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?
Replies
-
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.
No, I understand that but it's NOT homeostasis that you could use here in any event because this does not fit with what we know of homeostatic processes. Homeostasis doesn't have a preference for a direction other than back to balance but if we take the normal course of events we know that people can certainly add on weight and never drop it, in fact, left alone many would just keep gaining ad infinitum, and this is just not something that would happen if homeostasis was the underlying mechanism to the idea of a "set point". So what we are left with is something that is actually a system that tries to increase energy efficiency, and is only slightly capable of that, and relies on increasing energy consumption as it's primary mechanism of defense against starvation.
So weight maintenance point would probably be a better term, understanding, as I think you do, that part of the maintenance has to do with energy balance that we have control of. I think we have a place where we can agree now.
3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
No, I understand that but it's NOT homeostasis that you could use here in any event because this does not fit with what we know of homeostatic processes. Homeostasis doesn't have a preference for a direction other than back to balance but if we take the normal course of events we know that people can certainly add on weight and never drop it, in fact, left alone many would just keep gaining ad infinitum, and this is just not something that would happen if homeostasis was the underlying mechanism to the idea of a "set point". So what we are left with is something that is actually a system that tries to increase energy efficiency, and is only slightly capable of that, and relies on increasing energy consumption as it's primary mechanism of defense against starvation.
So weight maintenance point would probably be a better term, understanding, as I think you do, that part of the maintenance has to do with energy balance that we have control of. I think we have a place where we can agree now.
Agreed. Maintenance Point it is.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.html
No. Not an article about that horrible Biggest Loser Study that horribly interprets it. You made claims about your experience with your own set point. I want you to give examples.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.
At a high body fat, no, no I don't.
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.html
No. Not an article about that horrible Biggest Loser Study. You made claims about your experience with your own set point. I want you to give examples.
You mean NY Magazine isn't a quality science journal!
The thing I did like about the study was that it was probably the first to have a baseline metabolism reading and showed that it did decrease. However, there were still some issues that were not addressed properly but it is fader for future research. 0 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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.
At a high body fat, no, no I don't.
There are plenty of people maintaining at a high maintenance point who are having difficulty getting under it.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.html
No. Not an article about that horrible Biggest Loser Study that horribly interprets it. You made claims about your experience with your own set point. I want you to give examples.
Prove that people don't ever gain weight back to their higher maintenance weight point.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.html
No. Not an article about that horrible Biggest Loser Study that horribly interprets it. You made claims about your experience with your own set point. I want you to give examples.
Prove that people don't ever gain weight back to their higher maintenance weight point.
They eat more. Their body doesn't make them do it. You are the one claiming that the body defends that higher weight. How?2 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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.
At a high body fat, no, no I don't.
There are plenty of people maintaining at a high maintenance point who are having difficulty getting under it.
None that are actually trying to eat at a deficit.
Your body can't counteract a proper deficit. As Wheelhouse said, your body is already efficient as it gets there is not much room to reduce your energy needs to stop a deficit from happening.
I'm really sorry to say this but it really sounds like you're deluding yourself.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll 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.
At a high body fat, no, no I don't.
There are plenty of people maintaining at a high maintenance point who are having difficulty getting under it.
Sorry. I spent way too many years making excuses to myself to see this statement for anything but what it really is. I've also read way too many posts on r/fatlogic.
No one's body is so efficient that a diligently applied and correctly calculated caloric deficit and exercise program won't cause fat loss.
I could be sarcastic and suggest all of you mythical people submit yourselves to scientific research and solve the glaring problem of starvation in third world countries, because it would be helpful for people to know what's so special about your biology that defies everything everyone else knows about weight management.
Or you could all be wrong and deluding yourselves.2 -
May I ask what may be an ignorant and totally irrelevant question? I clearly do not know what you folks do, but, assuming these set points do have validity, wouldn't that be irrelevant for anything other than maybe diagnosing a medical condition or similar?
What I mean is this. Months ago I had set my goal to 176lbs, and reached it. Not reaching that goal due to a hypothetical set point at 180lbs would not have stopped me from striving to continue a healthy lifestyle. That didn't occur, but even if it had, it wouldn't have been a good and valid reason to stop.
So what would be the reason behind identifying a set point, other than to "maybe" give me a reason why I hit a plateau?
Again, sorry if it's a ridiculous question. I'm just trying to learn something here.
Thanks
edit: did I kill the thread?
1 -
May I ask what may be an ignorant and totally irrelevant question? I clearly do not know what you folks do, but, assuming these set points do have validity, wouldn't that be irrelevant for anything other than maybe diagnosing a medical condition or similar?
What I mean is this. Months ago I had set my goal to 176lbs, and reached it. Not reaching that goal due to a hypothetical set point at 180lbs would not have stopped me from striving to continue a healthy lifestyle. That didn't occur, but even if it had, it wouldn't have been a good and valid reason to stop.
So what would be the reason behind identifying a set point, other than to "maybe" give me a reason why I hit a plateau?
Again, sorry if it's a ridiculous question. I'm just trying to learn something here.
Thanks
edit: did I kill the thread?
Medical conditions should be considered and there are some, for example some chromosomal disorders, that are known to have weight gain or obesity as symptoms and some medications are also known to do this. However, the theory of organismic set point here is often misinterpreted to mean that there are some powerful biological forces that are keeping us from losing weight and we can't fight against them because are bodies are going to always find away to get back to some preordained weight. This isn't really the way the results should be interpreted because the primary mechanism of weight gain in the study was still overeating.
What the rat studies really showed was that the HT is part of a well-known hormonal regulatory loop and that altering the HT can disrupt the loop and cause lab rats to eat massive amounts of food. Many seem to interprets this backwards as if this loop itself causes us to stay at a particular weight or weight range no matter how hard we try to fight it. However, a big difference between these rats and us is that rats are in-tune with internal eating cues while we are more influenced by environmental eating cues (except for infants). So yes, there is something that can be said for an organismic set point but we've already shown that behavior can override any such thing bi-directionally.
In end you can weigh more, weigh less, or weigh the same depending on your lifestyle so the organismic set point is just an interesting footnote for us in reality.4 -
@Wheelhouse15 Got it, and thank you for explaining it in a way I can understand
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I was slim and at a good weight for the first 40 years of my life, didn't know what a calorie was and never had to diet. I packed on over 50lbs with my first pregnancy with a 6lb 10 little girl, which dropped off effortlessly within a few months. There was 2 years after i hit 40 that yes i started eating more and turned into a sloth to the tune of 30lbs gained.
Wouldnt my set point be the weight my body remembered for all of those years before gaining weight? How can 2 years override 40? And why oh why do i now have to count every calorie and exercise my butt off to lose a few pounds, why is it so hard now and yet so simple back then?
Your lifestyle changed.
Also, your body doesn't "remember" how much you use to weigh. People who become obese develop more fat cells which, although they can empty out, never go away but your body doesn't have any mechanism by which to recall previous body mass or to autoregulate itself back toward that weight.
The reason it's harder now than before is because your lifestyle and diet are different than they were before.4 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »May I ask what may be an ignorant and totally irrelevant question? I clearly do not know what you folks do, but, assuming these set points do have validity, wouldn't that be irrelevant for anything other than maybe diagnosing a medical condition or similar?
What I mean is this. Months ago I had set my goal to 176lbs, and reached it. Not reaching that goal due to a hypothetical set point at 180lbs would not have stopped me from striving to continue a healthy lifestyle. That didn't occur, but even if it had, it wouldn't have been a good and valid reason to stop.
So what would be the reason behind identifying a set point, other than to "maybe" give me a reason why I hit a plateau?
Again, sorry if it's a ridiculous question. I'm just trying to learn something here.
Thanks
edit: did I kill the thread?
Medical conditions should be considered and there are some, for example some chromosomal disorders, that are known to have weight gain or obesity as symptoms and some medications are also known to do this. However, the theory of organismic set point here is often misinterpreted to mean that there are some powerful biological forces that are keeping us from losing weight and we can't fight against them because are bodies are going to always find away to get back to some preordained weight. This isn't really the way the results should be interpreted because the primary mechanism of weight gain in the study was still overeating.
What the rat studies really showed was that the HT is part of a well-known hormonal regulatory loop and that altering the HT can disrupt the loop and cause lab rats to eat massive amounts of food. Many seem to interprets this backwards as if this loop itself causes us to stay at a particular weight or weight range no matter how hard we try to fight it. However, a big difference between these rats and us is that rats are in-tune with internal eating cues while we are more influenced by environmental eating cues (except for infants). So yes, there is something that can be said for an organismic set point but we've already shown that behavior can override any such thing bi-directionally.
In end you can weigh more, weigh less, or weigh the same depending on your lifestyle so the organismic set point is just an interesting footnote for us in reality.
I misread organismic :blushing:7 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »May I ask what may be an ignorant and totally irrelevant question? I clearly do not know what you folks do, but, assuming these set points do have validity, wouldn't that be irrelevant for anything other than maybe diagnosing a medical condition or similar?
What I mean is this. Months ago I had set my goal to 176lbs, and reached it. Not reaching that goal due to a hypothetical set point at 180lbs would not have stopped me from striving to continue a healthy lifestyle. That didn't occur, but even if it had, it wouldn't have been a good and valid reason to stop.
So what would be the reason behind identifying a set point, other than to "maybe" give me a reason why I hit a plateau?
Again, sorry if it's a ridiculous question. I'm just trying to learn something here.
Thanks
edit: did I kill the thread?
Medical conditions should be considered and there are some, for example some chromosomal disorders, that are known to have weight gain or obesity as symptoms and some medications are also known to do this. However, the theory of organismic set point here is often misinterpreted to mean that there are some powerful biological forces that are keeping us from losing weight and we can't fight against them because are bodies are going to always find away to get back to some preordained weight. This isn't really the way the results should be interpreted because the primary mechanism of weight gain in the study was still overeating.
What the rat studies really showed was that the HT is part of a well-known hormonal regulatory loop and that altering the HT can disrupt the loop and cause lab rats to eat massive amounts of food. Many seem to interprets this backwards as if this loop itself causes us to stay at a particular weight or weight range no matter how hard we try to fight it. However, a big difference between these rats and us is that rats are in-tune with internal eating cues while we are more influenced by environmental eating cues (except for infants). So yes, there is something that can be said for an organismic set point but we've already shown that behavior can override any such thing bi-directionally.
In end you can weigh more, weigh less, or weigh the same depending on your lifestyle so the organismic set point is just an interesting footnote for us in reality.
I misread organismic :blushing:
LOL I'm assuming a few other did too!
1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »May I ask what may be an ignorant and totally irrelevant question? I clearly do not know what you folks do, but, assuming these set points do have validity, wouldn't that be irrelevant for anything other than maybe diagnosing a medical condition or similar?
What I mean is this. Months ago I had set my goal to 176lbs, and reached it. Not reaching that goal due to a hypothetical set point at 180lbs would not have stopped me from striving to continue a healthy lifestyle. That didn't occur, but even if it had, it wouldn't have been a good and valid reason to stop.
So what would be the reason behind identifying a set point, other than to "maybe" give me a reason why I hit a plateau?
Again, sorry if it's a ridiculous question. I'm just trying to learn something here.
Thanks
edit: did I kill the thread?
Medical conditions should be considered and there are some, for example some chromosomal disorders, that are known to have weight gain or obesity as symptoms and some medications are also known to do this. However, the theory of organismic set point here is often misinterpreted to mean that there are some powerful biological forces that are keeping us from losing weight and we can't fight against them because are bodies are going to always find away to get back to some preordained weight. This isn't really the way the results should be interpreted because the primary mechanism of weight gain in the study was still overeating.
What the rat studies really showed was that the HT is part of a well-known hormonal regulatory loop and that altering the HT can disrupt the loop and cause lab rats to eat massive amounts of food. Many seem to interprets this backwards as if this loop itself causes us to stay at a particular weight or weight range no matter how hard we try to fight it. However, a big difference between these rats and us is that rats are in-tune with internal eating cues while we are more influenced by environmental eating cues (except for infants). So yes, there is something that can be said for an organismic set point but we've already shown that behavior can override any such thing bi-directionally.
In end you can weigh more, weigh less, or weigh the same depending on your lifestyle so the organismic set point is just an interesting footnote for us in reality.
I misread organismic :blushing:
LOL I'm assuming a few other did too!
I totally did too. I had to reread a couple of times1 -
Setting any medical condition aside, set point is another way of saying that we are eating too much to lose weight.2
-
Traveler120 wrote: »I've had multiple "set points". 152, 147, 138, 125, 118, 116 lbs. To me, set points are just plateaus. You get to decide if you want to change it. I'm now 113 but haven't been here long enough to call it a set point. I want my final set point to be 110-113 lbs.
I think some people naturally have them and some must not. Those who don't have set points will say "there is no such thing". I have plateaus that last for a long, long time. It can be as long as a decade staying in the same 5 pound range for me. Perhaps most people who have successful set points simply are not on MFP?
It is acceptable to say "plateau" on general forums. But if one says that their body fights to maintain a "set point" then there will be objections by those who don't maintain long weight plateaus.
I've had set points over the years also. When I was 135 pounds and 5'8" the set point worked in my favor. Now that I'm plateaued up at a higher "set point" (or whatever preferred definition one wants to use) my body fights me to plateau there.
This is my experience. I've never been overweight BMI until I hit my 50's. I've succeeded so far in getting BMI from 25 to 24, and am plateaued at this set point. So now my goal is to lower BMI to mid normal around BMI 22-23 and establish homeostasis at that lower BMI. I believe if I can keep it off for a long enough time that I will establish a new and lower maintenance "set point". It's all about semantics and misunderstandings on MFP.
I don't gain or lose huge amounts at any time, nor do I enjoy eating large amounts of food. My belief is that people get obese because they lose their lower set points and over ride them. But some people don't seem to ever remember having one, so I'm stumped when people don't think that there is any such thing. If you have a set point you just know. If you don't, then there is no convincing otherwise.
Belief does not make it fact.
A "set point" just means that CICO needs to be adjusted to the acquired results, or we need to go to the doctor and find out what's wrong with us.
Since science is science and none of us get to defy this, then set point would apply to all or none at all. Nobody gets to be a special snowflake in the weight management game. 0 -
Here's my simplified version of this *kitten* set point theory!
I can lose or gain weight at will. I can get down to just about any weight i want, but it's hard work and i'm always hungry. My appetite doesnt correspond to maintaining a 140lb or whatever weight, so i eventually crack and stop fighting against my hunger . The weight I'm at now is easy to maintain, i get to eat whatever i want and stay satisfied, which does not happen at a 10lb lower weight.
Long story short, i like food too much to maintain a skinny body. I don't have the drive or willpower to stay there anymore.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 908 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions