Body weight set point - crap or science?
joanamrca
Posts: 4 Member
Hey guys,
So lately it seems to me that my body weight tats around the same number no matter what I do. It’s not exactly like a plateau because if I go over that weight I seem to bounce back to it pretty quickly but then beyond that it just doesn’t budge. Lately I noticed I have t been great with my diet and it seems the last year that ‘set point’ has increased by 2 kgs (around 5lbs) - does anyone know if the body set
Point theory is real and what we can do to change that set point?
Help much appreciated!
Thanks
Joana
So lately it seems to me that my body weight tats around the same number no matter what I do. It’s not exactly like a plateau because if I go over that weight I seem to bounce back to it pretty quickly but then beyond that it just doesn’t budge. Lately I noticed I have t been great with my diet and it seems the last year that ‘set point’ has increased by 2 kgs (around 5lbs) - does anyone know if the body set
Point theory is real and what we can do to change that set point?
Help much appreciated!
Thanks
Joana
0
Replies
-
When you say "no matter what I do," do you mean you're logging your food and you're consistently at a deficit but you're staying at the same weight? What exactly do you mean by not being great with your diet?3
-
Crap. If you aren't losing then you're eating at maintenance. Or if you've been at this for a long time it might be time for a diet break to give your hormones a break.9
-
There is some truth to it, but not in the way that most people want to talk about it. There was a really good postcast on it I saw a while back... I wonder if I can find it. The gist, from what I recall, was that the body is constantly striving for what is essentially "healthy balance". The further you get from that balance (either over or under), the faster/easier it'll be to get back to it.
ETA -
I can't find the podcast... but to be clear -
habitual set point IS NOT THE SAME as biological set point7 -
I don’t think it’s a set point. I do think there is a calorie amount that most of us are the most comfortable consuming as well as a level of movement that we are also comfortable with. When not doing anything I tend to sit right around 158 pounds. There is no issue losing weigh if I move more and eat less, there is also no issue gaining if I eat more and move less. But left to my own devices my move to eat ratio leaves me right about 158, apparently the calories to maintain that weight is the amount I like to naturally eat. As you get older and move less that maintenance number will slowly become maintenance at a slightly higher weight. Which is why people often see their weight creep up over the years.6
-
I don't know the science, but I'm interested as I seem to have the same problem. I'm a bit of a serial dieter but every time I step on the scales anew (I avoid weighing myself when I know my clothes are getting tight) I find that I am 74kg, even when I am on the scales a year apart.
I just keep going back up yo 74kg or there about.2 -
I've noticed that too, once you fight your way down it's easier to get there again.3
-
I think people's lifestyles and what they're willing to do or not do is what really determines this "set point."
For example, I maintain pretty easily around 180 and if I start going over that, it's pretty easy to bring it back down. At 180 I'm not super lean, nor am I over fat...I'm sitting around 15% or so BF with a 2 pack up top of my abs. I can do this with eating fairly well and regular, moderate exercise but I can also indulge fairly regularly, drink beer, and do all the fun things I like to do without much issue.
Going below that is more difficult I think due in large part to the fact that I'm actually already pretty lean by evolutionary standards...and I'm also 43. I've gotten as low as 75 Lbs...I'm not "ripped" at that weight, but abs are definitely starting to pop, etc...I found it difficult to maintain without being really cognizant of my diet...much fewer indulgences...cut the beer...tea toddle around at pool parties, etc.
Basically, the lifestyle I'm willing to lead allows me to maintain my weight around 180 Lbs without much effort or thought...below that requires substantially more effort and dietary discipline than I'm willing to put forth. I do not have the dietary and exercise discipline to be an underwear model...and at 43, I really don't care about being totally ripped. I was pretty ripped in my 20s and it didn't make a whole lot of difference in my quality of life.6 -
I don't know the science, but I'm interested as I seem to have the same problem. I'm a bit of a serial dieter but every time I step on the scales anew (I avoid weighing myself when I know my clothes are getting tight) I find that I am 74kg, even when I am on the scales a year apart.
I just keep going back up yo 74kg or there about.
That doesn't sound like the same thing to me... that sounds more like where your habits/lifestyle has your CICO falling.0 -
I think it's more about lifestyle and habits.
There's some talk about settling points and set points for minimal body fat, but most people who talk about "set points" have ideas about such things that are much higher than their biological realities are.4 -
What @cwolfman13 said.
A few years ago I was convinced my "set point" was 300 lbs. Fortunately that idea was proven wrong.8 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I think people's lifestyles and what they're willing to do or not do is what really determines this "set point."
I think this is it. This is why they seem to exist, but also why they can be broken.1 -
Dammit. You people are going to make me reactivate my FB account so I can go find that podcast, aren't you???3
-
There is some truth to it, but not in the way that most people want to talk about it. There was a really good postcast on it I saw a while back... I wonder if I can find it. The gist, from what I recall, was that the body is constantly striving for what is essentially "healthy balance". The further you get from that balance (either over or under), the faster/easier it'll be to get back to it.
ETA -
I can't find the podcast... but to be clear -
habitual set point IS NOT THE SAME as biological set point
I get that, and I think I've heard the same podcast. As I recall from the podcast I listened to, from a biological standpoint, the human body does not want to be super lean (a relatively new goal for humankind) nor does it want to be over fat and ultimately, the human body strives for homeostasis and wants to hold onto some fat, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint.2 -
If your weight is pretty stable, then you're eating at maintenance. If it's going up slowly, then you're eating slightly above maintenance. The "set point" you're describing is just what you will weigh if you continue your current level of calorie intake and burn. Calling it a "set point" just makes it seem like it's beyond your control, but in reality, you have control over what that weight will be.4
-
I feel like a lot of others; there is a mental thing and maybe partially physical but only to make you more hungry when you drop below it, not adjust your metabolism to make you hold on to weight. Oddly enough, I am at a weight I was at for years and it seems like I have been stuck for a week or so, but I only recently upped my calories into the healthy zone and that is the likely cause - adjusting to more food in the gut. I am not going to start another one of those endless plateau threads. But some people have this happen and they forget there were little "mini stalls" at other weights and they say "Aha - I am at my set point." We tend to remember things that reinforce our beliefs better than things that challenge them.2
-
I'm with @maggibailey and @cwolfman13.
Most of my life I sat at around 107lbs (never gained or lost enough to change clothing size) and never thought about food and exercise.
Got older, moved less, put on a few lbs.
Remedied that by eating less and moving more for a while to lose those lbs, and now I am back to not thinking about what I eat, and just being a little more conscious about moving.
When younger I use to be out dancing for hours a few times a week, and didn't own a car. Now, I don't go dancing as much, and own a car. I use purposeful exercise to make up for the lack of dancing and self propelled transport.
This 1hr a day allows me to maintain my 107lbs as easily as I did when younger, and has become a habit that can be easily continued.
Set points, I am not sure at all about that term to be honest.
I have reestablished my happy place.
Cheers, h.
4 -
My "set point" is around 70kgs, that's the weight i maintain while not really worrying about calories/exercise, just regular daily living. This weight seems to match up to my normal appetite and exercise level. It's not a set point per se, it's just the weight I land on and stay on if i eat to my appetite, aka slack off on my food logging or too many unlogged snacks...
I can lose weight if i stick to my deficit calories, but when diet fatigue sets in, then I'll gain up to that number. If my natural appetite was lower, then i'd maintain at a lower number. I'm just a hungry food hound, and have to be extremely vigilant 100% of the time to lose weight.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »There is some truth to it, but not in the way that most people want to talk about it. There was a really good postcast on it I saw a while back... I wonder if I can find it. The gist, from what I recall, was that the body is constantly striving for what is essentially "healthy balance". The further you get from that balance (either over or under), the faster/easier it'll be to get back to it.
ETA -
I can't find the podcast... but to be clear -
habitual set point IS NOT THE SAME as biological set point
I get that, and I think I've heard the same podcast. As I recall from the podcast I listened to, from a biological standpoint, the human body does not want to be super lean (a relatively new goal for humankind) nor does it want to be over fat and ultimately, the human body strives for homeostasis and wants to hold onto some fat, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint.
And this is vaguely what I remember either hearing/reading about and thinking at the time I heard it that it was considered to be fairly legit. This is what I was referring to in my post when I said that the set point refers to a minimum amount of body fat that the body seems to "defend". This seems to vary on an individual level.
As you note, this point isn't usually super lean, nor is it over fat.
0 -
As best I can tell from some quick reads, the research shows there is a biological setpoint, that is heavily influenced and often times becomes "settling points" due to environmental conditions (people settle in a particular lifestyle balance)
Edited to add: to explain further, that although a set point may exist, it's pretty easily swayed and moved up or down. So it's not an excuse to remain at a particular weight, but it's also not dismissed that it doesn't exist because people can force it to move.0 -
Crap. If so, I wouldn't have been able to exceed my goal weight by 10lbs. I would have just stopped losing at a certian weight - unless my set point is lower than what I am now, and if that's the case, I guess my set point wants me to be underweight for my height.0
-
Hey guys,
So lately it seems to me that my body weight tats around the same number no matter what I do. It’s not exactly like a plateau because if I go over that weight I seem to bounce back to it pretty quickly but then beyond that it just doesn’t budge. Lately I noticed I have t been great with my diet and it seems the last year that ‘set point’ has increased by 2 kgs (around 5lbs) - does anyone know if the body set
Point theory is real and what we can do to change that set point?
Help much appreciated!
Thanks
Joana
They exist, but can be changed gradually, which is why the MFP plan is sustainable, where crash diets are not.
Personally, I've discovered that this phenomenon plays a role in how weight loss works for me. I will bounce up and down a few days, but then settle on one weight that seems to be personal set point for me. Not so much a plateau, but just where the bouncing keeps wanting to go for a while. It will go up or down several times by a few lbs either direction, but keeps coming back to that weight. I don't even bother counting a loss anymore until it has decided it likes that new weight for a couple more weeks.
3 -
There is some truth to it, but not in the way that most people want to talk about it. There was a really good postcast on it I saw a while back... I wonder if I can find it. The gist, from what I recall, was that the body is constantly striving for what is essentially "healthy balance". The further you get from that balance (either over or under), the faster/easier it'll be to get back to it.
ETA -
I can't find the podcast... but to be clear -
habitual set point IS NOT THE SAME as biological set point
No science to back this up but from my understanding, I believe the sentence in bold is right.
Biological set point is not fixed and can be moved upwards or downwards (you can be obese or underweight especially with external environmental influences like the Western diet). (ETA: although from what others are saying, biological set point is neither under-fat nor over-fat? I've read about external environmental influences affecting this though)
Habitual set point on the other hand is what most people here are referring to - one where you can easily maintain without too much effort (it becomes a habit for you). I've found this to be true in my case.
Can I change my habits to lower my habitual set point? Yes, definitely but it would take a lot of effort on my part and if I white knuckle it through, then I can. I used to when I was younger but now, I'm not bothered to do so!0 -
There is some truth to it, but not in the way that most people want to talk about it. There was a really good postcast on it I saw a while back... I wonder if I can find it. The gist, from what I recall, was that the body is constantly striving for what is essentially "healthy balance". The further you get from that balance (either over or under), the faster/easier it'll be to get back to it.
ETA -
I can't find the podcast... but to be clear -
habitual set point IS NOT THE SAME as biological set pointcwolfman13 wrote: »As I recall from the podcast I listened to, from a biological standpoint, the human body does not want to be super lean (a relatively new goal for humankind) nor does it want to be over fat and ultimately, the human body strives for homeostasis and wants to hold onto some fat, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »And this is vaguely what I remember either hearing/reading about and thinking at the time I heard it that it was considered to be fairly legit. This is what I was referring to in my post when I said that the set point refers to a minimum amount of body fat that the body seems to "defend". This seems to vary on an individual level.
As you note, this point isn't usually super lean, nor is it over fat.
Quoting for repetition, because I don't want it to get lost/over looked.
1 -
There is some truth to it, but not in the way that most people want to talk about it. There was a really good postcast on it I saw a while back... I wonder if I can find it. The gist, from what I recall, was that the body is constantly striving for what is essentially "healthy balance". The further you get from that balance (either over or under), the faster/easier it'll be to get back to it.
ETA -
I can't find the podcast... but to be clear -
habitual set point IS NOT THE SAME as biological set pointcwolfman13 wrote: »As I recall from the podcast I listened to, from a biological standpoint, the human body does not want to be super lean (a relatively new goal for humankind) nor does it want to be over fat and ultimately, the human body strives for homeostasis and wants to hold onto some fat, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »And this is vaguely what I remember either hearing/reading about and thinking at the time I heard it that it was considered to be fairly legit. This is what I was referring to in my post when I said that the set point refers to a minimum amount of body fat that the body seems to "defend". This seems to vary on an individual level.
As you note, this point isn't usually super lean, nor is it over fat.
Quoting for repetition, because I don't want it to get lost/over looked.
But all of this would mean that your "set point" is a healthy weight. And most people who spend a lot of time thinking about their set point are looking for a reason why they can't get to a healthy weight. Is there any evidence that a person's set point can be "off" and their body will slightly adjust the way it functions to keep them at slightly overweight? If not, "set point" just means your body will make minor adjustments when it can to maintain a healthy weight, and if you are overweight and not losing it's because you're eating too much, not because of your set point. Right?1 -
There is some truth to it, but not in the way that most people want to talk about it. There was a really good postcast on it I saw a while back... I wonder if I can find it. The gist, from what I recall, was that the body is constantly striving for what is essentially "healthy balance". The further you get from that balance (either over or under), the faster/easier it'll be to get back to it.
ETA -
I can't find the podcast... but to be clear -
habitual set point IS NOT THE SAME as biological set pointcwolfman13 wrote: »As I recall from the podcast I listened to, from a biological standpoint, the human body does not want to be super lean (a relatively new goal for humankind) nor does it want to be over fat and ultimately, the human body strives for homeostasis and wants to hold onto some fat, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »And this is vaguely what I remember either hearing/reading about and thinking at the time I heard it that it was considered to be fairly legit. This is what I was referring to in my post when I said that the set point refers to a minimum amount of body fat that the body seems to "defend". This seems to vary on an individual level.
As you note, this point isn't usually super lean, nor is it over fat.
Quoting for repetition, because I don't want it to get lost/over looked.
But all of this would mean that your "set point" is a healthy weight. And most people who spend a lot of time thinking about their set point are looking for a reason why they can't get to a healthy weight. Is there any evidence that a person's set point can be "off" and their body will slightly adjust the way it functions to keep them at slightly overweight? If not, "set point" just means your body will make minor adjustments when it can to maintain a healthy weight, and if you are overweight and not losing it's because you're eating too much, not because of your set point. Right?
No, and I hope I made that point in my original post. I chose my wording carefully to be clear about it.
The biological set point for minimal body fat is not at ALL what most people refer to when they talk about a set point.
I agree with you on this entirely. The overfat/overweight point people get stuck at is entirely habitual/lifestyle related.2 -
Habits and lifestyle IMO. My 'set point' is a bit overweight because I'm active but I love dessert.
I DID notice my appetite spiking up as I got to the middle of the normal BMI point, and it's one of the reasons I haven't managed to maintain that, but again, it's because my lifestyle (dinner with friends once or twice a week and I love dessert). The hunger makes it harder to stay on track the rest of the time, but if I didn't have dessert that much, I'd definitely be able to stick to a deficit.1 -
There is some truth to it, but not in the way that most people want to talk about it. There was a really good postcast on it I saw a while back... I wonder if I can find it. The gist, from what I recall, was that the body is constantly striving for what is essentially "healthy balance". The further you get from that balance (either over or under), the faster/easier it'll be to get back to it.
ETA -
I can't find the podcast... but to be clear -
habitual set point IS NOT THE SAME as biological set pointcwolfman13 wrote: »As I recall from the podcast I listened to, from a biological standpoint, the human body does not want to be super lean (a relatively new goal for humankind) nor does it want to be over fat and ultimately, the human body strives for homeostasis and wants to hold onto some fat, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »And this is vaguely what I remember either hearing/reading about and thinking at the time I heard it that it was considered to be fairly legit. This is what I was referring to in my post when I said that the set point refers to a minimum amount of body fat that the body seems to "defend". This seems to vary on an individual level.
As you note, this point isn't usually super lean, nor is it over fat.
Quoting for repetition, because I don't want it to get lost/over looked.
But all of this would mean that your "set point" is a healthy weight. And most people who spend a lot of time thinking about their set point are looking for a reason why they can't get to a healthy weight. Is there any evidence that a person's set point can be "off" and their body will slightly adjust the way it functions to keep them at slightly overweight? If not, "set point" just means your body will make minor adjustments when it can to maintain a healthy weight, and if you are overweight and not losing it's because you're eating too much, not because of your set point. Right?
Correct. Set point, as it's talked about in a scientific context, is as wolfman described earlier... related to leanness. Set point refers to a biological ideal or optimal body composition for existence - one that is not overly lean, nor overly fat.
Set point as it's talked about in dietary circles is more about where an individual's level of eating, exercising, and weight all balance off. It's why so many of us need to track and need to be diligent and cognizant of what we are doing - because if we just let things fall where they may, our habits, food environment, etc would have us gaining weight and/or maintaining at a weight higher than we'd like.
The first point has scientific validity, but is only applicable to a small percentage of people.
The second point is relevant to the vast majority of us, but is more about habit, discipline, desire, consistency, etc than it is some biological or genetic reason we can't lose weight. People who say they can't lose weight because of their set point are, in most cases, just making excuses, or don't understand the basics of weight loss.2 -
There is some truth to it, but not in the way that most people want to talk about it. There was a really good postcast on it I saw a while back... I wonder if I can find it. The gist, from what I recall, was that the body is constantly striving for what is essentially "healthy balance". The further you get from that balance (either over or under), the faster/easier it'll be to get back to it.
ETA -
I can't find the podcast... but to be clear -
habitual set point IS NOT THE SAME as biological set pointcwolfman13 wrote: »As I recall from the podcast I listened to, from a biological standpoint, the human body does not want to be super lean (a relatively new goal for humankind) nor does it want to be over fat and ultimately, the human body strives for homeostasis and wants to hold onto some fat, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »And this is vaguely what I remember either hearing/reading about and thinking at the time I heard it that it was considered to be fairly legit. This is what I was referring to in my post when I said that the set point refers to a minimum amount of body fat that the body seems to "defend". This seems to vary on an individual level.
As you note, this point isn't usually super lean, nor is it over fat.
Quoting for repetition, because I don't want it to get lost/over looked.
But all of this would mean that your "set point" is a healthy weight. And most people who spend a lot of time thinking about their set point are looking for a reason why they can't get to a healthy weight. Is there any evidence that a person's set point can be "off" and their body will slightly adjust the way it functions to keep them at slightly overweight? If not, "set point" just means your body will make minor adjustments when it can to maintain a healthy weight, and if you are overweight and not losing it's because you're eating too much, not because of your set point. Right?
Correct. Set point, as it's talked about in a scientific context, is as wolfman described earlier... related to leanness. Set point refers to a biological ideal or optimal body composition for existence - one that is not overly lean, nor overly fat.
Set point as it's talked about in dietary circles is more about where an individual's level of eating, exercising, and weight all balance off. It's why so many of us need to track and need to be diligent and cognizant of what we are doing - because if we just let things fall where they may, our habits, food environment, etc would have us gaining weight and/or maintaining at a weight higher than we'd like.
The first point has scientific validity, but is only applicable to a small percentage of people.
The second point is relevant to the vast majority of us, but is more about habit, discipline, desire, consistency, etc than it is some biological or genetic reason we can't lose weight. People who say they can't lose weight because of their set point are, in most cases, just making excuses, or don't understand the basics of weight loss.
Exactly. And it's useful in discussions to understand that most people aren't aware of the distinction between the two definitions of set point and are usually using the latter and think they are using the former while being blissfully unaware of its real meaning.
I agree with you too many people use it as an excuse. There's a very widely held belief in fat activism that has quite a few of them believing that their set points are morbidly obese, for example.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »There is some truth to it, but not in the way that most people want to talk about it. There was a really good postcast on it I saw a while back... I wonder if I can find it. The gist, from what I recall, was that the body is constantly striving for what is essentially "healthy balance". The further you get from that balance (either over or under), the faster/easier it'll be to get back to it.
ETA -
I can't find the podcast... but to be clear -
habitual set point IS NOT THE SAME as biological set pointcwolfman13 wrote: »As I recall from the podcast I listened to, from a biological standpoint, the human body does not want to be super lean (a relatively new goal for humankind) nor does it want to be over fat and ultimately, the human body strives for homeostasis and wants to hold onto some fat, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »And this is vaguely what I remember either hearing/reading about and thinking at the time I heard it that it was considered to be fairly legit. This is what I was referring to in my post when I said that the set point refers to a minimum amount of body fat that the body seems to "defend". This seems to vary on an individual level.
As you note, this point isn't usually super lean, nor is it over fat.
Quoting for repetition, because I don't want it to get lost/over looked.
But all of this would mean that your "set point" is a healthy weight. And most people who spend a lot of time thinking about their set point are looking for a reason why they can't get to a healthy weight. Is there any evidence that a person's set point can be "off" and their body will slightly adjust the way it functions to keep them at slightly overweight? If not, "set point" just means your body will make minor adjustments when it can to maintain a healthy weight, and if you are overweight and not losing it's because you're eating too much, not because of your set point. Right?
Correct. Set point, as it's talked about in a scientific context, is as wolfman described earlier... related to leanness. Set point refers to a biological ideal or optimal body composition for existence - one that is not overly lean, nor overly fat.
Set point as it's talked about in dietary circles is more about where an individual's level of eating, exercising, and weight all balance off. It's why so many of us need to track and need to be diligent and cognizant of what we are doing - because if we just let things fall where they may, our habits, food environment, etc would have us gaining weight and/or maintaining at a weight higher than we'd like.
The first point has scientific validity, but is only applicable to a small percentage of people.
The second point is relevant to the vast majority of us, but is more about habit, discipline, desire, consistency, etc than it is some biological or genetic reason we can't lose weight. People who say they can't lose weight because of their set point are, in most cases, just making excuses, or don't understand the basics of weight loss.
Exactly. And it's useful in discussions to understand that most people aren't aware of the distinction between the two definitions of set point and are usually using the latter and think they are using the former while being blissfully unaware of its real meaning.
I agree with you too many people use it as an excuse. There's a very widely held belief in fat activism that has quite a few of them believing that their set points are morbidly obese, for example.
Cant tell if this mades me sad or angry.
The stuff people will tell themselves to avoid being held accountable is really maddening. But the fact that such small baby steps change it yet they wont take them makes me sad.
3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions