Set Point Theory
Replies
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »Lyle McDonald seems to think there is a body fat set point, and recommends diet breaks to break through it.
How can it be a set point if it apparently changes all the time?
That's an actual question, I'm not trying to be an idiot.
I mean you rarely hear about a person who, for example, gained to 140 at, say, 5''2", as an adult; then couldn't lose from there but never gained again from there either because of Set Point. Instead she went up to 145. THAT must be her set point. A few years later she was 155 and couldn't seem to lose. Because Set Point. Then her mother died, she was stressed, her job was hard so now she was 175. Couldn't lose....that must be her Set Point...no wait. Lyle McDonald told her how to trick....one of those Set Points. Or something. So now...it has changed yet again...
How can it be a "set" point if a. it constantly changes and b. it never seems to stop weight GAIN from that point?
I'm going to stay out of the back and forth on this thread because I'm not feeling well today and really not interested in a kitten show of misunderstanding but wanted to clarify what Lyle McDonald is talking about vs. mainstream understanding when it comes to the issue of set point.
Lyle is talking about competition bodybuilders/fitness models who have a set point/minimum genetically programmed amount of body fat. They can diet down past that strategically for competition.
Mainstream understanding of set point is not about this at all and is about much, much higher weights and a whole different stratosphere of understanding, has nothing to do with bodyfat percentage, and is focused entirely on scale weight.
I hope this clears up some misunderstanding.
There is, if I'm not mistaken, some validity to the assertion Lyle makes about there being a genetically programmed body fat minimum that we all have that varies. And that bodyfat percentage is also usually much, much lower than what lifestyle/habit regulated set points that people achieve (which are the ones that keep changing) seem to be.
Does Lyle explain then how it is that people actually do starve?
I want to clarify on my response to this because I don't think you understand the response to set points as the theory is set forth.
The body "defends" a set point. So the people dieting, who have access to food, will binge/overeat and defend that set minimum body fat percentage.
People starving don't have access to food to defend that minimum body fat percentage, and just keep losing fat, and then they go on also catabolizing muscle mass.
And it is precisely THE BINGING you describe that keeps the fat on.
Because food.
No Set Point necessary...just eating at a surplus. As you have just described.
Are you saying the body somehow knows lack of resources due to dieting v. lack of resources due to actual lack? Like geographically/nearby? Because I don't think it does.
A dieter's body will catabolize muscle mass under certain conditions too.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »Lyle McDonald seems to think there is a body fat set point, and recommends diet breaks to break through it.
How can it be a set point if it apparently changes all the time?
That's an actual question, I'm not trying to be an idiot.
I mean you rarely hear about a person who, for example, gained to 140 at, say, 5''2", as an adult; then couldn't lose from there but never gained again from there either because of Set Point. Instead she went up to 145. THAT must be her set point. A few years later she was 155 and couldn't seem to lose. Because Set Point. Then her mother died, she was stressed, her job was hard so now she was 175. Couldn't lose....that must be her Set Point...no wait. Lyle McDonald told her how to trick....one of those Set Points. Or something. So now...it has changed yet again...
How can it be a "set" point if a. it constantly changes and b. it never seems to stop weight GAIN from that point?
I'm going to stay out of the back and forth on this thread because I'm not feeling well today and really not interested in a kitten show of misunderstanding but wanted to clarify what Lyle McDonald is talking about vs. mainstream understanding when it comes to the issue of set point.
Lyle is talking about competition bodybuilders/fitness models who have a set point/minimum genetically programmed amount of body fat. They can diet down past that strategically for competition.
Mainstream understanding of set point is not about this at all and is about much, much higher weights and a whole different stratosphere of understanding, has nothing to do with bodyfat percentage, and is focused entirely on scale weight.
I hope this clears up some misunderstanding.
There is, if I'm not mistaken, some validity to the assertion Lyle makes about there being a genetically programmed body fat minimum that we all have that varies. And that bodyfat percentage is also usually much, much lower than what lifestyle/habit regulated set points that people achieve (which are the ones that keep changing) seem to be.
Does Lyle explain then how it is that people actually do starve?
I want to clarify on my response to this because I don't think you understand the response to set points as the theory is set forth.
The body "defends" a set point. So the people dieting, who have access to food, will binge/overeat and defend that set minimum body fat percentage.
People starving don't have access to food to defend that minimum body fat percentage, and just keep losing fat, and then they go on also catabolizing muscle mass.
And it is precisely THE BINGING you describe that keeps the fat on. Because food.
No Set Point necessary...just eating at a surplus. As you have just described.
Are you saying the body somehow knows lack of resources due to dieting v. lack of resources due to actual lack? Like geographically/nearby? Because I don't think it does.
A dieter's body will catabolize muscle mass under certain conditions too.
Here is a link to Lyle McDonalds post (this is part 1 and it includes a link to Part 2
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/set-points-settling-points-and-bodyweight-regulation-part-1.html
I don't think @GottaBurnEmAll is saying set point is something dieters generally need to worry about, just that there is possibly a mechanism once someone gets down to a very low body fat so it may technically exist.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »Lyle McDonald seems to think there is a body fat set point, and recommends diet breaks to break through it.
How can it be a set point if it apparently changes all the time?
That's an actual question, I'm not trying to be an idiot.
I mean you rarely hear about a person who, for example, gained to 140 at, say, 5''2", as an adult; then couldn't lose from there but never gained again from there either because of Set Point. Instead she went up to 145. THAT must be her set point. A few years later she was 155 and couldn't seem to lose. Because Set Point. Then her mother died, she was stressed, her job was hard so now she was 175. Couldn't lose....that must be her Set Point...no wait. Lyle McDonald told her how to trick....one of those Set Points. Or something. So now...it has changed yet again...
How can it be a "set" point if a. it constantly changes and b. it never seems to stop weight GAIN from that point?
I'm going to stay out of the back and forth on this thread because I'm not feeling well today and really not interested in a kitten show of misunderstanding but wanted to clarify what Lyle McDonald is talking about vs. mainstream understanding when it comes to the issue of set point.
Lyle is talking about competition bodybuilders/fitness models who have a set point/minimum genetically programmed amount of body fat. They can diet down past that strategically for competition.
Mainstream understanding of set point is not about this at all and is about much, much higher weights and a whole different stratosphere of understanding, has nothing to do with bodyfat percentage, and is focused entirely on scale weight.
I hope this clears up some misunderstanding.
There is, if I'm not mistaken, some validity to the assertion Lyle makes about there being a genetically programmed body fat minimum that we all have that varies. And that bodyfat percentage is also usually much, much lower than what lifestyle/habit regulated set points that people achieve (which are the ones that keep changing) seem to be.
Does Lyle explain then how it is that people actually do starve?
I want to clarify on my response to this because I don't think you understand the response to set points as the theory is set forth.
The body "defends" a set point. So the people dieting, who have access to food, will binge/overeat and defend that set minimum body fat percentage.
People starving don't have access to food to defend that minimum body fat percentage, and just keep losing fat, and then they go on also catabolizing muscle mass.
And it is precisely THE BINGING you describe that keeps the fat on. Because food.
No Set Point necessary...just eating at a surplus. As you have just described.
Are you saying the body somehow knows lack of resources due to dieting v. lack of resources due to actual lack? Like geographically/nearby? Because I don't think it does.
A dieter's body will catabolize muscle mass under certain conditions too.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »Lyle McDonald seems to think there is a body fat set point, and recommends diet breaks to break through it.
How can it be a set point if it apparently changes all the time?
That's an actual question, I'm not trying to be an idiot.
I mean you rarely hear about a person who, for example, gained to 140 at, say, 5''2", as an adult; then couldn't lose from there but never gained again from there either because of Set Point. Instead she went up to 145. THAT must be her set point. A few years later she was 155 and couldn't seem to lose. Because Set Point. Then her mother died, she was stressed, her job was hard so now she was 175. Couldn't lose....that must be her Set Point...no wait. Lyle McDonald told her how to trick....one of those Set Points. Or something. So now...it has changed yet again...
How can it be a "set" point if a. it constantly changes and b. it never seems to stop weight GAIN from that point?
I'm going to stay out of the back and forth on this thread because I'm not feeling well today and really not interested in a kitten show of misunderstanding but wanted to clarify what Lyle McDonald is talking about vs. mainstream understanding when it comes to the issue of set point.
Lyle is talking about competition bodybuilders/fitness models who have a set point/minimum genetically programmed amount of body fat. They can diet down past that strategically for competition.
Mainstream understanding of set point is not about this at all and is about much, much higher weights and a whole different stratosphere of understanding, has nothing to do with bodyfat percentage, and is focused entirely on scale weight.
I hope this clears up some misunderstanding.
There is, if I'm not mistaken, some validity to the assertion Lyle makes about there being a genetically programmed body fat minimum that we all have that varies. And that bodyfat percentage is also usually much, much lower than what lifestyle/habit regulated set points that people achieve (which are the ones that keep changing) seem to be.
Does Lyle explain then how it is that people actually do starve?
I want to clarify on my response to this because I don't think you understand the response to set points as the theory is set forth.
The body "defends" a set point. So the people dieting, who have access to food, will binge/overeat and defend that set minimum body fat percentage.
People starving don't have access to food to defend that minimum body fat percentage, and just keep losing fat, and then they go on also catabolizing muscle mass.
And it is precisely THE BINGING you describe that keeps the fat on. Because food.
No Set Point necessary...just eating at a surplus. As you have just described.
Are you saying the body somehow knows lack of resources due to dieting v. lack of resources due to actual lack? Like geographically/nearby? Because I don't think it does.
A dieter's body will catabolize muscle mass under certain conditions too.
Here is a link to Lyle McDonalds post (this is part 1 and it includes a link to Part 2
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/set-points-settling-points-and-bodyweight-regulation-part-1.html
I don't think @GottaBurnEmAll is saying set point is something dieters generally need to worry about, just that there is possibly a mechanism once someone gets down to a very low body fat so it may technically exist.
Great link. Part I and II are both worth reading, as he gets more into detail relevant to this thread in Part II. The take home message, IMO, is that it both is and isn't a thing, with a lot of nuance and context involved.
Something he touches on in both parts is that it increasingly becomes a thing as your bodyfat percentage gets into "very lean and trying to get leaner" territory. It's not much of an issue for somebody who's 250 pounds and 50% bodyfat - your body will surrender that weight/fat without putting up too much of a fuss. For most of us who are Joe/Jane Average just trying to get to a reasonably healthy weight/bodyfat level, it's not going to be a huge concern. When you're a physique athlete at 10% BF on your way to 4-5% BF (talking males here), your body is going to fight like hell because it's not wired to be that lean. What you're doing to your body at that point is contrary to long-term survival and it's not going to like it one bit.
Going from 50% BF to, say, 25% BF (talking females here) isn't going to be that hard, comparatively speaking - but going from 25% to 10-12% (bodybuilder/physique athlete levels) will be an entirely different thing. I don't think it has as much to do with a "set point" at some certain level as it does with the fact that you're doing something unnatural which the body 'sees' as potentially dangerous. As Lyle says in Part I, "starving to death was a very real reality in our evolutionary past and the body developed a number of ways of 'defending' against weight loss."
Compare what Joe/Jane Average has to do to reach a healthy weight/bodyfat percentage (eat at a reasonable caloric deficit over time, mix in some exercise for health and aesthetic goals) to what a physique athlete has to do to cut to contest levels - especially a 'natural' competitor who's not using drugs to assist. What they have to do to reach those levels is a lot more complicated, a lot more difficult and a lot more painful. Huge deficits/psychotically strict diets, tons of cardio, water manipulation through carb/sodium depletion/loading, dehydration/hydration, etc. And in a lot of cases, that's only cutting 5-6% of their bodyfat, because they didn't go into pre-contest prep in an overweight/obese state.7 -
purpleannex wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »
I have met some people, men, in particular, like blambo61, who can eat and eat and eat and never gain weight
I've met lots of men who say they can eat whatever they want and not put on any weight...and they're right... it's simply that what they want to eat isn't very much! I've worked with loads of men who say they eat tons, never stop eating, but when it's dinner time they eat nothing or tiny amounts and when you talk to them they'll brag about eating but then they say say they didn't eat the next day... losing weight doesn't happen in one day and not does gaining...
When in my late teens and early to mid twenties, I ate a lot and did so every day whether I was active or not. I could not gain. Maybe I ate less when I wasn't as active, probaby so. I think my hunger regulation system worked so that I was at a balance with the calories assimilated and the calories used so I didn't lose or gain much at all.
I do think this hunger regulation system can get out of wack and people will be prompted to eat more than they should and and for some people probably less than they should also. I at least believe in a hunger regulation system and either it's working or it's not working so well.
I had a friend like this in high school. 5'8", 108 lbs. She hated being as thin as she was. And we all thought, "Oh, this girl PIGS out, this is crazy, she must have an insane metabolism..."
But the more we hung out the more I saw that yes, she would pound back a handful of loaded nachos, but then just trail off and stop and just be talking and laughing and maybe picking absentmindedly at one chip while the rest of us were pretty much committed to finishing off the whole giant plate. Or she would eat three pieces of pizza at a sleepover but at breakfast would only want maybe an orange because she just wasn't hungry - she had eaten a lot the night before.
It was easy to see that none of it was conscious or contrived. Her hunger was just adjusted to eating enough, over a period of time, to about maintain where she was. In the long run she wasn't eating as much as the rest of us, not by a long shot.3 -
I think of the Set Point Theory as Wishful Thinking Theory.
Maintained about 30lbs overweight for 20 years purely because when the scales went over 14 stone I did something about it. Apart from one short lived experiment with intuitive eating and "letting my body find its natural weight" - very rapidly hit 15 stone with no signs of rate of gain slowing down...
When I got back under 14 stone I got comfortable again - my set point is driven by behaviour and conscious or unconscious actions, I drive it rather that it drives me.
Now I maintain around 12 stone with conscious eating and corrections as needed.
OP - I think you really need to re-read your closing sentences, to me it sounds like you aren't ready to commit fully (I wasn't for 20 years and bitterly regret it).
" I plan to eat plant based 6 days out of the week, I have recently started drinking apple cider vinegar every morning, and I would like to start running again. I hope the combination of these 3 things will help me fight my set point!"
"I plan to" - not I will. (It's the calorie reduction that will have an effect, not different food choices.)
"Started drinking ACV" - instead of taking control you are hoping for an outside magical solution involving no real effort. Apart from surgery you don't buy weight loss, you earn it.
"I would like to start running" - not I will start running.
"I hope the combination of these 3 things will help me fight my set point!" Hope not decision, I want not I will.
Sorry if this seems harsh, it's meant to be helpful. When your head is truly in the game your body follows.
Not too harsh at all. I am scared to death that another year will go by with no change or temporary change. Food has always been my weakness. I know some of you may think 25 lbs is not much to lose but the struggle has been real. I just love to eat. I will need to change my lifestyle completely. I am changing it completely. I do feel like my head is in the game. It feels real this time. It is something I have wanted so badly for so long. Thank you for the eye opener.
I'm not a fan of "lifestyle change" - to me it's building up the task and making it seem harder than perhaps necessary. Making some lifestyle changes seems so much more achievable, making activity/exercise more important than TV for example or making adhering to your calorie goal more important than the taste gratification of one more cookie....
If you make the process too daunting you can set yourself up to fail. A bit like winning a war it can be broken down to winning a series of small battles (not all of which you will win). You will have good days and bad days and it's important to put both in perspective and keep moving on rather than abandon the goal.
Best of luck, it's worth it!4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »Lyle McDonald seems to think there is a body fat set point, and recommends diet breaks to break through it.
How can it be a set point if it apparently changes all the time?
That's an actual question, I'm not trying to be an idiot.
I mean you rarely hear about a person who, for example, gained to 140 at, say, 5''2", as an adult; then couldn't lose from there but never gained again from there either because of Set Point. Instead she went up to 145. THAT must be her set point. A few years later she was 155 and couldn't seem to lose. Because Set Point. Then her mother died, she was stressed, her job was hard so now she was 175. Couldn't lose....that must be her Set Point...no wait. Lyle McDonald told her how to trick....one of those Set Points. Or something. So now...it has changed yet again...
How can it be a "set" point if a. it constantly changes and b. it never seems to stop weight GAIN from that point?
I'm going to stay out of the back and forth on this thread because I'm not feeling well today and really not interested in a kitten show of misunderstanding but wanted to clarify what Lyle McDonald is talking about vs. mainstream understanding when it comes to the issue of set point.
Lyle is talking about competition bodybuilders/fitness models who have a set point/minimum genetically programmed amount of body fat. They can diet down past that strategically for competition.
Mainstream understanding of set point is not about this at all and is about much, much higher weights and a whole different stratosphere of understanding, has nothing to do with bodyfat percentage, and is focused entirely on scale weight.
I hope this clears up some misunderstanding.
There is, if I'm not mistaken, some validity to the assertion Lyle makes about there being a genetically programmed body fat minimum that we all have that varies. And that bodyfat percentage is also usually much, much lower than what lifestyle/habit regulated set points that people achieve (which are the ones that keep changing) seem to be.
Does Lyle explain then how it is that people actually do starve?
I want to clarify on my response to this because I don't think you understand the response to set points as the theory is set forth.
The body "defends" a set point. So the people dieting, who have access to food, will binge/overeat and defend that set minimum body fat percentage.
People starving don't have access to food to defend that minimum body fat percentage, and just keep losing fat, and then they go on also catabolizing muscle mass.
And it is precisely THE BINGING you describe that keeps the fat on. Because food.
No Set Point necessary...just eating at a surplus. As you have just described.
Are you saying the body somehow knows lack of resources due to dieting v. lack of resources due to actual lack? Like geographically/nearby? Because I don't think it does.
A dieter's body will catabolize muscle mass under certain conditions too.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »Lyle McDonald seems to think there is a body fat set point, and recommends diet breaks to break through it.
How can it be a set point if it apparently changes all the time?
That's an actual question, I'm not trying to be an idiot.
I mean you rarely hear about a person who, for example, gained to 140 at, say, 5''2", as an adult; then couldn't lose from there but never gained again from there either because of Set Point. Instead she went up to 145. THAT must be her set point. A few years later she was 155 and couldn't seem to lose. Because Set Point. Then her mother died, she was stressed, her job was hard so now she was 175. Couldn't lose....that must be her Set Point...no wait. Lyle McDonald told her how to trick....one of those Set Points. Or something. So now...it has changed yet again...
How can it be a "set" point if a. it constantly changes and b. it never seems to stop weight GAIN from that point?
I'm going to stay out of the back and forth on this thread because I'm not feeling well today and really not interested in a kitten show of misunderstanding but wanted to clarify what Lyle McDonald is talking about vs. mainstream understanding when it comes to the issue of set point.
Lyle is talking about competition bodybuilders/fitness models who have a set point/minimum genetically programmed amount of body fat. They can diet down past that strategically for competition.
Mainstream understanding of set point is not about this at all and is about much, much higher weights and a whole different stratosphere of understanding, has nothing to do with bodyfat percentage, and is focused entirely on scale weight.
I hope this clears up some misunderstanding.
There is, if I'm not mistaken, some validity to the assertion Lyle makes about there being a genetically programmed body fat minimum that we all have that varies. And that bodyfat percentage is also usually much, much lower than what lifestyle/habit regulated set points that people achieve (which are the ones that keep changing) seem to be.
Does Lyle explain then how it is that people actually do starve?
I want to clarify on my response to this because I don't think you understand the response to set points as the theory is set forth.
The body "defends" a set point. So the people dieting, who have access to food, will binge/overeat and defend that set minimum body fat percentage.
People starving don't have access to food to defend that minimum body fat percentage, and just keep losing fat, and then they go on also catabolizing muscle mass.
And it is precisely THE BINGING you describe that keeps the fat on. Because food.
No Set Point necessary...just eating at a surplus. As you have just described.
Are you saying the body somehow knows lack of resources due to dieting v. lack of resources due to actual lack? Like geographically/nearby? Because I don't think it does.
A dieter's body will catabolize muscle mass under certain conditions too.
Here is a link to Lyle McDonalds post (this is part 1 and it includes a link to Part 2
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/set-points-settling-points-and-bodyweight-regulation-part-1.html
I don't think @GottaBurnEmAll is saying set point is something dieters generally need to worry about, just that there is possibly a mechanism once someone gets down to a very low body fat so it may technically exist.
Exactly. I'm not. I was trying to explain Lyle McDonald, and the minimum body fat thing keeps getting lost in this whole conversation.
Nuance is important.
I should add that I think that this minimum body fat is probably slightly higher than essential body fat by a small margin, (perhaps a percentage or two) and that margin will vary from person to person.
2 -
I think of the Set Point Theory as Wishful Thinking Theory.
Maintained about 30lbs overweight for 20 years purely because when the scales went over 14 stone I did something about it. Apart from one short lived experiment with intuitive eating and "letting my body find its natural weight" - very rapidly hit 15 stone with no signs of rate of gain slowing down...
When I got back under 14 stone I got comfortable again - my set point is driven by behaviour and conscious or unconscious actions, I drive it rather that it drives me.
Now I maintain around 12 stone with conscious eating and corrections as needed.
OP - I think you really need to re-read your closing sentences, to me it sounds like you aren't ready to commit fully (I wasn't for 20 years and bitterly regret it).
" I plan to eat plant based 6 days out of the week, I have recently started drinking apple cider vinegar every morning, and I would like to start running again. I hope the combination of these 3 things will help me fight my set point!"
"I plan to" - not I will. (It's the calorie reduction that will have an effect, not different food choices.)
"Started drinking ACV" - instead of taking control you are hoping for an outside magical solution involving no real effort. Apart from surgery you don't buy weight loss, you earn it.
"I would like to start running" - not I will start running.
"I hope the combination of these 3 things will help me fight my set point!" Hope not decision, I want not I will.
Sorry if this seems harsh, it's meant to be helpful. When your head is truly in the game your body follows.
Not too harsh at all. I am scared to death that another year will go by with no change or temporary change. Food has always been my weakness. I know some of you may think 25 lbs is not much to lose but the struggle has been real. I just love to eat. I will need to change my lifestyle completely. I am changing it completely. I do feel like my head is in the game. It feels real this time. It is something I have wanted so badly for so long. Thank you for the eye opener.
I'm not a fan of "lifestyle change" - to me it's building up the task and making it seem harder than perhaps necessary. Making some lifestyle changes seems so much more achievable, making activity/exercise more important than TV for example or making adhering to your calorie goal more important than the taste gratification of one more cookie....
If you make the process too daunting you can set yourself up to fail. A bit like winning a war it can be broken down to winning a series of small battles (not all of which you will win). You will have good days and bad days and it's important to put both in perspective and keep moving on rather than abandon the goal.
Best of luck, it's worth it!
I see your point, but the truth is, it usually does require a lifestyle change, and if you're not aware of that when you start, you will probably fail... because it can't just be a temporary thing.
I may burn as many calories 'in theory' now that I'm 65 lbs lighter and more active, but there's no way my old diet would keep me full now... some changes definitely had to be made. And I definitely didn't stick to my food restrictions as much as I should have, and gained back 15 lbs.
I guess when I think of 'lifestyle change' I think more of the fact that it needs to be permanent than the fact that there needs to be a big change.0 -
Such an interesting discussion, learned a lot, thanks!1
-
I think of the Set Point Theory as Wishful Thinking Theory.
Maintained about 30lbs overweight for 20 years purely because when the scales went over 14 stone I did something about it. Apart from one short lived experiment with intuitive eating and "letting my body find its natural weight" - very rapidly hit 15 stone with no signs of rate of gain slowing down...
When I got back under 14 stone I got comfortable again - my set point is driven by behaviour and conscious or unconscious actions, I drive it rather that it drives me.
Now I maintain around 12 stone with conscious eating and corrections as needed.
OP - I think you really need to re-read your closing sentences, to me it sounds like you aren't ready to commit fully (I wasn't for 20 years and bitterly regret it).
" I plan to eat plant based 6 days out of the week, I have recently started drinking apple cider vinegar every morning, and I would like to start running again. I hope the combination of these 3 things will help me fight my set point!"
"I plan to" - not I will. (It's the calorie reduction that will have an effect, not different food choices.)
"Started drinking ACV" - instead of taking control you are hoping for an outside magical solution involving no real effort. Apart from surgery you don't buy weight loss, you earn it.
"I would like to start running" - not I will start running.
"I hope the combination of these 3 things will help me fight my set point!" Hope not decision, I want not I will.
Sorry if this seems harsh, it's meant to be helpful. When your head is truly in the game your body follows.
Not too harsh at all. I am scared to death that another year will go by with no change or temporary change. Food has always been my weakness. I know some of you may think 25 lbs is not much to lose but the struggle has been real. I just love to eat. I will need to change my lifestyle completely. I am changing it completely. I do feel like my head is in the game. It feels real this time. It is something I have wanted so badly for so long. Thank you for the eye opener.
I'm not a fan of "lifestyle change" - to me it's building up the task and making it seem harder than perhaps necessary. Making some lifestyle changes seems so much more achievable, making activity/exercise more important than TV for example or making adhering to your calorie goal more important than the taste gratification of one more cookie....
If you make the process too daunting you can set yourself up to fail. A bit like winning a war it can be broken down to winning a series of small battles (not all of which you will win). You will have good days and bad days and it's important to put both in perspective and keep moving on rather than abandon the goal.
Best of luck, it's worth it!
I see your point, but the truth is, it usually does require a lifestyle change, and if you're not aware of that when you start, you will probably fail... because it can't just be a temporary thing.
I may burn as many calories 'in theory' now that I'm 65 lbs lighter and more active, but there's no way my old diet would keep me full now... some changes definitely had to be made. And I definitely didn't stick to my food restrictions as much as I should have, and gained back 15 lbs.
I guess when I think of 'lifestyle change' I think more of the fact that it needs to be permanent than the fact that there needs to be a big change.
I agree. I obviously can lose weight. I have gone up and down since college. But, I need to make this permanent. There were only maybe 4 years in my late teens/early twenties when I weighed what the charts say I should and I was exercising for an hour or more everyday. I was not eating enough. I certainly wasn't eating enough whole foods. And I was smoking a pack and a half a day. Thankfully I quit that 17 years ago. If I could quit that habit and make that lifestyle change which was the hardest thing I have ever done; surely I can lose 25 lbs and keep it off!0 -
Are we talking about the scientific notion of set point, or the dietary/mainstream/social media/message board notion of it? Because depending on which one, the answer is very different.0
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »It shouldn't be disheartening though. It means it is all within your control. That should be empowering!
This
I believe set point is a psychological/lifestyle thing. You get into a group of habits around your eating, activity, and lifestyle and habits are hard to break.
Set your goal on MFP to lose 1 lb per week and start logging. You can even go to 0.5 lbs per week if you want, though that might test your patience too much. Make small changes, one at a time. Sometimes we try to completely rearrange our lives and get frustrated and quit when we struggle. Make it as easy as possible, one baby step at a time. Going plant based will not necessarily make you lose weight, calories are the key for that, but if you want to move toward plant based for other reasons, that's great just don't think you have to do it all at once!
And ditch the ACV, it does nothing for weight loss.
Hang in there and good luck :drinker:
Seconded. Behavior gets “set” = weight gets “set”.
For the last 15 years, I found it easiest to maintain 135-137lbs (5’4”) without trying much because my behaviors (activity level and food choices) were comfortable for that to be an easy maintenance weight. After my 4th baby I added strength training to my activities, decreased my running but upped my general activity level and now I maintain at 127-130 (about a year now). I lost to 125, but the activity level and calorie level needed to maintain that weight were too much for the 2-3lb difference (trade off of time/results wasn’t worth it to me. Plus I ended up with a few overuse injuries ,so I need to scale back/change some things).
I’m making my activity level and food choices for a 127lb maintenance weight my new “normal “, and so hope to maintain this weight as easily as 137.
And plant based is good and all (I’m vegetarian), but is no foolproof plan for weight loss/maintenance. Desserts and most tasty snacks are meat-free, but calorie dense. Some people find veggie meals less satisfying and are hungry again sooner, but don’t feel like eating another “meal” (ie prepping something healthy), so they increase snacks and end up with the same or increased overall calories and are baffled why they aren’t losing despite their “healthier “ eating.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »Lyle McDonald seems to think there is a body fat set point, and recommends diet breaks to break through it.
How can it be a set point if it apparently changes all the time?
That's an actual question, I'm not trying to be an idiot.
I mean you rarely hear about a person who, for example, gained to 140 at, say, 5''2", as an adult; then couldn't lose from there but never gained again from there either because of Set Point. Instead she went up to 145. THAT must be her set point. A few years later she was 155 and couldn't seem to lose. Because Set Point. Then her mother died, she was stressed, her job was hard so now she was 175. Couldn't lose....that must be her Set Point...no wait. Lyle McDonald told her how to trick....one of those Set Points. Or something. So now...it has changed yet again...
How can it be a "set" point if a. it constantly changes and b. it never seems to stop weight GAIN from that point?
I'm going to stay out of the back and forth on this thread because I'm not feeling well today and really not interested in a kitten show of misunderstanding but wanted to clarify what Lyle McDonald is talking about vs. mainstream understanding when it comes to the issue of set point.
Lyle is talking about competition bodybuilders/fitness models who have a set point/minimum genetically programmed amount of body fat. They can diet down past that strategically for competition.
Mainstream understanding of set point is not about this at all and is about much, much higher weights and a whole different stratosphere of understanding, has nothing to do with bodyfat percentage, and is focused entirely on scale weight.
I hope this clears up some misunderstanding.
There is, if I'm not mistaken, some validity to the assertion Lyle makes about there being a genetically programmed body fat minimum that we all have that varies. And that bodyfat percentage is also usually much, much lower than what lifestyle/habit regulated set points that people achieve (which are the ones that keep changing) seem to be.
Does Lyle explain then how it is that people actually do starve?
I want to clarify on my response to this because I don't think you understand the response to set points as the theory is set forth.
The body "defends" a set point. So the people dieting, who have access to food, will binge/overeat and defend that set minimum body fat percentage.
People starving don't have access to food to defend that minimum body fat percentage, and just keep losing fat, and then they go on also catabolizing muscle mass.
And it is precisely THE BINGING you describe that keeps the fat on. Because food.
No Set Point necessary...just eating at a surplus. As you have just described.
Are you saying the body somehow knows lack of resources due to dieting v. lack of resources due to actual lack? Like geographically/nearby? Because I don't think it does.
A dieter's body will catabolize muscle mass under certain conditions too.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »Lyle McDonald seems to think there is a body fat set point, and recommends diet breaks to break through it.
How can it be a set point if it apparently changes all the time?
That's an actual question, I'm not trying to be an idiot.
I mean you rarely hear about a person who, for example, gained to 140 at, say, 5''2", as an adult; then couldn't lose from there but never gained again from there either because of Set Point. Instead she went up to 145. THAT must be her set point. A few years later she was 155 and couldn't seem to lose. Because Set Point. Then her mother died, she was stressed, her job was hard so now she was 175. Couldn't lose....that must be her Set Point...no wait. Lyle McDonald told her how to trick....one of those Set Points. Or something. So now...it has changed yet again...
How can it be a "set" point if a. it constantly changes and b. it never seems to stop weight GAIN from that point?
I'm going to stay out of the back and forth on this thread because I'm not feeling well today and really not interested in a kitten show of misunderstanding but wanted to clarify what Lyle McDonald is talking about vs. mainstream understanding when it comes to the issue of set point.
Lyle is talking about competition bodybuilders/fitness models who have a set point/minimum genetically programmed amount of body fat. They can diet down past that strategically for competition.
Mainstream understanding of set point is not about this at all and is about much, much higher weights and a whole different stratosphere of understanding, has nothing to do with bodyfat percentage, and is focused entirely on scale weight.
I hope this clears up some misunderstanding.
There is, if I'm not mistaken, some validity to the assertion Lyle makes about there being a genetically programmed body fat minimum that we all have that varies. And that bodyfat percentage is also usually much, much lower than what lifestyle/habit regulated set points that people achieve (which are the ones that keep changing) seem to be.
Does Lyle explain then how it is that people actually do starve?
I want to clarify on my response to this because I don't think you understand the response to set points as the theory is set forth.
The body "defends" a set point. So the people dieting, who have access to food, will binge/overeat and defend that set minimum body fat percentage.
People starving don't have access to food to defend that minimum body fat percentage, and just keep losing fat, and then they go on also catabolizing muscle mass.
And it is precisely THE BINGING you describe that keeps the fat on. Because food.
No Set Point necessary...just eating at a surplus. As you have just described.
Are you saying the body somehow knows lack of resources due to dieting v. lack of resources due to actual lack? Like geographically/nearby? Because I don't think it does.
A dieter's body will catabolize muscle mass under certain conditions too.
Here is a link to Lyle McDonalds post (this is part 1 and it includes a link to Part 2
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/set-points-settling-points-and-bodyweight-regulation-part-1.html
I don't think @GottaBurnEmAll is saying set point is something dieters generally need to worry about, just that there is possibly a mechanism once someone gets down to a very low body fat so it may technically exist.
Great link. Part I and II are both worth reading, as he gets more into detail relevant to this thread in Part II. The take home message, IMO, is that it both is and isn't a thing, with a lot of nuance and context involved.
Something he touches on in both parts is that it increasingly becomes a thing as your bodyfat percentage gets into "very lean and trying to get leaner" territory. It's not much of an issue for somebody who's 250 pounds and 50% bodyfat - your body will surrender that weight/fat without putting up too much of a fuss. For most of us who are Joe/Jane Average just trying to get to a reasonably healthy weight/bodyfat level, it's not going to be a huge concern. When you're a physique athlete at 10% BF on your way to 4-5% BF (talking males here), your body is going to fight like hell because it's not wired to be that lean. What you're doing to your body at that point is contrary to long-term survival and it's not going to like it one bit.
Going from 50% BF to, say, 25% BF (talking females here) isn't going to be that hard, comparatively speaking - but going from 25% to 10-12% (bodybuilder/physique athlete levels) will be an entirely different thing. I don't think it has as much to do with a "set point" at some certain level as it does with the fact that you're doing something unnatural which the body 'sees' as potentially dangerous. As Lyle says in Part I, "starving to death was a very real reality in our evolutionary past and the body developed a number of ways of 'defending' against weight loss."
Compare what Joe/Jane Average has to do to reach a healthy weight/bodyfat percentage (eat at a reasonable caloric deficit over time, mix in some exercise for health and aesthetic goals) to what a physique athlete has to do to cut to contest levels - especially a 'natural' competitor who's not using drugs to assist. What they have to do to reach those levels is a lot more complicated, a lot more difficult and a lot more painful. Huge deficits/psychotically strict diets, tons of cardio, water manipulation through carb/sodium depletion/loading, dehydration/hydration, etc. And in a lot of cases, that's only cutting 5-6% of their bodyfat, because they didn't go into pre-contest prep in an overweight/obese state.
Great post, @AnvilHead Yes, there is, but there isn't.
For women especially, once you get to that not-set point, you can lose fertility/menstruation for one thing, as the body holds onto energy.
It's complicated. It can't be summed up in two words like "set point", or even a few sentences anybody can type here.
It involves lots of maths, chemistry, and biology.
I'm still learning, and find it all fascinating.
1 -
Great post, @AnvilHead Yes, there is, but there isn't.
For women especially, once you get to that not-set point, you can lose fertility/menstruation for one thing, as the body holds onto energy.
It's complicated. It can't be summed up in two words like "set point", or even a few sentences anybody can type here.
It involves lots of maths, chemistry, and biology.
I'm still learning, and find it all fascinating.
Yes, it definitely can create those issues for women - in fact it's not uncommon at all. Many guys who get excessively lean also report hormonal issues such as ED, their sex drive completely tanking, etc. There are definitely a milieu of hormones involved, and they do cause some things that are readily apparent and some which are maybe not so.0 -
purpleannex wrote: »lucerorojo wrote: »
I have met some people, men, in particular, like blambo61, who can eat and eat and eat and never gain weight
I've met lots of men who say they can eat whatever they want and not put on any weight...and they're right... it's simply that what they want to eat isn't very much! I've worked with loads of men who say they eat tons, never stop eating, but when it's dinner time they eat nothing or tiny amounts and when you talk to them they'll brag about eating but then they say say they didn't eat the next day... losing weight doesn't happen in one day and not does gaining...
When in my late teens and early to mid twenties, I ate a lot and did so every day whether I was active or not. I could not gain. Maybe I ate less when I wasn't as active, probaby so. I think my hunger regulation system worked so that I was at a balance with the calories assimilated and the calories used so I didn't lose or gain much at all.
I do think this hunger regulation system can get out of wack and people will be prompted to eat more than they should and and for some people probably less than they should also. I at least believe in a hunger regulation system and either it's working or it's not working so well.
I had a friend like this in high school. 5'8", 108 lbs. She hated being as thin as she was. And we all thought, "Oh, this girl PIGS out, this is crazy, she must have an insane metabolism..."
But the more we hung out the more I saw that yes, she would pound back a handful of loaded nachos, but then just trail off and stop and just be talking and laughing and maybe picking absentmindedly at one chip while the rest of us were pretty much committed to finishing off the whole giant plate. Or she would eat three pieces of pizza at a sleepover but at breakfast would only want maybe an orange because she just wasn't hungry - she had eaten a lot the night before.
It was easy to see that none of it was conscious or contrived. Her hunger was just adjusted to eating enough, over a period of time, to about maintain where she was. In the long run she wasn't eating as much as the rest of us, not by a long shot.
Except I pretty much always ate a lot, maybe more at times than others but there was never a time I didn't eat a fair amount them. My eating still probably followed by needs but with a screaming high metabolism it was probably like 3000kcal for a low day and 5000kcal for when I was more active (I did count for one week then while active and it was 4000 - 5000kcal/day with no weight gain at 6'1" 160-lbs)0 -
I think I have a set point that my body is happiest at. I fought it successfully for decades, but it was something I had to always fight. Then I stopped fighting and gained weight. I gained beyond this mystical set point and was unhappy. I felt fat and sluggish and just not like me, because I was a thin person. So, I lost the weight. But, being older now, I stopped at the set point which is in the healthy range but quite a bit higher than I'd always been. And I have found it very easy to maintain this weight. I don't have to constantly think about my weight now.0
-
Also, if the body naturally has a set point why would that be an unhealthy percentage of fat? Wouldn't it be a healthy one? It would make zero sense biologically for the body to automatically fight to maintain a state of ill health. We'd all have died off long before this if our bodies constantly fought against food intake and exercise in order to maintain a state destined to give us diabetes, heart disease, PCOS, impotence, shortness of breath on exertion and bad knees and backs from weight strain.
So let us assume then that this set point is a healthy fat percentage. If it is a healthy fat percentage then why "break through" it?
Perhaps the part of our body that monitors set points hasn't evolved as quickly as the environment around it. When food is not so abundant, having extra fat would not be unhealthy. It could be life saving. Possibly our bodies haven't adjusted to the non-stop supply of high calorie foods we have today.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions