Set point theory
Options
Replies
-
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.
And that's the other part that I've always tried to figure out: If set point is actually scientifically true from a metabolic perspective, and not just behavioral choices, why do people not naturally "settle" at normal healthy weights, instead of becoming overweight?5 -
magnusthenerd 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.5 -
ashleygroizard wrote: »Has anyone heard of set point theory? It Is a set point weight. When you get enough nutrients for your body and you don’t starve and don’t over eat and drink water and your body goes to a normal healthy weight and maintains that weight for the rest of your life.
I don't think that's what set point theory says. I think the idea instead is that your body tends to maintain weight, and so significant changes often result in activating mechanisms to counteract the change -- for example, down regulation of metabolism (which does not prevent weight loss) when losing, and up regulation when gaining, and increases or decreases in various hormones that might affect hunger. Some people use these as an argument to say that losing and maintaining weight loss is nearly impossible, but I don't think that makes sense at all. Among other things, we have ways to control many of the relevant factors -- for example, weight loss may decrease leptin in the short term, but exercise increases leptin.
Beyond this, that the population as a whole in many or most western countries have become more overweight, I think it's clear that environment is playing a role in weight management, and there are many things about environment that one can control.
Your therapist seems to have described it (or you seem to have understood it) as meaning that one will maintain weight at a healthy level, and that's never how I've understood it, although I suspect she may be trying to help you with perhaps an overfocus on the details of weight loss or anxiety about it and saying that if you eat healthfully you can achieve weight goals without having to engage in perhaps unhealthy behaviors that you've been prone to?17 -
Any theory or method or suggestion: If it sounds like a good idea, try it. If it works, keep doing it. If not, do something else.
Easy peasy.7 -
ashleygroizard wrote: »Look everyone I was only asking about it and each one of you are having a go at me. I’m only trying to see if people have heard about it. I’m not sure if I should be letting my body choose what weight it wants to be that’s why I’m asking and I don’t want to be losing my obsession with weight lose and my life goals and a passion I enjoy health and fitness to try the set point theory my therapist has suggested. You have all been quite mean to me and I don’t appreciate it one bit. I am here for a reason to get help to lose weight. I might be a fat person but hey I’m here trying to get help. I was a drug addict I’ve had eating disorders and I’ve quit cigarettes and I’ve been on medications that have caused weight gain excessive weight gain and not only that I have borderline personality disorder which has binge eating symptom so my body has been thru a hell of a lot and I have been skinny and huge and atm I’ve just over a kg to a healthy bmi at the higher end. I’m 77.7kgs and 175cm tall and a 32 year old woman. I’m here bloody trying to lose weight like most people on here. I think it’s absolutely so mean people having a go at me about something I’m trying to find out about. I’m sorry I come on my fitness pal because how I’ve been treated. I’m here to get help and I get abused for it. How *kitten* rude referring to me and people overweight as fat people
Ah, BPD. No one was invalidating you, they were critiquing set point theory.9 -
Body fat set points and settling points are pretty respected, evidence wise. Evidence based practitioners have discussed them before. Eric helms discusses it a bit in this video: However, that is much different than what the OP has described. The body won't magically go to normal weight if you get adequate nutrition levels and eat at (current) maintenance levels (but perhaps you will if you can learn to listen to satiety cues, which in modern society many people seem to have lost the ability to do imo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmir2s4GUgo
Quoting this because the video bears repeating. Set point isn't an excuse for not losing weight. It's an explanation for why some plateaus occur (equilibrium), why obese individuals may have a hard time simply jumping into a healthy lifestyle (neurological responses to environmental changes) and why adherence to weight loss strategies becomes more and more difficult as individuals become more and more lean (looking at you, physique competitors).
Set point theory doesn't contradict CICO. It explores the mechanisms that often drive CI to be equal to or greater than CO despite the desire to lose weight.
For instance, say you have a body fat set point of about 12-14% body fat. That doesn't mean that you can go no lower than 12%. It only means that as you diet down to 10, 8, 7% body fat, you're appetite, cravings, etc. will get stronger and stronger as your body attempts to drive you into actions that would restore a more comfortable body fat percentage. If you ignore the cravings, feed the increased appetite with low calorie, filling foods and thus maintain a calorie deficit, you will continue to lose weight. However, it won't come as easily. The struggle to continue adherence becomes more difficult.
It's like if you were wealthy and had to pay the electric bill. You don't think twice about it. Set it to autopay and don't even worry about the money leaving your account.
But if you've been laid off for 8 months and your savings have dried up and you don't know how your going to buy groceries next week, it's a lot harder. You still pay the bill. The money still goes out...but it hurts more and you probably stare at the bill a while and fret over the check as you write it out. You're also going to be looking into side jobs and ways to come up with cash.
It's the same with "set points." Shedding fat is much easier when you have plenty of it. Once you get very lean though, your body still sheds the weight if you're in a deficit (still paying that bill, conservation of energy) but it's going to cry about it a lot more and fret over the "check." It's also going to be driving you to bring in more calories (money) through side jobs (snacks) to get itself more comfortable. You have the option to ignore those impulses...but their existence does impact adherence (by design, really).17 -
magnusthenerd 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.4 -
ashleygroizard wrote: »Has anyone heard of set point theory? It Is a set point weight. When you get enough nutrients for your body and you don’t starve and don’t over eat and drink water and your body goes to a normal healthy weight and maintains that weight for the rest of your life.
I don't think that's what set point theory says. I think the idea instead is that your body tends to maintain weight, and so significant changes often result in activating mechanisms to counteract the change -- for example, down regulation of metabolism (which does not prevent weight loss) when losing, and up regulation when gaining, and increases or decreases in various hormones that might affect hunger. Some people use these as an argument to say that losing and maintaining weight loss is nearly impossible, but I don't think that makes sense at all. Among other things, we have ways to control many of the relevant factors -- for example, weight loss may decrease leptin in the short term, but exercise increases leptin.
Beyond this, that the population as a whole in many or most western countries have become more overweight, I think it's clear that environment is playing a role in weight management, and there are many things about environment that one can control.
Your therapist seems to have described it (or you seem to have understood it) as meaning that one will maintain weight at a healthy level, and that's never how I've understood it, although I suspect she may be trying to help you with perhaps an overfocus on the details of weight loss or anxiety about it and saying that if you eat healthfully you can achieve weight goals without having to engage in perhaps unhealthy behaviors that you've been prone to?
All of this.6 -
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.7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »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.4 -
About fifteen or twenty years ago 'set point theory' was all over the Fat Acceptance sphere. It was overwhelmingly used as an excuse for being fat and not losing weight. 'My body just wants to be this weight' - how do you argue with that?
So now your calling me fat thanks. I am chubby not fat. I’m 1.7kgs off a healthy bmi. My doctor said I’m not overweight27 -
collectingblues 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.
And that's the other part that I've always tried to figure out: If set point is actually scientifically true from a metabolic perspective, and not just behavioral choices, why do people not naturally "settle" at normal healthy weights, instead of becoming overweight?
I’m not an expert and I’m not educated enough to know that. I’m just looking for facts6 -
ashleygroizard wrote: »About fifteen or twenty years ago 'set point theory' was all over the Fat Acceptance sphere. It was overwhelmingly used as an excuse for being fat and not losing weight. 'My body just wants to be this weight' - how do you argue with that?
So now your calling me fat thanks. I am chubby not fat. I’m 1.7kgs off a healthy bmi. My doctor said I’m not overweight
Internet discussions that involve multiple people and perspectives tend to rapidly evolve.
You are repeatedly interpreting general comments that are not even remotely directed to you as personal direct attacks.
@kimnyc72 had a GREAT suggestion for you which was to lurk and read older and current posts to your heart's content while avoiding a direct and personal emotional investment in what is getting discussed.
Regretfully you're getting upset about things that people are not even thinking, much less saying, about you.29 -
ashleygroizard wrote: »About fifteen or twenty years ago 'set point theory' was all over the Fat Acceptance sphere. It was overwhelmingly used as an excuse for being fat and not losing weight. 'My body just wants to be this weight' - how do you argue with that?
So now your calling me fat thanks. I am chubby not fat. I’m 1.7kgs off a healthy bmi. My doctor said I’m not overweight
Ashley...maybe you should talk to your therapist about your reactions to people's comments in this forum. It might not be healthy for you to participate in them. One thing that I have noticed is this a reoccurring reaction from you in most of the conversations that I have seen you participate in. I am not trying to be ugly to you I just get the feeling that being here is not helping you. Talk to your therapist...that is what they are there for.
Your state of mind is so much more important than losing a few more pounds.33 -
ashleygroizard wrote: »About fifteen or twenty years ago 'set point theory' was all over the Fat Acceptance sphere. It was overwhelmingly used as an excuse for being fat and not losing weight. 'My body just wants to be this weight' - how do you argue with that?
So now your calling me fat thanks. I am chubby not fat. I’m 1.7kgs off a healthy bmi. My doctor said I’m not overweight
Geez Louise, who cares?11 -
ashleygroizard wrote: »Look everyone I was only asking about it and each one of you are having a go at me. I’m only trying to see if people have heard about it. I’m not sure if I should be letting my body choose what weight it wants to be that’s why I’m asking and I don’t want to be losing my obsession with weight lose and my life goals and a passion I enjoy health and fitness to try the set point theory my therapist has suggested. You have all been quite mean to me and I don’t appreciate it one bit. I am here for a reason to get help to lose weight. I might be a fat person but hey I’m here trying to get help. I was a drug addict I’ve had eating disorders and I’ve quit cigarettes and I’ve been on medications that have caused weight gain excessive weight gain and not only that I have borderline personality disorder which has binge eating symptom so my body has been thru a hell of a lot and I have been skinny and huge and atm I’ve just over a kg to a healthy bmi at the higher end. I’m 77.7kgs and 175cm tall and a 32 year old woman. I’m here bloody trying to lose weight like most people on here. I think it’s absolutely so mean people having a go at me about something I’m trying to find out about. I’m sorry I come on my fitness pal because how I’ve been treated. I’m here to get help and I get abused for it. How *kitten* rude referring to me and people overweight as fat people
No one is having a go at you. You’re victimizing yourself for no reason. You asked what people thought of set point theory. The bulk of responders say they think its bs. Most everyone uses MFP because they believe in calories in / calories out *math*. And it works.
I recently started a medication 8 weeks ago that has a side effect of weight gain. I did gain a few pounds in March. The reason? I regarded how I was feeling and realized I felt more hungry more often during the day. The medication is worth it, so I have made an active effort to limit my calorie intake and start exercising more. I’ve lost those few pounds and am working on gaining some muscle now. You have to recognize your own behaviors and curb the ones that would cause weight gain. Mind over matter.25 -
ashleygroizard wrote: »About fifteen or twenty years ago 'set point theory' was all over the Fat Acceptance sphere. It was overwhelmingly used as an excuse for being fat and not losing weight. 'My body just wants to be this weight' - how do you argue with that?
So now your calling me fat thanks. I am chubby not fat. I’m 1.7kgs off a healthy bmi. My doctor said I’m not overweight
This is not at all what was said. The quote was
.About fifteen or twenty years ago 'set point theory' was all over the Fat Acceptance sphere. It was overwhelmingly used as an excuse for being fat and not losing weight. 'My body just wants to be this weight' - how do you argue with that?
Ceiswyn was referring to the opinions that were had by people in the Fat Acceptance sphere/movement, not you. Note that it has "fat" in the name. I honestly don't know that this forum, or most forums really, are the best for you right now.19 -
I think the possible amount of usefulness of this particular thread has been reached.23
-
collectingblues 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.
And that's the other part that I've always tried to figure out: If set point is actually scientifically true from a metabolic perspective, and not just behavioral choices, why do people not naturally "settle" at normal healthy weights, instead of becoming overweight?
Note that set point theory rarely comes up when it comes to people losing weight.
6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions