Those now with at maintenance, have you beaten your set point.
Replies
-
TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.0 -
Having been a yo-yo dieter for most of my adult life I fell for the "set point" theory in the 80's (at least I think that was the decade it became popular). It was a good excuse to not try anymore. Now, I realize you reach "maintenance" and eat so many calories to maintain a specific weight. If you don't like that weight, eat less and lose some more. I can't believe I wasted so many years without an understanding of this basic concept.5
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
so not true...people do it all the time...eat to discomfort...I've done it frequently when I was heavier...that's how I got even bigger...and I watch family do it frequently as well ...those who are obese and those who aren't.
People have literally eaten themselves to death...have you not watched my 600lb life...there is no such thing as set point...4 -
I've more or less maintained going on four years. I don't believe in "set points"...I believe our "set points" are a derivative of our behavior. People regain their weight in large part because they return to "normal" and fail to establish a new normal.
My old normal...I was very sedentary...my diet wasn't the worst, but it most certainly wasn't the best and I just heaped food on my plate, snacked regularly, drank 3-5 sodas per day, spent my evenings drinking beer and smoking cigarettes on my patio, etc....
My new normal...I eat very healthfully with a diet consisting largely of whole foods...I for the most part prepare my meals at home...I brown bag my breakfast, lunch, and snacks most days...dining out is an occasional activity...I watch maybe 3-4 hours of television per week...I do some form of exercise daily...I monitor my weight regularly and make adjustments as necessary...I don't mindlessly eat...I don't stress eat, etc...8 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
So my weight set-point is somewhere around 400#? I can be lazier than a dead sloth and pack food in like it's my job.6 -
Set point is a lie people tell themselves to justify obesity. I used to tell myself I was just made to be big. I was lying to protect my fat. Pretty common coping mechanism I think.6
-
Part of the problem is the mindset of being on a diet vs. changing your way of eating permanently. If you think that all you have to do is diet for a few weeks or months to lose weight and then you can go back to your normal eating and activity levels, you will regain the weight back to where you were or beyond.
I have maintained a healthy weight for several years by making exercise a daily part of my life and limiting the extra treats that I enjoy but don't need on a daily basis. The times I've gained back some weight were always when travelling, when I exercised less and ate a lot more, justifying it by saying, "It's vacation." In each case, as soon as I got home and went back to my normal life, the weight came off again, because the active lifestyle with a controlled WOE works for me.1 -
I don't believe in set point either but feel there is a point where a person may feel like they have to work extremely hard to eat few enough calories to lose more weight. For instance, I can stay at 130 pounds relatively easy at a NEAT of 1,500. To get and stay below that feels like torture and requires a level of work and consistency that I haven't yet been able to accomplish. I wish I could blame a set point.2
-
There is no such thing as a set-point. As mentioned above, there are lots of maintenance success stories in the Success Stories forum on MFP.1
-
Thank you for all you brilliant and well thought out comments.
I actually eat healthy stuff, porridge, lean proteins, granary bread, seeded bread... I just eat too much. When I lose weight I regain again by overstuffing on what others may call healthy foods. It's not because I deprive myself either, I have small amounts of chocolate desserts etc. My problem is I just overeat and feel miserable when moderating.
I generally struggle with not comfort eating and portion sizes. Sometimes I get home from work and want to stuff my self silly, and that can be with cheese salad, seeded bread or even weetabix!! So I don't thinks it's the content o my diet, rather quantities.
I do notice if I cut down on kcal to say 1500 by the. End of the few weeks I suddenly can't get food off my mind, nothing seems to satiate my food desire that's where I wonder if I have a set point as I gain that little bit of weight and then the massive binge urge stops.
However, I am aware I comfort eat, and maybe like another poster stated if I let myself eat what I want to, I would be permanently eating!1 -
surreychic wrote: »I actually eat healthy stuff, porridge, lean proteins, granary bread, seeded bread... I just eat too much. When I lose weight I regain again by overstuffing on what others may call healthy foods. It's not because I deprive myself either, I have small amounts of chocolate desserts etc. My problem is I just overeat and feel miserable when moderating.
This is exactly it. Weight loss is not about what we eat, it's about how much. We can lose weight on pizza and beer as long as we're careful about how much of them we take in.
There are many reasons why it's better to choose nutritious foods, but weight loss is not one of them.2 -
Are you weighing and logging? It's a lot easier to manage our portion sizes when weighing and calorie counting. Just focus on logging everything that goes into your mouth for awhile, eventually your mind will do the tricks to make you want to cut back.1
-
I don't think I have a "set point" ... unless it is somewhere between 125 and 140 lbs, because I've floated up and down in that range most of my life since about 16 years old.
I have gone up and out of that range 3 times for just a little while each time ... most recently in 2014 ... but have returned to that 125-140 lb range again.
It all has to do with CICO.
If you want to gain weight, it's CI>CO.
If you want to lose weight, it's CI<CO.
If you want to maintain weight, it's CI=CO.1 -
surreychic wrote: »Thank you for all you brilliant and well thought out comments.
I actually eat healthy stuff, porridge, lean proteins, granary bread, seeded bread... I just eat too much. When I lose weight I regain again by overstuffing on what others may call healthy foods. It's not because I deprive myself either, I have small amounts of chocolate desserts etc. My problem is I just overeat and feel miserable when moderating.
I generally struggle with not comfort eating and portion sizes. Sometimes I get home from work and want to stuff my self silly, and that can be with cheese salad, seeded bread or even weetabix!! So I don't thinks it's the content o my diet, rather quantities.
I do notice if I cut down on kcal to say 1500 by the. End of the few weeks I suddenly can't get food off my mind, nothing seems to satiate my food desire that's where I wonder if I have a set point as I gain that little bit of weight and then the massive binge urge stops.
However, I am aware I comfort eat, and maybe like another poster stated if I let myself eat what I want to, I would be permanently eating!
What about veggies? I don't see anything about veggies in your list of foods.
With CI<CO, you can, of course, eat whatever you want, but veggies are a win-win-win food. Veggies are low cal, filling and tasty.
0 -
I believe in set-point conceptually, but not so much with regard to there being a specific weight that you're doomed to gravitate towards.
The set-point most people talk about, I think, is psychological. Most people (myself included) get to a point where they are reasonably happy with the status quo - be that how they look, how they feel, how much they can lift or how far they can run. When that happens, some of the drive to improve goes away. Guess what happens then. Do this enough times and you start to believe in ideas like having a set point weight.3 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
so not true...people do it all the time...eat to discomfort...I've done it frequently when I was heavier...that's how I got even bigger...and I watch family do it frequently as well ...those who are obese and those who aren't.
People have literally eaten themselves to death...have you not watched my 600lb life...there is no such thing as set point...
No one said the "set point" has to be comfortable. A person who is willing to discomfort has a higher set point than someone who isn't. If a person eats themselves to death, they can't gain any more weight and they have reached their set point.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
So my weight set-point is somewhere around 400#? I can be lazier than a dead sloth and pack food in like it's my job.
Yours may be 400 lbs for all I know. Mine is about 270 lbs. That is the figure I reached and stayed at when I didn't pay attention to what I ate and I stayed off the scale for a long time.
As for being lazy and packing in food, if you are willing to do that then your set point may be even higher than 400 lbs. What would your activity level and food consumption be if you weren't motivated by your fitness goals? The answer to that question is what determines your set point.1 -
TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
That is not what set-point theory is, at least not based on my reading. That's some sort of habit/lifestyle-based equilibrium. Not the same thing.2 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
so not true...people do it all the time...eat to discomfort...I've done it frequently when I was heavier...that's how I got even bigger...and I watch family do it frequently as well ...those who are obese and those who aren't.
People have literally eaten themselves to death...have you not watched my 600lb life...there is no such thing as set point...
No one said the "set point" has to be comfortable. A person who is willing to discomfort has a higher set point than someone who isn't. If a person eats themselves to death, they can't gain any more weight and they have reached their set point.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
So my weight set-point is somewhere around 400#? I can be lazier than a dead sloth and pack food in like it's my job.
Yours may be 400 lbs for all I know. Mine is about 270 lbs. That is the figure I reached and stayed at when I didn't pay attention to what I ate and I stayed off the scale for a long time.
As for being lazy and packing in food, if you are willing to do that then your set point may be even higher than 400 lbs. What would your activity level and food consumption be if you weren't motivated by your fitness goals? The answer to that question is what determines your set point.
It's not much of a "set" point if it's constantly fluctuating. I know I've argued this before (not with you), but to me, a set-point is fixed and it won't matter what you do you will always go back to that set-point.
As for my so-called set-point, my activity would be sedentary (only moving to get food, use the toilet/bathe, go to sleep) while playing video games for 16 hours. I'd likely be eating 4,000-5,000 calories a day.3 -
Really interesting points of view, thank you for sharing.
I actually find it useful to view the set point as something to challenge. Like Timothy Fish I get to a certain weight, it stabilises (well perhaps increases gradually over years but that point, for me is slightly overweight). It's odd though I can reduce my weight (not by starving but by eating 1800-2000 kcal a day every day, and if I lose weight, at some point, suddenly all I can think about is food, and my appetite becomes huge... my mood plummets and I then just go back to bigger portions ....then I'm back to old weight again and low and behold my appetite normalises.
I am not trying to justify it, just that's what happens with me. Once I challenge that slightly overweight figure by reducing portion sizes I just become like a food monster...addict!.
I find it inspiring to view that in itself a challenge that can be overcome through, bizarrely. I don't think, if I want a lower body weight, healthier cholesterol I have to make sacrifices.
I would be curious what others do to not think about food? Today I went for a six mile, yes six mile run (I'm unfit) and I have to say, as unfit as I am during that run, I did not carve food. About the only time ever.
0 -
Zyst interesting but I find that the set point is a weight I have to challenge. A weight that suddenly my appetite and desire for food increases enormously. Don't get me wrong once at the "set point" if it exists I still eat and still love food but my propensity to binge increases a the lower weight (which is not underweight!). I could be wrong though, I am more that happy to accept it might just be me wanting to eat a lot, oh and I can eat a lot.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
so not true...people do it all the time...eat to discomfort...I've done it frequently when I was heavier...that's how I got even bigger...and I watch family do it frequently as well ...those who are obese and those who aren't.
People have literally eaten themselves to death...have you not watched my 600lb life...there is no such thing as set point...
No one said the "set point" has to be comfortable. A person who is willing to discomfort has a higher set point than someone who isn't. If a person eats themselves to death, they can't gain any more weight and they have reached their set point.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
So my weight set-point is somewhere around 400#? I can be lazier than a dead sloth and pack food in like it's my job.
Yours may be 400 lbs for all I know. Mine is about 270 lbs. That is the figure I reached and stayed at when I didn't pay attention to what I ate and I stayed off the scale for a long time.
As for being lazy and packing in food, if you are willing to do that then your set point may be even higher than 400 lbs. What would your activity level and food consumption be if you weren't motivated by your fitness goals? The answer to that question is what determines your set point.
It's not much of a "set" point if it's constantly fluctuating. I know I've argued this before (not with you), but to me, a set-point is fixed and it won't matter what you do you will always go back to that set-point.
As for my so-called set-point, my activity would be sedentary (only moving to get food, use the toilet/bathe, go to sleep) while playing video games for 16 hours. I'd likely be eating 4,000-5,000 calories a day.
I'm pretty sure what the OP means by "set point" is the notion that if you're overweight, and then try to lose weight, that the body won't really let you get below a certain point. That it's "set." At least that is how I interpreted the original question.
It explains why people don't keep off the weight they lose. They bounce back up because, the theory goes, the body just wants / needs to be at the higher, incorrect weight. The body gets used to it, or something like that. If you google this notion, you'll find all sorts of articles on it, even research by hospitals. It's not the same thing as gaining weight and at some point you just stay in a particular, overweight range because of how you eat and your activity level. It's that you cannot, no matter what, get and stay below a certain point because your metabolism or whatever is "set" and you can't un-set it. And, what most of us are saying, or at least I was, is that there is no such thing ...0 -
Lost 120 pounds 6 years ago and have not gained an ounce. I don't believe in set points. If you are responsible with your calories and maintain some sort of activity, you will keep the pounds off....PERIOD.3
-
surreychic wrote: »Zyst interesting but I find that the set point is a weight I have to challenge. A weight that suddenly my appetite and desire for food increases enormously. Don't get me wrong once at the "set point" if it exists I still eat and still love food but my propensity to binge increases a the lower weight (which is not underweight!). I could be wrong though, I am more that happy to accept it might just be me wanting to eat a lot, oh and I can eat a lot.
This is often a sign of "diet fatigue" and usually a good place to take a maintenance break. A short maintenance break will also help to re-establish hormonal balance and aid in correcting adaptive thermogenesis.3 -
I think everyone might be interested in this article from the NCBI (NIH). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2990627/
Some interesting stuff if you read the entire thing.0 -
JohnDavid1969 wrote: »I think everyone might be interested in this article from the NCBI (NIH). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2990627/
Some interesting stuff if you read the entire thing.
The abstract, at least, is more or less something I said in my initial reply. They do adduce some evidence for a "set point", but it doesn't much matter because Western diets in an environment of abundance camouflages it anyway. What they call a "settling point" where a person's intake reaches equilibrium with their energy expenditure is what I was talking about.
In other words, if a "set point" exists, it's not a useful concept for most of us.0 -
youdoyou2016 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
so not true...people do it all the time...eat to discomfort...I've done it frequently when I was heavier...that's how I got even bigger...and I watch family do it frequently as well ...those who are obese and those who aren't.
People have literally eaten themselves to death...have you not watched my 600lb life...there is no such thing as set point...
No one said the "set point" has to be comfortable. A person who is willing to discomfort has a higher set point than someone who isn't. If a person eats themselves to death, they can't gain any more weight and they have reached their set point.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
So my weight set-point is somewhere around 400#? I can be lazier than a dead sloth and pack food in like it's my job.
Yours may be 400 lbs for all I know. Mine is about 270 lbs. That is the figure I reached and stayed at when I didn't pay attention to what I ate and I stayed off the scale for a long time.
As for being lazy and packing in food, if you are willing to do that then your set point may be even higher than 400 lbs. What would your activity level and food consumption be if you weren't motivated by your fitness goals? The answer to that question is what determines your set point.
It's not much of a "set" point if it's constantly fluctuating. I know I've argued this before (not with you), but to me, a set-point is fixed and it won't matter what you do you will always go back to that set-point.
As for my so-called set-point, my activity would be sedentary (only moving to get food, use the toilet/bathe, go to sleep) while playing video games for 16 hours. I'd likely be eating 4,000-5,000 calories a day.
I'm pretty sure what the OP means by "set point" is the notion that if you're overweight, and then try to lose weight, that the body won't really let you get below a certain point. That it's "set." At least that is how I interpreted the original question.
It explains why people don't keep off the weight they lose. They bounce back up because, the theory goes, the body just wants / needs to be at the higher, incorrect weight. The body gets used to it, or something like that. If you google this notion, you'll find all sorts of articles on it, even research by hospitals. It's not the same thing as gaining weight and at some point you just stay in a particular, overweight range because of how you eat and your activity level. It's that you cannot, no matter what, get and stay below a certain point because your metabolism or whatever is "set" and you can't un-set it. And, what most of us are saying, or at least I was, is that there is no such thing ...
didnt seem to work too well for all those people in POW camps - they didnt stay at their pre 'dieting' set point no matter what.
2 -
I have not had success, no. But I did gain weight on purpose. I just haven't been able to lose it again.0
-
surreychic wrote: »Hi all, I have posted on a few boards the same question and seen a great post above requesting info on the non food ways to success). I am curious though, I know when they lose weight (through hard work) they only go and find the reward system in their brains lights up even more with food and they regain the weight.
I am really keen to hear if anyone has managed to lose weight, and keep it off, without surgery.
I am learning more and more about the body set point and how hard people work to achieve weight loss, try and change their lifestyle but stopping food giving them that intense reward feeling, especially following weight loss is tough. I wonder if it's possible to break trough..
It would be great to collate how people did it (if they have). I appreciate bariatric patients tend to do better but I would like to know if there are other ways to overcome it!
Yes, I lost weight without surgery and have maintained in my weight range. I bulked for five pounds, and am now cutting.
Set point is a myth, in my opinion. In other words, if you want to lose weight all you need to do is eat at a calorie deficit and you will lose weight.0 -
surreychic wrote: »Really interesting points of view, thank you for sharing.
I actually find it useful to view the set point as something to challenge. Like Timothy Fish I get to a certain weight, it stabilises (well perhaps increases gradually over years but that point, for me is slightly overweight). It's odd though I can reduce my weight (not by starving but by eating 1800-2000 kcal a day every day, and if I lose weight, at some point, suddenly all I can think about is food, and my appetite becomes huge... my mood plummets and I then just go back to bigger portions ....then I'm back to old weight again and low and behold my appetite normalises.
I am not trying to justify it, just that's what happens with me. Once I challenge that slightly overweight figure by reducing portion sizes I just become like a food monster...addict!.
I find it inspiring to view that in itself a challenge that can be overcome through, bizarrely. I don't think, if I want a lower body weight, healthier cholesterol I have to make sacrifices.
I would be curious what others do to not think about food? Today I went for a six mile, yes six mile run (I'm unfit) and I have to say, as unfit as I am during that run, I did not carve food. About the only time ever.
I eat heaps of veggies ... since veggies are quite filling, I don't need to think about food for at least a couple hours after a bowl of brown rice, chicken, and a small mountain of veggies.
I also exercise a lot which allows me to be able to eat more.
But you might have just put a finger on whatever issues you are having ... if you don't want it, you won't get it.
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »youdoyou2016 wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
so not true...people do it all the time...eat to discomfort...I've done it frequently when I was heavier...that's how I got even bigger...and I watch family do it frequently as well ...those who are obese and those who aren't.
People have literally eaten themselves to death...have you not watched my 600lb life...there is no such thing as set point...
No one said the "set point" has to be comfortable. A person who is willing to discomfort has a higher set point than someone who isn't. If a person eats themselves to death, they can't gain any more weight and they have reached their set point.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »My view of "set point" is that it is what you will weigh if you just follow your normal habits and eat whatever you want. At some point, the availability of food combined with our activity level will reach a state of equilibrium. If a person changes their habits so that they are more active and they reduce the availability of food calories, that state of equilibrium will be a lower weight. If they are inactive and choose foods that are easy to prepare and high in calories, the state of equilibrium will be a higher weight.
if this is the case my set point is continually changing as I will if I am not careful eat and gain consistently and possibly not stop...
If you haven't reached the point at which you stop gaining weight without being careful of what you eat then you haven't reached your "set point." There is a limit to how inactive a person will be (they won't stay in bed all day), so their calorie burn will never drop below some number. There is also a limit to how much food they will eat. This is partly because we don't like the discomfort of stuffing ourselves. As a person gains weight, their calorie burn increases. When their calorie burn equals their average intake, their weight will stay constant.
So my weight set-point is somewhere around 400#? I can be lazier than a dead sloth and pack food in like it's my job.
Yours may be 400 lbs for all I know. Mine is about 270 lbs. That is the figure I reached and stayed at when I didn't pay attention to what I ate and I stayed off the scale for a long time.
As for being lazy and packing in food, if you are willing to do that then your set point may be even higher than 400 lbs. What would your activity level and food consumption be if you weren't motivated by your fitness goals? The answer to that question is what determines your set point.
It's not much of a "set" point if it's constantly fluctuating. I know I've argued this before (not with you), but to me, a set-point is fixed and it won't matter what you do you will always go back to that set-point.
As for my so-called set-point, my activity would be sedentary (only moving to get food, use the toilet/bathe, go to sleep) while playing video games for 16 hours. I'd likely be eating 4,000-5,000 calories a day.
I'm pretty sure what the OP means by "set point" is the notion that if you're overweight, and then try to lose weight, that the body won't really let you get below a certain point. That it's "set." At least that is how I interpreted the original question.
It explains why people don't keep off the weight they lose. They bounce back up because, the theory goes, the body just wants / needs to be at the higher, incorrect weight. The body gets used to it, or something like that. If you google this notion, you'll find all sorts of articles on it, even research by hospitals. It's not the same thing as gaining weight and at some point you just stay in a particular, overweight range because of how you eat and your activity level. It's that you cannot, no matter what, get and stay below a certain point because your metabolism or whatever is "set" and you can't un-set it. And, what most of us are saying, or at least I was, is that there is no such thing ...
didnt seem to work too well for all those people in POW camps - they didnt stay at their pre 'dieting' set point no matter what.
Yes I know this paper pudding. That's not what I'm saying, of course if we starve we will end up skin and bones. You have completely misunderstood me.
What I am saying there is a change in appetite/biochemistry because your body potentially has the desire to stay at certain point. I am not saying it's not possible to get lower than this point, at all, and I am also saying that I have got under what I suspect may be my set point. It's just the weight your brain wants to be kind of theory.
Let me just point out I know people who were exposed to POW camps lost weight and that anyone starved will loose weight to eventually they are skin and bones. That's not what I am saying at all sorry if I didn't articulate;late that well but even I'm not that stupid!2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 420 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions