Set point

2»

Replies

  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,986 Member
    paperpudding wrote: »
    if set point theory is true and we can all only lose weight toa set point - how come all the WW2 POW's lost so much weight??

    every single one of them cant have had a set point of BMI 16 or so which the general population does not

    Exactly! We might have a comfort eating point, a point at which we naturally and most comfortably eat at, but I'd hazard a guess that this is mostly an acquired habit rather than something dna dictates.
  • kaypee65
    kaypee65 Posts: 120 Member
    Set point theory isn't that you "can't" lose weight past a certain point. It's that your body resists; you feel hungrier, your energy is poor, you sleep poorly, and your metabolism adapts making weight loss more uncomfortable and the likelihood of weight rebounding due to appetite is quite high. It would be so easy if life was a simple CICO, but it's more complicated than that.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,620 Member
    kaypee65 wrote: »
    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.

    While I don't think the research bought into setpoint theory as a foundation, it seems like the research on diet breaks, refeeds, etc., would be something like "applied set point reset principles" in that it seems to involve targeting hormonal resets during the weight loss process and that sort of thing.

    I'm not going to link a bunch of stuff, but there's extensive discussion (and some links to sources with research cites) in this thread:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1

    There are a lot of critiques of that BL study, beyond the one in the article you linked. The BL people used extreme measures to lose (maybe more likely to cause extreme adaptation?), there's some speculation that because they knew they were in a follow-up study they did things that affected the outcomes, etc.

    In general, I don't feel like studying extreme outliers is necessarily a good way to understand what happens in more common cases. IIRC, studies on common cases suggest something more like riverside's experience, or in some cases maybe even less dramatic.

    I'm sure I'm biased by not feeling like my body was fighting back in some major way, at goal weight. (I did feel like my revamped thinner-person habits became more automatic, harder to override, sometime between year 1 and year 2-ish, but that could be more about habit establishment generally vs. bodyweight specifically. Or maybe lemur's idea is right, that exercise to some extent counters leptin resistance. (It's somewhere between anecdotal and statistical, but the National Weight Control Registry seems to suggest that keeping movement in the picture is in some way helpful.))
    kaypee65 wrote: »
    Set point theory isn't that you "can't" lose weight past a certain point. It's that your body resists; you feel hungrier, your energy is poor, you sleep poorly, and your metabolism adapts making weight loss more uncomfortable and the likelihood of weight rebounding due to appetite is quite high. It would be so easy if life was a simple CICO, but it's more complicated than that.

    Admitting a prejudice up front here: It bothers me when people use "you" language in cases like this.

    What set point theory is, depends on whose version of set point theory we're talking about. Certainly, occasionally there seem to be people who post here who believe that extreme version, i.e., "can't lose past a certain point".

    As far as the bolded stuff:

    Might those things happen? Sure.

    Should people think about using weight-loss strategies that might minimize the risks, or moderate the effects? Sure.

    Are they universally going to happen? I don't think so, personally. Why might they not, for some? Dunno.

    I feel like there are also different versions of "CICO theory" (a term I wouldn't normally use): Occasionally there seem to be people who post here who believe CICO itself means an extreme version such as "get an estimate from a calculator, comply (or attempt to); succeed per estimates if compliant; CICO fails if any other outcome, including inability to comply".

    I don't think CICO is that simple, in terms of applying the calorie balance equation (which isn't the same as calorie counting, exactly). If nothing else, human bodies are dynamic. Adaptive thermogenesis exists. Sometimes eating too little results in slower than expected loss. Sometimes eating a little more will improve energy level and perceived results. CI affects CO, IOW.

    That's without even getting into psychological (and a few physical) aspects of being human that I don't think CICO (the calorie balance equation) or basic calorie counting mechanics were ever intended to address. I'm talking about emotional eating, guilt, boredom eating, etc. . . . maybe even satiation or nutrition or exercise fatigue. Those things can dramatically affect success or failure in weight management, but I don't think CICO (the equation) touches them, or should be expected to. Successful calorie counting relies on a person getting a handle on them, but doesn't (taken alone) suggest solutions.

    There's more to weight loss than calories, as a practical thing; but in a strict sense, calories do determine weight.

    Personally, I don't mostly believe in set point theory (weak or strong version). I think there are integrated sets of habits that are easier or harder for a particular person to sustain, and that finding personalized habits that result in a healthy weight is pretty crucial. I'm sure there are also physiological variables that make weight management harder or easier, that vary in different circumstances, and may vary with genetics.
  • elisa123gal
    elisa123gal Posts: 4,333 Member
    edited February 2022
    I don't find a set point making me eat. I'm pretty sure it is my love of food fun and recreation. Were the mice eating pizza and having cocktails?
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,458 Member
    kaypee65 wrote: »
    Set point theory isn't that you "can't" lose weight past a certain point. It's that your body resists; you feel hungrier, your energy is poor, you sleep poorly, and your metabolism adapts making weight loss more uncomfortable and the likelihood of weight rebounding due to appetite is quite high. It would be so easy if life was a simple CICO, but it's more complicated than that.

    It really is a simple CICO, though.

    CICO is simply a math equation - "CICO" is calories in calories out - that's why you are getting all the "Disagree" reactions from other members.

    All the psychological and biological nuances are not part of a math equation.

    841222-144dd652b005bcda5c9ae73ab6eea039.png

Categories