Set point

chulipa
chulipa Posts: 650 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I’ve just been hearing and reading about it. How can it be true when people are losing weight and keeping it off. If it is true and only weight loss surgery can change your set point than I guess we need to have weight loss surgery or just give up
«1

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,458 Member
    Here's a recent discussion:

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/45687454#Comment_45687454
  • chulipa
    chulipa Posts: 650 Member
    Funny
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,986 Member
    If set point was a thing then I'd not gain weight because I really wanted to eat a pack of crisps or liquorice each evening, but because my body made me do it.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    edited February 2021
    Did someone ask about set point theory? I think fat point therapy would be better. Lol
    Anyways, this is such a large freaking topic to discuss. The brain effects our adiposity, but habit can help dictate weight. We know the brain is central for weight homeostasis because you can give people drugs or make lesions on the brain and effect energy intake. Leptin is most likely the culprit as the key hormone that drives long term appetite. What's odd is obese people have loads of leptin. I think there is a leptin point on the hypothalamus that regulates our appetites, but environment over rides our natural satiety centers. Make a rat obese on an american diet and the.n switch it to a more "natural" diet and they lose most of the excess adipose tissue, but not all? Why? Hmmmm...
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    I am somewhat convinced by the idea that one can become leptin resistant too. Exercise is one of the things that is theorized to help increase leptin sensitivity.
  • ahoy_m8
    ahoy_m8 Posts: 3,053 Member
    Leptin resistance and insulin resistance explain a lot about why some people's cells take up the hormones streaming in their bloodstreams while other people's cells do not, despite an abundance present. I'm not familiar with the rat study you cite, but once someone develops hormone resistance, it can have a lasting impact.

    Separately, is there a reason there seem to be an increasing number of threads on this topic lately? Is "set point" back in the news or something? This idea has been around for decades but has never to my knowledge garnered evidence to support it.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    Leptin resistance and insulin resistance explain a lot about why some people's cells take up the hormones streaming in their bloodstreams while other people's cells do not, despite an abundance present. I'm not familiar with the rat study you cite, but once someone develops hormone resistance, it can have a lasting impact.

    Separately, is there a reason there seem to be an increasing number of threads on this topic lately? Is "set point" back in the news or something? This idea has been around for decades but has never to my knowledge garnered evidence to support it.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19401758/

    Note, that the control rats and the post obese rats were eating nearly the same calories on the ad lib diet, but the post obese rats maintained 40% more body fat than the never obese controls. Why? Leptin resistance maybe? We know that leptin also helps control how much energy we burn.
  • dbanks80
    dbanks80 Posts: 3,685 Member
    Can someone tell me what "set point" is?
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,028 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    Leptin resistance and insulin resistance explain a lot about why some people's cells take up the hormones streaming in their bloodstreams while other people's cells do not, despite an abundance present. I'm not familiar with the rat study you cite, but once someone develops hormone resistance, it can have a lasting impact.

    Separately, is there a reason there seem to be an increasing number of threads on this topic lately? Is "set point" back in the news or something? This idea has been around for decades but has never to my knowledge garnered evidence to support it.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19401758/

    Note, that the control rats and the post obese rats were eating nearly the same calories on the ad lib diet, but the post obese rats maintained 40% more body fat than the never obese controls. Why? Leptin resistance maybe? We know that leptin also helps control how much energy we burn.
    What's NOT said though is the actual activity level of the groups. Like people, leaner people have a tendency to be more physically active so even if they were eating the same amount of calories, were they burning off also a higher rate than the obese group?


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • Poobah1972
    Poobah1972 Posts: 943 Member
    edited February 2021
    Oops wrong post... sorry.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,458 Member
    yeah, I don't believe hormone resistance is set in stone. I think the body wants homeostasis and at a healthy weight leptin and insulin resistance are not going to remain unless there's some underlying other pathology.

    Maybe the leptin "resistance" takes a few months to balance out - that makes sense. It's a huge stress on the body to lose a lot of weight and there's likely a correlation between cortisol and leptin/insulin. Why wouldn't there be?

    I'm with ninerbuff on that rat study.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    Leptin resistance and insulin resistance explain a lot about why some people's cells take up the hormones streaming in their bloodstreams while other people's cells do not, despite an abundance present. I'm not familiar with the rat study you cite, but once someone develops hormone resistance, it can have a lasting impact.

    Separately, is there a reason there seem to be an increasing number of threads on this topic lately? Is "set point" back in the news or something? This idea has been around for decades but has never to my knowledge garnered evidence to support it.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19401758/

    Note, that the control rats and the post obese rats were eating nearly the same calories on the ad lib diet, but the post obese rats maintained 40% more body fat than the never obese controls. Why? Leptin resistance maybe? We know that leptin also helps control how much energy we burn.
    What's NOT said though is the actual activity level of the groups. Like people, leaner people have a tendency to be more physically active so even if they were eating the same amount of calories, were they burning off also a higher rate than the obese group?


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    Sorry, should have posted the full text. It was noted at the end of the study, energy expenditure in the post obese animals was in line with the controls.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2670508/
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,028 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    ahoy_m8 wrote: »
    Leptin resistance and insulin resistance explain a lot about why some people's cells take up the hormones streaming in their bloodstreams while other people's cells do not, despite an abundance present. I'm not familiar with the rat study you cite, but once someone develops hormone resistance, it can have a lasting impact.

    Separately, is there a reason there seem to be an increasing number of threads on this topic lately? Is "set point" back in the news or something? This idea has been around for decades but has never to my knowledge garnered evidence to support it.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19401758/

    Note, that the control rats and the post obese rats were eating nearly the same calories on the ad lib diet, but the post obese rats maintained 40% more body fat than the never obese controls. Why? Leptin resistance maybe? We know that leptin also helps control how much energy we burn.
    What's NOT said though is the actual activity level of the groups. Like people, leaner people have a tendency to be more physically active so even if they were eating the same amount of calories, were they burning off also a higher rate than the obese group?


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

    Sorry, should have posted the full text. It was noted at the end of the study, energy expenditure in the post obese animals was in line with the controls.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2670508/
    But is the energy expenditure by percentage to body weight or did the rats do the same exact physical expenditure?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,028 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.

    I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.

    After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.

    I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.

    12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.
    Given that it takes MONTHS just to change your body in general, I agree.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.

    I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.

    After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.

    I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.

    12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.

    Mamma bird, the average rat lifespan is 2-3 years. 3months is a large chunk of that. Rats are not that much different than humans in some ways. You can also do things with rats that you cant do in humans. I mean ethically. I do not deny that I think hormones can change and balance. There is evidence in rats and humans. If anything this study suggest that the lowering of adiposity can be done with lifestyle changes. I just think we have to be careful to deny that there are biological changes that occur to make maintenance of a lower adiposity level more difficult.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.

    I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.

    After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.

    I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.

    12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.

    Mamma bird, the average rat lifespan is 2-3 years. 3months is a large chunk of that. Rats are not that much different than humans in some ways. You can also do things with rats that you cant do in humans. I mean ethically. I do not deny that I think hormones can change and balance. There is evidence in rats and humans. If anything this study suggest that the lowering of adiposity can be done with lifestyle changes. I just think we have to be careful to deny that there are biological changes that occur to make maintenance of a lower adiposity level more difficult.

    More difficult than...what, exactly? No one said it's easy.

    ...and, it was mice.

    Regardless, they were eating ad libitum.

    If I had eaten ad libitum I would have gained too.

    The "set point" MAY be a thing right after weight loss, I'm not denying that because I would have eaten a lot more if I was just set free without a care about my weight.

    I have a brain in my head, so I don't HAVE TO let my desires overwhelm.

    Your approach says we're all doomed. I don't believe that is true. I believe in watching what I eat now, yes. Mice don't have that ability, and had I eaten the same as the always/forever thin person in that first year post-weightloss I may have had more body fat than she did. So what? I needed to let my hormones settle back down.

    I did not deny biological changes. I said that we have bigger brains than that and if we get past the push to continue eating too much then the hormones will settle.

    Otherwise you're telling me I've overcome Nature for 13 years. Where do I go for my prize??

    :lol: Are we saying the same thing again and arguing over it? I can't tell.

    Not arguing at all. I think this one of several studies is not doom and gloom at all, it gives up insight in how we can change our adiposity and not be miserable. Even the post obese rats ended with a bodyfat of around 18% vs 11% of controls. Still damn fine change in adiposity and is healthy. Yes, we have the cognitive ability to hold off hunger when food is available and rats dont, but some folks, not you, denied that our brains fight back.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,028 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.

    I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.

    After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.

    I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.

    12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.

    Mamma bird, the average rat lifespan is 2-3 years. 3months is a large chunk of that. Rats are not that much different than humans in some ways. You can also do things with rats that you cant do in humans. I mean ethically. I do not deny that I think hormones can change and balance. There is evidence in rats and humans. If anything this study suggest that the lowering of adiposity can be done with lifestyle changes. I just think we have to be careful to deny that there are biological changes that occur to make maintenance of a lower adiposity level more difficult.
    Unfortunately I've read lots of animal studies but to correlate the same findings in humans doesn't always work out. Aspartame studies on rats kept showing issues including cancer, but I have yet to read one where when applied to a human, the results were similar.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • Speakeasy76
    Speakeasy76 Posts: 961 Member
    I have a general idea of what set point means, and here's my interpretation: It's how our genetics influence our weight, whether that's in terms of how much muscle mass we are genetically predisposed to carry, how we handle stress, our BMR, or our natural build/body frame, for example. We can't discount genetics when it comes to our weight and health, we just can't. However, as with anything else related to our health, there's the influence of our environment: from how we were raised, how our diet was influenced by our family growing up, external stress factors, etc. I absolutely believe that genetics will make it harder for some to reach and maintain weight (and that includes how our brains are hardwired as well), just as genetic predisposition can make it harder for some to moderate addictive substances. However, that's not saying that we can't alter our environment, change our habits and mindset, etc., to reach and maintain a healthy weight and to blame our weight on genetics (or "set point") is also not a healthy approach.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,099 Member
    @ninerbuff , have you ever bulked?
  • kaypee65
    kaypee65 Posts: 120 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.

    After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.

    That's encouraging. Based on what I'm seeing, your body takes time for your hormones into homeostasis after a weight loss. Your N=1 study supports that. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of hard literature into setpoint theory much less effective weight loss with applied set point reset principles. That said, we might see more data eventually. My gut feeling though is that your personal experience is likely representative of most people. It takes time for your body to settle in a set up housekeeping at a new weight. Until then, it can be a bit of a struggle.

    There is some theorizing that the sustained metabolic drop for Biggest Loser contestants is a result of their heavy exercise loading. https://npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor But without that activity level their metabolism would have rebounded allowing for a more typical caloric intake.

Categories