Body set point
sarahkatzenelson452
Posts: 37 Member
How long does it take to lower the body's weight setpoint?
Over the last few years I found that at 71 kilos, my appetite seriously decreased till I returned to 70-69 kilos. This was a 26.5 BMI. I have worked very hard and am now fluctuating around 65.5 kilos. My tolerance for the work and hunger has finished. I will go to a maintenance mode till I recover my tolerance and can make more efforts toward 63 kilos. How long should I anticipate till the unconscious balance of the weight set point kicks in to help me?
Over the last few years I found that at 71 kilos, my appetite seriously decreased till I returned to 70-69 kilos. This was a 26.5 BMI. I have worked very hard and am now fluctuating around 65.5 kilos. My tolerance for the work and hunger has finished. I will go to a maintenance mode till I recover my tolerance and can make more efforts toward 63 kilos. How long should I anticipate till the unconscious balance of the weight set point kicks in to help me?
0
Replies
-
I don't know that set point is the phenomenon you think it is...
A lot of what you experience has correlation(s) to how large your deficit was while you were losing, how long you maintained that deficit, what 65 kilos means to your BMI and other factors.
Here, read the first couple pages of the Refeed thread, I think it will answer all your questions:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p14 -
Tagging @psychod787 - he's big on set point theory...3
-
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/5-ways-to-change-your-set-point-weight/
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/why-a-weight-loss-plateau-may-be-a-good-sign/
Some say there's no such thing as your set point but here's some recent MFP takes on it.
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »Tagging @psychod787 - he's big on set point theory...
big hug momma bird.....
OP, I don't believe in a set point. More of a settling range. From what I have read, there are many factors that go into this. First, weight history. Leptin is a master hormone produced by fat cells in relation to their size. It is sensed by the hypothalamus and that controls hunger and metabolic rate. So, when you lose body fat, leptin lowers and there is an increase in hunger and a decrease in metabolic rate driving you back to the lvl of leptin your hypothalamus likes. It has been suggested that as one increases in weight for longer periods of time, this level raises, making it harder to maintain lost weight. Second, there is environment. This is a rather long one. Our environment plays a role in where out body sits. There is evidence that a diet higher in Less refined, lower energy density, less palatable, higher in fiber, higher protein foods, it helps that set point lower. If we look at several kevin hall studies, many more rodent studies, when a diet is switched to a more "natural" dietary pattern, many people spontaneously reduce calories and do not complain of hunger of hunger. Third is genetics, some people I think are just wired to have a bigger appetite and response to food reward. This is usually centered in the brain, not the fat cells. Fourth is physical activity. What the research suggest is, people who are more active are better at matching energy expenditure with intake. We also see people who are more active post weight loss keep the weight off better. I think this goes farther than calories burned. There is new information that there is a gravity system in our bone that remember how much we weigh to help us not gain or lose weight.
So, to sum up.... Eat a less refined, Low E.D. diet, higher fiber, higher protein, less rewarding diet. Full of fruits and veggies. Exercise, sleep...... See what happens. A 26.5 bmi? thats just slightly over weight. How about trying not to gain weight? Just a thought.13 -
There is new information that there is a gravity system in our bone that remember how much we weigh to help us not gain or lose weight
Well this is a fascinating sentence...@psychod787
Someday I'll come sit at your feet and you can teach me everything.3 -
cmriverside wrote: »There is new information that there is a gravity system in our bone that remember how much we weigh to help us not gain or lose weight
Well this is a fascinating sentence...@psychod787
Someday I'll come sit at your feet and you can teach me everything.
Ma'am, there isn't much for me to teach you. YOU are the unicorn! I will gladly learn from you. The gravistat does not seem to be as vigorously defended as the lipostat. It seems to act independent of the leptin system. The weight of a person is sense by the osteocytes in the bones and decreases appetite when weight is increases. This would only make sense because as a prey animal, we would have to climb and run. I think the modern food environment of hyper palatable / energy dense foods overrides it. We just eat past it because satiety does not always track well with caloric intake. I think that people who are more active might increase the load on the bones. Thus making caloric intake more in line with needs.4 -
Well, the increased load on the bones would then be more pronounced with lifting
I am teetering on not knowing WTH I'm talking about, so I'll just be quiet now.4 -
Notifications are broken.
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »
Well, the increased load on the bones would then be more pronounced with lifting
I am teetering on not knowing WTH I'm talking about, so I'll just be quiet now.
LOL ma'am I so very rarely know what I am talking about!
Yes, I think weight lifting does have an effect, but far smaller than just standing and walking. In a training session I may put 20 tons of load on me. Sounds like a lot, but compared to walking, not really. You have to figure every step I take is over 200lbs of pressure per step. I think weight lifting doe other things to the body. We have seen where it helps mitigate the increase in skeletal muscle efficiency post weight loss. Probably dt protein turn over and the increase in cellular mitochondria energy use.
I, unlike others, think the equation is a far deeper subject than eat less more more. While yes, you need a caloric deficit to lose weight, dt over lapping systems in the body making it harder, it is far more complex. We have to learn to work with our brains and bodies, not against it. I was reading an interesting research review today. It was on the impact of green veggie membrane supplementation on obese women. It showed that it had a similar effect as liraglutide on glp 1 production. The women in the supplementation group ate less without being asked and lost more weight than the control group. So while a calorie is a calorie, the kind of food that calorie comes from can have remarkably different effects on hunger and satiety.5 -
liraglutide on glp 1 production
k. whatever you say.
I am not a medical professional. I am more like Rachel.3 -
I do agree that it is far more complicated than eat less move more, HOWEVER, eat less move more gets the job done. 9
-
psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »
Well, the increased load on the bones would then be more pronounced with lifting
I am teetering on not knowing WTH I'm talking about, so I'll just be quiet now.
LOL ma'am I so very rarely know what I am talking about!
Yes, I think weight lifting does have an effect, but far smaller than just standing and walking. In a training session I may put 20 tons of load on me. Sounds like a lot, but compared to walking, not really. You have to figure every step I take is over 200lbs of pressure per step. I think weight lifting doe other things to the body. We have seen where it helps mitigate the increase in skeletal muscle efficiency post weight loss. Probably dt protein turn over and the increase in cellular mitochondria energy use.
I, unlike others, think the equation is a far deeper subject than eat less more more. While yes, you need a caloric deficit to lose weight, dt over lapping systems in the body making it harder, it is far more complex. We have to learn to work with our brains and bodies, not against it. I was reading an interesting research review today. It was on the impact of green veggie membrane supplementation on obese women. It showed that it had a similar effect as liraglutide on glp 1 production. The women in the supplementation group ate less without being asked and lost more weight than the control group. So while a calorie is a calorie, the kind of food that calorie comes from can have remarkably different effects on hunger and satiety.
Very few sensible people here have ever said otherwise, I think.
I feel like you, Psycho, were driven a bit into the minutia because of taking an extreme-ish approach in the first place, that got you some extreme-ish effects as a result. Maybe I'm wrong: I often am.
I'm with cmriverside:cmriverside wrote: »I do agree that it is far more complicated than eat less move more, HOWEVER, eat less move more gets the job done.
. . . for most average cases. Satiety, in that context, seems to be somewhat personal & individual, anecdotally, though I have no doubt that the aggregate data reflect commonalities/generalities (i.e., studies find some statistically significant stuff), and the minutia and mechanisms are interesting, even though most of us can operate successfully with a few, much simpler, rules of thumb.
OP, Sarah - the "Refeeds and Diet Breaks" thread posted above is probably the best specific answer you'll get.
I don't personally believe in set points per se (I think bodyweight is significantly an output from habits that we find sustainable and happy-making). However, I do assume - as per the linked thread - that we stir up some interesting body systems when we intentional cut calories, and that that has consequences for hunger, appetite, cravings, fatigue, mood, motivation, and more. Those are things that influence us, but don't *necessarily* control our behavior (just make certain behaviors hard (require "will power" or "motivation") or easy).
To the extent that you're experiencing some diet fatigue, or hormonal snap-back, or whatever, I think the linked thread will have suggestions about what time it might take on average to settle it, but sometimes individuals vary. You'll possibly need to run your own n=1 trial.
Best wishes!
5 -
Thank you all for the comments and the threads. I read them all , havent seen the ytube film yet. The term "refeeding" has such difficult associations... I think my conclusion is that I need at least half a year of maintening before I relax my grip on calorie watching.3
-
Another n=1.
My setpoint was "about a pound or two heavier than last year" for about 30 years. This doesn't really sound like a setpoint.
Then I had enough of that.
There was definitely hunger at first, and I was able to manage that. It got better, and my hunger adjusted to I got to a point where I actually enjoyed the "empty" feeling part of the day. It made me appreciate food even more (hard to imagine because I love food), and it encouraged me to eat more mindfully. Even before I started to lose, I could easily skip eating for most of the day and then make up for it later. My ex never understood how I could go through the day and do physical activity and never have breakfast and even a late lunch. Worked for me.
I wish I had a "setpoint" that I could somehow reset and then no longer have to track my intake and activity. Maybe I'll find it in a decade. For now it's just about paying attention and trying to make sure to eat things that fill me up, fuel my body, and stay within my goals.
3 -
@psychod787 I was outside irrigating fields until 10:30 pm but that one statement ..I kept mulling it over. The gravity system in our bones that remembers how much we weigh...dem bones dem bones dem bones. Everything has a memory. What about space bones, living on the space station. What do you think?
Long term exposure to zero gravity causes loss of bone and muscle mass. I recently had a dream that I traveled to Mars but I think I'm better off here with gravity for dem bones. Thanks for your thought provoking posts.
Sidenote: I could easily eat my weight in gummy bears, live on gummy bears but that green vege membrane supplementation made an impact on me, too. I ate whopping boatloads of that at lunchtime. I know about the transition from a sugar burner to a fat burner.
1 -
So interesting.... I definitely have a set point. I was looking into how to eat and found some help using the zigzag method... Go to calculator.net. You plug in your weight activity level, etc. And it give you a weekly zigzag calories goal tip confuse the body's set point. Maybe I will try it......0
-
I see to have 3 set points around 15 pounds apart. I'll just sit there pretty stubbornly and then run from one to the other.1
-
sarahkatzenelson452 wrote: »...The term "refeeding" has such difficult associations...
Try to think of it as a diet break then. We need to give ourselves a break now and then from the constant restriction. 0 -
I have to say personally I'm not a believer in the body having a set point.5
-
Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.6 -
Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"4 -
Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
It's well known that people tend to gain weight back that they've recently lost. My personal experience is that you need to actively maintain FOREVER if you want to keep it off!8 -
Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"
I don't think one can't lose weight and keep it off, but I think people have to understand that the biological changes that happens when one tries to downsize can't be ignored. I like settling range vs set point. Do I think some people can maintain a leaner body easier than others doing the same protocols? Yes. There are genetics that go into it. Does one get obese just because of genetics? No. Though, there are genes that most likely make some people have a higher appetite and hunger signal. There are others that may control how much slowing of "metabolism" one has while losing weight. If there was a "set point", we would never gain weight. We do though. We see overfeeding studies that when allowed to go back to ad librium feedings, most folks drift back down to near their old weights. I think that the maintenance of a higher bf level over time may dampen the bodies ability to get back to an old level. Could it be leptin resistence? The gravistat? Changes in environment? Yes to all.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"
I don't think one can't lose weight and keep it off, but I think people have to understand that the biological changes that happens when one tries to downsize can't be ignored. I like settling range vs set point. Do I think some people can maintain a leaner body easier than others doing the same protocols? Yes. There are genetics that go into it. Does one get obese just because of genetics? No. Though, there are genes that most likely make some people have a higher appetite and hunger signal. There are others that may control how much slowing of "metabolism" one has while losing weight. If there was a "set point", we would never gain weight. We do though. We see overfeeding studies that when allowed to go back to ad librium feedings, most folks drift back down to near their old weights. I think that the maintenance of a higher bf level over time may dampen the bodies ability to get back to an old level. Could it be leptin resistence? The gravistat? Changes in environment? Yes to all.
No argument with any of that.
My point was that psychologically appealing theories with X amount of evidence have more impact and duration in the popular imagination than psychologically unpleasant ones with similar evidence (adjusted for some people enjoying perverse things, however). This, even if the thories eventually significantly debunked. Who doesn't love a good excuse, or a plausible rationalization? At least better than we like concrete evidence that our own voluntary choices have some serious downsides?
Magnifying that, often 3rd parties with something to market will exploit the psychologically appealing ideas in some way, spreading them further. (Can't make much money from an idea people don't want to adopt, though negatively-weighted ideas can be painted as "the thing we're fighting" in a marketing plan, of course.)
Not saying the above applies in a pure way to set point theory, but it might be in the mix.
For sure, I believe there are physiological/biological effects and forces to be reckoned with (including genetic ones), in weight gain, weight loss, weight maintenance. Physiology and psychology operate in the same body, and aren't *really* separate, either.3 -
psychod787 wrote: »Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"
I don't think one can't lose weight and keep it off, but I think people have to understand that the biological changes that happens when one tries to downsize can't be ignored. I like settling range vs set point. Do I think some people can maintain a leaner body easier than others doing the same protocols? Yes. There are genetics that go into it. Does one get obese just because of genetics? No. Though, there are genes that most likely make some people have a higher appetite and hunger signal. There are others that may control how much slowing of "metabolism" one has while losing weight. If there was a "set point", we would never gain weight. We do though. We see overfeeding studies that when allowed to go back to ad librium feedings, most folks drift back down to near their old weights. I think that the maintenance of a higher bf level over time may dampen the bodies ability to get back to an old level. Could it be leptin resistence? The gravistat? Changes in environment? Yes to all.
No argument with any of that.
My point was that psychologically appealing theories with X amount of evidence have more impact and duration in the popular imagination than psychologically unpleasant ones with similar evidence (adjusted for some people enjoying perverse things, however). This, even if the thories eventually significantly debunked. Who doesn't love a good excuse, or a plausible rationalization? At least better than we like concrete evidence that our own voluntary choices have some serious downsides?
Magnifying that, often 3rd parties with something to market will exploit the psychologically appealing ideas in some way, spreading them further. (Can't make much money from an idea people don't want to adopt, though negatively-weighted ideas can be painted as "the thing we're fighting" in a marketing plan, of course.)
Not saying the above applies in a pure way to set point theory, but it might be in the mix.
For sure, I believe there are physiological/biological effects and forces to be reckoned with (including genetic ones), in weight gain, weight loss, weight maintenance. Physiology and psychology operate in the same body, and aren't *really* separate, either.
I'm not sure I see set point as "psychologically appealing". For me, if its true, it would mean I have messed up my life permanently and there's nothing I can permanently do about it. Not very appealing to me!3 -
psychod787 wrote: »Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"
I don't think one can't lose weight and keep it off, but I think people have to understand that the biological changes that happens when one tries to downsize can't be ignored. I like settling range vs set point. Do I think some people can maintain a leaner body easier than others doing the same protocols? Yes. There are genetics that go into it. Does one get obese just because of genetics? No. Though, there are genes that most likely make some people have a higher appetite and hunger signal. There are others that may control how much slowing of "metabolism" one has while losing weight. If there was a "set point", we would never gain weight. We do though. We see overfeeding studies that when allowed to go back to ad librium feedings, most folks drift back down to near their old weights. I think that the maintenance of a higher bf level over time may dampen the bodies ability to get back to an old level. Could it be leptin resistence? The gravistat? Changes in environment? Yes to all.
No argument with any of that.
My point was that psychologically appealing theories with X amount of evidence have more impact and duration in the popular imagination than psychologically unpleasant ones with similar evidence (adjusted for some people enjoying perverse things, however). This, even if the thories eventually significantly debunked. Who doesn't love a good excuse, or a plausible rationalization? At least better than we like concrete evidence that our own voluntary choices have some serious downsides?
Magnifying that, often 3rd parties with something to market will exploit the psychologically appealing ideas in some way, spreading them further. (Can't make much money from an idea people don't want to adopt, though negatively-weighted ideas can be painted as "the thing we're fighting" in a marketing plan, of course.)
Not saying the above applies in a pure way to set point theory, but it might be in the mix.
For sure, I believe there are physiological/biological effects and forces to be reckoned with (including genetic ones), in weight gain, weight loss, weight maintenance. Physiology and psychology operate in the same body, and aren't *really* separate, either.
I'm not sure I see set point as "psychologically appealing". For me, if its true, it would mean I have messed up my life permanently and there's nothing I can permanently do about it. Not very appealing to me!
I see your point. I do think, though, that it can be a convenient reason that it's not even worth trying to lose weight, since it can't succeed long term; or that if we regain weight, it was our inevitable fate because of our "set point", not an outcome of choices: A rationalization, or excuse. I won't speak for you, but it seems as if for some of us humans, it's appealing to believe that unfavorable outcomes are not the result of choices one could've made differently, to get different outcomes.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"
I don't think one can't lose weight and keep it off, but I think people have to understand that the biological changes that happens when one tries to downsize can't be ignored. I like settling range vs set point. Do I think some people can maintain a leaner body easier than others doing the same protocols? Yes. There are genetics that go into it. Does one get obese just because of genetics? No. Though, there are genes that most likely make some people have a higher appetite and hunger signal. There are others that may control how much slowing of "metabolism" one has while losing weight. If there was a "set point", we would never gain weight. We do though. We see overfeeding studies that when allowed to go back to ad librium feedings, most folks drift back down to near their old weights. I think that the maintenance of a higher bf level over time may dampen the bodies ability to get back to an old level. Could it be leptin resistence? The gravistat? Changes in environment? Yes to all.
No argument with any of that.
My point was that psychologically appealing theories with X amount of evidence have more impact and duration in the popular imagination than psychologically unpleasant ones with similar evidence (adjusted for some people enjoying perverse things, however). This, even if the thories eventually significantly debunked. Who doesn't love a good excuse, or a plausible rationalization? At least better than we like concrete evidence that our own voluntary choices have some serious downsides?
Magnifying that, often 3rd parties with something to market will exploit the psychologically appealing ideas in some way, spreading them further. (Can't make much money from an idea people don't want to adopt, though negatively-weighted ideas can be painted as "the thing we're fighting" in a marketing plan, of course.)
Not saying the above applies in a pure way to set point theory, but it might be in the mix.
For sure, I believe there are physiological/biological effects and forces to be reckoned with (including genetic ones), in weight gain, weight loss, weight maintenance. Physiology and psychology operate in the same body, and aren't *really* separate, either.
I'm not sure I see set point as "psychologically appealing". For me, if its true, it would mean I have messed up my life permanently and there's nothing I can permanently do about it. Not very appealing to me!
I see your point. I do think, though, that it can be a convenient reason that it's not even worth trying to lose weight, since it can't succeed long term; or that if we regain weight, it was our inevitable fate because of our "set point", not an outcome of choices: A rationalization, or excuse. I won't speak for you, but it seems as if for some of us humans, it's appealing to believe that unfavorable outcomes are not the result of choices one could've made differently, to get different outcomes.
I think the reason set point theory gets me down so much is that implies the opposite: you could have avoided pushing your set point up if you had never made the choice to overreat in the first place (assuming you became obese in adulthood), but now its up you can't bring it down again. So yes, its your fault, and no, you can't do anything about it (any more).
I advise depressed people not to talk to me! I will always find the worst case scenario!
Of course, I have met many people on here who have kept weight off for years, and I have read studies suggesting that even yo yo dieting is better for you than constant obesity, so I don't think all hope is lost. And after all, it's still just a theory.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »Set point theory was popularized in mainstream press around 1980 or a little earlier than that. 40 years is a long time for a hypothesis to garner evidence. Is there any scientific evidence supporting the set point mechanism at all?
The likely explanation for the observation (bodies tend to stay the same weight) is habits (that don't tend to change) rather than any biological mechanism.
One wonders whether it would've even gained popular attention, and persisted, if it were not such an appealing reason/excuse about why "weight loss is impossible, and keeping it off even worse!"
I don't think one can't lose weight and keep it off, but I think people have to understand that the biological changes that happens when one tries to downsize can't be ignored. I like settling range vs set point. Do I think some people can maintain a leaner body easier than others doing the same protocols? Yes. There are genetics that go into it. Does one get obese just because of genetics? No. Though, there are genes that most likely make some people have a higher appetite and hunger signal. There are others that may control how much slowing of "metabolism" one has while losing weight. If there was a "set point", we would never gain weight. We do though. We see overfeeding studies that when allowed to go back to ad librium feedings, most folks drift back down to near their old weights. I think that the maintenance of a higher bf level over time may dampen the bodies ability to get back to an old level. Could it be leptin resistence? The gravistat? Changes in environment? Yes to all.
No argument with any of that.
My point was that psychologically appealing theories with X amount of evidence have more impact and duration in the popular imagination than psychologically unpleasant ones with similar evidence (adjusted for some people enjoying perverse things, however). This, even if the thories eventually significantly debunked. Who doesn't love a good excuse, or a plausible rationalization? At least better than we like concrete evidence that our own voluntary choices have some serious downsides?
Magnifying that, often 3rd parties with something to market will exploit the psychologically appealing ideas in some way, spreading them further. (Can't make much money from an idea people don't want to adopt, though negatively-weighted ideas can be painted as "the thing we're fighting" in a marketing plan, of course.)
Not saying the above applies in a pure way to set point theory, but it might be in the mix.
For sure, I believe there are physiological/biological effects and forces to be reckoned with (including genetic ones), in weight gain, weight loss, weight maintenance. Physiology and psychology operate in the same body, and aren't *really* separate, either.
I'm not sure I see set point as "psychologically appealing". For me, if its true, it would mean I have messed up my life permanently and there's nothing I can permanently do about it. Not very appealing to me!
I see your point. I do think, though, that it can be a convenient reason that it's not even worth trying to lose weight, since it can't succeed long term; or that if we regain weight, it was our inevitable fate because of our "set point", not an outcome of choices: A rationalization, or excuse. I won't speak for you, but it seems as if for some of us humans, it's appealing to believe that unfavorable outcomes are not the result of choices one could've made differently, to get different outcomes.
I think the reason set point theory gets me down so much is that implies the opposite: you could have avoided pushing your set point up if you had never made the choice to overreat in the first place (assuming you became obese in adulthood), but now its up you can't bring it down again. So yes, its your fault, and no, you can't do anything about it (any more).
I advise depressed people not to talk to me! I will always find the worst case scenario!
Of course, I have met many people on here who have kept weight off for years, and I have read studies suggesting that even yo yo dieting is better for you than constant obesity, so I don't think all hope is lost. And after all, it's still just a theory.
At this stage, I think calling set point a theory is a little bit of an overstatement. It's complicated, but there are reasons some use the term "debunked" about it.
@psychod787's several posts upthread mention some of the factors that are meaningful, and he usually reasons in terms of "settling range" which is a less doom-laden view better supported by recent research. I don't know whether he has more to say about it on this thread, or other resources to suggest.
Personally, I'm interested in the research in an academic sense, but as a practical matter, I'm more focused on how I can make choices that maximize my odds of achieving what I want. I'm focused on what I can personally control, or at least influence. Unchangeable barriers aren't something that loom large in my mind: If I hit one experientially, I try to think about it only long enough to figure out whether/how to get around, over or under it. There's no point, IMO, in focusing on things I can't change. I won't speak for others, but obessing on those things, or catastrophizing about "what ifs", doesn't help me move in a positive direction, it just makes me feel worse in the moment. Not helpful. Experientially, being in year 4+ of maintenance at BMIs in the lower 20s, after 3 previous decades of obesity (just over the BMI line into class 1) is enough to convince me that "set point" is not some undefeatable thing, so I don't give it much mindshare on my own practical account, frankly. YMMV.5 -
I've just read two studies. Yoyo dieting is worse than obesity and vice versa. As a wise Moderator here says, this is not a research paper so I'm not going to post a list of references. There's a debate section for that.
I want to know what you think about Ghrelin Blowback. The first time, I crashed and burned. Ate it all back. This is my 2nd time and I've been maintaining a 100 lb weight loss for 1.5 years now. The first time I experienced Ghrelin Blowback and I had no idea what was happening with a hunger that would not be abated.
This time, I was ready. I edged my way down slowly (2.5 years) and I'm not noticing anything like I did the first go-around. The first time, I was eating fat, fat, fat because fat was where it was at. This time, I moderate my fat portions just like all of the rest of my portions. I have incorporated more greens every single day and that's really working for me. I don't get hungry like I did back in 2014.
The biggest loser people who ate it all back after dropping it was like it was hot. From my experience, edging my way down slowly has made all of the difference in the world.
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions