May we talk about set points?

hotel4dogs · November 2016

Do others believe in "set points"? I have been reading a bit about them, and I think I have hit one. It seems that there are several weights that my body just likes, and it's harder to either lose or gain weight when I'm at a set point.
I think it's what makes maintaining so hard, if you are not at a "set point".
Here's some background information:

http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/BIDMCInteractive/BreakThroughYourSetPoint/WeekOneTheScienceofSetPoint.aspx

zcb94 · November 2016

I wholeheartedly agree with that logic. My registered dietitian warned me when we began my supervised weight loss journey that the occasional plateau is to be expected, although I had a lot to lose in a hurry. I was disappointed to experience that first stalling, and chalked it up to not having exercised or eaten right that week because I am supposed to lose a pound a week, EVERY week, no excuses allowed.
On a different note, Mom has sternly told me that the difference between going to law school and being a grocery sacker when I get older is a total of 90 pounds, 60 of which were gone last time I checked.

queenliz99 · November 2016

I overate, simple. I got a food scale and weighed everything I ate. Calories in/ Calories out.

BigGuy47 · November 2016

What I gather from reading the article is that the body does want to maintain a certain state (set point), but that set point can be moved.

Here's a review of set point theory
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2990627/#!po=67.2043

It appears to state that while thete are biological factors in play our environment has a role in the regulation (or lack thereof) of our diet. It seems to imply that the western diet can make weight loss challenging.

Many MFP users would agree that weight loss can be difficult, but not impossible.

zyxst · November 2016

I don't believe weight set-points exist, otherwise I'd still be 320#.

ETA: and I wouldn't have gained weight either.

GottaBurnEmAll · November 2016

I think it's bunk.

There's some thought that there might be a set point for body fat percentage (this is on the minimum end, mind you) and that getting leaner than that could be hard to achieve for athletes and body builders that I find compelling, though.

I was the weight I am now only once in my life. That was when I was in elementary school. I was maybe 12 at the time? 11? I wasn't even fully grown yet nor had I developed at the time. Additionally, I know I didn't have the muscle mass I have now (not that it's significant, but kids just don't have the same amount of muscle mass as adults).

If set point were true, what I've accomplished wouldn't be possible.

Nikion901 · November 2016

Reminds me of 1976 and my doctor telling me to stop 'dieting' because I'd messed up my metabolism with all sorts of crazy low calorie food plans to lose a few pounds quickly only to regain them and then lose some again to fit into that special outfit for that special outing ... He told me to just eat until I wasn't hungry anymore and to eat more than 1 meal a day, like 3 or 4 would be better ... and I was scared to try it because I was afraid I'd gain weight. He said ... 'of course you will gain weight when you are eating more calories, but the point is to let your body find it's 'setpoint' and allow your metabolism to start humming along properly'. LOL ... my body never truly found a setpoint that I was personally happy to be at ... it was all way more weight than the weight charts said I should weigh.

stealthq · November 2016

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

I think it's bunk.

There's some thought that there might be a set point for body fat percentage (this is on the minimum end, mind you) and that getting leaner than that could be hard to achieve for athletes and body builders that I find compelling, though.

I was the weight I am now only once in my life. That was when I was in elementary school. I was maybe 12 at the time? 11? I wasn't even fully grown yet nor had I developed at the time. Additionally, I know I didn't have the muscle mass I have now (not that it's significant, but kids just don't have the same amount of muscle mass as adults).

If set point were true, what I've accomplished wouldn't be possible.

Basically.

For those who are not into low percentages of body fat, there's no particularly convincing biological evidence of set points that I've seen.

However, I have no problem believing that there are certain weights that are easier to maintain than others due to the intersection of your current eating habits, normal activity level, environment, etc. It would be more difficult to move past these points because you have to make a conscious and persistent effort to change one or more of those variables. If you get lax, you would tend to drift back to that weight.

singingflutelady · November 2016

stealthq wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

I think it's bunk.

There's some thought that there might be a set point for body fat percentage (this is on the minimum end, mind you) and that getting leaner than that could be hard to achieve for athletes and body builders that I find compelling, though.

I was the weight I am now only once in my life. That was when I was in elementary school. I was maybe 12 at the time? 11? I wasn't even fully grown yet nor had I developed at the time. Additionally, I know I didn't have the muscle mass I have now (not that it's significant, but kids just don't have the same amount of muscle mass as adults).

If set point were true, what I've accomplished wouldn't be possible.

Basically.

For those who are not into low percentages of body fat, there's no particularly convincing biological evidence of set points that I've seen.

However, I have no problem believing that there are certain weights that are easier to maintain than others due to the intersection of your current eating habits, normal activity level, environment, etc. It would be more difficult to move past these points because you have to make a conscious and persistent effort to change one or more of those variables. If you get lax, you would tend to drift back to that weight.

Exactly. Lifestyle dictates your "set point"

lemurcat12 · November 2016

I think set point is often misunderstood or used as an excuse.

I do think that we likely have -- within a particular environment -- a level of activity and food intake that feels comfortable, and that will result in equilibrium. I'm at it now (fluctuating between 125 and 130), and although I'd like to be less, eventually, and know I could be, I am not currently committed enough to losing weight to make the changes I'd have to make to change that equilibrium. Does that mean my "set point" is 127 or some such? I wouldn't think so -- I've maintained 120 in the past, and I've also maintained a much higher weight in the past.

I also think set point often refers to various changes that the body makes to try and maintain weight or reestablish a prior equilibrium -- the generally subtle changes in either unintended activity or efficiency or increased hunger, things like that. IMO, many other things can outweigh these. For example, if you track calories you can avoid unintended increases in food intake, if you focus on keeping non exercise activity up you can, increases in exercise not only help burn calories, but also supposedly counteract the decrease in leptin sensitivity that can come with weight loss. So no, I don't think this is really a factor in weight loss that isn't counteracted by sensible steps people should be aware of.

Blaming set point for obesity or claiming it means people can't lose would, of course, be wrong, yet I see some fat acceptance people (HAES) doing that. I think the easy answer is that the growth in obesity isn't simply biology or genetics, because it was way too fast for that. If someone with my genetics would have been, say, likely 115 without trying in 1935 (and I'd not be surprised if that were the case), than me struggling to get below 125 or finding it easy to gain to 160 is not genetics. It's environment and, especially, the choices I make now.

Tedebearduff · November 2016

hotel4dogs wrote: »

Do others believe in "set points"? I have been reading a bit about them, and I think I have hit one. It seems that there are several weights that my body just likes, and it's harder to either lose or gain weight when I'm at a set point.
I think it's what makes maintaining so hard, if you are not at a "set point".
Here's some background information:

http://www.bidmc.org/YourHealth/BIDMCInteractive/BreakThroughYourSetPoint/WeekOneTheScienceofSetPoint.aspx

I don't think your body has a set point I think you develop one, where you are happy eating whatever and you don't tend to gain or lose weight. It's like your happy place.... That's the only thing that makes sense to me as your body doesn't decide not to gain weight when you eat 4000 calories a day because you are at your set point.

NorthCascades · November 2016

queenliz99 wrote: »

Calories in/ Calories out.

Not incompatible. Perhaps you crave more food as you lose weight in an attempt to maintain some kind of equilibrium it "feels" is optimal.

cwolfman13 · November 2016

stealthq wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

I think it's bunk.

There's some thought that there might be a set point for body fat percentage (this is on the minimum end, mind you) and that getting leaner than that could be hard to achieve for athletes and body builders that I find compelling, though.

I was the weight I am now only once in my life. That was when I was in elementary school. I was maybe 12 at the time? 11? I wasn't even fully grown yet nor had I developed at the time. Additionally, I know I didn't have the muscle mass I have now (not that it's significant, but kids just don't have the same amount of muscle mass as adults).

If set point were true, what I've accomplished wouldn't be possible.

Basically.

For those who are not into low percentages of body fat, there's no particularly convincing biological evidence of set points that I've seen.

However, I have no problem believing that there are certain weights that are easier to maintain than others due to the intersection of your current eating habits, normal activity level, environment, etc. It would be more difficult to move past these points because you have to make a conscious and persistent effort to change one or more of those variables. If you get lax, you would tend to drift back to that weight.

Exactly...with my eating habits, activity, etc I maintain pretty easily anywhere from 12-15% BF...to get below that (which I have) and maintain below that requires me to be more regimented with things than I really care to be...I'm all about being healthy and lean, but I'm also about having a life.

On average I exercise about 8-10 hours per week...I've done more while training for cycling endurance events, but that's pretty temporary...I couldn't do that all of the time because it substantially eats into family time and spending time with my wife and my boys is pretty important to me. I also don't want to say "no thanks" to friends having us over for dinner and drinks just 'cuz abs.

BigGuy47 · November 2016

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I do think that we likely have -- within a particular environment -- a level of activity and food intake that feels comfortable, and that will result in equilibrium.

I agree that a personal level of comfort could be easily labeled as a set point. At over 300lbs I was comfortable and maintained that weight for awhile without making any effort to track CICO to make sure that I maintained that weight. Was that a set point or a comfort zone?

I'm under 200lbs now (maintenance mode). I'm in a comfort zone, not tracking. I could stand to lose about 10 - 15lbs. This will require some discomfort, but eventually I will settle in and find a new comfort zone at the new weight.

I think the term "set point" is often misinterpreted as a number that is encoded into the DNA. "This is my genetically predisposed weight". While science has failed to prove this, it hasn't stopped people from using it as an excuse.

chocolate_owl · November 2016

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I think set point is often misunderstood or used as an excuse.

I do think that we likely have -- within a particular environment -- a level of activity and food intake that feels comfortable, and that will result in equilibrium. I'm at it now (fluctuating between 125 and 130), and although I'd like to be less, eventually, and know I could be, I am not currently committed enough to losing weight to make the changes I'd have to make to change that equilibrium. Does that mean my "set point" is 127 or some such? I wouldn't think so -- I've maintained 120 in the past, and I've also maintained a much higher weight in the past.

This. I'm exactly the same. There's a place where our activity level and our food intake are easy to maintain based on our lifestyles, and changing how much we eat or how much we move takes a conscious, intentional effort. My body never fought me when I went from 150 lbs to 120 lbs. I did lose slowly, but I never took a diet break. 120 is not very easy for me to maintain - it takes a strict diet and more exercise than I've been physically capable of doing lately. 125-130 is much easier. But if I lived in a city where I walked everywhere or didn't have a desk job, 120 would probably be a more comfortable "set point" for me. I think genetics are way overemphasized as reasons why people end up being a certain weight.

Lounmoun · November 2016

I don't believe in set points.

GottaBurnEmAll · November 2016

stealthq wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

I think it's bunk.

There's some thought that there might be a set point for body fat percentage (this is on the minimum end, mind you) and that getting leaner than that could be hard to achieve for athletes and body builders that I find compelling, though.

I was the weight I am now only once in my life. That was when I was in elementary school. I was maybe 12 at the time? 11? I wasn't even fully grown yet nor had I developed at the time. Additionally, I know I didn't have the muscle mass I have now (not that it's significant, but kids just don't have the same amount of muscle mass as adults).

If set point were true, what I've accomplished wouldn't be possible.

Basically.

For those who are not into low percentages of body fat, there's no particularly convincing biological evidence of set points that I've seen.

However, I have no problem believing that there are certain weights that are easier to maintain than others due to the intersection of your current eating habits, normal activity level, environment, etc. It would be more difficult to move past these points because you have to make a conscious and persistent effort to change one or more of those variables. If you get lax, you would tend to drift back to that weight.

I agree completely with this.

JDixon852019 · November 2016

Your lifestyle dictates your size.

crzycatlady1 · November 2016

Lounmoun wrote: »

I don't believe in set points.

This has been my experience as well-I'm maintaining at the lowest weight of my adult life, and have been for several years now, with no issues. I control my weight by how many calories I consume, simple as that.

stevencloser · November 2016

I think it's less your body having a set point and more like your daily habits have you hovering around a certain calorie intake and expenditure degree that leads to a certain weight. You change those habits, so does your weight. See athletes who have to stop their sport and balooning up because their eating habits didn't change as fast as their exercise habit had to.

Fitgirllife72 · November 2016

My body has a set point and it is directly related to the amount of food I am shoveling in my mouth.

May we talk about set points?

Replies

Categories