Is there really a weight that is ideal for your body?

I believe the number a the scale isn't the best indicator of your ideal. You BP, cholesterol ratio, triglycerides, glucose, a1c numbers are much better indicators if your body is happy with your overall choices than the scale.

I have done some thinking and my own research on this in the recent past and have come to the conclusion this theory behind "set point" is really called a plateau. How long you stay in that plateau is up to you and is simply changed up or down by your diet (deficit to loose or surplus to gain).

What I came to was although the body is an amazing and complicated machine, we have complete control over simply by what we feed it and how we exercise it. The two things that make the simple process of CICO not to work as efficiently is if there underlying medication condition involved, and still, this may just require special dietary changes and advice from your medical doctor depending if medication is involved or not.

Your ideal weight will be whatever you end up at when you reach 15-20% body fat.

My body always settles between 150-155 (I'm 5'10"). It did when I was in college and stayed there for years. It did after both kids. It's where my body easily settled after I lost the 38 pounds I did. It likes to be here. If I go under, it pops up easily. If I go over, it pops down easily. This is who I am.

sijomial wrote: »

No there isn't a weight your body "wants" or a set point - it just reacts to stimulus and feeding.
If you are underfeeding then hunger is a response, often more mental/emotional rather than physical though.

You will have an ideal weight for your current age and activity but that needs to be "imposed" on your body rather than occur naturally.

For a long time I've had an intuitive eating level, unfortunately it's about 250 cals/day more than I actually need.

I'm about the same. 250 cals naturally over. What's that? A glass of wine or two, or a treat. Easily easily done.

I don't think that "the body" has set points or an ideal weight. But, I do think that, in some circumstances, we can struggle much more to resist the instinctive (survival instincts) urge to eat more.

Anecdotally these circumstances seem to be:

when

• we get to lower BF%
• when we restrict fun/favourite foods or food groups
• when we have been dieting for long periods of time
• when stressed, emotional, tired, overworked
• when our calorific targets are too low

From my own experience...

victoria_1024 wrote: »

I had 2-3 really bad food weeks where I just felt hungry all the time and had a hard time with self-control.)

would be an indication that my loss goals were too aggressive and I needed to ease up for a couple of weeks.

Sorry, set point theory is what you're referring to. And it's bunk.

Alternatively, if you are in the healthy weight range and we are talking 5 vanity pounds, it may just be easier for your sake to stay there and not stress too much about it.

I think speaking of your body as wanting something is a way of separating yourself from your behavior. Your body is the weight it is because every ounce of it has entered through your mouth, and you've put it there.

Edit: Minus the eight pounds or so you entered the world with.

As someone who has never lost or gained a significant amount of weight in the 4-5 years since I stopped growing, I do think that my current weight is close to where it should be, at least for my age. My BMI is pretty low, but that's where I ended up after growth (and most likely is at least partly due to genetics).

I remember reading about this in a textbook! The following information is from said textbook:

"Some researchers believe that the hypothalamus, related brain areas, and chemicals such as CCK and GLP-1 (natural appetite suppressants) comprise a "weight thermostat" of sorts called the weight set point."

"Weight set point - The weight level that a person is predisposed to maintain, controlled in part by the hypothalamus."

"Genetic inheritance and early eating practices seem to determine each person's weight set point"

"Researchers have located two separate areas in the hypothalamus that help control eating. One, the lateral hypothalamus (LH) ... produces hunger when it is activated. When the LH of a laboratory animal is stimulated electrically, the animal eats, even if it has been fed recently."

"... another area, the ventrimedial hypothalamus (VMH) ... reduces hunger when it is activated. When the VMH is electrically stimulated, laboratory animals stop eating."

"When a person's weight falls below his or her particular set point, the LH (Lateral Hypothalamus) and certain other brain areas are activated and seek to restore the lost weight by producing hunger and lowering the body's metabolic rate."

"When a person's weight rises above his or her set point, the VMH (Ventromedial Hypothalamus) and certain other brain areas are activated, and they seek to remove excess weight by reducing hunger and increasing the body's metabolic rate."

"According the the weight set point theory, when people diet and fall to a weight below their weight set point, their brain starts trying to restore the lost weight. Hypothalamic and related brain activity produce a preoccupation with food and a desire to binge. It also triggers bodily changes that make it hatder to lose weight and easier to gain weight, however little is eaten."

"Although the weight set point explanation has received considerable debate in the clinical field, it remains widely accepted by theorists and practitioners."

This information is from Ronald J. Comer's textbook, titled "Abnormal Psychology," eighth edition with the DSM-5 update.

Personally, I have found that if I lose weight too quickly I become very hungry and gain it all back. I have noticed that if I lose 5lbs and then stay at that weight (actively maintaining, but not trying to lose more), my body responds better. I recently lost about 5lbs and I have maintained my current weight for several months. At first it was difficult, but now it seems almost natural. I eat when I'm hungry, and I don't when I'm not (although I do splurge on desert sometimes). I propose that you can indeed change your weight set point. I believe that losing a lot of weight quickly is what gets us into trouble here. I know we all want to lose it as soon as possible, but perhaps doing it slowly is better in the long-run.

I believe that achieving certain levels of leanness requires more work and dedication than maintaining another level of leanness that would still have you healthy...but not quite as lean.

For example, I can maintain about 12% BF pretty easily...this puts me right around 180 Lbs or so...all I have to do is eat well for the most part, indulge occasionally, and exercise regularly...I can still enjoy my craft beers and desert after dinner, etc without much issue...

If I want to get sub 12% to say, 10%...well, this requires me to be a bit more diligent in my diet approach as well as exercise adherence. I have difficulty doing this while drinking beer regularly...I tend to have to cut out deserts and basically, to maintain sub 12% means my diet has to be kind of boring and I have to be kind of boring...personally, it's not worth it to me...I'm 41 years old and my body is going to naturally want to hold onto a little more body fat than when I was in my 20s...it's not like I'm going to be modeling my underwear anytime soon, so just being pretty friggin' healthy and fit and relatively lean for my age (comparative to gen pop) is good enough for me.

In the end I think you really can choose the body fat percentage you want. As long as you don't go over 20% or so you should be fine. My personal goal is somewhere around 10-15% in the end. However, there's nothing wrong with someone sitting at 20% or even a little higher as long as the extra weight isn't causing them undue stress for whatever reason (medical reason). The weight that will be for you is going to be dependent on your height and body frame type.

I believe that the weeks you describe about being hungry were probably due to eating the wrong types of food or not doing enough exercise or drinking enough water. If you eat sweet or salty foods, high carb, high calorie foods you tend to be hungry more. For this reason it's best to eat those types of foods in moderation along with healthy foods (vegetables, good protein, etc.) which are lower in calories and higher in bulk (and fill you up more). They call it "empty calories" for a reason. You can easily blow your daily calorie limit with these types of foods and be left with an empty stomach and hunger.

So rather than reset your goals upward, I'd keep them where you want them to be (whatever that may be, based on your BMI and your own personal desires) and adjust what you are eating and how often you are eating "empty calories". We all need to be able to eat those things from time to time, but spending a week or two eating out or eating fast food will derail anyone's diet.

Just my .02.

Springfield1970 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

No there isn't a weight your body "wants" or a set point - it just reacts to stimulus and feeding.
If you are underfeeding then hunger is a response, often more mental/emotional rather than physical though.

You will have an ideal weight for your current age and activity but that needs to be "imposed" on your body rather than occur naturally.

For a long time I've had an intuitive eating level, unfortunately it's about 250 cals/day more than I actually need.

I'm about the same. 250 cals naturally over. What's that? A glass of wine or two, or a treat. Easily easily done.

Me too. A couple handfuls of almonds.

But the whole "set-point theory" has been studied over and over and has never been found to be valid. Your body doesn't "want" anything or gravitate toward anything.

RunRutheeRun wrote: »

In my experience I feel we do have 'set points' but we also can get past them. Mine used to be 136lbs, its currently is 133lbs. I think slowly but surely I am altering my set point weight or perhaps that should be my body's natural weight where it finds it easy to stay/maintain at. I have to fight to get lower. Hence me deciding that my weight is healthy and its not necessary to get lower just to see a certain number.

I agree with this.

My 'set point' has been 133/134 pounds for almost 2 years. I managed to get to 132, decreased my deficit a bit then went on vacations and put back on 2 pounds, started to do more intense workouts... Never really managed to lose those 2 pounds. I got way hungrier as a whole, but even if I keep a big deficit for a month, I can't seem to be able to go under 133 anymore (it's actually odd, I pretty much went from losing 1 pound a week to not losing anything even though I only cut my deficit by half AND increased my activity level).

So yes, I kind of believe it. It doesn't mean I wouldn't be able to get lower if I *really* tried (it would probably mean cutting all breads and sweets, as I can't really cut more otherwise without being too hungry). I'm just not sure I want to bother just to lose a couple vanity pounds (and end up maintaining with less calories too!).