Those now with at maintenance, have you beaten your set point.
Options
Replies
-
Not sure there is such a thing a set point for our bodies (it has been debated widely on the forums) - but I have gone below my goal weight by 5lbs and am easily maintaining this lower weight - its a nice buffer for when holidays come around.1
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
Im sorry but this seems like nonsense to me.
This is not "set point" at all, by the way, rather some idea on energy balancing out eventually.
My TDEE is around 2000 cal. I could EASILY eat 3-4000 cal if I just mindlessly ate as I felt.
At that rate I would be gaining a couple of pounds a week at least.
How big do I have to get before my increased calorie burn balances with that consumption?
0 -
Your brain does not analyze your scale weight, that makes no sense. If I allowed my food urges to control my lifestyle I would be morbidly obese. The notion of "set point" takes away accountability for overeating. "Oh, my brain just likes this weight." No, you are overeating. Don't try to separate your brain from you. You decide what you eat and how much.5
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
so not true...people do it all the time...eat to discomfort...I've done it frequently when I was heavier...that's how I got even bigger...and I watch family do it frequently as well ...those who are obese and those who aren't.
People have literally eaten themselves to death...have you not watched my 600lb life...there is no such thing as set point...
No one said the "set point" has to be comfortable. A person who is willing to discomfort has a higher set point than someone who isn't. If a person eats themselves to death, they can't gain any more weight and they have reached their set point.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
So my weight set-point is somewhere around 400#? I can be lazier than a dead sloth and pack food in like it's my job.
Yours may be 400 lbs for all I know. Mine is about 270 lbs. That is the figure I reached and stayed at when I didn't pay attention to what I ate and I stayed off the scale for a long time.
As for being lazy and packing in food, if you are willing to do that then your set point may be even higher than 400 lbs. What would your activity level and food consumption be if you weren't motivated by your fitness goals? The answer to that question is what determines your set point.
It's not much of a "set" point if it's constantly fluctuating. I know I've argued this before (not with you), but to me, a set-point is fixed and it won't matter what you do you will always go back to that set-point.
As for my so-called set-point, my activity would be sedentary (only moving to get food, use the toilet/bathe, go to sleep) while playing video games for 16 hours. I'd likely be eating 4,000-5,000 calories a day.
If we're going to say that the set point can't change then we can dismiss the idea outright. Teenagers usually weigh less than they will later in life. Young adults often weigh less than they will at middle age. But by the time people are in the nursing home, they are often quite thin. If set point were fixed then there should be people who are at their set point from the time they quit growing until they die. There is no such evidence.
But if set point isn't fixed then we need a way to explain why it changes. The simplest explanation is that people's habits and what they are willing to do don't change even as they go through a period of weight loss, so they appear to have a set point that they go back to after weight loss. But major life events often result in changes to people's habits. A teenager moves out of the house and now has to make their own food choices. A middle-aged person is stressed, but food is abundant. In the elderly we find a situation in which mobility and cognitive problems make it more difficult to eat as often as they once did.0 -
So far I've been able to keep it (about 30 lb loss) off for about a year except for a slight regain over the holidays, which has now been lost again. And I have continued losing a little more. My original goal was just to get to a healthy BMI but I only got to the very upper end. I think now I'll drop another 10-15 lbs or so. I don't have a specific weight in mind, but I'll know when I get there.1
-
If I remember correctly, the entire idea of a "Set Point" came about from a diet book that was written in the 1980's. My mother was a huge serial dieter and every book that came out. I totally remember the day she bought it and had it out on the counter. I think it was just called "The Set Point Diet".1
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
so not true...people do it all the time...eat to discomfort...I've done it frequently when I was heavier...that's how I got even bigger...and I watch family do it frequently as well ...those who are obese and those who aren't.
People have literally eaten themselves to death...have you not watched my 600lb life...there is no such thing as set point...
No one said the "set point" has to be comfortable. A person who is willing to discomfort has a higher set point than someone who isn't. If a person eats themselves to death, they can't gain any more weight and they have reached their set point.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
So my weight set-point is somewhere around 400#? I can be lazier than a dead sloth and pack food in like it's my job.
Yours may be 400 lbs for all I know. Mine is about 270 lbs. That is the figure I reached and stayed at when I didn't pay attention to what I ate and I stayed off the scale for a long time.
As for being lazy and packing in food, if you are willing to do that then your set point may be even higher than 400 lbs. What would your activity level and food consumption be if you weren't motivated by your fitness goals? The answer to that question is what determines your set point.
It's not much of a "set" point if it's constantly fluctuating. I know I've argued this before (not with you), but to me, a set-point is fixed and it won't matter what you do you will always go back to that set-point.
As for my so-called set-point, my activity would be sedentary (only moving to get food, use the toilet/bathe, go to sleep) while playing video games for 16 hours. I'd likely be eating 4,000-5,000 calories a day.
If we're going to say that the set point can't change then we can dismiss the idea outright. Teenagers usually weigh less than they will later in life. Young adults often weigh less than they will at middle age. But by the time people are in the nursing home, they are often quite thin. If set point were fixed then there should be people who are at their set point from the time they quit growing until they die. There is no such evidence.
But if set point isn't fixed then we need a way to explain why it changes. The simplest explanation is that people's habits and what they are willing to do don't change even as they go through a period of weight loss, so they appear to have a set point that they go back to after weight loss. But major life events often result in changes to people's habits. A teenager moves out of the house and now has to make their own food choices. A middle-aged person is stressed, but food is abundant. In the elderly we find a situation in which mobility and cognitive problems make it more difficult to eat as often as they once did.
People often gain weight as they age because of decreased activity/muscle mass. The elderly grow frail due to aging, sickness, and/or other factors. This is NOT set point.
I weigh less now than I did in middle school, high school, and my twenties. My body looks a heck of a lot better, too. That's because I'm more active now, I watch what I eat, and that's it.3 -
When I eat and drink what I want, I shoot up to 220# and stay there. When I control my diet and count calories, I have an okay time getting to and staying at 150. Anything below that is a full-on battle. Set point(s) -- not sure.0
-
Maxematics wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
so not true...people do it all the time...eat to discomfort...I've done it frequently when I was heavier...that's how I got even bigger...and I watch family do it frequently as well ...those who are obese and those who aren't.
People have literally eaten themselves to death...have you not watched my 600lb life...there is no such thing as set point...
No one said the "set point" has to be comfortable. A person who is willing to discomfort has a higher set point than someone who isn't. If a person eats themselves to death, they can't gain any more weight and they have reached their set point.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
So my weight set-point is somewhere around 400#? I can be lazier than a dead sloth and pack food in like it's my job.
Yours may be 400 lbs for all I know. Mine is about 270 lbs. That is the figure I reached and stayed at when I didn't pay attention to what I ate and I stayed off the scale for a long time.
As for being lazy and packing in food, if you are willing to do that then your set point may be even higher than 400 lbs. What would your activity level and food consumption be if you weren't motivated by your fitness goals? The answer to that question is what determines your set point.
It's not much of a "set" point if it's constantly fluctuating. I know I've argued this before (not with you), but to me, a set-point is fixed and it won't matter what you do you will always go back to that set-point.
As for my so-called set-point, my activity would be sedentary (only moving to get food, use the toilet/bathe, go to sleep) while playing video games for 16 hours. I'd likely be eating 4,000-5,000 calories a day.
If we're going to say that the set point can't change then we can dismiss the idea outright. Teenagers usually weigh less than they will later in life. Young adults often weigh less than they will at middle age. But by the time people are in the nursing home, they are often quite thin. If set point were fixed then there should be people who are at their set point from the time they quit growing until they die. There is no such evidence.
But if set point isn't fixed then we need a way to explain why it changes. The simplest explanation is that people's habits and what they are willing to do don't change even as they go through a period of weight loss, so they appear to have a set point that they go back to after weight loss. But major life events often result in changes to people's habits. A teenager moves out of the house and now has to make their own food choices. A middle-aged person is stressed, but food is abundant. In the elderly we find a situation in which mobility and cognitive problems make it more difficult to eat as often as they once did.
People often gain weight as they age because of decreased activity/muscle mass. The elderly grow frail due to aging, sickness, and/or other factors. This is NOT set point.
I weigh less now than I did in middle school, high school, and my twenties. My body looks a heck of a lot better, too. That's because I'm more active now, I watch what I eat, and that's it.
Same here. And my 30's. And my 40's.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 991 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions