Natural setpoint vs goal weight
Options
Replies
-
Yes, what I'm getting at is that the within reason qualifier is an acknowledgement that there is inherently a range of natural weight that one can go beneath. It's not only not healthy, but it is extremely difficult to achieve. Not merely a matter of a simple deficit for long enough. YES, it can occur, but there are multiple physiological and psychological defenses against this outcome. These physiological and psychological defenses will occur when you transgress some threshold of relative adipose stores that is monitored by the body. The point being, the body does regulate weight. Not perfectly, it is possible to overcome the regulation and become overweight or underweight.0
-
iifym calculator says difference is ~ 70 calories to maintain at 160 or 170.970Mikaela1 wrote: »I know for me I can eat just about whatever I want and stay at 170. When I cut to 160 for the summer I have to be very very diligent in counting my intake.
Because you are losing weight. Requires less food. Being lighter also requires less food to maintain.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Yes, what I'm getting at is that the within reason qualifier is an acknowledgement that there is inherently a range of natural weight that one can go beneath. It's not only not healthy, but it is extremely difficult to achieve. Not merely a matter of a simple deficit for long enough. YES, it can occur, but there are multiple physiological and psychological defenses against this outcome. These physiological and psychological defenses will occur when you transgress some threshold of relative adipose stores that is monitored by the body. The point being, the body does regulate weight. Not perfectly, it is possible to overcome the regulation and become overweight or underweight.
I agree. I think the body is quite efficient. The problem is when you are trying to lose weight there is a fine line between eating not enough and your body going into self preservation, and holding onto everything and eating too much calories, and your body turning into a fat pantry. I have been just trying to listen to myself and what it is feeling. Using a hunger scale to determine just how hungry I am. Eating until I am comfortable (could eat a bit more). It guarantee's my next meal, and purpetuates the process of eating 3 meals a day.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »Set points are bunk.
You can be, within reason and with little effort, any weight you choose to be.
Why the "within reason" qualifier?
Because I can't be 11 pounds, right?
Or 3,629 pounds, for that matter.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Yes, what I'm getting at is that the within reason qualifier is an acknowledgement that there is inherently a range of natural weight that one can go beneath. It's not only not healthy, but it is extremely difficult to achieve. Not merely a matter of a simple deficit for long enough. YES, it can occur, but there are multiple physiological and psychological defenses against this outcome. These physiological and psychological defenses will occur when you transgress some threshold of relative adipose stores that is monitored by the body. The point being, the body does regulate weight. Not perfectly, it is possible to overcome the regulation and become overweight or underweight.
Because the physics of basic life support, not any of this "my body wants to be ... X... because 'setpoint' " malarkey.
And that "natural range" appears to be between about 70 and 1000 pounds to support adult human life for a few standard deviations of us Gaussian distributed adult humans being, mmm-kay?
Pick a weight in that range and have at it. Get busy.
0 -
karengetsfit wrote: »Does anyone else feel like they have a natural set point and when you go below that weight, your body resists?
I don't feel that my body works that way. I have stayed at different weights for years at a time with little effort even though the weights were very different. My body didn't decide that it liked 100 pounds for a few years when I ate what I felt like and then later my body liked 168 pounds for years. I ate too many calories and moved too little to stay at a lower weight.
You are choosing a level of eating and activity to maintain that particular weight. You are not stuck there because your body is resisting. If you want to get to and stay at a lower weight you will have to change your habits permanently to support that.
0 -
Lyle McDonald doesn't agree with your setpoint is BS.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/set-points-settling-points-and-bodyweight-regulation-part-1.html/
All you need to know about it in that series.0 -
The Bergen-Belsen prisoners collectively disagree to the setpoint theory.
I was going to attach a picture, but... no. Just google images.0 -
So far, my body didn't take my family hostage to make me go back to my old weight.0
-
There is a set point theory, I studied it many years ago at uni!
From what we were taught, I believe it is the point (or range) that your body is most comfortable and healthy, almost at your optimum for health. Some people think that this point is when your body is resistant to further weight changes or fitness gains. However this may not be where YOU want your body to be, which can be frustrating.
It in unlikely that a person is going to have a set point which classes them as obese or severely underweight. However it is known that this "set point" is relatively elastic and can and will change due to changes within your body! i.e. metabolic changes.
Think of it more like a sliding scale rather than an exact point.
There is a lot more science involved behind the theory too, looking at neurons and how your brain responds to these changes. Better get the scientists in haha0 -
My aim is to lose around 52 - 54 lbs and lost 4 lb so far, got a long way to go. Please add me if you like as it would be nice to have friendly support and encouragement. Just set up so finding my feet but would be nice to talk to others in the same boat
x 0 -
There is a set point theory, I studied it many years ago at uni!
From what we were taught, I believe it is the point (or range) that your body is most comfortable and healthy, almost at your optimum for health. Some people think that this point is when your body is resistant to further weight changes or fitness gains. However this may not be where YOU want your body to be, which can be frustrating.
It in unlikely that a person is going to have a set point which classes them as obese or severely underweight. However it is known that this "set point" is relatively elastic and can and will change due to changes within your body! i.e. metabolic changes.
Think of it more like a sliding scale rather than an exact point.
There is a lot more science involved behind the theory too, looking at neurons and how your brain responds to these changes. Better get the scientists in haha
I'm not sure this applies but I met a guy last year at a 5k. When he started running 14 years earlier he ran a 27 minute 5k. His best time in a series of 3 last year was 35:13. He indicated he tries to run faster but for some reason is getting slower. He also said he is 5 pounds lighter then he was 14 years before. Wonder how set point theory and the 'your body is resistant to further weight changes or fitness gains' applies in his situation.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »There is a set point theory, I studied it many years ago at uni!
From what we were taught, I believe it is the point (or range) that your body is most comfortable and healthy, almost at your optimum for health. Some people think that this point is when your body is resistant to further weight changes or fitness gains. However this may not be where YOU want your body to be, which can be frustrating.
It in unlikely that a person is going to have a set point which classes them as obese or severely underweight. However it is known that this "set point" is relatively elastic and can and will change due to changes within your body! i.e. metabolic changes.
Think of it more like a sliding scale rather than an exact point.
There is a lot more science involved behind the theory too, looking at neurons and how your brain responds to these changes. Better get the scientists in haha
I'm not sure this applies but I met a guy last year at a 5k. When he started running 14 years earlier he ran a 27 minute 5k. His best time in a series of 3 last year was 35:13. He indicated he tries to run faster but for some reason is getting slower. He also said he is 5 pounds lighter then he was 14 years before. Wonder how set point theory and the 'your body is resistant to further weight changes or fitness gains' applies in his situation.
Ahhh see I don't believe that his lack of performance in later years would be necessarily connected to the set point theory.
There could be many reasons for this deterioration. I'm sure there is information related to the effects of age on both fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers. This could be the cause of his decreasing speed.
If you look at sportspeople for example, they usually hit their personal best times etc at somepoint in their career however, many do not hit that time again. This could be down to the individual reaching their maximum capability at that point in time.
There are so many factors which affect this that you could look into it for a while and still not find the exact cause. I guess like most things about the human body we look at symptoms and make assumptions based on the information we have at the time.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »There is a set point theory, I studied it many years ago at uni!
From what we were taught, I believe it is the point (or range) that your body is most comfortable and healthy, almost at your optimum for health. Some people think that this point is when your body is resistant to further weight changes or fitness gains. However this may not be where YOU want your body to be, which can be frustrating.
It in unlikely that a person is going to have a set point which classes them as obese or severely underweight. However it is known that this "set point" is relatively elastic and can and will change due to changes within your body! i.e. metabolic changes.
Think of it more like a sliding scale rather than an exact point.
There is a lot more science involved behind the theory too, looking at neurons and how your brain responds to these changes. Better get the scientists in haha
I'm not sure this applies but I met a guy last year at a 5k. When he started running 14 years earlier he ran a 27 minute 5k. His best time in a series of 3 last year was 35:13. He indicated he tries to run faster but for some reason is getting slower. He also said he is 5 pounds lighter then he was 14 years before. Wonder how set point theory and the 'your body is resistant to further weight changes or fitness gains' applies in his situation.
Ahhh see I don't believe that his lack of performance in later years would be necessarily connected to the set point theory.
There could be many reasons for this deterioration. I'm sure there is information related to the effects of age on both fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers. This could be the cause of his decreasing speed.
If you look at sportspeople for example, they usually hit their personal best times etc at somepoint in their career however, many do not hit that time again. This could be down to the individual reaching their maximum capability at that point in time.
There are so many factors which affect this that you could look into it for a while and still not find the exact cause. I guess like most things about the human body we look at symptoms and make assumptions based on the information we have at the time.
Exactly, many factors indeed. He was 69 YO when he started and was 83 last year. Sometimes people remember things better with a wacky example
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »There is a set point theory, I studied it many years ago at uni!
From what we were taught, I believe it is the point (or range) that your body is most comfortable and healthy, almost at your optimum for health. Some people think that this point is when your body is resistant to further weight changes or fitness gains. However this may not be where YOU want your body to be, which can be frustrating.
It in unlikely that a person is going to have a set point which classes them as obese or severely underweight. However it is known that this "set point" is relatively elastic and can and will change due to changes within your body! i.e. metabolic changes.
Think of it more like a sliding scale rather than an exact point.
There is a lot more science involved behind the theory too, looking at neurons and how your brain responds to these changes. Better get the scientists in haha
I'm not sure this applies but I met a guy last year at a 5k. When he started running 14 years earlier he ran a 27 minute 5k. His best time in a series of 3 last year was 35:13. He indicated he tries to run faster but for some reason is getting slower. He also said he is 5 pounds lighter then he was 14 years before. Wonder how set point theory and the 'your body is resistant to further weight changes or fitness gains' applies in his situation.
Ahhh see I don't believe that his lack of performance in later years would be necessarily connected to the set point theory.
There could be many reasons for this deterioration. I'm sure there is information related to the effects of age on both fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers. This could be the cause of his decreasing speed.
If you look at sportspeople for example, they usually hit their personal best times etc at somepoint in their career however, many do not hit that time again. This could be down to the individual reaching their maximum capability at that point in time.
There are so many factors which affect this that you could look into it for a while and still not find the exact cause. I guess like most things about the human body we look at symptoms and make assumptions based on the information we have at the time.
Exactly, many factors indeed. He was 69 YO when he started and was 83 last year. Sometimes people remember things better with a wacky example
hahahaha Nice one x 0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »There is a set point theory, I studied it many years ago at uni!
From what we were taught, I believe it is the point (or range) that your body is most comfortable and healthy, almost at your optimum for health. Some people think that this point is when your body is resistant to further weight changes or fitness gains. However this may not be where YOU want your body to be, which can be frustrating.
It in unlikely that a person is going to have a set point which classes them as obese or severely underweight. However it is known that this "set point" is relatively elastic and can and will change due to changes within your body! i.e. metabolic changes.
Think of it more like a sliding scale rather than an exact point.
There is a lot more science involved behind the theory too, looking at neurons and how your brain responds to these changes. Better get the scientists in haha
I'm not sure this applies but I met a guy last year at a 5k. When he started running 14 years earlier he ran a 27 minute 5k. His best time in a series of 3 last year was 35:13. He indicated he tries to run faster but for some reason is getting slower. He also said he is 5 pounds lighter then he was 14 years before. Wonder how set point theory and the 'your body is resistant to further weight changes or fitness gains' applies in his situation.
Ahhh see I don't believe that his lack of performance in later years would be necessarily connected to the set point theory.
There could be many reasons for this deterioration. I'm sure there is information related to the effects of age on both fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers. This could be the cause of his decreasing speed.
If you look at sportspeople for example, they usually hit their personal best times etc at somepoint in their career however, many do not hit that time again. This could be down to the individual reaching their maximum capability at that point in time.
There are so many factors which affect this that you could look into it for a while and still not find the exact cause. I guess like most things about the human body we look at symptoms and make assumptions based on the information we have at the time.
Exactly, many factors indeed. He was 69 YO when he started and was 83 last year. Sometimes people remember things better with a wacky example
hahahaha Nice one x
I have my moments. Then again. . . .and thank you
0 -
970Mikaela1 wrote: »
iifym calculator says difference is ~ 70 calories to maintain at 160 or 170.970Mikaela1 wrote: »I know for me I can eat just about whatever I want and stay at 170. When I cut to 160 for the summer I have to be very very diligent in counting my intake.
Because you are losing weight. Requires less food. Being lighter also requires less food to maintain.
IIFYM calculator is also terrible and low-balls caloric needs in general. It also says that I need fewer calories at a lower bodyfat %.0 -
I dunno what you're inputting but if I lower the bf% and keep everything else the same the calories go up.970Mikaela1 wrote: »
iifym calculator says difference is ~ 70 calories to maintain at 160 or 170.970Mikaela1 wrote: »I know for me I can eat just about whatever I want and stay at 170. When I cut to 160 for the summer I have to be very very diligent in counting my intake.
Because you are losing weight. Requires less food. Being lighter also requires less food to maintain.
IIFYM calculator is also terrible and low-balls caloric needs in general. It also says that I need fewer calories at a lower bodyfat %.
0 -
970Mikaela1 wrote: »
iifym calculator says difference is ~ 70 calories to maintain at 160 or 170.970Mikaela1 wrote: »I know for me I can eat just about whatever I want and stay at 170. When I cut to 160 for the summer I have to be very very diligent in counting my intake.
Because you are losing weight. Requires less food. Being lighter also requires less food to maintain.
IIFYM calculator is also terrible and low-balls caloric needs in general. It also says that I need fewer calories at a lower bodyfat %.
I'm sorry. . . .what? Which calculator are using since the site has several?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K 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