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
-
You do have to override set points artificially at first to change them.
What needs to be overridden? Your hunger? Does your metabolism change? Your definition of set point doesn't explain by which mechanism it maintains the weight.
If I maintain my weight simply because I'm used to eating a certain amount and that's the maintenance for that particular weight level, then that's not a set point, it's circumstance of my eating habits, my body has nothing to do with that.3 -
-
An actual set point from all things about them I've seen is when your body maintains your weight despite you actively trying to change it. None of the discussion we had up to this point supports that.7
-
stevencloser wrote: »An actual set point from all things about them I've seen is when your body maintains your weight despite you actively trying to change it. None of the discussion we had up to this point supports that.
On maintenance my body actively defends the set point. I have to actively override the set point to get below it. Then I have to actively override the body's efforts to go back up to the higher set point. But once established the set point is useful if one works with it and actually likes the set point weight.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Set point is just another word for homeostasis or a stable long term weight value.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »An actual set point from all things about them I've seen is when your body maintains your weight despite you actively trying to change it. None of the discussion we had up to this point supports that.
On maintenance my body actively defends the set point. I have to actively override the set point to get below it. Then I have to actively override the body's efforts to go back up to the higher set point. But once established the set point is useful if one works with it and actually likes the set point weight.
It seems your definition of "set point" or at least the way you are explaining it here, is the same as everyone else's definition of a "maintenance range". I am currently maintaining a weight of 120 plus or minus 2 lbs. It is right in the middle of the normal BMI range for mg height. My weight fluctuates in that 4 lb range based on factors like water retention, hormones, etc. I'm comfortable and happy in this range. Would you define that as my body's "set point"?1 -
stevencloser wrote: »An actual set point from all things about them I've seen is when your body maintains your weight despite you actively trying to change it. None of the discussion we had up to this point supports that.
On maintenance my body actively defends the set point. I have to actively override the set point to get below it. Then I have to actively override the body's efforts to go back up to the higher set point. But once established the set point is useful if one works with it and actually likes the set point weight.
These are words that sound nice and actually mean nothing.
How does your body actively defend the set point? Give examples.
How do you actively override the set point? Give examples.
What are the body's efforts to go up to the higher set point? Give examples.
How does one work with the body's set point? Give examples.
Unless and until you do something concrete with all these words you're throwing around, I'm going to continue thinking you're just blowing smoke in this thread.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Set point is just another word for homeostasis or a stable long term weight value.
Set how? By the body or habits?1 -
Set point, at least as it's being used here, is not scientifically valid. Why? Because we just keep redefining it so that it cannot be falsified and that's a violation of primary principles of the scientific method, you can't just keep changing the definition to fit all evidence, either it is real, as evidence supports or it's more complex and that becomes something else. I first learned of set point theory back in the late 80's when doing my neuroscience degree and it came from rat brain studies (yeah those again) where they cut areas of the hypothalamus https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3533223 . So what does a brain damaged rat have to do with us? Well, the inference was that the HT controls eating impulses and those with specific damage to the HT lost control of those eating impulses and had massive weight gain over those who had no HT damage. One of the first things you learn about studies with brain damaged subjects is that you cannot automatically induct normal behavior as a result of observations of abnormal behaviours. This just isn't possible as we learned with the whole left brain right brain theories based on observations of post operative epilepsy patients who had their corpus collasum severed. Brain function is just much more complex than that.
As evidenced in many of the arguments here, the term "set point" has become so nebulous as to be virtually meaningless because we see it being defined in several ways based on context. This is not acceptable for a scientific concept, it must exist within defined parameters or it cannot be considered a valid scientific concept. Either you have an organismic set point that the body defends, as per the initial definition, or you don't. Now we are hearing about "settling points", which is a concession from it's adherents meaning that they have failed to prove the validity if the initial theory and are thus evolving it to try to make it fit with the evidence, and this IS valid, but hardly reassuring that the theory is sound. Much of this idea of an organismic set point came from the time of nature vs nurture and this has long been settled that it's a complex interplay. So do "settling points" exists? I am willing to accept that if you stabilize the variables that contribute to weight (food and activity etc) that there should be a logic point where you body weight should be fairly tightly range bound, so this is from a biology and environmental interplay as would be expected. However, I do not believe that the body "defends" a certain weight as the original theory would state.
Thus, we might say that settling points have some validity but is a rather useless theory in practice for those who are trying to alter their weight.9 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Set point, at least as it's being used here, is not scientifically valid. Why? Because we just keep redefining it so that it cannot be falsified and that's a violation of primary principles of the scientific method, you can't just keep changing the definition to fit all evidence, either it is real, as evidence supports or it's more complex and that becomes something else. I first learned of set point theory back in the late 80's when doing my neuroscience degree and it came from rat brain studies (yeah those again) where they cut areas of the hypothalamus https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3533223 . So what does a brain damaged rat have to do with us? Well, the inference was that the HT controls eating impulses and those with specific damage to the HT lost control of those eating impulses and had massive weight gain over those who had no HT damage. One of the first things you learn about studies with brain damaged subjects is that you cannot automatically induct normal behavior as a result of observations of abnormal behaviours. This just isn't possible as we learned with the whole left brain right brain theories based on observations of post operative epilepsy patients who had their corpus collasum severed. Brain function is just much more complex than that.
As evidenced in many of the arguments here, the term "set point" has become so nebulous as to be virtually meaningless because we see it being defined in several ways based on context. This is not acceptable for a scientific concept, it must exist within defined parameters or it cannot be considered a valid scientific concept. Either you have an organismic set point that the body defends, as per the initial definition, or you don't. Now we are hearing about "settling points", which is a concession from it's adherents meaning that they have failed to prove the validity if the initial theory and are thus evolving it to try to make it fit with the evidence, and this IS valid, but hardly reassuring that the theory is sound. Much of this idea of an organismic set point came from the time of nature vs nurture and this has long been settled that it's a complex interplay. So do "settling points" exists? I am willing to accept that if you stabilize the variables that contribute to weight (food and activity etc) that there should be a logic point where you body weight should be fairly tightly range bound, so this is from a biology and environmental interplay as would be expected. However, I do not believe that the body "defends" a certain weight as the original theory would state.
Thus, we might say that settling points have some validity but is a rather useless theory in practice for those who are trying to alter their weight.
So set points in regards to weight is like clean eating in regards to food?0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Set point, at least as it's being used here, is not scientifically valid. Why? Because we just keep redefining it so that it cannot be falsified and that's a violation of primary principles of the scientific method, you can't just keep changing the definition to fit all evidence, either it is real, as evidence supports or it's more complex and that becomes something else. I first learned of set point theory back in the late 80's when doing my neuroscience degree and it came from rat brain studies (yeah those again) where they cut areas of the hypothalamus https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3533223 . So what does a brain damaged rat have to do with us? Well, the inference was that the HT controls eating impulses and those with specific damage to the HT lost control of those eating impulses and had massive weight gain over those who had no HT damage. One of the first things you learn about studies with brain damaged subjects is that you cannot automatically induct normal behavior as a result of observations of abnormal behaviours. This just isn't possible as we learned with the whole left brain right brain theories based on observations of post operative epilepsy patients who had their corpus collasum severed. Brain function is just much more complex than that.
As evidenced in many of the arguments here, the term "set point" has become so nebulous as to be virtually meaningless because we see it being defined in several ways based on context. This is not acceptable for a scientific concept, it must exist within defined parameters or it cannot be considered a valid scientific concept. Either you have an organismic set point that the body defends, as per the initial definition, or you don't. Now we are hearing about "settling points", which is a concession from it's adherents meaning that they have failed to prove the validity if the initial theory and are thus evolving it to try to make it fit with the evidence, and this IS valid, but hardly reassuring that the theory is sound. Much of this idea of an organismic set point came from the time of nature vs nurture and this has long been settled that it's a complex interplay. So do "settling points" exists? I am willing to accept that if you stabilize the variables that contribute to weight (food and activity etc) that there should be a logic point where you body weight should be fairly tightly range bound, so this is from a biology and environmental interplay as would be expected. However, I do not believe that the body "defends" a certain weight as the original theory would state.
Thus, we might say that settling points have some validity but is a rather useless theory in practice for those who are trying to alter their weight.
/thread3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Set point, at least as it's being used here, is not scientifically valid. Why? Because we just keep redefining it so that it cannot be falsified and that's a violation of primary principles of the scientific method, you can't just keep changing the definition to fit all evidence, either it is real, as evidence supports or it's more complex and that becomes something else. I first learned of set point theory back in the late 80's when doing my neuroscience degree and it came from rat brain studies (yeah those again) where they cut areas of the hypothalamus https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3533223 . So what does a brain damaged rat have to do with us? Well, the inference was that the HT controls eating impulses and those with specific damage to the HT lost control of those eating impulses and had massive weight gain over those who had no HT damage. One of the first things you learn about studies with brain damaged subjects is that you cannot automatically induct normal behavior as a result of observations of abnormal behaviours. This just isn't possible as we learned with the whole left brain right brain theories based on observations of post operative epilepsy patients who had their corpus collasum severed. Brain function is just much more complex than that.
As evidenced in many of the arguments here, the term "set point" has become so nebulous as to be virtually meaningless because we see it being defined in several ways based on context. This is not acceptable for a scientific concept, it must exist within defined parameters or it cannot be considered a valid scientific concept. Either you have an organismic set point that the body defends, as per the initial definition, or you don't. Now we are hearing about "settling points", which is a concession from it's adherents meaning that they have failed to prove the validity if the initial theory and are thus evolving it to try to make it fit with the evidence, and this IS valid, but hardly reassuring that the theory is sound. Much of this idea of an organismic set point came from the time of nature vs nurture and this has long been settled that it's a complex interplay. So do "settling points" exists? I am willing to accept that if you stabilize the variables that contribute to weight (food and activity etc) that there should be a logic point where you body weight should be fairly tightly range bound, so this is from a biology and environmental interplay as would be expected. However, I do not believe that the body "defends" a certain weight as the original theory would state.
Thus, we might say that settling points have some validity but is a rather useless theory in practice for those who are trying to alter their weight.
So set points in regards to weight is like clean eating in regards to food?
Well, "clean eating" is just a meaningless buzz term that nobody can really define whereas set point is a theory that has been tested and is evolving. So I would say that set point is analogous in the way that it is used by many but it really is more than just a buzz term. For all practical purposes I would say yes, however.
I'm not hedging at all.
2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
Set point is just another word for homeostasis or a stable long term weight value.
Set how? By the body or habits?
Both.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »An actual set point from all things about them I've seen is when your body maintains your weight despite you actively trying to change it. None of the discussion we had up to this point supports that.
On maintenance my body actively defends the set point. I have to actively override the set point to get below it. Then I have to actively override the body's efforts to go back up to the higher set point. But once established the set point is useful if one works with it and actually likes the set point weight.
These are words that sound nice and actually mean nothing.
How does your body actively defend the set point? Give examples.
How do you actively override the set point? Give examples.
What are the body's efforts to go up to the higher set point? Give examples.
How does one work with the body's set point? Give examples.
Unless and until you do something concrete with all these words you're throwing around, I'm going to continue thinking you're just blowing smoke in this thread.
Set point is just a concept and can change over time.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/05/weight-loss-metabolism-slows-down-hunger-increases.html0 -
You are fighting against body adaptations. But the body does want to be stable. That metabolic compensation can work for or against you.1 -
Change the word people. Pick the one you like best: homeostasis, metabolic adaptation, equilibrium, plateau, maintenance, settling point, set point. It is just a word to describe a phenomenon. If people don't believe that their bodies want to reach a stable weight and remain, that's fine.0
-
You are fighting against body adaptations. But the body does want to be stable. That metabolic compensation can work for or against you.
If you are suggesting some hormonal, tooth and nail fight against weight loss then this is not what the research I link suggested, which was the some of the original work on set point BTW. It was very clear that the mechanism for massive weight gain was the very mundane explanation of increased eating, i.e. the rats were eating ad lib and the brain damaged ones ate massive amounts vice the normal rats. Occam's Razor would immediately cut off anything other than the CI observation here. We do understand that the body fights more against weight loss than weight gain due to our evolutionary history, but our bodies start off as very efficient organisms and the amount that it gain in energy efficiencies just isn't enough to keep you overweight if you are determined to lose the weight.
Our bodies can increase hunger and suppress satiation and these are the primary tools that our evolution has in fighting against starvation. Once you have control of these you have what you need and what little extra your body can utilize from food just won't be enough to prevent you from losing weight.
1 -
Change the word people. Pick the one you like best: homeostasis, metabolic adaptation, equilibrium, plateau, maintenance, settling point, set point. It is just a word to describe a phenomenon. If people don't believe that their bodies want to reach a stable weight and remain, that's fine.
Homeostasis does not occur in a vacuum, it is a reaction to the environment but it has it's limits. Your body can only do so much, this is why we have death and disease.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Change the word people. Pick the one you like best: homeostasis, metabolic adaptation, equilibrium, plateau, maintenance, settling point, set point. It is just a word to describe a phenomenon. If people don't believe that their bodies want to reach a stable weight and remain, that's fine.
Homeostasis does not occur in a vacuum, it is a reaction to the environment but it has it's limits. Your body can only do so much, this is why we have death and disease.
Sigh. I'm talking about weight maintenance not death.0 -
Fine. Use the term maintenance point. People get so confused with set point. Let's call it "settling point".0
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
- 389 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
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions