Is there a "set weight" for people?

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?

Replies

psychod787

singingflutelady wrote: »

I dropped to 105 5'8 pretty easily and quickly (not on purpose) and I'm pretty sure if set point was true bmi 15.9 would be no where near mine.

You have a medical condition that your body has trouble digesting and using fats... yes?

CSARdiver

psychod787 wrote: »

I don't mind being in the woo zone btw. So let's take a look at something. We humans are survivors... yes? We have survived a kitten ton of stuff. There was actually a genetic bottle neck year's ago. Are we really not that different from our ancestors. I will give you that diet and activity help determine weight, but if humans could not survive famine, which was common.. well still is in some places. Anyways, we evolved to store energy when it was in plenty and make it harder to starve during famine. So, why would we not have a push to hold onto bf? I don't believe it's always rmr that really slows after weight loss, but movement become more energy efficient. More so than would be expected by weight change. Thyroid drops, leptin drops. Ghlenin increases, we become more sensitive to our insulin. A double edged sword btw. So after a weightloss we tend to be hungrier and burn less energy than expected for an activity. Weightology.net has a food review on why it's so easy to regain weight. Set point maybe no. Drive to regain.... uhh hell yes!

The drivers of evolution move slowly, so you would have to know the hormonal profile of homo sapiens from 2000 years ago to make any sort of meaningful assessment. Even then you're dealing with degree of instrumentation error, which has only become accurate in the last century.

You would also have to make this assessment population wide. As there is no obesity crisis in undeveloped nations today it isn't hard to narrow the potential root causes.

singingflutelady

psychod787 wrote: »

singingflutelady wrote: »

I dropped to 105 5'8 pretty easily and quickly (not on purpose) and I'm pretty sure if set point was true bmi 15.9 would be no where near mine.

You have a medical condition that your body has trouble digesting and using fats... yes?

I have gastroparesis and Crohn's but gastroparesis is the main issue atm. It's a severe gastric emptying delay (food stays in stomach way longer than normal). I'm low fiber/low fat not because I can digest them but both fiber and fat slow down gastric emptying. I am basically on the white food diet. White carbs and white meat.

psychod787

CSARdiver wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

I don't mind being in the woo zone btw. So let's take a look at something. We humans are survivors... yes? We have survived a kitten ton of stuff. There was actually a genetic bottle neck year's ago. Are we really not that different from our ancestors. I will give you that diet and activity help determine weight, but if humans could not survive famine, which was common.. well still is in some places. Anyways, we evolved to store energy when it was in plenty and make it harder to starve during famine. So, why would we not have a push to hold onto bf? I don't believe it's always rmr that really slows after weight loss, but movement become more energy efficient. More so than would be expected by weight change. Thyroid drops, leptin drops. Ghlenin increases, we become more sensitive to our insulin. A double edged sword btw. So after a weightloss we tend to be hungrier and burn less energy than expected for an activity. Weightology.net has a food review on why it's so easy to regain weight. Set point maybe no. Drive to regain.... uhh hell yes!

The drivers of evolution move slowly, so you would have to know the hormonal profile of homo sapiens from 2000 years ago to make any sort of meaningful assessment. Even then you're dealing with degree of instrumentation error, which has only become accurate in the last century.

You would also have to make this assessment population wide. As there is no obesity crisis in undeveloped nations today it isn't hard to narrow the potential root causes.

Now we are talking about why people get obese. No argument there good sir. We become obese because of genetics, over abundance of cheap, hyperpalitable, calorie dense food, and too little activity.

carbos101

Great post and thank you, quiksylver, for taking time to highlight sarah's link re/food scale. I'm lost re/calories to add in once I'm working out, walking, etc., but will at least start using scale.

jrochest

Well, there's actually evidence that we have a given weight that our bodies gravitate to: search for "body weight homeostatis" in PubMed or any research database and you'll find a bunch of articles that support it. It's observed in animals as well: doesn't mean that it can't be changed, with work, although it's more likely to adjust upwards, not down. And it works by stimulating appetite or reducing it -- so it's not immutable. But it does exist!

It's not the reason you stop losing or hit a plateau though! From what I've read, it's what 'sets' your highest or your most naturally stable weight - the one you return to when you regain.

estherdragonbat

Except I never returned to my previous weight when I regained. I always packed on extra pounds on top of it*.

*Wishes she were 15 again and only 10-12lbs overweight instead of carrying 114 extra when she started this attempt at 44.

jrochest

estherdragonbat wrote: »

Except I never returned to my previous weight when I regained. I always packed on extra pounds on top of it*.

*Wishes she were 15 again and only 10-12lbs overweight instead of carrying 114 extra when she started this attempt at 44.

Oh, me too. From 'vast' at 135 to 'vaster' at 206. And I'm pretty sure that constant dieting all our lives long totally f***s our metabolisms.

AnvilHead

jrochest wrote: »

It's not the reason you stop losing or hit a plateau though! From what I've read, it's what 'sets' your highest or your most naturally stable weight - the one you return to when you regain.

Funny - I was at my highest weight ever in my life at age 53 when I began my weight loss three years ago - and still climbing. Unless my “natural set point” was somewhere higher than I’d ever been before, there was no evidence of it stabilizing anywhere.

Your “set point” will be determined by your calorie intake balanced against your expenditure. Those are voluntary actions.

kimny72

AnvilHead wrote: »

jrochest wrote: »

It's not the reason you stop losing or hit a plateau though! From what I've read, it's what 'sets' your highest or your most naturally stable weight - the one you return to when you regain.

Funny - I was at my highest weight ever in my life at age 53 when I began my weight loss three years ago - and still climbing. Unless my “natural set point” was somewhere higher than I’d ever been before, there was no evidence of it stabilizing anywhere.

Your “set point” will be determined by your calorie intake balanced against your expenditure. Those are voluntary actions.

That is my whole issue in believing in a "real" set point. For every person who settles into a "kind of chubby" 10 lb range they can't seem to get out of one way or the other, there are many many people who think their body wants to be 30 or 40 lbs overweight. And so many people gain the weight back PLUS an extra 10 or 15 that it's a cliche. So many posters come here insisting they are hardly eating anything and can't lose a lb (maybe this is just the weight I'm supposed to be!), then it turns out their diary is a hot mess and they are just eating too much. Or check out the maintenance forum and diet break thread, where people say they have a tough time stopping the weight loss once they've hit their goal weight. If we had a crisis of people who were 10 lbs overweight, maybe I'd buy it. But the crisis is obesity, lots of people who seem to have blown right through their "set point".

If set point were a thing, wouldn't there be some kind of data of starving people who hit a weight range where they seem for awhile to maintain their weight despite lack of fuel. Then eventually they break through and start losing again? So they'd lose lose lose, then inexplicably maintain for awhile (at their set point), then lose lose lose. Unfortunately, there have been several studies observing people starving, has that been documented anywhere?

GaleHawkins

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

CSARdiver

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

Nothing is understood from epigenetics at this point in time. This is the astrology of genetic science. Much conjecture and correlation - zero causation.

GottaBurnEmAll

AnvilHead wrote: »

jrochest wrote: »

It's not the reason you stop losing or hit a plateau though! From what I've read, it's what 'sets' your highest or your most naturally stable weight - the one you return to when you regain.

Funny - I was at my highest weight ever in my life at age 53 when I began my weight loss three years ago - and still climbing. Unless my “natural set point” was somewhere higher than I’d ever been before, there was no evidence of it stabilizing anywhere.

Your “set point” will be determined by your calorie intake balanced against your expenditure. Those are voluntary actions.

Same same same, except I think I came here before you and lurked a bit.

I was up and down the scale for years and always put pounds back on with additional friends. Now? I weigh less than I did when I was in 8th grade. I struggle with vanity weight and do go through phases of putting weight back on, but it's that same silly 10 pounds. I think most people consider that maintenance. I haven't gone further off the rails than that, but if you were to predict going by my last attempts, I'd have gained all of my weight back by now and then some.

Carlos_421

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

canada35.gif?w=350&h=300

jjpptt2

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

#thereisnospoon

GaleHawkins

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

Well you beat me by .5".

Carlos_421

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

Well you beat me by .5".

Didn't work. I'm still 5'8"

GaleHawkins

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

Well you beat me by .5".

Didn't work. I'm still 5'8"

In that case I beat you by 1.5" until I started shrinking.

snickerscharlie

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

You're tall in my eyes, anyway.

Carlos_421

snickerscharlie wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

You're tall in my eyes, anyway.

CarvedTones

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

"All you need is a little faith, trust, and pixie dust."

AnvilHead

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

Well you beat me by .5".

Didn't work. I'm still 5'8"

I always pictured you in my mind as 5'10" or 5'11", if that helps any.

pinuplove

AnvilHead wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

Well you beat me by .5".

Didn't work. I'm still 5'8"

I always pictured you in my mind as 5'10" or 5'11", if that helps any.

We're all tall and good looking online

psychod787

pinuplove wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

Well you beat me by .5".

Didn't work. I'm still 5'8"

I always pictured you in my mind as 5'10" or 5'11", if that helps any.

We're all tall and good looking online

I'm tall... still not good looking.. even online.😅

GaleHawkins

psychod787 wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

Well you beat me by .5".

Didn't work. I'm still 5'8"

I always pictured you in my mind as 5'10" or 5'11", if that helps any.

We're all tall and good looking online

I'm tall... still not good looking.. even online.😅

Hey no reality allowed in this thread.

Evelyn_Gorfram

pinuplove wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

Well you beat me by .5".

Didn't work. I'm still 5'8"

I always pictured you in my mind as 5'10" or 5'11", if that helps any.

We're all tall and good looking online

Me, I'm a rat terrier online.

(offline I am, of course, stunningly beautiful in all respects)

CarvedTones

Like the old saying about celebs - "He's got a face for radio..."

pinuplove

Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

Well you beat me by .5".

Didn't work. I'm still 5'8"

I always pictured you in my mind as 5'10" or 5'11", if that helps any.

We're all tall and good looking online

Me, I'm a rat terrier online.

(offline I am, of course, stunningly beautiful in all respects)

My expression when I'm reading here often mirrors that of the perturbed kitten in my pic, so I guess in that regard... :laugh:

Evelyn_Gorfram

pinuplove wrote: »

Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

Set Point is a concept not a robotic fixed point that a human can not change. Even our gene expressions are not "fixed" because they can vary based on our way of thinking, eating and moving we now understand from epigenetics.

I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.
I am six feet tall.

Well you beat me by .5".

Didn't work. I'm still 5'8"

I always pictured you in my mind as 5'10" or 5'11", if that helps any.

We're all tall and good looking online

Me, I'm a rat terrier online.

(offline I am, of course, stunningly beautiful in all respects)

My expression when I'm reading here often mirrors that of the perturbed kitten in my pic, so I guess in that regard... :laugh:

What made me think of "rat terrier" was mostly this one expression that ratties can get, that says "Oh, please, please be serious about this; because I want nothing so much as to grab hold of that thing you're holding out so I can rip it to shreds."

With the ratties, the "thing" in question usually a dog toy, or something they'd like to make into a dog toy; but with me on the internet, it's generally a piece of reasoning that I find bogus or misinformed.