Questions for debate: stomach stretching/set-point/fat cells

My question is, if someone has been small their whole life, would their stomach be able to handle as much food as someone 2-3x their size?

When I lost weight a few years ago, I found myself being unable to eat a large meal from McDonalds, because I had gotten used to the small meals- I was full. Maybe it was because I had eaten better food earlier in the day.

My experiences is pretty similar to yours, when I am in a pattern of eating large meals my stomach accommodates them. When I have been in a pattern of eating smaller meals my stomach is less accommodating for a random large one. But, with a little time, I seem to be able to adjust up or down depending on how I am consistently eating. I think your stomach just stretches and shrinks according to your habits. Possibly a person who was once bigger and has lost weight is more able to stretch their stomach out faster since they have done it before. I don't know, just speculating.

2. Does your body have a ''set point'' for weight its happiest to return to, that is established in your teenage years?

I have heard this, but I am not sure I believe it is so from a biological stand point. I think it has more to do with returning to the habits you create as a young adult and those resulting in a specific weight range than it does with your body being happy at a certain number.

3. Is fat cells a thing? can you get rid of them without liposuction, or do you just leave them there sitting empty? apparently the more you have, the easier it is to gain weight.

Yes, fat cells are a real thing, and yes, as you lose fat you empty them but they do not go away. Regardless of the number of fat cells you have CICO determines if you will gain or lose weight.

healthypelican wrote: »

I'm not sure if the thread I made about this is still floating around but...

1. Stomach stretching to different sizes

People came to the conclusion, that if you lose a significant amount of weight, your stomach does not get smaller or lose the ability to hold the same amount of food you originally ate. They decided that, when you are slimmer, you make smarter food decisions such as having more water rich foods and eating more protein, and distracting yourself from boredom eating, but when one wants to overeat, they can eat just as much as they could at their original size.

My question is, if someone has been small their whole life, would their stomach be able to handle as much food as someone 2-3x their size?

When I lost weight a few years ago, I found myself being unable to eat a large meal from McDonalds, because I had gotten used to the small meals- I was full. Maybe it was because I had eaten better food earlier in the day.

2. Does your body have a ''set point'' for weight its happiest to return to, that is established in your teenage years?

I heard this in a youtube video and it concerns me, because when I was a teenager, I went between 70kgs and 100kgs... would the set point be more accurate for a 15 year old or a 19 year old?

From this website, I've gotten the impression that you can maintain whatever body you want, some people possibly having to put in a little more work than others.

3. Is fat cells a thing? can you get rid of them without liposuction, or do you just leave them there sitting empty? apparently the more you have, the easier it is to gain weight.

1. I think it is fact that the human stomach can stretch quite a bit even if you are thin. I'm not sure if you can make your stomach bigger by constantly overeating but might be more flexible.
"Numerous imaging studies have shown that the stomachs of obese people are really not that different from those of the rest of the population, indicating that there is little relationship between body size and baseline stomach size"
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/does-dieting-actually-make-your-stomach-shrink-180955521/#LppJFyezupGAuwCP.99
Larger people are not always eating a larger volume of food just more calorie dense foods so size of stomach isn't necessarily a factor. When I weighed 100 lbs I ate just as much or more volume of food as I did at 179 lbs. I got fat from eating too many calories for my activity level not consuming massive volumes of food daily.

2. I think there is a healthy weight range for your height and people will generally feel good somewhere in that range. I do not believe that is a set weight point that you can not go below or above if you change the amount of calories you consume or burn.
I have weighed 100-180 lbs as an adult. I have maintained various weights in that range for long periods. I have felt my best at 125- in the middle of the healthy weight range for my height. I do not believe that there is a set weight my body would default to without eating the right calories for that weight... certainly not my teenage weight which was below 100 lbs.

3. Your body always has fat cells. They die and get replaced like other cells throughout your life. You may or may not have more than average but my understanding is that the number of cells remains fairly consistent as an adult just cell size getting bigger or smaller when you gain or lose.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipocyte
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080505/full/news.2008.800.html
If you had liposuction some fat cells would be permanently removed. Remaining fat cells can grow larger with weight gain. If you gain too much then you get new fat cells. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/news/blog/can-fat-return-after-liposuction

I think set points are psychological and habit driven, not biological. It makes no sense for there to be a physiological set point.

healthypelican wrote: »

My question is, if someone has been small their whole life, would their stomach be able to handle as much food as someone 2-3x their size?

When I lost weight a few years ago, I found myself being unable to eat a large meal from McDonalds, because I had gotten used to the small meals- I was full. Maybe it was because I had eaten better food earlier in the day.

In my younger/skinnier days, I was actually able to eat more then I can now. At 135lbs, I used to be able to demolish an entire large pizza by myself and just felt really full (not painfully full). Just last week, I ate 3 slices and felt a bit nauseated. But I don't think the actual size of your stomach plays that big of a role in how full you feel.

healthypelican wrote: »

2. Does your body have a ''set point'' for weight its happiest to return to, that is established in your teenage years? I heard this in a youtube video and it concerns me, because when I was a teenager, I went between 70kgs and 100kgs... would the set point be more accurate for a 15 year old or a 19 year old?

No. That isn't what set point theory is. It's not based on some magical number set when you are a teenager. Rather it's about the body's complex design to maintain balance (including balancing the CICO equation). What the set point theory really can't fully explain yet is why some people get stuck at a set point and why others don't. But there is enough proof that set points are not static and can be reset.

Personally, I think set points are much more based on our daily habits and it's those habits that have a larger effect on our brain (and body's) ability to lose/maintain or gain weight. My entire weight history at least proves this (and I've seen similar in others.

In my younger years, I bounced around 135-140lbs. Easily maintained that weight even though I ate like a pig. But I was also very active. With the sports I played, I had a cardio workout in the morning, weight training over lunch and then practice in the afternoon. Even my free time was spent playing pick up basketball, hiking, skiing, swimming, etc, etc. I saw a small uptick in weight when I graduated college and started my first job. But my first job was in the Army, so I still did a workout every morning, hit the weights every lunch, plus still stayed pretty active during my free time. But without the sports training and less walking, my weight bounced between 140-145.

It wasn't until my first pregnancy that I got fat. The pregnancy hormones left me very fatigued and in turn, my activity levels plummeted. My morning workout switched from calisthenics and running to only walking for the same amount of time. Weightlifting made my joints hurt so bad, I switched it out for some mild yoga. My free time was spent sleeping (I literally slept nearly 12 hours a day). Those changes helped me balloon up to 195lbs. After my first was born, my activity levels shot back up and I easily lost weight until I hit around 165lbs. I didn't even worry about food. At that point, I left the Army. While I was dealing with a lot of stress and depression, I didn't lose any more weight, but I was able to maintain that loss right up until I got pregnant with child number 2 (only about 6mos).

Once again, the pregnancy left me utterly fatigued and what little energy I had was spent dealing with a toddler who had just started walking. Exercise was pretty much limited to chasing said toddler at the park or in the back yard. I ballooned up to 230lbs. After she was born, I lost a little weight (down to 210), but without changing any habits, got stuck there until I finally got serious about losing the weight 2 years later.

Once I started "dieting" and added more exercise into my schedule, I quickly lost about 35lbs in a few months and then sorta stalled out at around 175. Looking to shake things up a bit, I started training for a marathon. When I only lost 5lbs in the 6months I trained.. I sort of gave up. I figured I had hit a set point and really wasn't mentally ready to put in the work to get past it. Truth was, I wasn't really managing the calories in part. I was constantly using my long runs as justification to binge on sugary treats and high calorie foods. I just realized I was comfortable enough with where my body was at, that I didn't care enough to fight through the cravings anymore. Was that a set point thing? Maybe. But it wasn't my "body" causing me to not lose weight. It was just my head.

Thankfully, around that same time, a women's tackle football team had started up. Joining the team gave me the incentive to keep up workouts and, while I was no longer counting calories or actively trying to lose weight, I still maintained a healthy eating routine that helped me maintain my loss for nearly 8 years without much effort.

It was about that time, I got hit with a double whammy. A divorce and then a cancer diagnosis. The divorce left me over stressed and I had to quit the team for both time and money reasons. My activities levels started to dip again. Then the cancer diagnosis left me house bound (and at times bed ridden) for the better part of a year and a half. Queue up stress eating and little to no activity and yeah.. back up to 235. (No chemo treatments to effect appetite)

So here I am, back to developing healthy habits. My life pretty much proves that healthy habits is the trick to losing weight and keeping it off. To me, set points are just a sign that one is getting too complacent.

healthypelican wrote: »

3. Is fat cells a thing? can you get rid of them without liposuction, or do you just leave them there sitting empty? apparently the more you have, the easier it is to gain weight.

Yep.. fat cells are a thing. Though, I'm not convinced they make it that much easier to gain weight. I had no issues maintaining a weightloss, provided I also maintained an active lifestyle. When I did get sedentary, my weight gain wasn't any faster then it was the first time around. Both pregnancies caused a 55lbs weight gain. While my latest gain was larger (at 65lbs) it also took three years to get there. So my last weight gain took 4x longer then my first. The difference between the first two gains and the last one? By then, I had a MUCH better understanding of diet and exercise, so I didn't let myself get as lazy or eat as much as the first two times.

Long winded way to say... that no matter what, eating better and living an active lifestyle are the keys needed to overcome everything else.

mph323 wrote: »

Look at people who routinely enter hot dog eating contests. Many are normal weight yet can put away incredible amounts food in a very short period of time. That would be impossible if stomachs didn't have great elasticity!

Ended up watching one of these yesterday (not my pick, don't ask).

According to the commentator, their empty stomach size is approximately the same as everyone else's - about the size of a deflated football. Most people's stomachs stretch up to about a 15% increase over empty. Eating contestants deliberately eat to increase their stomach's elasticity. Their stomachs can stretch up to about a 50% increase.

No idea if that is factually correct or not, but it seems reasonable.

CSARdiver wrote: »

healthypelican wrote: »

I'm not sure if the thread I made about this is still floating around but...

1. Stomach stretching to different sizes

People came to the conclusion, that if you lose a significant amount of weight, your stomach does not get smaller or lose the ability to hold the same amount of food you originally ate. They decided that, when you are slimmer, you make smarter food decisions such as having more water rich foods and eating more protein, and distracting yourself from boredom eating, but when one wants to overeat, they can eat just as much as they could at their original size.

My question is, if someone has been small their whole life, would their stomach be able to handle as much food as someone 2-3x their size?

When I lost weight a few years ago, I found myself being unable to eat a large meal from McDonalds, because I had gotten used to the small meals- I was full. Maybe it was because I had eaten better food earlier in the day.

2. Does your body have a ''set point'' for weight its happiest to return to, that is established in your teenage years?

I heard this in a youtube video and it concerns me, because when I was a teenager, I went between 70kgs and 100kgs... would the set point be more accurate for a 15 year old or a 19 year old?

From this website, I've gotten the impression that you can maintain whatever body you want, some people possibly having to put in a little more work than others.

3. Is fat cells a thing? can you get rid of them without liposuction, or do you just leave them there sitting empty? apparently the more you have, the easier it is to gain weight.

2. No - there is no such thing as a set point. This has been debunked for decades. Weight management is an output of behavior. Eat at a deficit you lose, eat a surplus you gain, eat at maintenance you maintain. What many get confused over is adaptive thermogenisis, where the metabolic rate shifts according to immediate intake stimulus. Eating a surplus will temporarily increase the metabolic rate to process the incoming food. Think in terms of adding wood to a fire - burning larger, hotter as the rate of introduction is increased. This returns to a maintenance level within a few days.

Debunked by who?

And ignoring the TEF, why would all else being equal (exercise, NEAT, sleep, water, etc.) can people's metabolisms speed up with an increased caloric intake?

Edited: to rephrase, not ignoring TEF but considering it's effects and accounting for the effects.

CSARdiver wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

CSARdiver wrote: »

healthypelican wrote: »

I'm not sure if the thread I made about this is still floating around but...

1. Stomach stretching to different sizes

People came to the conclusion, that if you lose a significant amount of weight, your stomach does not get smaller or lose the ability to hold the same amount of food you originally ate. They decided that, when you are slimmer, you make smarter food decisions such as having more water rich foods and eating more protein, and distracting yourself from boredom eating, but when one wants to overeat, they can eat just as much as they could at their original size.

My question is, if someone has been small their whole life, would their stomach be able to handle as much food as someone 2-3x their size?

When I lost weight a few years ago, I found myself being unable to eat a large meal from McDonalds, because I had gotten used to the small meals- I was full. Maybe it was because I had eaten better food earlier in the day.

2. Does your body have a ''set point'' for weight its happiest to return to, that is established in your teenage years?

I heard this in a youtube video and it concerns me, because when I was a teenager, I went between 70kgs and 100kgs... would the set point be more accurate for a 15 year old or a 19 year old?

From this website, I've gotten the impression that you can maintain whatever body you want, some people possibly having to put in a little more work than others.

3. Is fat cells a thing? can you get rid of them without liposuction, or do you just leave them there sitting empty? apparently the more you have, the easier it is to gain weight.

2. No - there is no such thing as a set point. This has been debunked for decades. Weight management is an output of behavior. Eat at a deficit you lose, eat a surplus you gain, eat at maintenance you maintain. What many get confused over is adaptive thermogenisis, where the metabolic rate shifts according to immediate intake stimulus. Eating a surplus will temporarily increase the metabolic rate to process the incoming food. Think in terms of adding wood to a fire - burning larger, hotter as the rate of introduction is increased. This returns to a maintenance level within a few days.

Debunked by who?

And ignoring the TEF, why would all else being equal (exercise, NEAT, sleep, water, etc.) can people's metabolisms speed up with an increased caloric intake?

Edited: to rephrase, not ignoring TEF but considering it's effects and accounting for the effects.

Well, any credible scientist (physiologist, molecular biologist, biochemist, etc). Set point was a anti-fad diet marketing tool used by William Bennett "Dieter's Dilemma". I would correct my statement to show that set point has never been proven, so in strict terms it has never formally required to be debunked, so it currently resides in the Bunk category. Correlative, but not causative.

I leave the whys to the theologians. The how would be a thermal cascade resulting from increase in activity in metabolic pathways each requiring more energy to fuel the reaction, thereby temporarily increasing the Resting Energy Expenditure (REE).

I don't believe there's substantial evidence supporting TEF, at least any detectable or reproducible results. I have yet to see any evidence showing impact beyond the rate of instrumental error.

TEF- thermic effect of food-- sorry should've written it out. I assume that you misunderstood my abbreviation?

And yeah but that's what I am saying in regard to your response about increasing energy expenditure. I am not saying that its not going to balance out your CI vs. CO but that your body will biologically increases or slows down functions to try and maintain at a certain weight, creating a set point. I am not claiming to have proof of this, just from my own and others experience, it seems as though it takes a bit to get your body moving in a direction, but once it's moving, its easier to change, until again you are stagnant at a weight.

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

CSARdiver wrote: »

RAD_Fitness wrote: »

CSARdiver wrote: »

healthypelican wrote: »

I'm not sure if the thread I made about this is still floating around but...

1. Stomach stretching to different sizes

People came to the conclusion, that if you lose a significant amount of weight, your stomach does not get smaller or lose the ability to hold the same amount of food you originally ate. They decided that, when you are slimmer, you make smarter food decisions such as having more water rich foods and eating more protein, and distracting yourself from boredom eating, but when one wants to overeat, they can eat just as much as they could at their original size.

My question is, if someone has been small their whole life, would their stomach be able to handle as much food as someone 2-3x their size?

When I lost weight a few years ago, I found myself being unable to eat a large meal from McDonalds, because I had gotten used to the small meals- I was full. Maybe it was because I had eaten better food earlier in the day.

2. Does your body have a ''set point'' for weight its happiest to return to, that is established in your teenage years?

I heard this in a youtube video and it concerns me, because when I was a teenager, I went between 70kgs and 100kgs... would the set point be more accurate for a 15 year old or a 19 year old?

From this website, I've gotten the impression that you can maintain whatever body you want, some people possibly having to put in a little more work than others.

3. Is fat cells a thing? can you get rid of them without liposuction, or do you just leave them there sitting empty? apparently the more you have, the easier it is to gain weight.

2. No - there is no such thing as a set point. This has been debunked for decades. Weight management is an output of behavior. Eat at a deficit you lose, eat a surplus you gain, eat at maintenance you maintain. What many get confused over is adaptive thermogenisis, where the metabolic rate shifts according to immediate intake stimulus. Eating a surplus will temporarily increase the metabolic rate to process the incoming food. Think in terms of adding wood to a fire - burning larger, hotter as the rate of introduction is increased. This returns to a maintenance level within a few days.

Debunked by who?

And ignoring the TEF, why would all else being equal (exercise, NEAT, sleep, water, etc.) can people's metabolisms speed up with an increased caloric intake?

Edited: to rephrase, not ignoring TEF but considering it's effects and accounting for the effects.

Well, any credible scientist (physiologist, molecular biologist, biochemist, etc). Set point was a anti-fad diet marketing tool used by William Bennett "Dieter's Dilemma". I would correct my statement to show that set point has never been proven, so in strict terms it has never formally required to be debunked, so it currently resides in the Bunk category. Correlative, but not causative.

I leave the whys to the theologians. The how would be a thermal cascade resulting from increase in activity in metabolic pathways each requiring more energy to fuel the reaction, thereby temporarily increasing the Resting Energy Expenditure (REE).

I don't believe there's substantial evidence supporting TEF, at least any detectable or reproducible results. I have yet to see any evidence showing impact beyond the rate of instrumental error.

TEF- thermic effect of food-- sorry should've written it out. I assume that you misunderstood my abbreviation?

And yeah but that's what I am saying in regard to your response about increasing energy expenditure. I am not saying that its not going to balance out your CI vs. CO but that your body will biologically increases or slows down functions to try and maintain at a certain weight, creating a set point. I am not claiming to have proof of this, just from my own and others experience, it seems as though it takes a bit to get your body moving in a direction, but once it's moving, its easier to change, until again you are stagnant at a weight.

I get cautious with acronyms - too many possibilities leading to unnecessary confusion, but yes - I understood this correctly.

Set point theory is that you are genetically destined to be at a set weight - say for the sake of argument my set point is 200 lbs. If I eat a surplus I will gain weight temporarily. If I eat at a deficit I will lose weight temporarily, but my body will always trend towards 200 lbs. The author was trying to make a point to stop people from going on fad diets, particularly elimination diets. The negative impact to this was instilling a mindset of failure, while ignoring the fact that simple caloric maintenance and budgeting is required. Consider the timeliness of the book (1982) where calorie counting took considerable time.

I wouldn't call your example set point, so much as rate of adaptation. Biological systems like slow change and don't react well to dramatic changes as this creates undue stress. When a person starts up couch to 5k the body has to react by expanding existing capillary beds, forming new beds, increasing lung capacity, etc. Over time and moderate progression it adapts to the new activity. Biological systems crave efficiency and will do the minimal amount of work to maintain, so bodies at rest tend to stay at rest, bodies in motion tend to stay in motion, but there's a considerable psychological element to this.

healthypelican wrote: »

Do fat cells disappear over time? Like, if you are 500lbs at 15, but lose 350lbs over 3 years, would you still have the same amount of fat cells at 40?

Fat cells don't disappear unless you get lypo.

In regards to set point, I don't really buy into that...particularly the set point being teenage years. I was about a buck 35 soaking wet when I was 18.