish I had never allowed my settling point to get higher. It is easier to keep a lower maintenance level if one has never gotten overweight in the first place, IMO.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »And also, how would "set point" work with people who lost weight for 6 months, then gained back a significant amount. Is it their body wanting to be fat again? Or is it because they discontinued their habit of staying in control of calories?
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 thing that I've realized is that what DebSozo is arguing about is not a "set point", but rather about hunger/satiety signals regulating different weight levels.
She believes that people can retrain their hunger and satiety signals to achieve different certain weights so that you don't have to consciously regulate them.
Of course, if this logic played out and set point was a matter of hunger/satiety signals being in check and humming along smoothly leading to a desirable body weight ... why did she gain weight in the first place? How did her hunger/satiety signals get overridden?
To be clear, the point I'm making in pointing that out is the flaw in her logic that relying on hunger/satiety signals (or as she keeps saying, "autoregulation") as some sort of set point ignores very real factors like aging, an obesogenic environment, stress, and other things I'm sure I can't think of right now. These outside influences often override the feedback systems our body has in place, and since that can be done, it argues clearly against the idea of anything being "set".
Those overriding factors are what disrupt the maintenance set point. Stress, disease, injuries, and aging do have an impact.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »There are autoregulations AND habits. Internal and external regulation. For the umpteenth time-- set points can be changed.
"Settling Point" seems to be the new name for it to be met with less semantic controversy.
I agree with Charlie about this being a head banging thread. My head is hurting. Haha
I used to get a lot of headaches. Then I realized my tail was attached to my *babysloth* and stopped chasing it.
You have a tail?
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »And also, how would "set point" work with people who lost weight for 6 months, then gained back a significant amount. Is it their body wanting to be fat again? Or is it because they discontinued their habit of staying in control of calories?
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 thing that I've realized is that what DebSozo is arguing about is not a "set point", but rather about hunger/satiety signals regulating different weight levels.
She believes that people can retrain their hunger and satiety signals to achieve different certain weights so that you don't have to consciously regulate them.
Of course, if this logic played out and set point was a matter of hunger/satiety signals being in check and humming along smoothly leading to a desirable body weight ... why did she gain weight in the first place? How did her hunger/satiety signals get overridden?
To be clear, the point I'm making in pointing that out is the flaw in her logic that relying on hunger/satiety signals (or as she keeps saying, "autoregulation") as some sort of set point ignores very real factors like aging, an obesogenic environment, stress, and other things I'm sure I can't think of right now. These outside influences often override the feedback systems our body has in place, and since that can be done, it argues clearly against the idea of anything being "set".
Those overriding factors are what disrupt the maintenance set point. Stress, disease, injuries, and aging do have an impact.
"Set point"
9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »And also, how would "set point" work with people who lost weight for 6 months, then gained back a significant amount. Is it their body wanting to be fat again? Or is it because they discontinued their habit of staying in control of calories?
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 thing that I've realized is that what DebSozo is arguing about is not a "set point", but rather about hunger/satiety signals regulating different weight levels.
She believes that people can retrain their hunger and satiety signals to achieve different certain weights so that you don't have to consciously regulate them.
Of course, if this logic played out and set point was a matter of hunger/satiety signals being in check and humming along smoothly leading to a desirable body weight ... why did she gain weight in the first place? How did her hunger/satiety signals get overridden?
To be clear, the point I'm making in pointing that out is the flaw in her logic that relying on hunger/satiety signals (or as she keeps saying, "autoregulation") as some sort of set point ignores very real factors like aging, an obesogenic environment, stress, and other things I'm sure I can't think of right now. These outside influences often override the feedback systems our body has in place, and since that can be done, it argues clearly against the idea of anything being "set".
When the body has a strong propensity to stay at the same weight for long periods that is considered by some people to be their set point.
It doesn't mean it can't be changed with effort and overriding. Your factors simply validate that the set point can go up or down due to extenuating circumstances.
This article suggests it can take up to 18 months to establish a new weight set point. http://nnc.fitness/homeostasis-brain-worst-enemy-weight-loss/1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions