Set point theory
Replies
-
ashleygroizard wrote: »Look everyone I was only asking about it and each one of you are having a go at me. I’m only trying to see if people have heard about it. I’m not sure if I should be letting my body choose what weight it wants to be that’s why I’m asking and I don’t want to be losing my obsession with weight lose and my life goals and a passion I enjoy health and fitness to try the set point theory my therapist has suggested. You have all been quite mean to me and I don’t appreciate it one bit. I am here for a reason to get help to lose weight. I might be a fat person but hey I’m here trying to get help. I was a drug addict I’ve had eating disorders and I’ve quit cigarettes and I’ve been on medications that have caused weight gain excessive weight gain and not only that I have borderline personality disorder which has binge eating symptom so my body has been thru a hell of a lot and I have been skinny and huge and atm I’ve just over a kg to a healthy bmi at the higher end. I’m 77.7kgs and 175cm tall and a 32 year old woman. I’m here bloody trying to lose weight like most people on here. I think it’s absolutely so mean people having a go at me about something I’m trying to find out about. I’m sorry I come on my fitness pal because how I’ve been treated. I’m here to get help and I get abused for it. How *kitten* rude referring to me and people overweight as fat people
You're reading into posts things that aren't actually being said/meant. Perhaps these forums aren't a good fit for you, with where you're at right now. Maybe taking a break and just focusing on getting better would be best for you right now. Best of luck to you OP, as you move forward!43 -
I've heard about the Set-point theory. Back when I was searching for an explanation (but in reality, it was an excuse) about why I couldn't push below 72kg, no matter "how hard I was trying". And that theory was perfect for my needs at the time. Looking back at it and knowing what I did and how I did it, now I know that "set point theory" worked only because I was eating at maintenance for my 72kg at the time when I was working out super hard, I was then " refueling" pretty hard.
You lose fat when you are at a caloric deficit. You can lose weight because you're getting dehydrated. You gain fat when you are at a caloric surplus. You can gain weight because you're holding back water. You are at that "set point" when you are eating as many calories as you are burning, not more, not less.
If I was visiting a therapist for my issues with food, weight and my relationship to both, and that therapist came to me with something else to "obsess"/"explain my weight issues" such as this set point theory, I'd be very quickly searching for a new therapist.
38 -
OP I’ve noticed a few of your threads on the boards lately and it seems you are:
1. Eager to learn more and really want to be healthy
2. Looking for some magic solution to help you achieve some particular ideal you have about health and weight
3. Struggling with disordered eating and seeing a therapist
4. A bit defensive about the feedback you get here from internet strangers who tend to be very focused on science and peer reviewed evidence and impatient with woo/pseuoscientifc concepts. This doesn’t mean they are having a go at you but at the Concept itself.
I would suggest that if these things are true then engaging on MFP forums may not be the best idea for you. There’s lots of helpful information here - have you tried reading the stickied most helpful forum posts? Have you tried using the search feature for specific questions or concepts you’d like to learn more about (like set point theory) so that you can passively read and learn and not have to engage if it is triggering for you?
Also - you really don’t know anything about anyone on these boards. Don’t assume if someone says that a theory is too good to be true that they’ve never been fat or struggled with their weight. Also don’t assume that just because a person is knowledgeable and responds with a focus on science that they must be a professional.
There are lots of helpful, intelligent people here who became learned in science of nutrition and fitness by simply doing solid research of peer reviewed journals and the latest in health science. Don’t attribute inherent expertise to someone who is a doctor or had credentials, and don’t automatically dismiss the advice of someone who you perceive doesn’t have those credentials.
Good luck I truly hope you find success and peace in your journey towards health of body and mind.64 -
ashleygroizard wrote: »ashleygroizard wrote: »
Sorry I didn’t realize you have qualifications and your an expert in health like my psychotherapistashleygroizard wrote: »I prefer the theory that you choose the weight you want to be by how much you eat and how much you move.
Not a popular theory as it involves effort as opposed to being a passive victim of circumstance.
Yes some people can maintain a healthy weight with intuitive eating, former fat people are rarer cases than people who have never been fat.
What do you mean former fat people are rarer cases then people who have never been fat?
If someone is a genuine intuitive eater who regulates their intake naturally they are less likely to get fat.
Like my son, he eats more when he does more, he eats less when he does less - never been fat.
Former fat people (generally) can (but often fail to...) learn to control or mitigate the behaviours that led to getting overweight but that's not the same as intuitive eating or a naturally occurring healthy weight. We are hard-wired for survival and unfortunately that means eating more when food is available to store energy away to get us through times when food is in short supply. But in the first world food is always in abundant supply.
Your therapist is selling a dream in my opinion.
If it works for you then great, but suggest you keep monitoring your weight in case the dream turns sour.
I apologise for having an education, experience and an opinion.
Any more personal attacks or are we done?
I thought you were attacking me
The only personal attack came from you.
I was simply stating my opinion that set point theory is unsound and potentially unhelpful, it's not a new theory BTW.
Here's my personal experience.....
During my fat 20 years I got sick and tired of having to diet and restrict just to maintain at what was about 30lbs overweight at the time so I decided to eat intuitively and see where my weight settled out. Within a very short space of time I hit my lifetime highest weight with zero indication that the rate of gain was slowing down. If I had a set point then it definitely wasn't going to be a healthy weight.
Hence my advice that if you decide to try it don't neglect to monitor your weight.
36 -
ashleygroizard wrote: »ashleygroizard wrote: »
Sorry I didn’t realize you have qualifications and your an expert in health like my psychotherapistashleygroizard wrote: »I prefer the theory that you choose the weight you want to be by how much you eat and how much you move.
Not a popular theory as it involves effort as opposed to being a passive victim of circumstance.
Yes some people can maintain a healthy weight with intuitive eating, former fat people are rarer cases than people who have never been fat.
What do you mean former fat people are rarer cases then people who have never been fat?
If someone is a genuine intuitive eater who regulates their intake naturally they are less likely to get fat.
Like my son, he eats more when he does more, he eats less when he does less - never been fat.
Former fat people (generally) can (but often fail to...) learn to control or mitigate the behaviours that led to getting overweight but that's not the same as intuitive eating or a naturally occurring healthy weight. We are hard-wired for survival and unfortunately that means eating more when food is available to store energy away to get us through times when food is in short supply. But in the first world food is always in abundant supply.
Your therapist is selling a dream in my opinion.
If it works for you then great, but suggest you keep monitoring your weight in case the dream turns sour.
I apologise for having an education, experience and an opinion.
Any more personal attacks or are we done?
I thought you were attacking me
No one has been attacking you, but you are certainly launching personal attacks at everyone who offers their constructive feedback and opinion on set point theory.
Set point theory has largely been debunked. It comes down to behaviors, and behavioral choices.
Ironically, with having been on ED therapy for ages, I have had set point theory thrown at me once — by a therapist in the UK who my *other* subsequent therapists then dismissed as being unschooled in ED research and knowledge.35 -
ashleygroizard wrote: »saresimsr36 wrote: »ashleygroizard wrote: »Look everyone I was only asking about it and each one of you are having a go at me. I’m only trying to see if people have heard about it. I’m not sure if I should be letting my body choose what weight it wants to be that’s why I’m asking and I don’t want to be losing my obsession with weight lose and my life goals and a passion I enjoy health and fitness to try the set point theory my therapist has suggested. You have all been quite mean to me and I don’t appreciate it one bit. I am here for a reason to get help to lose weight. I might be a fat person but hey I’m here trying to get help. I was a drug addict I’ve had eating disorders and I’ve quit cigarettes and I’ve been on medications that have caused weight gain excessive weight gain and not only that I have borderline personality disorder which has binge eating symptom so my body has been thru a hell of a lot and I have been skinny and huge and atm I’ve just over a kg to a healthy bmi at the higher end. I’m 77.7kgs and 175cm tall and a 32 year old woman. I’m here bloody trying to lose weight like most people on here. I think it’s absolutely so mean people having a go at me about something I’m trying to find out about. I’m sorry I come on my fitness pal because how I’ve been treated. I’m here to get help and I get abused for it. How *kitten* rude referring to me and people overweight as fat people
I have heard of set point theory. In my opinion, it's not something to count on. Though your body tends to mitigate to a certain weight point, that is highly dependent on several factors such as activity level, history, hormones etc. Our bodies dont train us to follow its cues, we train our bodies to follow ours. If we abuse our bodies with several or even just one unhealthy habit, anything that's going to help improve health the body will react positively too. However, ultimately we make the choices and our bodies follow.
Set point theory is demonstrating our physical need to be healthy and of a good weight. However, that theory is highly subjective.
Btw, I'm a psychologist.
A psychologist in health?
No, a general psychologist. I have had to do units in health where I learned about various theories in nutrition, weight gain, eating disorders etc.19 -
ashleygroizard wrote: »ashleygroizard wrote: »
Sorry I didn’t realize you have qualifications and your an expert in health like my psychotherapistashleygroizard wrote: »I prefer the theory that you choose the weight you want to be by how much you eat and how much you move.
Not a popular theory as it involves effort as opposed to being a passive victim of circumstance.
Yes some people can maintain a healthy weight with intuitive eating, former fat people are rarer cases than people who have never been fat.
What do you mean former fat people are rarer cases then people who have never been fat?
If someone is a genuine intuitive eater who regulates their intake naturally they are less likely to get fat.
Like my son, he eats more when he does more, he eats less when he does less - never been fat.
Former fat people (generally) can (but often fail to...) learn to control or mitigate the behaviours that led to getting overweight but that's not the same as intuitive eating or a naturally occurring healthy weight. We are hard-wired for survival and unfortunately that means eating more when food is available to store energy away to get us through times when food is in short supply. But in the first world food is always in abundant supply.
Your therapist is selling a dream in my opinion.
If it works for you then great, but suggest you keep monitoring your weight in case the dream turns sour.
I apologise for having an education, experience and an opinion.
Any more personal attacks or are we done?
I thought you were attacking me
The only personal attack came from you.
I was simply stating my opinion that set point theory is unsound and potentially unhelpful, it's not a new theory BTW.
Here's my personal experience.....
During my fat 20 years I got sick and tired of having to diet and restrict just to maintain at what was about 30lbs overweight at the time so I decided to eat intuitively and see where my weight settled out. Within a very short space of time I hit my lifetime highest weight with zero indication that the rate of gain was slowing down. If I had a set point then it definitely wasn't going to be a healthy weight.
Hence my advice that if you decide to try it don't neglect to monitor your weight.
Look I apologize I really thought you were having a go at me. I’ve decided that I’m going to keep trying to lose weight. I think I don’t have an eating disorder anyway and it’s just a passion to get healthy and lose weight. I’m going to continue doing what I’m doing to lose weight because that’s my goal. I really do apologize to you and everyone.32 -
I don't think our bodies evolved to stay at a healthy weight in our current environment. They evolved to stay at a healthy weight in an environment where external factors severely limited food options and none of our modern conveniences were a thing. If you had to hunt and forage for your own food and do manual labor, then yes, set point theory could be a thing. Our ancestors didn't eat to hunger and then stop. There were times when they were hungry and couldn't eat because they had no food, and times when they were not hungry and ate enormous amounts of food to make use of that rare opportunity. You can mimic that, or simply just develop weight control strategies that work for you. This can be done with or without calorie counting. An alternative is to eat intuitively and let your body pick its weight based on your current arsenal of habits and strategies. You could end up maintaining a healthy weight, but you could also end up maintaining an overweight weight, which is not a bad thing if it helps your mental health. The thing to watch for is if you end up underweight because that poses an immediate danger to your organs.11
-
ashleygroizard wrote: »ashleygroizard wrote: »ashleygroizard wrote: »
Sorry I didn’t realize you have qualifications and your an expert in health like my psychotherapistashleygroizard wrote: »I prefer the theory that you choose the weight you want to be by how much you eat and how much you move.
Not a popular theory as it involves effort as opposed to being a passive victim of circumstance.
Yes some people can maintain a healthy weight with intuitive eating, former fat people are rarer cases than people who have never been fat.
What do you mean former fat people are rarer cases then people who have never been fat?
If someone is a genuine intuitive eater who regulates their intake naturally they are less likely to get fat.
Like my son, he eats more when he does more, he eats less when he does less - never been fat.
Former fat people (generally) can (but often fail to...) learn to control or mitigate the behaviours that led to getting overweight but that's not the same as intuitive eating or a naturally occurring healthy weight. We are hard-wired for survival and unfortunately that means eating more when food is available to store energy away to get us through times when food is in short supply. But in the first world food is always in abundant supply.
Your therapist is selling a dream in my opinion.
If it works for you then great, but suggest you keep monitoring your weight in case the dream turns sour.
I apologise for having an education, experience and an opinion.
Any more personal attacks or are we done?
I thought you were attacking me
The only personal attack came from you.
I was simply stating my opinion that set point theory is unsound and potentially unhelpful, it's not a new theory BTW.
Here's my personal experience.....
During my fat 20 years I got sick and tired of having to diet and restrict just to maintain at what was about 30lbs overweight at the time so I decided to eat intuitively and see where my weight settled out. Within a very short space of time I hit my lifetime highest weight with zero indication that the rate of gain was slowing down. If I had a set point then it definitely wasn't going to be a healthy weight.
Hence my advice that if you decide to try it don't neglect to monitor your weight.
Look I apologize I really thought you were having a go at me. I’ve decided that I’m going to keep trying to lose weight. I think I don’t have an eating disorder anyway and it’s just a passion to get healthy and lose weight. I’m going to continue doing what I’m doing to lose weight because that’s my goal. I really do apologize to you and everyone.
Thank you.
Wish you well. :flowerforyou:13 -
I've heard people say that your body has a set weight it wants to be at and to get lower than that, you have to "shock your body". Some of the "shock" methods I've heard people talk about are cutting carbs and running. Both are fine to do, but honestly it all comes down to CICO. It's not that people have set points but that people are comfortable with a certain amount of activity versus amount of food and maintain their weight according to that.
So, if your maintaining your weight and decide to add say running 3 miles 4-5 days a week, you will lose weight if you change nothing about your diet/calories in. If you keep up a consistent exercise routine but never paid attention to your calories in, you would lose weight if you (for example) cut out snacking but otherwise kept your meals exactly the same.
Here's the problem. The person who adds exercise could easily eat a bit extra at meals or grab a handful of nuts after a run without even thinking about it, and your back up to maintainance calories and you don't lose weight (or maybe even an excess and you gain a little). The person cutting snacking may be cutting their workout a bit short or sand bagging it a little to compensate for the lower energy intake without realizing it and there they are at maintenance too. This is why a lot of people have a hard time with intuitive eating. I know it works for some, but a lot of us have to track.
If you're not accurately tracking, weighing, and measuring, these subtle compensations are harder to see and you maintain your "set point".3 -
Body fat set points and settling points are pretty respected, evidence wise. Evidence based practitioners have discussed them before. Eric helms discusses it a bit in this video: However, that is much different than what the OP has described. The body won't magically go to normal weight if you get adequate nutrition levels and eat at (current) maintenance levels (but perhaps you will if you can learn to listen to satiety cues, which in modern society many people seem to have lost the ability to do imo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmir2s4GUgo
5 -
Sunshine_And_Sand wrote: »I've heard people say that your body has a set weight it wants to be at and to get lower than that, you have to "shock your body". Some of the "shock" methods I've heard people talk about are cutting carbs and running. Both are fine to do, but honestly it all comes down to CICO. It's not that people have set points but that people are comfortable with a certain amount of activity versus amount of food and maintain their weight according to that.
So, if your maintaining your weight and decide to add say running 3 miles 4-5 days a week, you will lose weight if you change nothing about your diet/calories in. If you keep up a consistent exercise routine but never paid attention to your calories in, you would lose weight if you (for example) cut out snacking but otherwise kept your meals exactly the same.
Here's the problem. The person who adds exercise could easily eat a bit extra at meals or grab a handful of nuts after a run without even thinking about it, and your back up to maintainance calories and you don't lose weight (or maybe even an excess and you gain a little). The person cutting snacking may be cutting their workout a bit short or sand bagging it a little to compensate for the lower energy intake without realizing it and there they are at maintenance too. This is why a lot of people have a hard time with intuitive eating. I know it works for some, but a lot of us have to track.
If you're not accurately tracking, weighing, and measuring, these subtle compensations are harder to see and you maintain your "set point".
I think the bolded is very true. I think it’s why people’s weight creeps up as they get older and they think “oh I’m older, it’s just harder to lose weight than it used to be” , I know I was certainly guilty of this for a time. When I buckled down and started accurately tracking, logging, and exercising again - I lost the weight fairly easily because I was putting in the effort and I let math be my guide.
Then I hit goal weight, and even lower and settled into a maintenance range really without making a conscious effort. Turns out I had gotten to a good point where my exercise/activity level was balanced by my food intake - I wasn’t trying as hard to eat at a deficit and so yeah, maintenance. Again, could have said “this is my set point” but it turned out that I just didn’t have the gumption to put in extra effort to lose vanity pounds.
After about 3 years of maintenance, this past year I got a new job with longer hours, more travel, less time for exercise, and between that and the holidays and winter months my weight crept up again. I was used to eating at 2200 cals/day as a 5’2 active female, but when my activity level wasn’t as high, I again didn’t have the gumption or desire to cut my calories to support my lower overall TDEE. So my weight climbed back up just above my original goal weight and about 10 lbs over my maintenance range.
Could have considered this an ok level and I don’t think I will get back to my lowest weight, but I do want to get back to my original goal weight and a little lower for a buffer. I’m doing this with a small deficit and small activity increases again - which I feel my lifestyle can support both right now.
No set points - just reality of CICO.18 -
Thread (temporarily) closed for moderation.0
-
Please stay on topic and "play nice."6
-
ashleygroizard wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »ashleygroizard wrote: »
What do you mean it’s seen as an excuse more than anything what is?snowflake954 wrote: »ashleygroizard wrote: »
What makes you say that? I’ve been talking to an eating disorder psychotherapist who has 15 years experience who says it doesMalkinMagic71 wrote: »It's not a thing that exists.
Well, logically, then people wouldn't starve to death. So, obviously, you can go below your "set point" if it exists. You can maintain at any weight you choose doing what your therapist says. It is seen as an excuse more than anything.
I mean that other threads on MFP have mentioned it and people usually say it's just an excuse to stay overweight (my body likes this weight). You'll find that your body will tend to arrive at another, even higher "set point" if you let it. Choose what weight you like for yourself and try to stay there, within a healthy weight, of course.
A set point weight is suppose to get you to a healthy weight not keep you overweight
Supposed to, but doesn't always. I really wish you luck, but encourage you to keep learning and asking questions.0 -
I *wish* I had a “set point”
6 -
ashleygroizard wrote: »Has anyone heard of set point theory? It Is a set point weight. When you get enough nutrients for your body and you don’t starve and don’t over eat and drink water and your body goes to a normal healthy weight and maintains that weight for the rest of your life. I’m learning about it with my therapist. I also googled set point theory and apparently it’s the fat loss no one talks about
If you don't starve yourself (which would make you underweight) or overeat (which would make you overweight) you will maintain a healthy weight, yes.
However, this isn't the fat loss no one talks about. It's really just another way of phrasing what just about everyone on this forum talks about...CICO (calories in, calories out). If you eat only as many calories as you burn, you will neither gain nor lose weight. Eat less and you lose. Eat more and you gain.
This also isn't quite what people in the fitness industry are referring to when they speak of "set points."
Say you're obese and you reduce calories by 500 a day by cutting out your daily two bottle of Coke. You'll lose a pound per week this way (probably some water weight on top of that). However, as you lose weight, the amount of calories you burn decreases unless you also increase your activity. So eventually, your calorie burn is also lowered by 500. Once you've lowered your calorie burn by the same amount that you reduced your intake, you're no longer losing weight.
Some people will call this a set point. Really, it's just equilibrium. Reduce calories again or increase your exercise and the weight loss will continue.
That said, there's also a whole different side to the idea of set points involving not just habits, but a lot of neurosciency stuff as well. If your body becomes accustomed to a certain lifestyle (for many people, this means overeating) and you begin to deviate from that lifestyle (say a morbidly obese, sedentary person joins a gym and starts cutting way back on calories), the brain will start sending signals in an attempt to return to "normalcy" (because even if "normal" isn't healthy, it's what feels safe because it's familiar). This could mean increased appetite as the brain tries to get you to eat more (even though you're deliberately trying to eat less), cravings for high calorie foods, lethargy...
None of this negates CICO. You will still lose weight if you eat less than you burn and vice versa. Your body won't just gain weight or lose weight on its own to get to your "set point" because that's your "natural weight."
However, your habits, lifestyle, hormonal swings and even neurological processes can make adhering to a calorie deficit easier or harder so it's worth taking into consideration. This is why a more moderate approach to weight loss is often the best approach, tackling one issue at a time, taking baby steps towards better fitness. Reduce calories a little here. Increase exercise a little there. Take a diet break for a couple weeks. Reduce calories again...30 -
These boards are meant for discussions and arguments. Even the highly educated disagree and discuss.
If everyone was thin skinned and took discussions personal......nothing would get done. Take or leave or become inspired to research on your own.
Never wise to take 1 persons viewpoint as gospel. Lots of experiences on these boards.16 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »ashleygroizard wrote: »Has anyone heard of set point theory? It Is a set point weight. When you get enough nutrients for your body and you don’t starve and don’t over eat and drink water and your body goes to a normal healthy weight and maintains that weight for the rest of your life. I’m learning about it with my therapist. I also googled set point theory and apparently it’s the fat loss no one talks about
If you don't starve yourself (which would make you underweight) or overeat (which would make you overweight) you will maintain a healthy weight, yes.
However, this isn't the fat loss no one talks about. It's really just another way of phrasing what just about everyone on this forum talks about...CICO (calories in, calories out). If you eat only as many calories as you burn, you will neither gain nor lose weight. Eat less and you lose. Eat more and you gain.
This also isn't quite what people in the fitness industry are referring to when they speak of "set points."
Say you're obese and you reduce calories by 500 a day by cutting out your daily two bottle of Coke. You'll lose a pound per week this way (probably some water weight on top of that). However, as you lose weight, the amount of calories you burn decreases unless you also increase your activity. So eventually, your calorie burn is also lowered by 500. Once you've lowered your calorie burn by the same amount that you reduced your intake, you're no longer losing weight.
Some people will call this a set point. Really, it's just equilibrium. Reduce calories again or increase your exercise and the weight loss will continue.
That said, there's also a whole different side to the idea of set points involving not just habits, but a lot of neurosciency stuff as well. If your body becomes accustomed to a certain lifestyle (for many people, this means overeating) and you begin to deviate from that lifestyle (say a morbidly obese, sedentary person joins a gym and starts cutting way back on calories), the brain will start sending signals in an attempt to return to "normalcy" (because even if "normal" isn't healthy, it's what feels safe because it's familiar). This could mean increased appetite as the brain tries to get you to eat more (even though you're deliberately trying to eat less), cravings for high calorie foods, lethargy...
None of this negates CICO. You will still lose weight if you eat less than you burn and vice versa. Your body won't just gain weight or lose weight on its own to get to your "set point" because that's your "natural weight."
However, your habits, lifestyle, hormonal swings and even neurological processes can make adhering to a calorie deficit easier or harder so it's worth taking into consideration. This is why a more moderate approach to weight loss is often the best approach, tackling one issue at a time, taking baby steps towards better fitness. Reduce calories a little here. Increase exercise a little there. Take a diet break for a couple weeks. Reduce calories again...
THIS is great!! QFT! Very nice explanation.8 -
If I had a set point it would be 165 pounds. Why? Because that's comfortable for my food consumption. I like eating the amount of calories it takes to maintain 165. I could eat more, but then I would gain weight. I could eat less, but that's uncomfortable, too much effort. So to stay in my comfort zone I eat enough to maintain 165 pounds.
I could weigh less. I should weigh less. But I'm comfortable here.
So IMO, set point = being in your comfort zone. People keep going back to that weight for comfort.
That's just my take. I'm no expert. I don't have a degree in health anything. It's just my observation from a lifetime of yo-yo dieting.14
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 896 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions