Set point theory

135

Replies

  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    edited May 2019
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    If set point theory exists, then starvation and obesity wouldn't be a thing, yet they are.

    It's an excuse with no objective data to support it.

    Weight, like almost everything, is an output of behavior.

    If people have a set point, why does it preclude starvation and obesity? I think that's just ignoring set point as discussed in research. Applied in a different context, do you believe temperature homeostasis doesn't exist because people die of cold and heat exposure?

    The fact that people so frequently maintain a weight within a given environment, despite the narrow range of calories in to out matching that has to happen for it is pretty good evidence for there being some kind of homeostasis of body weight.

    And sure, behavior plays in weight, but weight does play in behavior. Give me the ability to change someone's leptin, and I can guarantee you that will change their behavior.

    Are you attempting to redefine basal metabolic rate as set point? That's the only scenario where set point holds some manner of validity.

    Hormones have a limited impact on defined biochemical pathway acting largely as secondary or tertiary influencers, not primary drivers. Leptin is no different.

    No, not basal metabolic rate at all.

    Leptin absolutely alters human behavior in response to a calorie deficit. If you think otherwise, the reason you think set point has no evidence is frankly that you just don't know that much about the body of literature.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17986612
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22566584
    http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/37/11/3061

    Take someone that has dieted down and give them leptin and the "suck" of dieting goes away.
    Things as minute as twitching and general amounts of motion go down with leptin drops.


    I'd say all behavior is ultimately biochemical pathways. If you want to put out something that has scant evidence, try to find any that shows behavior is the result of anything besides material brains and feedback to said brains.
  • Maxxitt
    Maxxitt Posts: 1,281 Member
    Just a thought, science is a lot easy to follow when we accept that it is descriptive not prescriptive. That is to say science answers what is and how, and can never answer what should.
    It seems like a lot of people want to accept or deny set points based on whether they excuse someone's weight or not. That's not a rational reason to accept or reject a belief.

    Here's another thought. Science leads to different conclusions as more evidence is gathered. So what may have been "evidenced based" before no longer is, given the new evidence that has been gathered. It used to be that 10-15 years elapsed before sound scientific findings made their way into common practice. And guess what - by that time, they were frequently outdated. Always be open and curious and ready to read, and understand that the body of evidence is continuing to be added to.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    If set point theory exists, then starvation and obesity wouldn't be a thing, yet they are.

    It's an excuse with no objective data to support it.

    Weight, like almost everything, is an output of behavior.

    If people have a set point, why does it preclude starvation and obesity? I think that's just ignoring set point as discussed in research. Applied in a different context, do you believe temperature homeostasis doesn't exist because people die of cold and heat exposure?

    The fact that people so frequently maintain a weight within a given environment, despite the narrow range of calories in to out matching that has to happen for it is pretty good evidence for there being some kind of homeostasis of body weight.

    And sure, behavior plays in weight, but weight does play in behavior. Give me the ability to change someone's leptin, and I can guarantee you that will change their behavior.

    Are you attempting to redefine basal metabolic rate as set point? That's the only scenario where set point holds some manner of validity.

    Hormones have a limited impact on defined biochemical pathway acting largely as secondary or tertiary influencers, not primary drivers. Leptin is no different.

    No, not basal metabolic rate at all.

    Leptin absolutely alters human behavior in response to a calorie deficit. If you think otherwise, the reason you think set point has no evidence is frankly that you just don't know that much about the body of literature.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17986612
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22566584
    http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/37/11/3061

    Take someone that has dieted down and give them leptin and the "suck" of dieting goes away.
    Things as minute as twitching and general amounts of motion go down with leptin drops.


    I'd say all behavior is ultimately biochemical pathways. If you want to put out something that has scant evidence, try to find any that shows behavior is the result of anything besides material brains and feedback to said brains.

    Humans are influenced by hormones, but this is not a primary driver. Man is more than a slave to hormonal impulses.

    If you are defining set point as a determined amount of energy reserves in a body, then yes this is a physiological truth. For mankind this is established at ~15-30% body fat largely based upon gender.

    What set point is not is a determinant where if subject A was at 300 lbs, loses weight, and their body "sets" their metabolism, hormones, behavior, etc. to return to this subjective weight.