Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
May we talk about set points?
Options
Replies
-
Absolutely (unless there's some major shift that's permanent). If one habitually eats maintenance calories for the daily activity they do habitually (whether that be work, exercise, sitting on the couch, etc.) then weight should stay approximately the same.What? And the way that they can stay at homeostasis, according to you, is due to habits? And the body doesn't communicate through internal mechanisms such as regulation of appetite, energy expenditure, and hormones? It is all just about "habits"?
The same goes for being overweight or underweight. They stick to those habitual behaviors that keep them that way, and they won't change. It's not as complicated as people try to make it sound in the magazines, blogs, fitness sites, etc.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Evidence for autoregulation (in addition to "habits" and overeating). The article says hedonic overeating overrides the settling point. It appears BOTH come into play.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.12246/full2 -
It's not a perogative. There's no actual science to show that it exists within the human body. You don't have to believe it, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Realize that I've trained with just about every type of person in my tenure as a PT. And whatever goal it is they are trying to attain, there really are no set limits when it comes to changing someones weight or body (with the exception of 0 bodyfat and even very low body fat that's not sustainable).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
It's not a perogative. There's no actual science to show that it exists within the human body. You don't have to believe it, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Realize that I've trained with just about every type of person in my tenure as a PT. And whatever goal it is they are trying to attain, there really are no set limits when it comes to changing someones weight or body (with the exception of 0 bodyfat and even very low body fat that's not sustainable).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Of course one can lose weight and maintain homeostasis at a lower set point!0 -
It's not a perogative. There's no actual science to show that it exists within the human body. You don't have to believe it, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Realize that I've trained with just about every type of person in my tenure as a PT. And whatever goal it is they are trying to attain, there really are no set limits when it comes to changing someones weight or body (with the exception of 0 bodyfat and even very low body fat that's not sustainable).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Of course one can lose weight and maintain homeostasis at a lower set point!
So after all this....are you saying that a "set point" is simply a stable weight range?!?!?!
I can't even.....10 -
And how does one maintain a stable weight? By balancing intake and activity. Habits, whether conscious or unconscious. Lifestyle. It's not the body doing the driving. It's the owner of the body.5
-
Absolutely (unless there's some major shift that's permanent). If one habitually eats maintenance calories for the daily activity they do habitually (whether that be work, exercise, sitting on the couch, etc.) then weight should stay approximately the same.What? And the way that they can stay at homeostasis, according to you, is due to habits? And the body doesn't communicate through internal mechanisms such as regulation of appetite, energy expenditure, and hormones? It is all just about "habits"?
The same goes for being overweight or underweight. They stick to those habitual behaviors that keep them that way, and they won't change. It's not as complicated as people try to make it sound in the magazines, blogs, fitness sites, etc.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Evidence for autoregulation (in addition to "habits" and overeating). The article says hedonic overeating overrides the settling point. It appears BOTH come into play.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.12246/full
The "theoretical" setting point. They never establish that there is such as thing, as their references only point to early '90's papers that call set point a "theory".
This is all just guess work.
Yes, the body has a complex series of hormonal feedback mechanisms in regards to weight management. That piece seemed to want to tie the feedbacks to the set point theory and make them work in tandem. I don't think it proved any such thing, at least from my cursory glance at it.
Furthermore, those feedback mechanisms respond to changes in behaviors too. I didn't see any evidence that they were self-initiated in a drive to maintain a set point in what you linked. Anecdotal reference to holiday weight gain and loss isn't proof.
My kids naturally regulate their weights/appetites too because I never messed with their natural hunger signals by making them eat. Does this mean they have a "set point". No. It means they have healthy eating habits. Sometimes they eat more, and then they balance it out by eating less other times. Naturally, without thinking about it. Because they have healthy relationships with food.2 -
Okay let's make this simple.
It's not a perogative. There's no actual science to show that it exists within the human body. You don't have to believe it, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Realize that I've trained with just about every type of person in my tenure as a PT. And whatever goal it is they are trying to attain, there really are no set limits when it comes to changing someones weight or body (with the exception of 0 bodyfat and even very low body fat that's not sustainable).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Of course one can lose weight and maintain homeostasis at a lower set point!
How many kids (under the age of 15) pay close attention to what they eat and how many calories they are consuming? I'm gonna bet near ZERO. So given that, if a kid is OBESE, how do you explain the "set point" theory here? That these kids NATURALLY are obese? Or is there an issue of how many calories they are allowed to consume? And is that a habitual behavior or a natural behavior?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
Okay let's make this simple.
It's not a perogative. There's no actual science to show that it exists within the human body. You don't have to believe it, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Realize that I've trained with just about every type of person in my tenure as a PT. And whatever goal it is they are trying to attain, there really are no set limits when it comes to changing someones weight or body (with the exception of 0 bodyfat and even very low body fat that's not sustainable).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Of course one can lose weight and maintain homeostasis at a lower set point!
How many kids (under the age of 15) pay close attention to what they eat and how many calories they are consuming? I'm gonna bet near ZERO. So given that, if a kid is OBESE, how do you explain the "set point" theory here? That these kids NATURALLY are obese? Or is there an issue of how many calories they are allowed to consume? And is that a habitual behavior or a natural behavior?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The kids are at a high set point and need to come down.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/body-weight-set-point/0 -
Or maybe they don't have a set point.
I can't agree with the idea that it's all about habits, as it doesn't explain why my weight didn't change for so many years, despite many changes in habits, including diet and activity habits, different jobs, different living arrangements, etc. I did lose a little with illness and gained quite a lot in pregnancy, but always returned to within about the same four pounds (round about 120 pounds), without trying to. You'd expect that if it was all about habits, then a change in habits might have made me lose or gain, but it didn't.
This is just anecdotal. It might not be backed up by research, but it's hard to explain if there's no such thing as set point.
One of the other threads brought up the documentary about why thin people aren't fat. That was interesting in this context. It had "naturally" thin people overeat to gain weight. They found it very difficult to consciously overeat and gain weight.0 -
Okay let's make this simple.
It's not a perogative. There's no actual science to show that it exists within the human body. You don't have to believe it, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Realize that I've trained with just about every type of person in my tenure as a PT. And whatever goal it is they are trying to attain, there really are no set limits when it comes to changing someones weight or body (with the exception of 0 bodyfat and even very low body fat that's not sustainable).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Of course one can lose weight and maintain homeostasis at a lower set point!
How many kids (under the age of 15) pay close attention to what they eat and how many calories they are consuming? I'm gonna bet near ZERO. So given that, if a kid is OBESE, how do you explain the "set point" theory here? That these kids NATURALLY are obese? Or is there an issue of how many calories they are allowed to consume? And is that a habitual behavior or a natural behavior?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The kids are at a high set point and need to come down.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/body-weight-set-point/
Did you even read that link and how it mentioned that habits determined the "set point"?2 -
Can we talk about trigger points for a second?
This thread is triggering my head:desk proclivity.
And I agree with what was said upthread about set points being used as just another barrier to weight management success.12 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Okay let's make this simple.
It's not a perogative. There's no actual science to show that it exists within the human body. You don't have to believe it, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If you don't believe that people can establish set points, that is your perogative.
So people who are obese for a period of time have "set point" that their bodies want to stay at? According to this statement, that's how you define a "set point".GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
{{Bingo}}
And that's not a set point. That's Einstein's definition of insanity. "Doing the same thing you've always done but expecting things to change". You eat the way you always eat, you maintain because that amount is your maintenance, because eating that way made you a weight where that would be maintenance.
No. A set point is just a number on the scale at an extended maintenance period. It has nothing to do with insanity. Lol.
I'm going to parse your sentence to show you that what you're saying makes no sense.
A set point (commonly defined by those who believe in them as a weight which the body defends through the up and down regulation of various hormones) is just a number on the scale at an extended period of maintenance (this is a period during which a person is in the habit of eating the amount of calories they consume in balance with the amount of energy they expend).
Having a behavior or set of behaviors that leads to a reading on the scale does not mean you have a set point.
You are the one that does not understand what set points are commonly referred to as meaning.
You have to maintain for a period of time to keep it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Realize that I've trained with just about every type of person in my tenure as a PT. And whatever goal it is they are trying to attain, there really are no set limits when it comes to changing someones weight or body (with the exception of 0 bodyfat and even very low body fat that's not sustainable).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Of course one can lose weight and maintain homeostasis at a lower set point!
How many kids (under the age of 15) pay close attention to what they eat and how many calories they are consuming? I'm gonna bet near ZERO. So given that, if a kid is OBESE, how do you explain the "set point" theory here? That these kids NATURALLY are obese? Or is there an issue of how many calories they are allowed to consume? And is that a habitual behavior or a natural behavior?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The kids are at a high set point and need to come down.
https://www.muscleforlife.com/body-weight-set-point/
Did you even read that link and how it mentioned that habits determined the "set point"?
Yes. It is both. After I read the other article:
Absolutely (unless there's some major shift that's permanent). If one habitually eats maintenance calories for the daily activity they do habitually (whether that be work, exercise, sitting on the couch, etc.) then weight should stay approximately the same.What? And the way that they can stay at homeostasis, according to you, is due to habits? And the body doesn't communicate through internal mechanisms such as regulation of appetite, energy expenditure, and hormones? It is all just about "habits"?
The same goes for being overweight or underweight. They stick to those habitual behaviors that keep them that way, and they won't change. It's not as complicated as people try to make it sound in the magazines, blogs, fitness sites, etc.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
There is evidence for autoregulation (in addition to "habits" and overeating). The article says hedonic overeating overrides the settling point. It appears BOTH come into play.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.12246/full
Both come into play.0 -
There are autoregulations AND habits. Internal and external regulation. For the umpteenth time-- set points can be changed.
"Settling Point" seems to be the new name for it to be met with less semantic controversy.
I agree with Charlie about this being a head banging thread. My head is hurting. Haha
0 -
There are autoregulations AND habits. Internal and external regulation. For the umpteenth time-- set points can be changed.
"Settling Point" seems to be the new name for it to be met with less semantic controversy.
I agree with Charlie about this being a head banging thread. My head is hurting. Haha
If a set point can be changed, by the actions of the individual, IT IS NOT A SET POINT. That very sentence negates everything you've been trying to say in this thread....
Otherwise, ironic post is ironic.
15 -
There are autoregulations AND habits. Internal and external regulation. For the umpteenth time-- set points can be changed.
"Settling Point" seems to be the new name for it to be met with less semantic controversy.
I agree with Charlie about this being a head banging thread. My head is hurting. Haha
You are not understanding what you're reading, because the auto-regulation happens in response to external cues.
The driver drives the car, it's not on autopilot.
The behavoirs/habits a person has drives the responses the body has.
This explains why "settling points" can be changed. Because the body responds to what you decide to do... even if those choices aren't necessarily consciously made. Any action on your part causes a reaction within the body.
Therefore, there is no autonomous regulation on your body's part. You are entirely in control of the situation.
Edit: Two aspects being neglected here are psychology and environment. Obesogenic environments encourage hedonic eating in individuals with natural hunger/satiety cues who don't have to conscientiously monitor eating behaviors.
In individuals who have become obese, hunger/satiety cues are often "broken" and the feedback mechanisms need to be conscientious.
I have said before that I believe that everyone has a rock-bottom body fat percentage level that's genetic for them to carry, and in a natural environment, I'd agree they'd settle into a comfortable adult weight there. Is that a set point? Maybe. At the low end of BMI.
I cannot find any compelling argument for anyone to carry extra weight (body fat, not muscle mass) outside of those circumstances to have a higher "set point" for the reasons I just stated.
6 -
"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."
Quick answer - think of a set point as the thermostat in your house. Everyone's set point will differ, HOWEVER, some generalities hold true, the biggest one being your body will naturally settle to where it should weigh.
However, much of that "natural settlement" depends on many factors, the most important of which is your ATTITUDE. If you think you should weigh 200 pounds (as an example), you'll fight to get there, whether you should be there or not. Moving your set point is as much mental, therefore, as physical. I've had this fight with myself for the past few months, finally concluding that "If I believe it, I can achieve it"1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
I can't figure out why people are agreeing with this ridiculous statement. Many (most?) people continuously gain throughout their lives by "listening to their hunger signals." If "listening to your hunger signals" were at all useful, this site wouldn't exist.3 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
I can't figure out why people are agreeing with this ridiculous statement. Many (most?) people continuously gain throughout their lives by "listening to their hunger signals." If "listening to your hunger signals" were at all useful, this site wouldn't exist.
Most people have no clue about their hunger signals though. Mindless eating when you are not hunger is pretty normal now a days.
If you truly listened to your hunger signals you wouldn't be gaining weight. Not many people have enough self awareness to know if it is hunger, thirst, boredom, etc. It seems like people in the past had a better grasp on this. I can't trust mine as I am not properly attuned but there are people who can maintain for a long time by properly listening to them.3 -
singingflutelady wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
I can't figure out why people are agreeing with this ridiculous statement. Many (most?) people continuously gain throughout their lives by "listening to their hunger signals." If "listening to your hunger signals" were at all useful, this site wouldn't exist.
Most people have no clue about their hunger signals though. Mindless eating when you are not hunger is pretty normal now a days.
If you truly listened to your hunger signals you wouldn't be gaining weight. Not many people have enough self awareness to know if it is hunger, thirst, boredom, etc. It seems like people in the past had a better grasp on this. I can't trust mine as I am not properly attuned but there are people who can maintain for a long time by properly listening to them.
This presumes a lot of things, though. The culture in which I was raised with "the clean plate club" didn't really give rise to people with intact hunger signals. Not being allowed to eat because it wasn't yet meal time, being forced to eat when you weren't hungry because it was meal time? This was all common place.
I agree that we're all born with natural hunger signals, but a lot of how people are culturally conditioned to raise children with meal schedules and the like doesn't foster them remaining intact.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »If you listen to your hunger signals and eat accordingly it generally has you eating at maintenance not deficit or surplus
I can't figure out why people are agreeing with this ridiculous statement. Many (most?) people continuously gain throughout their lives by "listening to their hunger signals." If "listening to your hunger signals" were at all useful, this site wouldn't exist.
Most people have no clue about their hunger signals though. Mindless eating when you are not hunger is pretty normal now a days.
If you truly listened to your hunger signals you wouldn't be gaining weight. Not many people have enough self awareness to know if it is hunger, thirst, boredom, etc. It seems like people in the past had a better grasp on this. I can't trust mine as I am not properly attuned but there are people who can maintain for a long time by properly listening to them.
This presumes a lot of things, though. The culture in which I was raised with "the clean plate club" didn't really give rise to people with intact hunger signals. Not being allowed to eat because it wasn't yet meal time, being forced to eat when you weren't hungry because it was meal time? This was all common place.
I agree that we're all born with natural hunger signals, but a lot of how people are culturally conditioned to raise children with meal schedules and the like doesn't foster them remaining intact.
I do agree and I should have added by past I mean farther back than that not in times of famine. Many people (myself) included had our signals messed up in our children.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions