Set point weight? What about you?
Options
Christismylife
Posts: 93 Member
I have read a little about set point weight theory. Have you found there is a certain weight or weight range that you just easily stay at?
0
Replies
-
i hadn't heard of it until i read your post so i looked it up. i definitely feel as if my body is fighting me to stay where it is. after my last pregnancy, my body was perfectly fine staying heavy. i refuse to allow that to happen!0
-
Set points are bunk.
Carry on ...0 -
This is dangerous broscience at its finest. It is not your body keeping you comfortable at a certain weight, but your habits. Its a way for overweight people to pass the blame onto something else, or ridicule thin people as "they have it so easy."
Even if there is something as ridiculous as a set point, it would only be there to be crushed.
Now if you will excuse me, I need to get back to my phrenology studies.0 -
As I have lost weight, I've had several weight stops along the way where it seemed really easy to just stay there and not progress further down the scale. Sometimes it has been because I pulled back on exercise, sometimes because I started to eat a bit more, and either of those could have been on purpose (diet break) or just by getting sloppy.
I don't believe in a firm set point though because once I've made a solid decision to get the scale moving again it has not been a problem doing so. If my body truly had a set point, it would be much more difficult to get my weight to change, I believe.0 -
I saw a cool interview with a top level sports dude (he was a doctor of some kind I believe but I forget what exactly, he worked with top athletes). He talked about how your body likes consistency. Your cells actually "fight" you as you start making changes. That is why people who never exercise feel like it's so hard to get started. Then once you are used to exercising all the time, it is hard to sit still! I think there was some science behind it but I'd have to look it up again. It makes sense to me though....our bodies are pretty awesome and can adapt and adjust to a lot. I think we can train our bodies to new routines, just have to have the willpower.
I've seen people reference a "set point" for like a 2 pound difference in what they want the scale to say and what it actually says, even though they are clearly at a healthy weight either way. This is just craziness and probably OCD. If you are overweight and stating "set point"....you are in denial. Assuming no medical issues involved, etc.0 -
It's mostly from learned behavior and a little bit of metabolic adaption. Change your behavior and you'll be comfortable at almost whatever healthy weight you choose.0
-
Of_Monsters_and_Meat wrote: »This is dangerous broscience at its finest. It is not your body keeping you comfortable at a certain weight, but your habits. Its a way for overweight people to pass the blame onto something else, or ridicule thin people as "they have it so easy."
Even if there is something as ridiculous as a set point, it would only be there to be crushed.
Now if you will excuse me, I need to get back to my phrenology studies.
I used to wonder about setpoints because back in the day i easily maintained 136. Then after my first pregnancy I hovered around 155 unless I actively worked at it. And then after my second pregnancy I maintained my highest weight for over ten years. But the habit thing really make more sense to me looking back now. And it's actually a good thing because it shows me I'm a creature of habit and if I can just learn how to eat at that 136 level again, I can maintain that.0 -
Anyone who thinks there is not a set point your body tries to maintain should watch this video. It is long but very informative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA374f8oDbE 0 -
i get stuck at 135 without trying really hard0
-
I think if there is any truth to the set point thing, it has more to do with the fact that this is simply the end result of the habits you are most comfortable with, and less so due to some body weight set by genetics (although genetics will play a strong role in your behavior as well).0
-
Anyone who thinks there is not a set point your body tries to maintain should watch this video. It is long but very informative.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA374f8oDbE
Why is the best you can give some youtube video? No studies or anything? Then it might as well be some conspiracy theory video.0 -
It probably has as much to do with the fact that we all tend to finish eating whatever is on our plates. We fill our plates with food, or we go to a restaurant that fills our plates with food, so our habits result in us eating about the same amount of calories each week. There is a point at which that number of calories becomes "maintenance." It seems like our bodies are aiming for a set point because we get there and stay there without trying. If our plate sizes didn't result in us eating 1000+ calories per meal, our "point weight" would be lower.0
-
ForStMicheal wrote: »I think if there is any truth to the set point thing, it has more to do with the fact that this is simply the end result of the habits you are most comfortable with, and less so due to some body weight set by genetics (although genetics will play a strong role in your behavior as well).TimothyFish wrote: »It probably has as much to do with the fact that we all tend to finish eating whatever is on our plates. We fill our plates with food, or we go to a restaurant that fills our plates with food, so our habits result in us eating about the same amount of calories each week. There is a point at which that number of calories becomes "maintenance." It seems like our bodies are aiming for a set point because we get there and stay there without trying. If our plate sizes didn't result in us eating 1000+ calories per meal, our "point weight" would be lower.
All of this. We are creatures of habit. We tend to eat the same things and do the same activities, over and over. Even MFP was built to cater to this with its Recent lists. Routine is comfortable for most people so we tend to stick with it even without thinking about it.0 -
There's a TED talk on this I've seen.
"Sandra Aamodt: Why dieting doesn't usually work #TED : http://on.ted.com/t0Uni"]
Personally, I'm not convinced. I would like to seethe study she references that found someone who lost 10% of their body weight would have a suppressed metabolism and burn 200-400 less calories. She says you have to eat that much less forever. How do they know that? Was is a long term study. Could the metabolic suppression not be temporary?
ETA I can't figure put how to do the video. but there is a link so that will have to be good enough.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Anyone who thinks there is not a set point your body tries to maintain should watch this video. It is long but very informative.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA374f8oDbE
Why is the best you can give some youtube video? No studies or anything? Then it might as well be some conspiracy theory video.
Guess you did not watch the whole thing
0 -
Set points are the point at which you can't be arsed to work at it any more0
-
Set point theory is not real.
HOWEVER, i know for a fact, If i eat junk food and skip exercise i generally hover in the 135-140 range. I've never been there for long so i imagine i would gain beyond that over time.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Anyone who thinks there is not a set point your body tries to maintain should watch this video. It is long but very informative.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA374f8oDbE
Why is the best you can give some youtube video? No studies or anything? Then it might as well be some conspiracy theory video.
Guess you did not watch the whole thing
We don't have to, because it's bollocks.
The Minnesota Starvation Experiment proved that lowering calorie intake will overrule any metabolic adaptation made.
In addition, it has not been proved that metsbolic adaptations made by formerly obese people are permanent.
Set points are just another weak and feeble excuse used by people who don't like the fact that dropping below a certain calorie threshold can be unpleasant or that they cannot revert to their previous dietary habits once they achieve a lower weight and maintain that weight.
Enough.
You keep referencing this, but the idea of set point is NOT that it is impossible to get below your set point. ETA: The Minnesota Starvation Experiment really has nothing to say about set point.
You are correct about the metabolic adapations not yet shown to be permanent, but I think in the studies on this so far they haven't seen the adaptations alleviate.0 -
I don't really buy into the whole set point idea. As others have said, it's an excuse used by those who are uncomfortable changing their eating habits and lifestyles.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Anyone who thinks there is not a set point your body tries to maintain should watch this video. It is long but very informative.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA374f8oDbE
Why is the best you can give some youtube video? No studies or anything? Then it might as well be some conspiracy theory video.
Guess you did not watch the whole thing
We don't have to, because it's bollocks.
The Minnesota Starvation Experiment proved that lowering calorie intake will overrule any metabolic adaptation made.
In addition, it has not been proved that metsbolic adaptations made by formerly obese people are permanent.
Set points are just another weak and feeble excuse used by people who don't like the fact that dropping below a certain calorie threshold can be unpleasant or that they cannot revert to their previous dietary habits once they achieve a lower weight and maintain that weight.
Enough.
You keep referencing this, but the idea of set point is NOT that it is impossible to get below your set point. ETA: The Minnesota Starvation Experiment really has nothing to say about set point.
You are correct about the metabolic adapations not yet shown to be permanent, but I think in the studies on this so far they haven't seen the adaptations alleviate.
The point is that there isn't a set point. Weight is purely a function of energy balance. If you do not give your body sufficient nutrients to construct new tissue then it will not do so.
As for the adaptations, I believe the longest comparator figures are at 18 months. This is simply not enough time to determine if any change in homeostasis is permanent or not.
It's an excuse used to enable peoples failures.
Yes, but Minnesota does not say anything about set point. You can't disprove set point by showing that people can starve.
Whether or not it is used as an excuse doesn't really have any bearing on its scientific merit.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions