Homeostasis weight
alexmose2017
Posts: 18 Member
Is the myth true that your body will strive to maintain a certain weight? Been exercising and dieting for over a month now, but I am still the same weight as when I started. Can someone debunk this myth for me?
1
Replies
-
It's a myth.
How have you been calculating your intake and needs?3 -
Yes1
-
I am not overweight, but I wouldn't mind shaving off 5 more pounds.2
-
Homeostasis or Set Points are complete bunk.
Your weight is an output of behavior. Look to your logging and ensure you are accurately counting calories and ensure your intake is less than your caloric output.6 -
No, people just have norms and habits so they always tend to gravitate back towards their comfort zone. Does "dieting" include weighing and measuring your food and accurately tracking everything that goes into your mouth? If not, start there. Also, many people vastly overestimate the amount of calories they use during exercise, especially if they track things like "housecleaning." Stick with a plan and accurately track, and you will see progress!4
-
I listened to a podcast once by, IIRC, Stephan Guyenet. He made the point that there is a certain body fat percentage that your body tries to maintain. If you get too far on either side of that, your body will be less or more likely to store fat, in attempt to get back to what is essentially a healthy BF level.
That's certainly not the same thing as set point theory, at least not the way it's typically talked about in dieting circles, but it is related. Ultimately, habits and behaviors dictate if you lose/gain/maintain.3 -
I listened to a podcast once by, IIRC, Stephan Guyenet. He made the point that there is a certain body fat percentage that your body tries to maintain. If you get too far on either side of that, your body will be less or more likely to store fat, in attempt to get back to what is essentially a healthy BF level.
That's certainly not the same thing as set point theory, at least not the way it's typically talked about in dieting circles, but it is related. Ultimately, habits and behaviors dictate if you lose/gain/maintain.
This is true and why bodybuilders have such a restrictive diet and regimen prior to their performance weight. It is extremely difficult to maintain your body fat % below 10%. Your body wants to keep a reserve of energy on hand at all times.4 -
How about this - it's complicated. It's certainly not as simple as CI=CO. Here's a juried journal article reviewing the research on the topic.
Set points, settling points and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity
14 -
That would sure be nice since I was about 100 pounds lighter for most of my adult life. I'll just eat these brownies and be back at my set point in no time.2
-
snarlingcoyote wrote: »How about this - it's complicated. It's certainly not as simple as CI=CO. Here's a juried journal article reviewing the research on the topic.
Set points, settling points and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity
Did you actually read the linked article? It is not a discussion on whether or not the 'set point' exists but a discussion on how none of the current models can explain the obesity issues that are present in current society.
And - it did not discuss CICO and did nothing to try and dispute CICO.12 -
snarlingcoyote wrote: »How about this - it's complicated. It's certainly not as simple as CI=CO. Here's a juried journal article reviewing the research on the topic.
Set points, settling points and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity
Did you actually read the linked article? It is not a discussion on whether or not the 'set point' exists but a discussion on how none of the current models can explain the obesity issues that are present in current society.
And - it did not discuss CICO and did nothing to try and dispute CICO.
Yes. It discussed "set points," "settling points" and other theories and what the research has shown for the past several years.
Uhm. . .you DO know what a set point and a settling point ARE, right???????10 -
Homeostasis or Set Points are complete bunk.
Your weight is an output of behavior. Look to your logging and ensure you are accurately counting calories and ensure your intake is less than your caloric output.
Set point was a misapplication of what happens when you create a specific brain abnormality in rats. Now they are trying to talk about "settling points" instead. Bad science never dies, unfortunately.4 -
I listened to a podcast once by, IIRC, Stephan Guyenet. He made the point that there is a certain body fat percentage that your body tries to maintain. If you get too far on either side of that, your body will be less or more likely to store fat, in attempt to get back to what is essentially a healthy BF level.
That's certainly not the same thing as set point theory, at least not the way it's typically talked about in dieting circles, but it is related. Ultimately, habits and behaviors dictate if you lose/gain/maintain.
Pretty much the case. The body has certain, limited, mechanisms that it can employ to reduce caloric expenditures and this shows up as adaptive thermogenesis, but the main strategy is to increase intake through the hunger response and behaviours driven by that. The way it's often portrayed you would think the body has some amazing abilities to just shutdown metabolism anytime it feels like it, which it can't if it wants to remain viable.2 -
I listened to a podcast once by, IIRC, Stephan Guyenet. He made the point that there is a certain body fat percentage that your body tries to maintain. If you get too far on either side of that, your body will be less or more likely to store fat, in attempt to get back to what is essentially a healthy BF level.
That's certainly not the same thing as set point theory, at least not the way it's typically talked about in dieting circles, but it is related. Ultimately, habits and behaviors dictate if you lose/gain/maintain.
This is true and why bodybuilders have such a restrictive diet and regimen prior to their performance weight. It is extremely difficult to maintain your body fat % below 10%. Your body wants to keep a reserve of energy on hand at all times.
I feel like that part of it is pretty obvious. Would you agree that the reverse also applies? That if excess fat is present, the body will adjust and one would be more "prone" to weight loss, as the body tries to get lighter/leaner?
There's some terrible terminology in there... sorry. Hopefully you know what I'm trying to get at.0 -
snarlingcoyote wrote: »snarlingcoyote wrote: »How about this - it's complicated. It's certainly not as simple as CI=CO. Here's a juried journal article reviewing the research on the topic.
Set points, settling points and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity
Did you actually read the linked article? It is not a discussion on whether or not the 'set point' exists but a discussion on how none of the current models can explain the obesity issues that are present in current society.
And - it did not discuss CICO and did nothing to try and dispute CICO.
Yes. It discussed "set points," "settling points" and other theories and what the research has shown for the past several years.
Uhm. . .you DO know what a set point and a settling point ARE, right???????
Yes it did and yes I do... the whole point of the paper was to put forth the conclusion that none of the theories or descriptions that exist are adequate to describe human behavior/human physiology as to why why people keep eating until they get fat. It had nothing to do with calorie intake or CICO.4 -
snarlingcoyote wrote: »snarlingcoyote wrote: »How about this - it's complicated. It's certainly not as simple as CI=CO. Here's a juried journal article reviewing the research on the topic.
Set points, settling points and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity
Did you actually read the linked article? It is not a discussion on whether or not the 'set point' exists but a discussion on how none of the current models can explain the obesity issues that are present in current society.
And - it did not discuss CICO and did nothing to try and dispute CICO.
Yes. It discussed "set points," "settling points" and other theories and what the research has shown for the past several years.
Uhm. . .you DO know what a set point and a settling point ARE, right???????
And apparently these are just one way trips, right? Only go up but never down for some reason. If they actually did exist as many believe they do, then you would also have resistance to upward movement. That's kind of the definition of a set point.
Interesting from your own article regarding set point:Moreover, despite the popularity of the set point model among molecular biologists, a close look at the physiological and molecular data reveals discrepancies between the this model and reality
Later...it seems that if body weight is closely regulated, then fat-free mass must also be under relatively tight controlEstablishment of the set point of the system effectively denies a role for socioeconomic and environmental factors in the aetiology of obesity, subsuming everything into the physiology, which seems unlikely
On settling-pointThe set point model is rooted firmly in the domain of physiological and genetic determinism, whereas the settling point model is more grounded in the effects of social, nutritional and environmental factors
So settling point is a realization that set point has always been incorrect and attempts to add in what we know of how environment and behaviours affect weight. I'll stop there but the paper actual goes on to indicate that both set point and settling point are inadequate to take in the whole of human weight and composition. It actually, denies that either of these theories provide sufficient models for understanding obesity.
5 -
snarlingcoyote wrote: »How about this - it's complicated. It's certainly not as simple as CI=CO. Here's a juried journal article reviewing the research on the topic.
Set points, settling points and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity
Did you actually read the linked article? It is not a discussion on whether or not the 'set point' exists but a discussion on how none of the current models can explain the obesity issues that are present in current society.
And - it did not discuss CICO and did nothing to try and dispute CICO.
Uhm. . .I really was puzzled by this.
I mean the first two sentences of the abstract say "The close correspondence between energy intake and expenditure over prolonged time periods, coupled with an apparent protection of the level of body adiposity in the face of perturbations of energy balance, has led to the idea that body fatness is regulated via mechanisms that control intake and energy expenditure. Two models have dominated the discussion of how this regulation might take place."
Sooo they say from the start in the abstract that they're going to discuss what mechanisms control intake and energy expenditure. (Note intake = CI. Expenditure = CO.)
Then I thought, maybe you got bogged down in the article because you aren't really aware of the two main theories of why people have a hard time losing weight and keeping it off?
Set Point theory - everyone has a pre-determined weight range their body wants to maintain and their body will fight very hard to maintain that weight range. When you go below your body's set point, your metabolism, appetite and basic drives will adjust to get you back to that weight range.
Settling Point theory - People cannot maintain weight loss because they have a "settling point". The "settling point" is a pattern of diet and physical activity that is determined by genetic disposition, environmental cues, and learned behavior. So again, it's far more complicated than saying "eat less." That model doesn't work and will not work, as per settling point theory, because you still haven't accounted for the person's genetic predisposition (there's been several studies on the descendants of survivors of famines that have found some really interesting things about how that event shapes the weight and height of the descendants), what's going on in their environment, and how they learned to eat and be active.
Then I thought, maybe you go lost in the weeds of the writing? I'm not going to summarize the whole thing out for you in simple English. I'm sorry, I'm just not.
9 -
Your body doesn't "try". Rather, your habits and lifestyle tend. That's why the freshman 15 happens. The habits and lifestyle changed and the freshman didn't have knowledge to make adjustments. That's why the middle-aged spread happens. It's the same thing.3
-
snarlingcoyote wrote: »snarlingcoyote wrote: »How about this - it's complicated. It's certainly not as simple as CI=CO. Here's a juried journal article reviewing the research on the topic.
Set points, settling points and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity
Did you actually read the linked article? It is not a discussion on whether or not the 'set point' exists but a discussion on how none of the current models can explain the obesity issues that are present in current society.
And - it did not discuss CICO and did nothing to try and dispute CICO.
Uhm. . .I really was puzzled by this.
I mean the first two sentences of the abstract say "The close correspondence between energy intake and expenditure over prolonged time periods, coupled with an apparent protection of the level of body adiposity in the face of perturbations of energy balance, has led to the idea that body fatness is regulated via mechanisms that control intake and energy expenditure. Two models have dominated the discussion of how this regulation might take place."
Sooo they say from the start in the abstract that they're going to discuss what mechanisms control intake and energy expenditure. (Note intake = CI. Expenditure = CO.)
Then I thought, maybe you got bogged down in the article because you aren't really aware of the two main theories of why people have a hard time losing weight and keeping it off?
Set Point theory - everyone has a pre-determined weight range their body wants to maintain and their body will fight very hard to maintain that weight range. When you go below your body's set point, your metabolism, appetite and basic drives will adjust to get you back to that weight range.
Settling Point theory - People cannot maintain weight loss because they have a "settling point". The "settling point" is a pattern of diet and physical activity that is determined by genetic disposition, environmental cues, and learned behavior. So again, it's far more complicated than saying "eat less." That model doesn't work and will not work, as per settling point theory, because you still haven't accounted for the person's genetic predisposition (there's been several studies on the descendants of survivors of famines that have found some really interesting things about how that event shapes the weight and height of the descendants), what's going on in their environment, and how they learned to eat and be active.
Then I thought, maybe you go lost in the weeds of the writing? I'm not going to summarize the whole thing out for you in simple English. I'm sorry, I'm just not.
so you typed all that out instead?
sounds good mate.5 -
snarlingcoyote wrote: »snarlingcoyote wrote: »How about this - it's complicated. It's certainly not as simple as CI=CO. Here's a juried journal article reviewing the research on the topic.
Set points, settling points and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity
Did you actually read the linked article? It is not a discussion on whether or not the 'set point' exists but a discussion on how none of the current models can explain the obesity issues that are present in current society.
And - it did not discuss CICO and did nothing to try and dispute CICO.
Uhm. . .I really was puzzled by this.
I mean the first two sentences of the abstract say "The close correspondence between energy intake and expenditure over prolonged time periods, coupled with an apparent protection of the level of body adiposity in the face of perturbations of energy balance, has led to the idea that body fatness is regulated via mechanisms that control intake and energy expenditure. Two models have dominated the discussion of how this regulation might take place."
Sooo they say from the start in the abstract that they're going to discuss what mechanisms control intake and energy expenditure. (Note intake = CI. Expenditure = CO.)
Then I thought, maybe you got bogged down in the article because you aren't really aware of the two main theories of why people have a hard time losing weight and keeping it off?
Set Point theory - everyone has a pre-determined weight range their body wants to maintain and their body will fight very hard to maintain that weight range. When you go below your body's set point, your metabolism, appetite and basic drives will adjust to get you back to that weight range.
Settling Point theory - People cannot maintain weight loss because they have a "settling point". The "settling point" is a pattern of diet and physical activity that is determined by genetic disposition, environmental cues, and learned behavior. So again, it's far more complicated than saying "eat less." That model doesn't work and will not work, as per settling point theory, because you still haven't accounted for the person's genetic predisposition (there's been several studies on the descendants of survivors of famines that have found some really interesting things about how that event shapes the weight and height of the descendants), what's going on in their environment, and how they learned to eat and be active.
Then I thought, maybe you go lost in the weeds of the writing? I'm not going to summarize the whole thing out for you in simple English. I'm sorry, I'm just not.
Yes, but as he mentioned it never once contradicted CICO, it merely talked about mechanisms that regulate the balance between the two. That's not at all what you said when you said it's more complicated than CI=CO, this paper just discusses how CICO could be regulated.0 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Your body doesn't "try". Rather, your habits and lifestyle tend. That's why the freshman 15 happens. The habits and lifestyle changed and the freshman didn't have knowledge to make adjustments. That's why the middle-aged spread happens. It's the same thing.
I refuse to spread!
0 -
I listened to a podcast once by, IIRC, Stephan Guyenet. He made the point that there is a certain body fat percentage that your body tries to maintain. If you get too far on either side of that, your body will be less or more likely to store fat, in attempt to get back to what is essentially a healthy BF level.
That's certainly not the same thing as set point theory, at least not the way it's typically talked about in dieting circles, but it is related. Ultimately, habits and behaviors dictate if you lose/gain/maintain.
This is true and why bodybuilders have such a restrictive diet and regimen prior to their performance weight. It is extremely difficult to maintain your body fat % below 10%. Your body wants to keep a reserve of energy on hand at all times.
I feel like that part of it is pretty obvious. Would you agree that the reverse also applies? That if excess fat is present, the body will adjust and one would be more "prone" to weight loss, as the body tries to get lighter/leaner?
There's some terrible terminology in there... sorry. Hopefully you know what I'm trying to get at.
There is some truth to what you said- when people are extremely over weight it takes little effort (comparatively) to drop it. You have to just try. I'm not saying i'ts easy- but if a a 5'5" 250 pound woman- makes a few small tweaks and starts walking every day- she's likely to drop 50-75 pounds fairly quickly. Someone same height- weighing in at 120- trying to hit 115- has to go through a lot more gyrations to lose that 5 pounds. It's the same process- but you have to a be a lot more ridged with what you're doing.
I don' think that directly addresses a body's predisposed nature to stay at a certain weight- just more the level of effort to get somewhere.4 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I listened to a podcast once by, IIRC, Stephan Guyenet. He made the point that there is a certain body fat percentage that your body tries to maintain. If you get too far on either side of that, your body will be less or more likely to store fat, in attempt to get back to what is essentially a healthy BF level.
That's certainly not the same thing as set point theory, at least not the way it's typically talked about in dieting circles, but it is related. Ultimately, habits and behaviors dictate if you lose/gain/maintain.
Pretty much the case. The body has certain, limited, mechanisms that it can employ to reduce caloric expenditures and this shows up as adaptive thermogenesis, but the main strategy is to increase intake through the hunger response and behaviours driven by that. The way it's often portrayed you would think the body has some amazing abilities to just shutdown metabolism anytime it feels like it, which it can't if it wants to remain viable.
Does it go the other way, too... If one is "too lean", the body is more apt to respond with increased hunger signals. If one is overly fat, does the body respond with fewer hunger signals?
Assuming one has and is in tune with fairly normal hunger signals...0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I listened to a podcast once by, IIRC, Stephan Guyenet. He made the point that there is a certain body fat percentage that your body tries to maintain. If you get too far on either side of that, your body will be less or more likely to store fat, in attempt to get back to what is essentially a healthy BF level.
That's certainly not the same thing as set point theory, at least not the way it's typically talked about in dieting circles, but it is related. Ultimately, habits and behaviors dictate if you lose/gain/maintain.
Pretty much the case. The body has certain, limited, mechanisms that it can employ to reduce caloric expenditures and this shows up as adaptive thermogenesis, but the main strategy is to increase intake through the hunger response and behaviours driven by that. The way it's often portrayed you would think the body has some amazing abilities to just shutdown metabolism anytime it feels like it, which it can't if it wants to remain viable.
Does it go the other way, too... If one is "too lean", the body is more apt to respond with increased hunger signals. If one is overly fat, does the body respond with fewer hunger signals?
Assuming one has and is in tune with fairly normal hunger signals...
When the body weight rises there seems to be some issues with various hormones that affect hunger signals such as leptin and insulin insensitivities. So this can cause issues when a person tries to diet. The body does reduce hunger signals but it doesn't mean people stop eating. We know that there are behavioural components to overeating because people are capable of eating past normal satiety, and it really doesn't take a lot of overeating, especially with highly calorific foods, to gain a considerable amount of weight over a period of time.
If the body is too lean, yes, hunger is increased and that's easily seen in professions that diet excessively like bodybuilders, models, and actors as well as in anorexics.
The biggest issue is really that people's eating behaviours are not strictly dictated by biological needs but by social and environmental cues as well as habits formed over time.3 -
Agreed - behavior is a completely different set of factors.
I guess this is a bit of a pet peeve for me... topics getting dismissed without being fully fleshed out. It seems to me that there is some validity to the idea of set point (in a physiological sense) because the body does adjust hunger signals/hormone levels to some degree in an attempt to trigger more or less eating. The term set point seems a bit misleading as it's probably more of a set range, but how many hairs do we want to split in this conversation?
The other part of the conversation, and probably more what people mean when they talk about this subject in dietary circles, are settling points, which are more about where our weight levels off based on our lifestyle, habits, etc... i.e. natural CI/CO equilibrium.1 -
snarlingcoyote wrote: »snarlingcoyote wrote: »How about this - it's complicated. It's certainly not as simple as CI=CO. Here's a juried journal article reviewing the research on the topic.
Set points, settling points and some alternative models: theoretical options to understand how genes and environments combine to regulate body adiposity
Did you actually read the linked article? It is not a discussion on whether or not the 'set point' exists but a discussion on how none of the current models can explain the obesity issues that are present in current society.
And - it did not discuss CICO and did nothing to try and dispute CICO.
Uhm. . .I really was puzzled by this.
I mean the first two sentences of the abstract say "The close correspondence between energy intake and expenditure over prolonged time periods, coupled with an apparent protection of the level of body adiposity in the face of perturbations of energy balance, has led to the idea that body fatness is regulated via mechanisms that control intake and energy expenditure. Two models have dominated the discussion of how this regulation might take place."
Sooo they say from the start in the abstract that they're going to discuss what mechanisms control intake and energy expenditure. (Note intake = CI. Expenditure = CO.)
Then I thought, maybe you got bogged down in the article because you aren't really aware of the two main theories of why people have a hard time losing weight and keeping it off?
Set Point theory - everyone has a pre-determined weight range their body wants to maintain and their body will fight very hard to maintain that weight range. When you go below your body's set point, your metabolism, appetite and basic drives will adjust to get you back to that weight range.
Settling Point theory - People cannot maintain weight loss because they have a "settling point". The "settling point" is a pattern of diet and physical activity that is determined by genetic disposition, environmental cues, and learned behavior. So again, it's far more complicated than saying "eat less." That model doesn't work and will not work, as per settling point theory, because you still haven't accounted for the person's genetic predisposition (there's been several studies on the descendants of survivors of famines that have found some really interesting things about how that event shapes the weight and height of the descendants), what's going on in their environment, and how they learned to eat and be active.
Then I thought, maybe you go lost in the weeds of the writing? I'm not going to summarize the whole thing out for you in simple English. I'm sorry, I'm just not.
Its interesting that you forget to include that the ENTIRE discussion of the paper was how NEITHER set points nor settling points adequately describe what has been observed over and over again in the real world...
Hint: Just because the paper contains all of the buzz words that did the google search on, doesn't mean the paper says what you want it to say...9 -
Agreed - behavior is a completely different set of factors.
I guess this is a bit of a pet peeve for me... topics getting dismissed without being fully fleshed out. It seems to me that there is some validity to the idea of set point (in a physiological sense) because the body does adjust hunger signals/hormone levels to some degree in an attempt to trigger more or less eating. The term set point seems a bit misleading as it's probably more of a set range, but how many hairs do we want to split in this conversation?
The other part of the conversation, and probably more what people mean when they talk about this subject in dietary circles, are settling points, which are more about where our weight levels off based on our lifestyle, habits, etc... i.e. natural CI/CO equilibrium.
That's what gets missed a lot. The original set point experiments involved brain lesions on rats that were allowed to feed ad libitum and they grew huge. There was no special biological component just what you would expect from an animal that feeds incessantly. So what often gets missed when talking about set point is that it has a much larger behaviour component. People often take set point to mean that if you eat in a deficit your body will magically stop you from losing weight, when in fact, it means more that you start to crave food more and thus break your diet to protect the set point. That's a lot more reasonable than what most feel it means, but it's so boring.
1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Agreed - behavior is a completely different set of factors.
I guess this is a bit of a pet peeve for me... topics getting dismissed without being fully fleshed out. It seems to me that there is some validity to the idea of set point (in a physiological sense) because the body does adjust hunger signals/hormone levels to some degree in an attempt to trigger more or less eating. The term set point seems a bit misleading as it's probably more of a set range, but how many hairs do we want to split in this conversation?
The other part of the conversation, and probably more what people mean when they talk about this subject in dietary circles, are settling points, which are more about where our weight levels off based on our lifestyle, habits, etc... i.e. natural CI/CO equilibrium.
That's what gets missed a lot. The original set point experiments involved brain lesions on rats that were allowed to feed ad libitum and they grew huge. There was no special biological component just what you would expect from an animal that feeds incessantly. So what often gets missed when talking about set point is that it has a much larger behaviour component. People often take set point to mean that if you eat in a deficit your body will magically stop you from losing weight, when in fact, it means more that you start to crave food more and thus break your diet to protect the set point. That's a lot more reasonable than what most feel it means, but it's so boring.
And the last discussion in the linked paper was basically a plea for the scientists on one side of the argument (set point) to get together with the behavioral peeps (settling point) and hash out a generalized theory that accounts for both side of the argument:
Final thought
We mentioned earlier Hirsch’s speech in which he commented on the two communities of scientists that make up the obesity research field (physiologists-molecular biologists-geneticists and behaviourists-psychologists-nutritionists), and that the set point and settling point models might, in part, be a reflection of a divided scientific culture. Here, we suggest that the general intake model and the dual intervention point models each offer conceptual frameworks for understanding obesity that are compatible with the approaches and beliefs of both groups. Indeed, these models reinforce the idea that genes and environments cannot be considered as separate domains and, as such, we hope that they will facilitate interactions across the cultural divide that is in danger of becoming ingrained in the field of obesity research.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Agreed - behavior is a completely different set of factors.
I guess this is a bit of a pet peeve for me... topics getting dismissed without being fully fleshed out. It seems to me that there is some validity to the idea of set point (in a physiological sense) because the body does adjust hunger signals/hormone levels to some degree in an attempt to trigger more or less eating. The term set point seems a bit misleading as it's probably more of a set range, but how many hairs do we want to split in this conversation?
The other part of the conversation, and probably more what people mean when they talk about this subject in dietary circles, are settling points, which are more about where our weight levels off based on our lifestyle, habits, etc... i.e. natural CI/CO equilibrium.
That's what gets missed a lot. The original set point experiments involved brain lesions on rats that were allowed to feed ad libitum and they grew huge. There was no special biological component just what you would expect from an animal that feeds incessantly. So what often gets missed when talking about set point is that it has a much larger behaviour component. People often take set point to mean that if you eat in a deficit your body will magically stop you from losing weight, when in fact, it means more that you start to crave food more and thus break your diet to protect the set point. That's a lot more reasonable than what most feel it means, but it's so boring.
And the last discussion in the linked paper was basically a plea for the scientists on one side of the argument (set point) to get together with the behavioral peeps (settling point) and hash out a generalized theory that accounts for both side of the argument:
Final thought
We mentioned earlier Hirsch’s speech in which he commented on the two communities of scientists that make up the obesity research field (physiologists-molecular biologists-geneticists and behaviourists-psychologists-nutritionists), and that the set point and settling point models might, in part, be a reflection of a divided scientific culture. Here, we suggest that the general intake model and the dual intervention point models each offer conceptual frameworks for understanding obesity that are compatible with the approaches and beliefs of both groups. Indeed, these models reinforce the idea that genes and environments cannot be considered as separate domains and, as such, we hope that they will facilitate interactions across the cultural divide that is in danger of becoming ingrained in the field of obesity research.
I did find that refreshing that they are trying to reach across the multidisciplinary divide. Human behaviour and biology is a huge puzzle and so many are looking at it from so many points of view. This is, of course, pretty normal since we can only see so much of the puzzle through our own lenses at one time. Putting it all together takes a great deal of time and effort, and maturity within each of the disciplines involved.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I listened to a podcast once by, IIRC, Stephan Guyenet. He made the point that there is a certain body fat percentage that your body tries to maintain. If you get too far on either side of that, your body will be less or more likely to store fat, in attempt to get back to what is essentially a healthy BF level.
That's certainly not the same thing as set point theory, at least not the way it's typically talked about in dieting circles, but it is related. Ultimately, habits and behaviors dictate if you lose/gain/maintain.
Pretty much the case. The body has certain, limited, mechanisms that it can employ to reduce caloric expenditures and this shows up as adaptive thermogenesis, but the main strategy is to increase intake through the hunger response and behaviours driven by that. The way it's often portrayed you would think the body has some amazing abilities to just shutdown metabolism anytime it feels like it, which it can't if it wants to remain viable.
Does it go the other way, too... If one is "too lean", the body is more apt to respond with increased hunger signals. If one is overly fat, does the body respond with fewer hunger signals?
Assuming one has and is in tune with fairly normal hunger signals...
When the body weight rises there seems to be some issues with various hormones that affect hunger signals such as leptin and insulin insensitivities. So this can cause issues when a person tries to diet. The body does reduce hunger signals but it doesn't mean people stop eating. We know that there are behavioural components to overeating because people are capable of eating past normal satiety, and it really doesn't take a lot of overeating, especially with highly calorific foods, to gain a considerable amount of weight over a period of time.
If the body is too lean, yes, hunger is increased and that's easily seen in professions that diet excessively like bodybuilders, models, and actors as well as in anorexics.
The biggest issue is really that people's eating behaviours are not strictly dictated by biological needs but by social and environmental cues as well as habits formed over time.
Hormones are free cycling, so simply being overweight makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to maintain hormonal balance as the respective glands cannot produce the needed hormone in sufficient quantities. A similar issue occurs in underweight subjects, but the glands overproduce hormones and poses challenges to the signal/response chain.
There is a clear distinction between appetite signals (desire for food) and hunger signals (actual physical need for food) - these have to be addressed and mitigation implemented for any successful weight management plan.
Appetite signals are quick and immediate - cravings for specific foods - chocolate, coffee, sweet, salty, etc. and strongly driven by hormones. Hunger signals are much slower and non-specific. General stomach discomfort (rumblings) followed by weakness, irritability, shaking, fatigue, malaise.
As for adaptive thermogenesis this works in the same manner as a fire. Provide more fuel in a short period of time results in a hotter flame, but quick burning. Sustained fuel over a longer time results in lower temp, but longer burn. BMR/REE operates in a similar manner in the short term. The immediate adaptive nature takes place over 24-72 hours and trending towards mean. You see this in dramatic changes such as 10,000 kcal/day challenges resulting in a dramatic increase in BMR.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions