Is there a "set weight" for people?
flippy1234
Posts: 686 Member
Seems no matter what I do short of starving myself, I cannot seem to get under a certain weight. I eat well, most of the time, I don't drink and I work out almost daily. I do stick to or under my calories regularly. I have read that people have a "set weight". The weight that they body is comfortable at and it will stay there unless you take extreme measures, i.e.: starve yourself, ...
Any truth to this?
Any truth to this?
20
Replies
-
No, we don't.
If we did, the people in concentration camps wouldn't have looked like skeletons.
I suggest getting a food scale, and weighing and logging everything that passes your lips.
Check out this thread and especially @sarahlucindac's comments on page 13...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10634517/you-dont-use-a-food-scale/p125 -
Yeah, it's not true. It doesn't even make sense if you think about it -- your body can't use for fuel what it doesn't have to burn. Just being alive and in a comatose state burns calories, and if you're not consuming them then they have to come from elsewhere i.e. your fat stores. It's what they're there for, and the whole reason why we evolved to carry fat stores in the first place.
Your body may try to fight you about losing weight at a certain point in the form of hunger and fatigue, but if you really are consuming less than you burn, you'll eventually win.10 -
Think of it this way: If you had a set weight, how could you gain above it? Why does it only apply when you're trying to lose?
You say you eat well, and you stick to your calories, but do you weigh *everything* that you eat?28 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »No, we don't.
If we did, the people in concentration camps wouldn't have looked like skeletons.
I suggest getting a food scale, and weighing and logging everything that passes your lips.
Check out this thread and especially @sarahlucindac's comments on page 13...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10634517/you-dont-use-a-food-scale/p1
I get that, as I said, short of starving myself which I have not done. I just mean eating well, logging calories and exercising. I just cannot seem to get past a certain weight.6 -
flippy1234 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »No, we don't.
If we did, the people in concentration camps wouldn't have looked like skeletons.
I suggest getting a food scale, and weighing and logging everything that passes your lips.
Check out this thread and especially @sarahlucindac's comments on page 13...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10634517/you-dont-use-a-food-scale/p1
I get that, as I said, short of starving myself which I have not done. I just mean eating well, logging calories and exercising. I just cannot seem to get past a certain weight.
If you're already in a healthy weight range, it can often take more patience and accuracy to lose weight. If you aren't already using a food scale, it may be time to consider it.3 -
flippy1234 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »No, we don't.
If we did, the people in concentration camps wouldn't have looked like skeletons.
I suggest getting a food scale, and weighing and logging everything that passes your lips.
Check out this thread and especially @sarahlucindac's comments on page 13...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10634517/you-dont-use-a-food-scale/p1
I get that, as I said, short of starving myself which I have not done. I just mean eating well, logging calories and exercising. I just cannot seem to get past a certain weight.
Do you use a food scale? Did you look at that thread? Did you read Sarah's comments on page 13?
If you aren't losing weight, you're eating too many calories.6 -
flippy1234 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »No, we don't.
If we did, the people in concentration camps wouldn't have looked like skeletons.
I suggest getting a food scale, and weighing and logging everything that passes your lips.
Check out this thread and especially @sarahlucindac's comments on page 13...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10634517/you-dont-use-a-food-scale/p1
I get that, as I said, short of starving myself which I have not done. I just mean eating well, logging calories and exercising. I just cannot seem to get past a certain weight.
How long have you been doing this? The scale itself will not show linear progress. In a given month, my weight can fluctuate from my actual weight to up 3-5 lbs, usually due to hormones, alcohol, salt affecting how much water I'm retaining. The closer you are to lean, the less linear this progress will appear on the scale, and the slower the rate of loss is.4 -
Here. Sarah's comment from the food scale thread.sarahlucindac wrote: »Hey everyone, just wanted to share my experience with the food scale - my best friend and worst enemy.
I’ve lost 40 lbs so far and for the first 25-30, I used measuring cups and “eyeballing”, and it worked fine - until it didn’t. The scale refused to budge for almost a month and I had no idea that I had been sabotaging myself. I posted in the forums here for help and this thread’s OP - quiksylver, chimed in about food scales. I was sure that I was logging accurately and my thought process was “well I’ve lost weight so far, so my logging must be accurate”. Wrong!! I had lost a significant amount of weight so far, my calorie needs had changed and that meant that a “few extra” calories not logged accurately added up even more since I needed a larger deficit now in order to maintain my rate of loss (set to 1.5 lbs/week). A smaller person needs fewer calories.
So I purchased a food scale. The very first day, I realized that there were several hundred extra calories sneaking their way into my day. Several hundred!! On some days, as many as 400-500 calories that would have been unaccounted for.
The main culprits for me were things like ice cream, mayo, coffee creamer, salad dressings, etc. I had been measuring my ice cream in a measuring cup and learned that I was getting almost 33% more in each “serving”. It was a sad day that I realized I did not know what a portion of ice cream looks like, lol 😢 😂
There were also some foods that I was shorting myself on like cereal, Mac and cheese (wooohooo!!), and deli meat. But in the end, I was eating way more than I thought.
Since picking up the food scale and becoming more accurate about what I’m consuming, I’ve had massive success. The scale has been going down consistently every week.
Another bonus to the food scale is it keeps me from randomly grazing and snacking because I don’t want to have to bother pulling out the food scale for just 2 or 3 grapes, for example. When I eat, it’s deliberate and everything is weighed.
Getting a food scale was some of the best advice I’ve received - thank you quiksylver!21 -
No. I think we have a tendency to get into the habit of being happy (and stubborn) eating a certain number of calories from certain kinds of foods we enjoy, and thus, stay the same weight. Having to change what we're happy to continue doing, even if it stands in the way of our goals, tends to evoke denial. Particularly if it makes us feel deprived in any way.
I also think that once we're close to our goal weight and stalled, we really need to focus on increased accuracy with logging because there isn't as much leeway with calories. That means buying and using a food scale. Is a food scale necessary for everyone to lose? No. But if you stall, I think it requires a good, hard look at what isn't working anymore and what you can change to help you reach your goals. Flexibility is key here.15 -
Thank you all very much. Food scale it is! I don't usually use one but I have one. Funny thing, I weighed my cooked turkey last night...turned out I was going to eat too little. I am trying to eye things based on what I have learned...ie: serving of chicken is palm of my hand, vegetables a fist, etc...2
-
flippy1234 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »No, we don't.
If we did, the people in concentration camps wouldn't have looked like skeletons.
I suggest getting a food scale, and weighing and logging everything that passes your lips.
Check out this thread and especially @sarahlucindac's comments on page 13...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10634517/you-dont-use-a-food-scale/p1
I get that, as I said, short of starving myself which I have not done. I just mean eating well, logging calories and exercising. I just cannot seem to get past a certain weight.
Congratulations on figuring out maintenance
It's a delicate balance once you are within a healthy weight range. Obviously most of us like to eat more than we need to stay there, or else we wouldn't be on MFP to lose weight. What 'feels' right for me to eat is really more than I need to maintain. I don't necessarily have to starve myself to lose at this point, but I'm definitely limited to fewer calories than I'm happy with.8 -
I believe there is a zone where a body will feel more comfortable. Look into Leibel's studies and the Minnesota starvation experiment. You will continue to lose weight if you reduce energy. Though the body fights to bring you back.7
-
janejellyroll wrote: »flippy1234 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »No, we don't.
If we did, the people in concentration camps wouldn't have looked like skeletons.
I suggest getting a food scale, and weighing and logging everything that passes your lips.
Check out this thread and especially @sarahlucindac's comments on page 13...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10634517/you-dont-use-a-food-scale/p1
I get that, as I said, short of starving myself which I have not done. I just mean eating well, logging calories and exercising. I just cannot seem to get past a certain weight.
If you're already in a healthy weight range, it can often take more patience and accuracy to lose weight. If you aren't already using a food scale, it may be time to consider it.
This.
There is some merit to the idea of set point, but not in the way it's used by most people in diet and weight loss circles. It has more to do with a range or general level of body composition - not about weight or a specific number.5 -
I think that if there was a "set point" to weight, it would be a weight it was difficult to go over, too, not just under. I think the explanation is really simple - for most people, today, it's easy to eat too much, and it takes a conscious effort to eat less. Are you at a healthy weight? "Eat well, most of the time, don't drink, work out almost daily, stick to or under calories regularly" isn't good enough when it comes to weight management, because weight loss, gain and maintenance is all about calories over time. Your phrasing betrays your subconscious mind: "I weighed my cooked turkey last night...turned out I was going to eat too little" - are you looking to validate your assumption you're almost starving youself (to justify eating more)? If you're not nearing underweight, you're not almost starving yourself, it's all about perception and attitude, habits and preferences, which are part instinct, but also learned, to a large extent.
"Palm of hand", "fist", "hockey puck" etc as measurements for food portions is a pointless game without the proper context. Not because they're inaccurate measurements - nutrition for healthy adults doesn't require a high degree of precision - but because you would also have to remember how many servings of each food you're allowed for a day, and how many of each you've eaten, and the rules have to be learned and differentiated and memorized, and still, you have to stop when you've had enough, which is the real challenge.
In the context "I'm using a food scale", "serving size" is practically redundant.11 -
So....
Actually Lyle McDonald discussed 'set point' in his 'Women's Book'.
The body CAN have a point where your activity and your comfortable calorie range can converge on a weight range.
In other words, your average activity per week, and your hunger can get you 'stuck' at a weight.
Honest logging and increased activity can obviously push you past this, though it might mean that the weight you are targeting requires you to make your increased activity and lower calorie range more permanent..
9 -
kommodevaran wrote: »I think that if there was a "set point" to weight, it would be a weight it was difficult to go over, too, not just under. I think the explanation is really simple - for most people, today, it's easy to eat too much, and it takes a conscious effort to eat less. Are you at a healthy weight? "Eat well, most of the time, don't drink, work out almost daily, stick to or under calories regularly" isn't good enough when it comes to weight management, because weight loss, gain and maintenance is all about calories over time. Your phrasing betrays your subconscious mind: "I weighed my cooked turkey last night...turned out I was going to eat too little" - are you looking to validate your assumption you're almost starving youself (to justify eating more)? If you're not nearing underweight, you're not almost starving yourself, it's all about perception and attitude, habits and preferences, which are part instinct, but also learned, to a large extent.
"Palm of hand", "fist", "hockey puck" etc as measurements for food portions is a pointless game without the proper context. Not because they're inaccurate measurements - nutrition for healthy adults doesn't require a high degree of precision - but because you would also have to remember how many servings of each food you're allowed for a day, and how many of each you've eaten, and the rules have to be learned and differentiated and memorized, and still, you have to stop when you've had enough, which is the real challenge.
In the context "I'm using a food scale", "serving size" is practically redundant.
No, I am not looking to validate starving myself. I am merely saying that I am having a difficult time reaching my goal weight as no matter what I seem to do, I stay around the same weight day in and day out. Do I use a food scale? No i do not, and when I have, just to see if I am on track, I find that my portions are actually lower than i thought they were. I measure my food and log according to MFP. I also do not eat back my exercise calories. I do not believe in "starvation mode" either. I asked a question...is a "set weight" something that exists. I read that it does. I am hearing here that it does not.1 -
What is your target weight? How tall are you? What do you weigh now?
If you are on the last 10 pounds or so, your logging needs to be pretty darn accurate.
5 -
flippy1234 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »I think that if there was a "set point" to weight, it would be a weight it was difficult to go over, too, not just under. I think the explanation is really simple - for most people, today, it's easy to eat too much, and it takes a conscious effort to eat less. Are you at a healthy weight? "Eat well, most of the time, don't drink, work out almost daily, stick to or under calories regularly" isn't good enough when it comes to weight management, because weight loss, gain and maintenance is all about calories over time. Your phrasing betrays your subconscious mind: "I weighed my cooked turkey last night...turned out I was going to eat too little" - are you looking to validate your assumption you're almost starving youself (to justify eating more)? If you're not nearing underweight, you're not almost starving yourself, it's all about perception and attitude, habits and preferences, which are part instinct, but also learned, to a large extent.
"Palm of hand", "fist", "hockey puck" etc as measurements for food portions is a pointless game without the proper context. Not because they're inaccurate measurements - nutrition for healthy adults doesn't require a high degree of precision - but because you would also have to remember how many servings of each food you're allowed for a day, and how many of each you've eaten, and the rules have to be learned and differentiated and memorized, and still, you have to stop when you've had enough, which is the real challenge.
In the context "I'm using a food scale", "serving size" is practically redundant.
No, I am not looking to validate starving myself. I am merely saying that I am having a difficult time reaching my goal weight as no matter what I seem to do, I stay around the same weight day in and day out. Do I use a food scale? No i do not, and when I have, just to see if I am on track, I find that my portions are actually lower than i thought they were. I measure my food and log according to MFP. I also do not eat back my exercise calories. I do not believe in "starvation mode" either. I asked a question...is a "set weight" something that exists. I read that it does. I am hearing here that it does not.
I don't know if there is a set point, and nobody else on this forum would know either. (even though some would claim they know)
What we DO know is that over 90% of dieters fail to either lose weight, or maintain their new weight . The failure rate is quite extraordinary, and that alone would suggest that the body will fight hard to get back to where you were before you began your weight loss journey.
23 -
flippy1234 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »I think that if there was a "set point" to weight, it would be a weight it was difficult to go over, too, not just under. I think the explanation is really simple - for most people, today, it's easy to eat too much, and it takes a conscious effort to eat less. Are you at a healthy weight? "Eat well, most of the time, don't drink, work out almost daily, stick to or under calories regularly" isn't good enough when it comes to weight management, because weight loss, gain and maintenance is all about calories over time. Your phrasing betrays your subconscious mind: "I weighed my cooked turkey last night...turned out I was going to eat too little" - are you looking to validate your assumption you're almost starving youself (to justify eating more)? If you're not nearing underweight, you're not almost starving yourself, it's all about perception and attitude, habits and preferences, which are part instinct, but also learned, to a large extent.
"Palm of hand", "fist", "hockey puck" etc as measurements for food portions is a pointless game without the proper context. Not because they're inaccurate measurements - nutrition for healthy adults doesn't require a high degree of precision - but because you would also have to remember how many servings of each food you're allowed for a day, and how many of each you've eaten, and the rules have to be learned and differentiated and memorized, and still, you have to stop when you've had enough, which is the real challenge.
In the context "I'm using a food scale", "serving size" is practically redundant.
No, I am not looking to validate starving myself. I am merely saying that I am having a difficult time reaching my goal weight as no matter what I seem to do, I stay around the same weight day in and day out. Do I use a food scale? No i do not, and when I have, just to see if I am on track, I find that my portions are actually lower than i thought they were. I measure my food and log according to MFP. I also do not eat back my exercise calories. I do not believe in "starvation mode" either. I asked a question...is a "set weight" something that exists. I read that it does. I am hearing here that it does not.
I don't know if there is a set point, and nobody else on this forum would know either. (even though some would claim they know)
What we DO know is that over 90% of dieters fail to either lose weight, or maintain their new weight . The failure rate is quite extraordinary, and that alone would suggest that the body will fight hard to get back to where you were before you began your weight loss journey.
With the lack of reliable evidence that a "set point" is real, the burden would be on those claiming it is real.
What we know: people lose weight when they're consistently in a deficit. They don't just stop when their body reaches a certain weight. We know this from multiple real life examples of caloric restriction.11 -
flippy1234 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »I think that if there was a "set point" to weight, it would be a weight it was difficult to go over, too, not just under. I think the explanation is really simple - for most people, today, it's easy to eat too much, and it takes a conscious effort to eat less. Are you at a healthy weight? "Eat well, most of the time, don't drink, work out almost daily, stick to or under calories regularly" isn't good enough when it comes to weight management, because weight loss, gain and maintenance is all about calories over time. Your phrasing betrays your subconscious mind: "I weighed my cooked turkey last night...turned out I was going to eat too little" - are you looking to validate your assumption you're almost starving youself (to justify eating more)? If you're not nearing underweight, you're not almost starving yourself, it's all about perception and attitude, habits and preferences, which are part instinct, but also learned, to a large extent.
"Palm of hand", "fist", "hockey puck" etc as measurements for food portions is a pointless game without the proper context. Not because they're inaccurate measurements - nutrition for healthy adults doesn't require a high degree of precision - but because you would also have to remember how many servings of each food you're allowed for a day, and how many of each you've eaten, and the rules have to be learned and differentiated and memorized, and still, you have to stop when you've had enough, which is the real challenge.
In the context "I'm using a food scale", "serving size" is practically redundant.
No, I am not looking to validate starving myself. I am merely saying that I am having a difficult time reaching my goal weight as no matter what I seem to do, I stay around the same weight day in and day out. Do I use a food scale? No i do not, and when I have, just to see if I am on track, I find that my portions are actually lower than i thought they were. I measure my food and log according to MFP. I also do not eat back my exercise calories. I do not believe in "starvation mode" either. I asked a question...is a "set weight" something that exists. I read that it does. I am hearing here that it does not.
I don't know if there is a set point, and nobody else on this forum would know either. (even though some would claim they know)
What we DO know is that over 90% of dieters fail to either lose weight, or maintain their new weight . The failure rate is quite extraordinary, and that alone would suggest that the body will fight hard to get back to where you were before you began your weight loss journey.
Or that people who got fat on laziness and/or bad habits never learned to effectively change those behaviors/habits.
I'm pretty sure no one has a natural, healthy setpoint of obese.8 -
flippy1234 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »I think that if there was a "set point" to weight, it would be a weight it was difficult to go over, too, not just under. I think the explanation is really simple - for most people, today, it's easy to eat too much, and it takes a conscious effort to eat less. Are you at a healthy weight? "Eat well, most of the time, don't drink, work out almost daily, stick to or under calories regularly" isn't good enough when it comes to weight management, because weight loss, gain and maintenance is all about calories over time. Your phrasing betrays your subconscious mind: "I weighed my cooked turkey last night...turned out I was going to eat too little" - are you looking to validate your assumption you're almost starving youself (to justify eating more)? If you're not nearing underweight, you're not almost starving yourself, it's all about perception and attitude, habits and preferences, which are part instinct, but also learned, to a large extent.
"Palm of hand", "fist", "hockey puck" etc as measurements for food portions is a pointless game without the proper context. Not because they're inaccurate measurements - nutrition for healthy adults doesn't require a high degree of precision - but because you would also have to remember how many servings of each food you're allowed for a day, and how many of each you've eaten, and the rules have to be learned and differentiated and memorized, and still, you have to stop when you've had enough, which is the real challenge.
In the context "I'm using a food scale", "serving size" is practically redundant.
No, I am not looking to validate starving myself. I am merely saying that I am having a difficult time reaching my goal weight as no matter what I seem to do, I stay around the same weight day in and day out. Do I use a food scale? No i do not, and when I have, just to see if I am on track, I find that my portions are actually lower than i thought they were. I measure my food and log according to MFP. I also do not eat back my exercise calories. I do not believe in "starvation mode" either. I asked a question...is a "set weight" something that exists. I read that it does. I am hearing here that it does not.
I don't know if there is a set point, and nobody else on this forum would know either. (even though some would claim they know)
What we DO know is that over 90% of dieters fail to either lose weight, or maintain their new weight . The failure rate is quite extraordinary, and that alone would suggest that the body will fight hard to get back to where you were before you began your weight loss journey.
But not because of THE set point though. The failure has more to do with not learning how to maintain their weight, they more likely went back their old habits.6 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »flippy1234 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »I think that if there was a "set point" to weight, it would be a weight it was difficult to go over, too, not just under. I think the explanation is really simple - for most people, today, it's easy to eat too much, and it takes a conscious effort to eat less. Are you at a healthy weight? "Eat well, most of the time, don't drink, work out almost daily, stick to or under calories regularly" isn't good enough when it comes to weight management, because weight loss, gain and maintenance is all about calories over time. Your phrasing betrays your subconscious mind: "I weighed my cooked turkey last night...turned out I was going to eat too little" - are you looking to validate your assumption you're almost starving youself (to justify eating more)? If you're not nearing underweight, you're not almost starving yourself, it's all about perception and attitude, habits and preferences, which are part instinct, but also learned, to a large extent.
"Palm of hand", "fist", "hockey puck" etc as measurements for food portions is a pointless game without the proper context. Not because they're inaccurate measurements - nutrition for healthy adults doesn't require a high degree of precision - but because you would also have to remember how many servings of each food you're allowed for a day, and how many of each you've eaten, and the rules have to be learned and differentiated and memorized, and still, you have to stop when you've had enough, which is the real challenge.
In the context "I'm using a food scale", "serving size" is practically redundant.
No, I am not looking to validate starving myself. I am merely saying that I am having a difficult time reaching my goal weight as no matter what I seem to do, I stay around the same weight day in and day out. Do I use a food scale? No i do not, and when I have, just to see if I am on track, I find that my portions are actually lower than i thought they were. I measure my food and log according to MFP. I also do not eat back my exercise calories. I do not believe in "starvation mode" either. I asked a question...is a "set weight" something that exists. I read that it does. I am hearing here that it does not.
I don't know if there is a set point, and nobody else on this forum would know either. (even though some would claim they know)
What we DO know is that over 90% of dieters fail to either lose weight, or maintain their new weight . The failure rate is quite extraordinary, and that alone would suggest that the body will fight hard to get back to where you were before you began your weight loss journey.
But not because of THE set point though. The failure has more to do with not learning how to maintain their weight, they more likely went back their old habits.
Yes, it's not that the body *wants* to be 150 or 200 pounds (or whatever). It's that people are very prone to falling back into the habit of *eating* like a 150 or 200 pound person after they've lost weight.
It says more about the habits we have around consumption than it does about what our body "wants."18 -
janejellyroll wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »flippy1234 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »I think that if there was a "set point" to weight, it would be a weight it was difficult to go over, too, not just under. I think the explanation is really simple - for most people, today, it's easy to eat too much, and it takes a conscious effort to eat less. Are you at a healthy weight? "Eat well, most of the time, don't drink, work out almost daily, stick to or under calories regularly" isn't good enough when it comes to weight management, because weight loss, gain and maintenance is all about calories over time. Your phrasing betrays your subconscious mind: "I weighed my cooked turkey last night...turned out I was going to eat too little" - are you looking to validate your assumption you're almost starving youself (to justify eating more)? If you're not nearing underweight, you're not almost starving yourself, it's all about perception and attitude, habits and preferences, which are part instinct, but also learned, to a large extent.
"Palm of hand", "fist", "hockey puck" etc as measurements for food portions is a pointless game without the proper context. Not because they're inaccurate measurements - nutrition for healthy adults doesn't require a high degree of precision - but because you would also have to remember how many servings of each food you're allowed for a day, and how many of each you've eaten, and the rules have to be learned and differentiated and memorized, and still, you have to stop when you've had enough, which is the real challenge.
In the context "I'm using a food scale", "serving size" is practically redundant.
No, I am not looking to validate starving myself. I am merely saying that I am having a difficult time reaching my goal weight as no matter what I seem to do, I stay around the same weight day in and day out. Do I use a food scale? No i do not, and when I have, just to see if I am on track, I find that my portions are actually lower than i thought they were. I measure my food and log according to MFP. I also do not eat back my exercise calories. I do not believe in "starvation mode" either. I asked a question...is a "set weight" something that exists. I read that it does. I am hearing here that it does not.
I don't know if there is a set point, and nobody else on this forum would know either. (even though some would claim they know)
What we DO know is that over 90% of dieters fail to either lose weight, or maintain their new weight . The failure rate is quite extraordinary, and that alone would suggest that the body will fight hard to get back to where you were before you began your weight loss journey.
But not because of THE set point though. The failure has more to do with not learning how to maintain their weight, they more likely went back their old habits.
Yes, it's not that the body *wants* to be 150 or 200 pounds (or whatever). It's that people are very prone to falling back into the habit of *eating* like a 150 or 200 pound person after they've lost weight.
It says more about the habits we have around consumption than it does about what our body "wants."
Precisely0 -
To clarify...
There is some confusion about what the term "set point" means/refers to. Some people use it when discussing the idea that there is some weight or body composition that we are pre-disposed to, be it genetic or evolutionary. Other people use it as OP did - when talking about difficulty managing weight, especially losing weight at or below a certain number.
From what I've read, there is merit to the first scenario. The body wants to be at a healthy body composition. Too much fat and/or too little muscle and the body will respond, making it will be easier (relatively speaking) to drop fat or add muscle. Similarly, too little fat or too much muscle is also not healthy (from an evolutionary/survival standpoint), and the body will also adjust. The important thing to note here is that it goes BOTH ways. It's not just about getting lighter/leaner, the body also adapts, when necessary, making it easier to get heavier/fatter.
Scenario 2... there is no merit to that from a biological perspective. The validity in this conversation is related entirely to habits and behaviors. People have a way they like to eat. A little change to that is relatively easy. A big change is relatively hard. Same with exercise. Where those points intersect (diet and exercise) is where your weight will tend to hover. The more you want to shift your weight, the harder you'll have to work and the greater the changes you'll need to make to your habits related to both eating and exercise.10 -
To to clarify...
The is some confusion about what the term "set point" means/refers to. Some people use it when discussing the idea that there is some weight or body composition that we are pre-disposed to, be it genetic or evolutionary. Other people use it as OP did - when talking about difficulty managing weight, especially losing weight at or below a certain number.
From what I've read, there is merit to the first scenario. The body wants to be at a healthy body composition. Too much fat and/or too little muscle and the body will respond, and it will be easier to drop fat or add muscle. Similarly, too little fat or too much muscle is also not healthy (from an evolutionary/survival standpoint), and the body will also adjust. The important thing to note here is that it goes BOTH ways. It's not just about getting lighter/leaner, it also adapts, when necessary, making it easier to get heavier/fatter.
Scenario 2, there is no merit to that from a biological perspective. The validity in this conversation is related entirely to habits and behaviors. People have a way the like to eat. A little change to that is relatively easy. A big change is relatively hard. Same with exercise. Where those points intersect (diet and exercise) is where your weight will tend to hover. The more you want to shift your weight, the harder you'll have to work and the greater changes you'll need to make to your habits related to both eating and exercise.
I agree. There is a body of evidence that shows that the body gets "used" to a certain bf lvl and will fight to defend it. People just don't like to admit it.21 -
There isn't a "set point." There is, however, metabolic adaptation that reduces the number of calories needed to maintain weight and increases the size of a deficit needed to lose weight. This is why "diet breaks" are now recommended (see the thread https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1) https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/102/4/807/45645997
-
flippy1234 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »I think that if there was a "set point" to weight, it would be a weight it was difficult to go over, too, not just under. I think the explanation is really simple - for most people, today, it's easy to eat too much, and it takes a conscious effort to eat less. Are you at a healthy weight? "Eat well, most of the time, don't drink, work out almost daily, stick to or under calories regularly" isn't good enough when it comes to weight management, because weight loss, gain and maintenance is all about calories over time. Your phrasing betrays your subconscious mind: "I weighed my cooked turkey last night...turned out I was going to eat too little" - are you looking to validate your assumption you're almost starving youself (to justify eating more)? If you're not nearing underweight, you're not almost starving yourself, it's all about perception and attitude, habits and preferences, which are part instinct, but also learned, to a large extent.
"Palm of hand", "fist", "hockey puck" etc as measurements for food portions is a pointless game without the proper context. Not because they're inaccurate measurements - nutrition for healthy adults doesn't require a high degree of precision - but because you would also have to remember how many servings of each food you're allowed for a day, and how many of each you've eaten, and the rules have to be learned and differentiated and memorized, and still, you have to stop when you've had enough, which is the real challenge.
In the context "I'm using a food scale", "serving size" is practically redundant.
No, I am not looking to validate starving myself. I am merely saying that I am having a difficult time reaching my goal weight as no matter what I seem to do, I stay around the same weight day in and day out. Do I use a food scale? No i do not, and when I have, just to see if I am on track, I find that my portions are actually lower than i thought they were. I measure my food and log according to MFP. I also do not eat back my exercise calories. I do not believe in "starvation mode" either. I asked a question...is a "set weight" something that exists. I read that it does. I am hearing here that it does not.
I don't know if there is a set point, and nobody else on this forum would know either. (even though some would claim they know)
What we DO know is that over 90% of dieters fail to either lose weight, or maintain their new weight . The failure rate is quite extraordinary, and that alone would suggest that the body will fight hard to get back to where you were before you began your weight loss journey.
dieters failing to maintain a healthy weight has nothing to do with set point or their body fighting hard to get back to where you were...
dieters fail to maintain their weight loss because they don't learn, develop, or maintain healthy habits and go back to the status quo. Everyone I know who's gained weight back after losing just went back to their old crappy eating habits and got lazy and stopped exercising, etc.
I've maintained going on 5.5 years without issue...I maintain the healthy eating habits I learned while losing weight and continue to exercise regularly and be active.12 -
I didn't say that you want validation to starve yourself, I suggested that you're looking for validation of your idea that you're, practically, "eating too little to lose weight", and your follow-up only strengthens that notion to me. Unless you use your food scale all the time, you're using it just to confirm your idea that you're eating less than you think; while not losing weight as desired, means that you're eating more than you think.flippy1234 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »I think that if there was a "set point" to weight, it would be a weight it was difficult to go over, too, not just under. I think the explanation is really simple - for most people, today, it's easy to eat too much, and it takes a conscious effort to eat less. Are you at a healthy weight? "Eat well, most of the time, don't drink, work out almost daily, stick to or under calories regularly" isn't good enough when it comes to weight management, because weight loss, gain and maintenance is all about calories over time. Your phrasing betrays your subconscious mind: "I weighed my cooked turkey last night...turned out I was going to eat too little" - are you looking to validate your assumption you're almost starving youself (to justify eating more)? If you're not nearing underweight, you're not almost starving yourself, it's all about perception and attitude, habits and preferences, which are part instinct, but also learned, to a large extent.
"Palm of hand", "fist", "hockey puck" etc as measurements for food portions is a pointless game without the proper context. Not because they're inaccurate measurements - nutrition for healthy adults doesn't require a high degree of precision - but because you would also have to remember how many servings of each food you're allowed for a day, and how many of each you've eaten, and the rules have to be learned and differentiated and memorized, and still, you have to stop when you've had enough, which is the real challenge.
In the context "I'm using a food scale", "serving size" is practically redundant.
No, I am not looking to validate starving myself. I am merely saying that I am having a difficult time reaching my goal weight as no matter what I seem to do, I stay around the same weight day in and day out. Do I use a food scale? No i do not, and when I have, just to see if I am on track, I find that my portions are actually lower than i thought they were. I measure my food and log according to MFP. I also do not eat back my exercise calories. I do not believe in "starvation mode" either. I asked a question...is a "set weight" something that exists. I read that it does. I am hearing here that it does not.
But it can be a good thing that you find it hard to eat less than you are now - if you're already at a good weight, which seems likely as you're reluctant to state your even your current weight.7 -
OP, perhaps you are trying to achieve a weight that isn't appropriate for you...that isn't "set point", but it is true that certain weights may not be appropriate. For example, it would not be appropriate for me to shoot for the low end of BMI for my height...my frame and muscle mass won't really allow for that.
I think a lot of people run into this issue when they're at a good, healthy body weight, but have some magical number in their mind, but they don't really have the fat stores to support more weight loss.
And if you're lean and trying to get leaner, that can prove difficult...I have no problem maintaining around 15% BF...not super lean but not fat...getting lower is challenging...I can do about 12% but after that I pretty much have to be a nazi about my diet and exercise and it's not worth it at 43. Again, that's not really "set point"...that's more like from an evolutionary standpoint, the human body doesn't want to be super lean and wants to maintain some fat stores just in case...at that point a bunch of hormonal things start going on and your body will fight getting too lean.9 -
psychod787 wrote: »To to clarify...
The is some confusion about what the term "set point" means/refers to. Some people use it when discussing the idea that there is some weight or body composition that we are pre-disposed to, be it genetic or evolutionary. Other people use it as OP did - when talking about difficulty managing weight, especially losing weight at or below a certain number.
From what I've read, there is merit to the first scenario. The body wants to be at a healthy body composition. Too much fat and/or too little muscle and the body will respond, and it will be easier to drop fat or add muscle. Similarly, too little fat or too much muscle is also not healthy (from an evolutionary/survival standpoint), and the body will also adjust. The important thing to note here is that it goes BOTH ways. It's not just about getting lighter/leaner, it also adapts, when necessary, making it easier to get heavier/fatter.
Scenario 2, there is no merit to that from a biological perspective. The validity in this conversation is related entirely to habits and behaviors. People have a way the like to eat. A little change to that is relatively easy. A big change is relatively hard. Same with exercise. Where those points intersect (diet and exercise) is where your weight will tend to hover. The more you want to shift your weight, the harder you'll have to work and the greater changes you'll need to make to your habits related to both eating and exercise.
I agree. There is a body of evidence that shows that the body gets "used" to a certain bf lvl and will fight to defend it. People just don't like to admit it.
I'm not sure why this got woos.
I think that the Minnesota Starvation experiment and the recent similar experiment (can't remember the name) both showed that people experience extreme hunger not just until the weight was regained, but the body fat percentage.
I think that there was a recent discussion on the maintenance board about how the first year of maintenance is the most difficult due to the body's hormones trying to regain the lost weight. (both hunger and lethargy)
People regain the weight because they think that they are 'home free' once they reach the target weight.
4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions