Set point weight? What about you?

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!

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 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.

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.

i get stuck at 135 without trying really hard

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.

stevencloser wrote: »

tomsarno 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

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.

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.

herrspoons wrote: »

girlviernes wrote: »

herrspoons wrote: »

girlviernes wrote: »

herrspoons wrote: »

tomsarno wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

tomsarno 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.

MSE doesn't say anything explicit about set points. It does, however, blow the concept that people cannot lose weight or will revert to a particular weight out of the water, because it proves that metabolic adaptation does not override continued calorie deficit. Since the idea of a set point is based on plateau or reversion, it largely invalidates the concept as an excuse for being or getting fat.

If and when people are (misinterpreting) set point theory to say that the reason they can't lose weight and are fat is set point, then you get to point out MSE

I guess because of my background in treating eating disorders I've often seen with young women that they WANT to be thinner than their body naturally settles at, and this creates a lot of problems. In this case, we are talking underweight or low normal weight versus a weight range their body defends that is typically normal/high normal. In this case, set point theory is very useful in helping them to accept a higher weight than they would prefer, as they can see that the costs of maintaining a lower weight are very high.

I also think it is important and useful to examine the homeostatic mechanisms to be forewarned that weight loss is difficult to sustain and to really conceptualize it correctly - something that will require ongoing attention and focus, perhaps for the rest of your life, as there are myriad physiological and environmental factors that will support weight regain. Although it can of course be used as a reason to just give up, for me it is a reason to work even harder and to set in place as many habits (e.g., logging, regular weighing), environmental modifications, and physiological changes (e.g., strength training), as possible because this is a serious problem that requires dedication to address.

Agreed that set point is a theory, and something much more clearly seen in other creatures such as rats. In humans it is a lot less clear, probably more of a range than a precise weight if anything, and how well regulated may vary significantly by person. What seems most likely to me is that in some people the body actually regulates very effectively and maintains a set point pretty closely, in others the regulation is more asymmetrical. Set point could be mutable as well, for example if based on adipose cells, if there is proliferation then the regulatory "guide" would change.

Liftng4Lis wrote: »

I had never heard of it, until I just read about it. I don't agree. How else are people able to lose and maintain that loss, for years.

They may have been above set point and the loss returned them to set point. They may be continually practicing some restriction in order to overcome set point. The loss may be within a set point range. Or set point may not be a good explanation of human weight processes.