Damaged Metabolism 1400 calories a day
Replies
-
I say this with a ton of compassion- that is not the weight your body wants to be at- your body will rebel- eating disorders will wreak havoc on your health- guaranteed!!!!! I am 47- battled eating disorders for much of my life- finally I’m in strong recovery- yet battling many physical challenges that came from years of an in acknowledged eating disorder- I finally saw the reality- got better, but didn’t get well- the range your body wants to be at is the range it will fight for- intense, consistent workouts not necessary! Counting every last calorie and macro- not necessary!
Recovery really is possible- the national eating disorder association Website is very helpful to begin to seek support- 😘💪🏻9 -
I found the article, which is titled Recent advances in understanding body weight homeostasis in humans (let's not pretend I would have been able to do so had a year not been given). It's a literature review, which is helpful. Having read the abstract and skimmed the article, it looks like the authors found that there was no proof of what people are calling "set point" theoryCharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »maureenkhilde wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Needtolosefive wrote: »I understand that I’m a little underweight, but the point is that I used to eat quite a bit more (around 1800-2000) calories a day. Now I am eating less and gaining weight. I have been exercising 30 min-1hr over the past couple weeks.
There is a theory called the set point range, and your body will naturally try to defend that range. So although you might be eating less than what you used to, your body wants you back at your set point.
I used to eat 1500-1600 calories a day. And then, I started gaining a couple pounds after 4 years of maintaining my weight by eating the same amount. I increased my calories to 1700-2000, and although I’m heavier, my weight has naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23.
set point is a myth.
Are you sure about that? Library of medicine indicates more studies are needed around this. There was an article in US Library of Medicine in July 2018 about it. I am not saying I believe it by the way.
Because if people do have set points, why so often are the set points at an overweight point?
can you post a link to the study? Im saying though that if we had a set point no matter what people did they wouldnt lose weight beyond their set points. like for me I maintained 140 lbs most of my teen and adult life up until I started becoming sedentary and eating the same amount. I started gaining weight. Most people when they lose a good bit of weight,dont realize that they need less calories than before ,so they eat the same amount of calories. therefore they maintain their current weight. they may do that for a long period of time and think all sorts of things are happening, they dont relize they are either eating the same amount of energy they are burning or they may be a little less active than they were(or a bit of both).
The calorie thing was my issue I thought I could still eat the same amount of calories once I lost some of my weight. I stayed the same weight for months no matter what I did I couldnt lose weight. I found out I was eating more than I thought,once I started eating less It started coming off again. If someone gains weight while they are maintaining their weight then they are eating more than they think, do some searches on the board and look at people asking for weight loss help because they think they have plateaued,have a set weight,have a health issue although tests come back normal and so on. then later on many of those people come back to say that they lost weight again because they realized they were not counting calories correctly,they werent weighing their food,they werent counting everything they put in their mouth.etc.
if people had set points I dont see why they would be in the mostly overweight areas. That makes no sense really.All the set point studies I see were done on animals and not humans. They all mention physical activity,REE and TEE
I think this quote is important (among other important quotes that I could have taken):Faced with the present lack of direct evidence for the biological control of body weight in humans, there is need of (i) conceptual thinking, (ii) better methods to be developed in integrative physiology, and (iii) controlled (instead of merely observational) studies. It is a principal matter of science that we should also be open to the alternative idea, i.e. there is no feedback control of body weight and thus a set point does not exist with multiple settling points to explain weight changes. Since no model can perfectly explain weight changes in humans, this may suggest the possibility of some misconception of past and present research activities on body weight homeostasis.4 -
I found the article, which is titled Recent advances in understanding body weight homeostasis in humans (let's not pretend I would have been able to do so had a year not been given). It's a literature review, which is helpful. Having read the abstract and skimmed the article, it looks like the authors found that there was no proof of what people are calling "set point" theoryCharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »maureenkhilde wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Needtolosefive wrote: »I understand that I’m a little underweight, but the point is that I used to eat quite a bit more (around 1800-2000) calories a day. Now I am eating less and gaining weight. I have been exercising 30 min-1hr over the past couple weeks.
There is a theory called the set point range, and your body will naturally try to defend that range. So although you might be eating less than what you used to, your body wants you back at your set point.
I used to eat 1500-1600 calories a day. And then, I started gaining a couple pounds after 4 years of maintaining my weight by eating the same amount. I increased my calories to 1700-2000, and although I’m heavier, my weight has naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23.
set point is a myth.
Are you sure about that? Library of medicine indicates more studies are needed around this. There was an article in US Library of Medicine in July 2018 about it. I am not saying I believe it by the way.
Because if people do have set points, why so often are the set points at an overweight point?
can you post a link to the study? Im saying though that if we had a set point no matter what people did they wouldnt lose weight beyond their set points. like for me I maintained 140 lbs most of my teen and adult life up until I started becoming sedentary and eating the same amount. I started gaining weight. Most people when they lose a good bit of weight,dont realize that they need less calories than before ,so they eat the same amount of calories. therefore they maintain their current weight. they may do that for a long period of time and think all sorts of things are happening, they dont relize they are either eating the same amount of energy they are burning or they may be a little less active than they were(or a bit of both).
The calorie thing was my issue I thought I could still eat the same amount of calories once I lost some of my weight. I stayed the same weight for months no matter what I did I couldnt lose weight. I found out I was eating more than I thought,once I started eating less It started coming off again. If someone gains weight while they are maintaining their weight then they are eating more than they think, do some searches on the board and look at people asking for weight loss help because they think they have plateaued,have a set weight,have a health issue although tests come back normal and so on. then later on many of those people come back to say that they lost weight again because they realized they were not counting calories correctly,they werent weighing their food,they werent counting everything they put in their mouth.etc.
if people had set points I dont see why they would be in the mostly overweight areas. That makes no sense really.All the set point studies I see were done on animals and not humans. They all mention physical activity,REE and TEE
I think this quote is important (among other important quotes that I could have taken):Faced with the present lack of direct evidence for the biological control of body weight in humans, there is need of (i) conceptual thinking, (ii) better methods to be developed in integrative physiology, and (iii) controlled (instead of merely observational) studies. It is a principal matter of science that we should also be open to the alternative idea, i.e. there is no feedback control of body weight and thus a set point does not exist with multiple settling points to explain weight changes. Since no model can perfectly explain weight changes in humans, this may suggest the possibility of some misconception of past and present research activities on body weight homeostasis.
this is a scientific study not an article. and it still says that it has to do with energy expenditure and controlled calorie intake. which means weight loss happens with those things, BUT there is such a thing as adaptive thermogenesis which would make many think they are at their set point when in fact its not.AT happens when you eat too little calories for too long and your body adapts to that level of calories to preserve energy, which can mean fatigue and other things along the way. which is why its suggested to go on diet breaks to prevent this from happening. some also recommend reverse dieting to combat AT also which seems to help people losing weight again when they go back to a calorie deficit.
3 -
Are you talking about the link I posted? If so it's important to point out that "article" is often used as shorthand for "journal article" which means a scientific study (or literature review) of some kind. See this page from a Swedish university. Also note the use of "article" by the APA here.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
I found the article, which is titled Recent advances in understanding body weight homeostasis in humans (let's not pretend I would have been able to do so had a year not been given). It's a literature review, which is helpful. Having read the abstract and skimmed the article, it looks like the authors found that there was no proof of what people are calling "set point" theoryCharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »maureenkhilde wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Needtolosefive wrote: »I understand that I’m a little underweight, but the point is that I used to eat quite a bit more (around 1800-2000) calories a day. Now I am eating less and gaining weight. I have been exercising 30 min-1hr over the past couple weeks.
There is a theory called the set point range, and your body will naturally try to defend that range. So although you might be eating less than what you used to, your body wants you back at your set point.
I used to eat 1500-1600 calories a day. And then, I started gaining a couple pounds after 4 years of maintaining my weight by eating the same amount. I increased my calories to 1700-2000, and although I’m heavier, my weight has naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23.
set point is a myth.
Are you sure about that? Library of medicine indicates more studies are needed around this. There was an article in US Library of Medicine in July 2018 about it. I am not saying I believe it by the way.
Because if people do have set points, why so often are the set points at an overweight point?
can you post a link to the study? Im saying though that if we had a set point no matter what people did they wouldnt lose weight beyond their set points. like for me I maintained 140 lbs most of my teen and adult life up until I started becoming sedentary and eating the same amount. I started gaining weight. Most people when they lose a good bit of weight,dont realize that they need less calories than before ,so they eat the same amount of calories. therefore they maintain their current weight. they may do that for a long period of time and think all sorts of things are happening, they dont relize they are either eating the same amount of energy they are burning or they may be a little less active than they were(or a bit of both).
The calorie thing was my issue I thought I could still eat the same amount of calories once I lost some of my weight. I stayed the same weight for months no matter what I did I couldnt lose weight. I found out I was eating more than I thought,once I started eating less It started coming off again. If someone gains weight while they are maintaining their weight then they are eating more than they think, do some searches on the board and look at people asking for weight loss help because they think they have plateaued,have a set weight,have a health issue although tests come back normal and so on. then later on many of those people come back to say that they lost weight again because they realized they were not counting calories correctly,they werent weighing their food,they werent counting everything they put in their mouth.etc.
if people had set points I dont see why they would be in the mostly overweight areas. That makes no sense really.All the set point studies I see were done on animals and not humans. They all mention physical activity,REE and TEE
I think this quote is important (among other important quotes that I could have taken):Faced with the present lack of direct evidence for the biological control of body weight in humans, there is need of (i) conceptual thinking, (ii) better methods to be developed in integrative physiology, and (iii) controlled (instead of merely observational) studies. It is a principal matter of science that we should also be open to the alternative idea, i.e. there is no feedback control of body weight and thus a set point does not exist with multiple settling points to explain weight changes. Since no model can perfectly explain weight changes in humans, this may suggest the possibility of some misconception of past and present research activities on body weight homeostasis.
this is a scientific study not an article.
5 -
Are you talking about the link I posted? If so it's important to point out that "article" is often used as shorthand for "journal article" which means a scientific study (or literature review) of some kind. See this page from a Swedish university. Also note the use of "article" by the APA here.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
I found the article, which is titled Recent advances in understanding body weight homeostasis in humans (let's not pretend I would have been able to do so had a year not been given). It's a literature review, which is helpful. Having read the abstract and skimmed the article, it looks like the authors found that there was no proof of what people are calling "set point" theoryCharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »maureenkhilde wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Needtolosefive wrote: »I understand that I’m a little underweight, but the point is that I used to eat quite a bit more (around 1800-2000) calories a day. Now I am eating less and gaining weight. I have been exercising 30 min-1hr over the past couple weeks.
There is a theory called the set point range, and your body will naturally try to defend that range. So although you might be eating less than what you used to, your body wants you back at your set point.
I used to eat 1500-1600 calories a day. And then, I started gaining a couple pounds after 4 years of maintaining my weight by eating the same amount. I increased my calories to 1700-2000, and although I’m heavier, my weight has naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23.
set point is a myth.
Are you sure about that? Library of medicine indicates more studies are needed around this. There was an article in US Library of Medicine in July 2018 about it. I am not saying I believe it by the way.
Because if people do have set points, why so often are the set points at an overweight point?
can you post a link to the study? Im saying though that if we had a set point no matter what people did they wouldnt lose weight beyond their set points. like for me I maintained 140 lbs most of my teen and adult life up until I started becoming sedentary and eating the same amount. I started gaining weight. Most people when they lose a good bit of weight,dont realize that they need less calories than before ,so they eat the same amount of calories. therefore they maintain their current weight. they may do that for a long period of time and think all sorts of things are happening, they dont relize they are either eating the same amount of energy they are burning or they may be a little less active than they were(or a bit of both).
The calorie thing was my issue I thought I could still eat the same amount of calories once I lost some of my weight. I stayed the same weight for months no matter what I did I couldnt lose weight. I found out I was eating more than I thought,once I started eating less It started coming off again. If someone gains weight while they are maintaining their weight then they are eating more than they think, do some searches on the board and look at people asking for weight loss help because they think they have plateaued,have a set weight,have a health issue although tests come back normal and so on. then later on many of those people come back to say that they lost weight again because they realized they were not counting calories correctly,they werent weighing their food,they werent counting everything they put in their mouth.etc.
if people had set points I dont see why they would be in the mostly overweight areas. That makes no sense really.All the set point studies I see were done on animals and not humans. They all mention physical activity,REE and TEE
I think this quote is important (among other important quotes that I could have taken):Faced with the present lack of direct evidence for the biological control of body weight in humans, there is need of (i) conceptual thinking, (ii) better methods to be developed in integrative physiology, and (iii) controlled (instead of merely observational) studies. It is a principal matter of science that we should also be open to the alternative idea, i.e. there is no feedback control of body weight and thus a set point does not exist with multiple settling points to explain weight changes. Since no model can perfectly explain weight changes in humans, this may suggest the possibility of some misconception of past and present research activities on body weight homeostasis.
this is a scientific study not an article.
if you say article here it usually means something written by someone who has no background in science,nutrition,etc. like an article in a magazine(wont name which ones). many people will post them thinking they are scientific proof,when of course they arent.5 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
I found the article, which is titled Recent advances in understanding body weight homeostasis in humans (let's not pretend I would have been able to do so had a year not been given). It's a literature review, which is helpful. Having read the abstract and skimmed the article, it looks like the authors found that there was no proof of what people are calling "set point" theoryCharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »maureenkhilde wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Needtolosefive wrote: »I understand that I’m a little underweight, but the point is that I used to eat quite a bit more (around 1800-2000) calories a day. Now I am eating less and gaining weight. I have been exercising 30 min-1hr over the past couple weeks.
There is a theory called the set point range, and your body will naturally try to defend that range. So although you might be eating less than what you used to, your body wants you back at your set point.
I used to eat 1500-1600 calories a day. And then, I started gaining a couple pounds after 4 years of maintaining my weight by eating the same amount. I increased my calories to 1700-2000, and although I’m heavier, my weight has naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23.
set point is a myth.
Are you sure about that? Library of medicine indicates more studies are needed around this. There was an article in US Library of Medicine in July 2018 about it. I am not saying I believe it by the way.
Because if people do have set points, why so often are the set points at an overweight point?
can you post a link to the study? Im saying though that if we had a set point no matter what people did they wouldnt lose weight beyond their set points. like for me I maintained 140 lbs most of my teen and adult life up until I started becoming sedentary and eating the same amount. I started gaining weight. Most people when they lose a good bit of weight,dont realize that they need less calories than before ,so they eat the same amount of calories. therefore they maintain their current weight. they may do that for a long period of time and think all sorts of things are happening, they dont relize they are either eating the same amount of energy they are burning or they may be a little less active than they were(or a bit of both).
The calorie thing was my issue I thought I could still eat the same amount of calories once I lost some of my weight. I stayed the same weight for months no matter what I did I couldnt lose weight. I found out I was eating more than I thought,once I started eating less It started coming off again. If someone gains weight while they are maintaining their weight then they are eating more than they think, do some searches on the board and look at people asking for weight loss help because they think they have plateaued,have a set weight,have a health issue although tests come back normal and so on. then later on many of those people come back to say that they lost weight again because they realized they were not counting calories correctly,they werent weighing their food,they werent counting everything they put in their mouth.etc.
if people had set points I dont see why they would be in the mostly overweight areas. That makes no sense really.All the set point studies I see were done on animals and not humans. They all mention physical activity,REE and TEE
I think this quote is important (among other important quotes that I could have taken):Faced with the present lack of direct evidence for the biological control of body weight in humans, there is need of (i) conceptual thinking, (ii) better methods to be developed in integrative physiology, and (iii) controlled (instead of merely observational) studies. It is a principal matter of science that we should also be open to the alternative idea, i.e. there is no feedback control of body weight and thus a set point does not exist with multiple settling points to explain weight changes. Since no model can perfectly explain weight changes in humans, this may suggest the possibility of some misconception of past and present research activities on body weight homeostasis.
this is a scientific study not an article. and it still says that it has to do with energy expenditure and controlled calorie intake. which means weight loss happens with those things, BUT there is such a thing as adaptive thermogenesis which would make many think they are at their set point when in fact its not.AT happens when you eat too little calories for too long and your body adapts to that level of calories to preserve energy, which can mean fatigue and other things along the way. which is why its suggested to go on diet breaks to prevent this from happening. some also recommend reverse dieting to combat AT also which seems to help people losing weight again when they go back to a calorie deficit.
Given both the context and content of her post, I understood that she had linked a journal article (also sometimes referred to as a scholarly article, peer reviewed article, or refereed article) without clicking on the link. If you reread her comment, you might see that you are more in agreement than disagreement. Belabouring the choice of words draws attention from the topic at hand, don't ya think? Particularly considering the word chosen was fitting.11 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
Are you talking about the link I posted? If so it's important to point out that "article" is often used as shorthand for "journal article" which means a scientific study (or literature review) of some kind. See this page from a Swedish university. Also note the use of "article" by the APA here.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
I found the article, which is titled Recent advances in understanding body weight homeostasis in humans (let's not pretend I would have been able to do so had a year not been given). It's a literature review, which is helpful. Having read the abstract and skimmed the article, it looks like the authors found that there was no proof of what people are calling "set point" theoryCharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »maureenkhilde wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Needtolosefive wrote: »I understand that I’m a little underweight, but the point is that I used to eat quite a bit more (around 1800-2000) calories a day. Now I am eating less and gaining weight. I have been exercising 30 min-1hr over the past couple weeks.
There is a theory called the set point range, and your body will naturally try to defend that range. So although you might be eating less than what you used to, your body wants you back at your set point.
I used to eat 1500-1600 calories a day. And then, I started gaining a couple pounds after 4 years of maintaining my weight by eating the same amount. I increased my calories to 1700-2000, and although I’m heavier, my weight has naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23.
set point is a myth.
Are you sure about that? Library of medicine indicates more studies are needed around this. There was an article in US Library of Medicine in July 2018 about it. I am not saying I believe it by the way.
Because if people do have set points, why so often are the set points at an overweight point?
can you post a link to the study? Im saying though that if we had a set point no matter what people did they wouldnt lose weight beyond their set points. like for me I maintained 140 lbs most of my teen and adult life up until I started becoming sedentary and eating the same amount. I started gaining weight. Most people when they lose a good bit of weight,dont realize that they need less calories than before ,so they eat the same amount of calories. therefore they maintain their current weight. they may do that for a long period of time and think all sorts of things are happening, they dont relize they are either eating the same amount of energy they are burning or they may be a little less active than they were(or a bit of both).
The calorie thing was my issue I thought I could still eat the same amount of calories once I lost some of my weight. I stayed the same weight for months no matter what I did I couldnt lose weight. I found out I was eating more than I thought,once I started eating less It started coming off again. If someone gains weight while they are maintaining their weight then they are eating more than they think, do some searches on the board and look at people asking for weight loss help because they think they have plateaued,have a set weight,have a health issue although tests come back normal and so on. then later on many of those people come back to say that they lost weight again because they realized they were not counting calories correctly,they werent weighing their food,they werent counting everything they put in their mouth.etc.
if people had set points I dont see why they would be in the mostly overweight areas. That makes no sense really.All the set point studies I see were done on animals and not humans. They all mention physical activity,REE and TEE
I think this quote is important (among other important quotes that I could have taken):Faced with the present lack of direct evidence for the biological control of body weight in humans, there is need of (i) conceptual thinking, (ii) better methods to be developed in integrative physiology, and (iii) controlled (instead of merely observational) studies. It is a principal matter of science that we should also be open to the alternative idea, i.e. there is no feedback control of body weight and thus a set point does not exist with multiple settling points to explain weight changes. Since no model can perfectly explain weight changes in humans, this may suggest the possibility of some misconception of past and present research activities on body weight homeostasis.
this is a scientific study not an article.
if you say article here it usually means something written by someone who has no background in science,nutrition,etc. like an article in a magazine(wont name which ones). many people will post them thinking they are scientific proof,when of course they arent.
I don't see what you're trying to accomplish with this post. My use of English was accurate and clicking the the URL or even hovering over it) would have dispelled any assumptions as to whether or not it was from a magazine. Never mind that I also used the phrases "literature review" and "abstract" which are hints as to what type of text I'm talking about.
I would also note that person who mentioned that this article even existed (assuming she and I are talking about the same article) also used the word "article".
I understand that not everyone has the same amount of knowledge on broad topics or the same life experiences. That, however, doesn't mean that it's somehow off limits to use language that isn't especially specialized to talk about things. I mean people here use the acronym PT to mean personal trainer all the time. That doesn't mean I'm going to say, "so the person you're talking about is a personal trainer, not a physical therapist" even though I and just about everyone I communicate with outside of this website, including people who have or are personal trainers, only ever use PT to mean physical therapist.12 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
I found the article, which is titled Recent advances in understanding body weight homeostasis in humans (let's not pretend I would have been able to do so had a year not been given). It's a literature review, which is helpful. Having read the abstract and skimmed the article, it looks like the authors found that there was no proof of what people are calling "set point" theoryCharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »maureenkhilde wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Needtolosefive wrote: »I understand that I’m a little underweight, but the point is that I used to eat quite a bit more (around 1800-2000) calories a day. Now I am eating less and gaining weight. I have been exercising 30 min-1hr over the past couple weeks.
There is a theory called the set point range, and your body will naturally try to defend that range. So although you might be eating less than what you used to, your body wants you back at your set point.
I used to eat 1500-1600 calories a day. And then, I started gaining a couple pounds after 4 years of maintaining my weight by eating the same amount. I increased my calories to 1700-2000, and although I’m heavier, my weight has naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23.
set point is a myth.
Are you sure about that? Library of medicine indicates more studies are needed around this. There was an article in US Library of Medicine in July 2018 about it. I am not saying I believe it by the way.
Because if people do have set points, why so often are the set points at an overweight point?
can you post a link to the study? Im saying though that if we had a set point no matter what people did they wouldnt lose weight beyond their set points. like for me I maintained 140 lbs most of my teen and adult life up until I started becoming sedentary and eating the same amount. I started gaining weight. Most people when they lose a good bit of weight,dont realize that they need less calories than before ,so they eat the same amount of calories. therefore they maintain their current weight. they may do that for a long period of time and think all sorts of things are happening, they dont relize they are either eating the same amount of energy they are burning or they may be a little less active than they were(or a bit of both).
The calorie thing was my issue I thought I could still eat the same amount of calories once I lost some of my weight. I stayed the same weight for months no matter what I did I couldnt lose weight. I found out I was eating more than I thought,once I started eating less It started coming off again. If someone gains weight while they are maintaining their weight then they are eating more than they think, do some searches on the board and look at people asking for weight loss help because they think they have plateaued,have a set weight,have a health issue although tests come back normal and so on. then later on many of those people come back to say that they lost weight again because they realized they were not counting calories correctly,they werent weighing their food,they werent counting everything they put in their mouth.etc.
if people had set points I dont see why they would be in the mostly overweight areas. That makes no sense really.All the set point studies I see were done on animals and not humans. They all mention physical activity,REE and TEE
I think this quote is important (among other important quotes that I could have taken):Faced with the present lack of direct evidence for the biological control of body weight in humans, there is need of (i) conceptual thinking, (ii) better methods to be developed in integrative physiology, and (iii) controlled (instead of merely observational) studies. It is a principal matter of science that we should also be open to the alternative idea, i.e. there is no feedback control of body weight and thus a set point does not exist with multiple settling points to explain weight changes. Since no model can perfectly explain weight changes in humans, this may suggest the possibility of some misconception of past and present research activities on body weight homeostasis.
this is a scientific study not an article. and it still says that it has to do with energy expenditure and controlled calorie intake. which means weight loss happens with those things, BUT there is such a thing as adaptive thermogenesis which would make many think they are at their set point when in fact its not.AT happens when you eat too little calories for too long and your body adapts to that level of calories to preserve energy, which can mean fatigue and other things along the way. which is why its suggested to go on diet breaks to prevent this from happening. some also recommend reverse dieting to combat AT also which seems to help people losing weight again when they go back to a calorie deficit.
Given both the context and content of her post, I understood that she had linked a journal article (also sometimes referred to as a scholarly article, peer reviewed article, or refereed article) without clicking on the link. If you reread her comment, you might see that you are more in agreement than disagreement. Belabouring the choice of words draws attention from the topic at hand, don't ya think? Particularly considering the word chosen was fitting.
of course me just saying something was misconstrued as something else and I was misunderstood yet again.
3 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
I found the article, which is titled Recent advances in understanding body weight homeostasis in humans (let's not pretend I would have been able to do so had a year not been given). It's a literature review, which is helpful. Having read the abstract and skimmed the article, it looks like the authors found that there was no proof of what people are calling "set point" theoryCharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »maureenkhilde wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »Needtolosefive wrote: »I understand that I’m a little underweight, but the point is that I used to eat quite a bit more (around 1800-2000) calories a day. Now I am eating less and gaining weight. I have been exercising 30 min-1hr over the past couple weeks.
There is a theory called the set point range, and your body will naturally try to defend that range. So although you might be eating less than what you used to, your body wants you back at your set point.
I used to eat 1500-1600 calories a day. And then, I started gaining a couple pounds after 4 years of maintaining my weight by eating the same amount. I increased my calories to 1700-2000, and although I’m heavier, my weight has naturally settled at a BMI of 22-23.
set point is a myth.
Are you sure about that? Library of medicine indicates more studies are needed around this. There was an article in US Library of Medicine in July 2018 about it. I am not saying I believe it by the way.
Because if people do have set points, why so often are the set points at an overweight point?
can you post a link to the study? Im saying though that if we had a set point no matter what people did they wouldnt lose weight beyond their set points. like for me I maintained 140 lbs most of my teen and adult life up until I started becoming sedentary and eating the same amount. I started gaining weight. Most people when they lose a good bit of weight,dont realize that they need less calories than before ,so they eat the same amount of calories. therefore they maintain their current weight. they may do that for a long period of time and think all sorts of things are happening, they dont relize they are either eating the same amount of energy they are burning or they may be a little less active than they were(or a bit of both).
The calorie thing was my issue I thought I could still eat the same amount of calories once I lost some of my weight. I stayed the same weight for months no matter what I did I couldnt lose weight. I found out I was eating more than I thought,once I started eating less It started coming off again. If someone gains weight while they are maintaining their weight then they are eating more than they think, do some searches on the board and look at people asking for weight loss help because they think they have plateaued,have a set weight,have a health issue although tests come back normal and so on. then later on many of those people come back to say that they lost weight again because they realized they were not counting calories correctly,they werent weighing their food,they werent counting everything they put in their mouth.etc.
if people had set points I dont see why they would be in the mostly overweight areas. That makes no sense really.All the set point studies I see were done on animals and not humans. They all mention physical activity,REE and TEE
I think this quote is important (among other important quotes that I could have taken):Faced with the present lack of direct evidence for the biological control of body weight in humans, there is need of (i) conceptual thinking, (ii) better methods to be developed in integrative physiology, and (iii) controlled (instead of merely observational) studies. It is a principal matter of science that we should also be open to the alternative idea, i.e. there is no feedback control of body weight and thus a set point does not exist with multiple settling points to explain weight changes. Since no model can perfectly explain weight changes in humans, this may suggest the possibility of some misconception of past and present research activities on body weight homeostasis.
this is a scientific study not an article. and it still says that it has to do with energy expenditure and controlled calorie intake. which means weight loss happens with those things, BUT there is such a thing as adaptive thermogenesis which would make many think they are at their set point when in fact its not.AT happens when you eat too little calories for too long and your body adapts to that level of calories to preserve energy, which can mean fatigue and other things along the way. which is why its suggested to go on diet breaks to prevent this from happening. some also recommend reverse dieting to combat AT also which seems to help people losing weight again when they go back to a calorie deficit.
Given both the context and content of her post, I understood that she had linked a journal article (also sometimes referred to as a scholarly article, peer reviewed article, or refereed article) without clicking on the link. If you reread her comment, you might see that you are more in agreement than disagreement. Belabouring the choice of words draws attention from the topic at hand, don't ya think? Particularly considering the word chosen was fitting.
of course me just saying something was misconstrued as something else and I was misunderstood yet again.
My point is that if you misunderstood what was being said, it doesn't mean that the other person shouldn't use the word you missed. I'm just not sure why you seemed to be suggesting that the use of the word article in reference to a scholarly article was inappropriate. If I'm misunderstanding what you are suggesting, by all means clarify.6 -
I’d recommend seeing primary doctor for full physical, blood panel and meet with a nutrionist one you have your results. That will help you maintain what you need.1
-
are you lifting or doing cardio? I would start lifting weights and stop the cardio, and eat at maintenance for a while0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions