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: »
I am confused. If you lose weight while on a deficit and gain on a surplus how does this prove there is a set point as opposed to your weight being determined by your habits?singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »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.
Right. I mentioned that also. I think we are all playing with semantics. Did you read the article, BTW?
http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/BIDMCInteractive/BreakThroughYourSetPoint/WeekOneTheScienceofSetPoint.aspx
So basically you are saying the same thing as people who are saying that there is no set point. Your weight is established by your habits (exception:certain medical conditions) and how many calories you consume not a magical place that your body will stay at despite being at a deficit.
No. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is a set point --for ME. I'm conceding not to make a blanket statement because YMMV. I am also saying that the set point can go down by eating at a deficit, losing weight, and then working to establish a new set point. Once the weight maintenance "thermostat" is effectively at a set point for 6 months or so it is likely that the body will work to maintain that one.
Did you read the set point article? It will answer many of your questions.1 -
That scenario would be a "set point", but the body HARDLY resembles that of a room that doesn't change. For instance leave the doors and windows open. Does the room stay at 68 degrees if it's 32 degrees outside and and they are open? Does a refrigerator stay at 40 degrees when the door is ajar?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.
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's why set points can be changed. Sigh.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »
I am confused. If you lose weight while on a deficit and gain on a surplus how does this prove there is a set point as opposed to your weight being determined by your habits?singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »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.
Right. I mentioned that also. I think we are all playing with semantics. Did you read the article, BTW?
http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/BIDMCInteractive/BreakThroughYourSetPoint/WeekOneTheScienceofSetPoint.aspx
So basically you are saying the same thing as people who are saying that there is no set point. Your weight is established by your habits (exception:certain medical conditions) and how many calories you consume not a magical place that your body will stay at despite being at a deficit.
No. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is a set point --for ME. I'm conceding not to make a blanket statement because YMMV. I am also saying that the set point can go down by eating at a deficit, losing weight, and then working to establish a new set point. Once the weight maintenance "thermostat" is effectively at a set point for 6 months or so it is likely that the body will work to maintain that one.
I lose two pounds and gain two pounds back. I lose 4 pounds over time and gain 4 pounds. It's a bugger.
Weight fluctuates but going up and down 2-4 lbs pretty much shows that you are not consistent with your deficit. That looks more like maintenance.5 -
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.
Physiological processes don't work that way. Either everyone has them, or they don't exist.
Sorry, you are making no sense here.
I do believe that there's a settling point where the body defends a minimum amount of body fat, as I've stated repeatedly in this thread. That's at the low end. I also think there's science supporting this.
I also think a lot of people comfortably settle into an balance of food intake and exercise habits/daily activity that establishes a weight they can maintain comfortably. This is not, however, the body "fighting" to maintain homeostasis. This is something entirely within the individuals control.
I'll give you an example. I have 5 more pounds I'd love to lose because I'm not happy with the fat left on my legs. I'm thinking this morning that it might take a little more effort than I'm willing to make to get to that point, though.
Does that mean the weight I'm at is a set point? No. It means I'm choosing to settle there because I like the balance I've achieved. For most people, however this isn't a self-aware decision. For some of us who have been dieting a long time, it very much is one.5 -
singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »
I am confused. If you lose weight while on a deficit and gain on a surplus how does this prove there is a set point as opposed to your weight being determined by your habits?singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »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.
Right. I mentioned that also. I think we are all playing with semantics. Did you read the article, BTW?
http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/BIDMCInteractive/BreakThroughYourSetPoint/WeekOneTheScienceofSetPoint.aspx
So basically you are saying the same thing as people who are saying that there is no set point. Your weight is established by your habits (exception:certain medical conditions) and how many calories you consume not a magical place that your body will stay at despite being at a deficit.
No. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is a set point --for ME. I'm conceding not to make a blanket statement because YMMV. I am also saying that the set point can go down by eating at a deficit, losing weight, and then working to establish a new set point. Once the weight maintenance "thermostat" is effectively at a set point for 6 months or so it is likely that the body will work to maintain that one.
I lose two pounds and gain two pounds back. I lose 4 pounds over time and gain 4 pounds. It's a bugger.
Weight fluctuates but going up and down 2-4 lbs pretty much shows that you are not consistent with your deficit. That looks more like maintenance.
I have glycogen fluctuations. But I rarely gain more than 4 pounds before my body signals to start losing weight.
Set point = maintenance equilibrium weight number0 -
The science says no, my experience says yes but conditionally. The calories in calories out mantra is generally accepted by most scientist as fact. This means that if you consume more calories than your TDEE for the day you will gain weight if you under consume you will lose weight and an exact daily balance is near impossible to hold. Making fluctuations of a few pounds in either direction normal. For most people upward weight gain (assuming you are moving into higher weights for the first time) is actually much more difficult than if you have had that weight before lost it and are now putting it on again. That weight comes back much easier, I think most people who have experienced this can vouch for it being accurate (it was for me but I can't speak for everyone). I think it is because the creation of fat cells has to take place in the first scenario, in the second they have shrunk but they are still there. That reason of course is very difficult to prove. but it stands to reason as possible and even probable do to the appetite factor, which actually comes into play in both situations. If your body doesn't need the calories and it knows it (in the first scenario) it seems to turn off your hunger much sooner than if have been there before like the second scenario. Overeating your TDEE is much easier the second time around. It also helps explain why formerly fat people put the weight back on much faster than a skinny person who is adding additional pounds for the first time. Because there are so many factors that play into it an definitive answer may never be provable.1
-
If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus0
-
Not so. The body reacts to stimulus given to it. If you eat any calorie surplus, energy will be stored. Continue surplusing and the body will react FAST by adding weight. It DOESN'T work the same doing the opposite. It's EASY to put on weight, not so easy to give it up. And if you take the average person, it's likely that they will weigh more at 40 than they did at 20. But can they still lose weight and get close to where they were in their 20's? Yes. But it takes a conscious effort to achieve it and will take more work to sustain it versus what they did at that age.singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »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.
Right. I mentioned that also. I think we are all playing with semantics. Did you read the article, BTW?
http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/BIDMCInteractive/BreakThroughYourSetPoint/WeekOneTheScienceofSetPoint.aspx
So basically you are saying the same thing as people who are saying that there is no set point. Your weight is established by your habits (exception:certain medical conditions) and how many calories you consume not a magical place that your body will stay at despite being at a deficit.
No. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is a set point --for ME. I'm conceding not to make a blanket statement because YMMV. I am also saying that the set point can go down by eating at a deficit, losing weight, and then working to establish a new set point. Once the weight maintenance "thermostat" is effectively at a set point for 6 months or so it is likely that the body will work to maintain that one.
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 -
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.0 -
Not so. The body reacts to stimulus given to it. If you eat any calorie surplus, energy will be stored. Continue surplusing and the body will react FAST by adding weight. It DOESN'T work the same doing the opposite. It's EASY to put on weight, not so easy to give it up. And if you take the average person, it's likely that they will weigh more at 40 than they did at 20. But can they still lose weight and get close to where they were in their 20's? Yes. But it takes a conscious effort to achieve it and will take more work to sustain it versus what they did at that age.singingflutelady wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »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.
Right. I mentioned that also. I think we are all playing with semantics. Did you read the article, BTW?
http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/BIDMCInteractive/BreakThroughYourSetPoint/WeekOneTheScienceofSetPoint.aspx
So basically you are saying the same thing as people who are saying that there is no set point. Your weight is established by your habits (exception:certain medical conditions) and how many calories you consume not a magical place that your body will stay at despite being at a deficit.
No. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is a set point --for ME. I'm conceding not to make a blanket statement because YMMV. I am also saying that the set point can go down by eating at a deficit, losing weight, and then working to establish a new set point. Once the weight maintenance "thermostat" is effectively at a set point for 6 months or so it is likely that the body will work to maintain that one.
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
Agreed.0 -
No. In the scenarios I gave, there would be no set point because the units would be running consistently. Don't believe me. Try it. Guarantee you food in the fridge won't be cold and the room won't hit 68 degree in that scenario. Even if you turned the thermostat up to 80 degrees.
That scenario would be a "set point", but the body HARDLY resembles that of a room that doesn't change. For instance leave the doors and windows open. Does the room stay at 68 degrees if it's 32 degrees outside and and they are open? Does a refrigerator stay at 40 degrees when the door is ajar?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.
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's why set points can be changed. Sigh.
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 -
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.
But this happens at any weight. So how is this different from those saying your weight is determined by your habits?1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »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.
But this happens at any weight. So how is this different from those saying your weight is determined by your habits?
This conversation is getting circular. It is BOTH. I'm not denying that habits are a factor.0 -
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
2 -
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.
Establishing a set point:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/mielke1.htm
0 -
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
5 -
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.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}0 -
I'm just going to chime in because my personal (emphasis on the "personal", YMMV!) experience of "set point" was different and nothing to do with habits, or with conscious control of CICO.
As I've mentioned I maintained the same healthy weight for many years through several lifestyle changes, including more and less active jobs, being in and out of relationship, living with different people, eating different diets (including vegan) and so on. I've got to say again, that there was no conscious control - obviously there was unconscious control going on, but it was very precise - through all those changes of diet and activity I stayed almost exactly the same weight. It can't be habit, because my habits kept changing.
Obviously, if I'd eaten more or less at any given time, I'd have gained or lost - I'm not saying it overrides CICO. But I do think it's striking that weight control can sometimes be so precise without any conscious effort, any choosing of foods or calorie control, but just eating "normally". That's what I mean by a set point. There seems to be for some people, at some times, a strong unconcscious drive to maintain a particular weight.3 -
^My body did it without me "trying" for 40+ years.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 909 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions