Can your body adopt a new "set" point?

tomatoey wrote: »

Yes, I've had several set points. They are determined by your level of activity and how many calories you consume. If you're consistent about both of those for a while, your body will just agree to it.

yup. mine is less now than it was two weeks ago.

I think this has happened to me: My weight had crept up to nearly 90 kg (198lb) though it seemed quite stable thre. Then three years ago I lost just over 9kg. I put 5kg back on and my weight stabilised again at 86kg (which had been my stable weight for several years before the gain). This past year, I have lost 14kg, but put a couple back on over the summer, and it seems to be stable again at between 72 and 73kg (160lb). This is right in the middle of the normal bmi for me (I am 5'11" or now - according to the nurse at my local surgery - a little more), so I think I'll now aim to stay stable at 72-73 kg, wait six months and then decide if I want to lose another 3 to 5kg.

I'm still not sure I buy the 'set point' theory. I mean yeah, when I was in France my set point was probably 170 pounds, but only because it's where I was with my diet and exercise... Then I moved here and I maintained at 200 pounds for 10 years eating whatever I wanted... but it's just the weight that was associated with my calorie intake (although I remember eating more than the 2400 calories I was supposedly eating to maintain that weight!).

What I do know is that I've been around 133 pounds for over a year, trying to lose more, and failing, and that's with being hungry a lot too and having to restrict myself quite a bit. But once again, it comes down to diet, I'd probably be at my goal weight if I was making better choices all the time. But I like having 200-300 calories of treats (you'd think it would be easy to fit in when maintaining at 2200 calories but NOPE), so it's a struggle every day.

But the thing is, if there was such a thing as a set point theory, we'd all be in the same boat. Everyone would struggle at maintenance, and there wouldn't be such a thing as people who 'can't eat 1200 calories because they are so full'... they'd all be hungry too because they would be under their set point.

So nope. It all comes down to your eating and exercising habits. Although it does seem at times (all the time really) that my body just doesn't want to get under 133 pounds.

I think separated twin stories are fascinating, and one commonality I've seen is that often the separated twins have similar physiques (and often clothing styles as well!) when they meet. Those twin studies add an interesting angle to the nature vs nurture argument. In general, I'm a nurture is more important believer, but those twin studies can make me doubt.

So... maybe there's something to the set point theory, and maybe the twin studies support it, but the fact is, your body can only be the size you let it be by the CICO calculation, so as long as you're the one in control, you'll beat out nature even if it does have some influence over what you would eat or how much you would exercise if you hadn't set a goal and made new habits.

"The fact is, your body can only be the size you let it be by the CICO calculation."

Yes, agreed, but what I wonder is whether maintenance calories change somewhat with weight, so that (in my case) a regular higher calorie intake led to weight gain and then a fairly stable weight at 89kg, whereas a regular lower intake will lead to maintaining at at 85kg or (for slightly lower again) 75kg?

Mezzie1024 wrote: »

I think separated twin stories are fascinating, and one commonality I've seen is that often the separated twins have similar physiques (and often clothing styles as well!) when they meet. Those twin studies add an interesting angle to the nature vs nurture argument. In general, I'm a nurture is more important believer, but those twin studies can make me doubt.

So... maybe there's something to the set point theory, and maybe the twin studies support it, but the fact is, your body can only be the size you let it be by the CICO calculation, so as long as you're the one in control, you'll beat out nature even if it does have some influence over what you would eat or how much you would exercise if you hadn't set a goal and made new habits.

Well I have a twin sister and she's always hovered around 140 pounds, with the same activity level that I had when I was living in France (and I was 150 pounds). I have more muscle than she does though and a much larger appetite (she doesn't eat much but high calorie stuff). But our weights have always been different. The only common factor is that we both have a hard time staying under 135 pounds.

shell1005 wrote: »

Since I don't believe in set point then yes, I believe you can adopt a new "set point." Your body stays at the weight that corresponds with the calories you give it and the activity you do. That's how I see it.

Yeah, exactly, it's completely lifestyle that determines it (although your body will tell you if you go *too* low). That said, there s a certain intake level that's psychologically sustainable. If maintaining weight X means never eating out with friends or family, that might be a relevant "set point" boundary

Mine can.

I'm not sure I buy in completely to the set point idea, but if one exists, what seems to make sense is that our bodies have a set number of calories that it wants to burn. A man might consume 3,000 calories, which would be fine if he is active enough, but if he is sedentary, his body will put on weight until it is burning 3,000 calories. A thin person may be eating as much as a fat person, but the thin person has an easier time going to the gym, riding a bicycle, or doing physical labor. A fat person, is burning more calories on a regular basis, but the effort required to exercise prevents them from burning even more calories.