Is there a "set weight" for people?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
I wouldn't say a "set point" but I think our bodies do start to fight it at a certain point of leanness (fatigue and hunger, less fidgeting, etc. in order to conserve energy) but it's not impossible. The leaner you get, the less calories you have to work with and the harder it can be to lose.3
-
annaskiski wrote: »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.
Because I am the KING of woo's! Lol7 -
OK, thank you all. You have all been very helpful!
1 -
I wouldn't say a "set point" but I think our bodies do start to fight it at a certain point of leanness (fatigue and hunger, less fidgeting, etc. in order to conserve energy) but it's not impossible. The leaner you get, the less calories you have to work with and the harder it can be to lose.
Yes, it's not impossible. But I think the (shall I say) 'set point' is a lifestyle set point, not really a leanness set point.
In other words, I exercise a certain amount per week, and am happily fed at a certain calorie range. This puts my body at a certain weight.
I certainly can lose weight, but it means I have to exert myself to either exercise more, or eat less (less that I want to), or both. Once I get to that weight, it may mean the maintenance calories are less than I am comfortable with, and so I slowly regain to my 'comfort' set point.8 -
annaskiski wrote: »I wouldn't say a "set point" but I think our bodies do start to fight it at a certain point of leanness (fatigue and hunger, less fidgeting, etc. in order to conserve energy) but it's not impossible. The leaner you get, the less calories you have to work with and the harder it can be to lose.
Yes, it's not impossible. But I think the (shall I say) 'set point' is a lifestyle set point, not really a leanness set point.
In other words, I exercise a certain amount per week, and am happily fed at a certain calorie range. This puts my body at a certain weight.
I certainly can lose weight, but it means I have to exert myself to either exercise more, or eat less (less that I want to), or both. Once I get to that weight, it may mean the maintenance calories are less than I am comfortable with, and so I slowly regain to my 'comfort' set point.
I think that's a reasonable way of looking at it. Here's a good article which goes into much greater detail about what you're saying there (ignore their sales pitch at the end): https://www.precisionnutrition.com/cost-of-getting-lean4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
Wolfman, what you have accomplished is an amazing feat! You lost 40lbs? Right. Well there are some people who have lost half of themselves. I tend to have the sinking suspicion that it really comes down to how long you carried the extra bf and some generic predispositions. I am a year into maintanace roughly. I lost well over 200lbs. My life is now completely different. Active as heck. Diet calorically modulated. Changes in what and how I eat. I carried that extra bf for 20 years. I can say this with all personal knowledge.... I now know what true hunger feels like. Not just "wanting" something. The thought of well you know, a cookie sounds good right now is wanting IMHO. When your stomach feels like someone is playing ping pong in an old oil barrel, your mind is chronically food focused, and the real ringer for me was when i saw a co worker throw out half an eaten turkey sandwich and I actually thought that i might want it. That's hunger. Nothing compared to some people in this world. I have no doubts that some people regain their weight due to a return to old habits, the number of 90% failing is a myth btw. It's actually about 60% from research i have gathered. I do believe there is a biological drive in some people to regain. I can understand why some people return to old habits. I felt the pull a few months ago. I was sooo tired of being hungry all the time. That was until read a post by a nice Norwegian lady who opened my eyes. I am blessed to get to feel that way. Some times I don't. That's the blessing! I call her my Yoda. I believe she thinks I am joking, but in an not. I read all her post when I come by then. I also read yours. In some strange way I look up to you. I consider maintanace years kinda like dog years. 5.5 years makes you a middle age man. I am till in like 2nd grade. Ok enough ramble.... carry on. Lol8 -
Yes, there is a set point for some people. But it's not about energy. It's about appetite. Some people have an appetite regulation system that is perfect. I used to be one of those people. I would forget to eat sometimes.
In terms of energy intake I have no idea unfortunately. I would tend to say no, but who knows.5 -
annaskiski wrote: »I wouldn't say a "set point" but I think our bodies do start to fight it at a certain point of leanness (fatigue and hunger, less fidgeting, etc. in order to conserve energy) but it's not impossible. The leaner you get, the less calories you have to work with and the harder it can be to lose.
Yes, it's not impossible. But I think the (shall I say) 'set point' is a lifestyle set point, not really a leanness set point.
In other words, I exercise a certain amount per week, and am happily fed at a certain calorie range. This puts my body at a certain weight.
I certainly can lose weight, but it means I have to exert myself to either exercise more, or eat less (less that I want to), or both. Once I get to that weight, it may mean the maintenance calories are less than I am comfortable with, and so I slowly regain to my 'comfort' set point.
I like this answer,I've always hovered around 140 I'm female 5'6 and I've been around this weight since my teenage years so I assume it's where my body feels comfortable at,I've been heavier during pregnancy and while on a medication,I've been lower but it requires a lot of strict dieting and exercise,maybe it's just my "comfort zone" weight7 -
Comfort zone weight. I like that. It sounds a bit like "healthy weight", but also the weight you get when you get "too comfortable". But your comfort zone can change when you step out of it, so this is something you can control, instead of a set point, which sounds kinda cemented.annaskiski wrote: »I wouldn't say a "set point" but I think our bodies do start to fight it at a certain point of leanness (fatigue and hunger, less fidgeting, etc. in order to conserve energy) but it's not impossible. The leaner you get, the less calories you have to work with and the harder it can be to lose.
Yes, it's not impossible. But I think the (shall I say) 'set point' is a lifestyle set point, not really a leanness set point.
In other words, I exercise a certain amount per week, and am happily fed at a certain calorie range. This puts my body at a certain weight.
I certainly can lose weight, but it means I have to exert myself to either exercise more, or eat less (less that I want to), or both. Once I get to that weight, it may mean the maintenance calories are less than I am comfortable with, and so I slowly regain to my 'comfort' set point.
I like this answer,I've always hovered around 140 I'm female 5'6 and I've been around this weight since my teenage years so I assume it's where my body feels comfortable at,I've been heavier during pregnancy and while on a medication,I've been lower but it requires a lot of strict dieting and exercise,maybe it's just my "comfort zone" weight
I think it's about the attitudes and habits we aquire through our lives. Our bodies are all subject to the same physical laws.4 -
If you can't get under a certain weight short of feeling like you are starving, then that's the reasonably maintainable weight for you, and anything under that is not reasonably maintainable with your current habits and strategies.
In that sense, you have a "set point", but it's not exactly something you're doomed to have. It's rarely dictated by your body unless you're pushing into very lean body fat percentages. It's just "the weight you can comfortably maintain". If at any point in the future your activity level or habits change, or you discover new weight manipulation strategies that don't leave you miserable, you'll have a new "set point".
The concept of comfortably maintainable weight is not at all what people mean by set point, but it is a reality.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.
As per the above, people regain weight because their eating and activity habits support maintaining a higher weight. The way you've lived for years has a stronger hold on you than the habits you've only introduced recently. Not having to think about it is easier than having to act deliberately.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions