Set point weight theory
Replies
-
I do believe people have a weight that--for whatever reason (and there are probably many)--their bodies are just more comfortable at maintaining. I also believe people have weight were they just aesthetically look better. I know for me, personally, I wouldn't look good being at the low or below-average weight. I'm definitely one of those people who would look like a lollipop due to my big head! However, I don't think that means we are destined to stay at that set point, but it may take more work to MAINTAIN a lower set point.
Most of my life I have been a slightly bigger person, even though my brothers were never overweight, and 2 were "skinny" and probably underweight. I was somewhat stocky, with football player shoulders and wider hips (no shoulder pads for me, thank you 80's fashion). My parents were not overweight either (esp my mom), although my dad would go into that category from time to time and had to work harder at "watching his weight." It's possible my metabolism was slower than my brothers, or it's possible I learned at a young age to use food for self-soothing and/or dismiss hunger/fullness signals? Who really knows. Anyway, that doesn't (and in my case, didn't) mean I could lose weight, and eventually maintain a normal weight. I've recently even gone lower than what I thought my set point was, even though that old weight was still considered a healthy weight for my height.0 -
Meh...I have a "happy" weight which is a range of about 178 - 183. Happy in that I'm happy with the way I look and feel at that weight. I'm also relatively lean at that weight...right around 15%, maybe a little less. I don't really have any desire at that point to be leaner, nor do I want to make the effort...I could, but some of the habits I have (and enjoy) aren't really conducive to being super lean.2
-
elisa123gal wrote: »My husband sat next to a Health Department official at an event. She said trying to lose weight is useless..that the body will fight to get back to a certain weight no matter what, and win. She compared it to a refrigerator set a certain temperature and will stay there.
I thought that was a load of crap and still do. Yes, we have habits and lifestyles that lead us back to a certain weight. But those habits and lifestyles can be changed. It takes work..but it can be done. We all know when we regain weight, that we eat our way there...no mystery or genetics involved.
Who wants to listen to such negative feedback that we are predisposed to be obese.
A refrigerator doesn't just magically do that . . . it requires energy in order to maintain that temperature, making this a good illustration of the point OPPOSITE of what she was trying to make.
I'd have asked her what happened if we unplugged the fridge or began giving it less power than it needs to run the motor all the time.14 -
My bottom line with set point, which a relative of mine has spent years and years droning about and is totally convinced is the explanation for her obesity, is this:
Set point as a physical constraint, as in something the body drives toward all on its own such that you cannot escape your own weight-level prison, is ludicrous. Hundreds of millions of people have gone from thin to fat, fat to thin, or like me, their weight is in a constant state of flux throughout their lives, perhaps edging higher in middle age as they become more sedentary. There is clearly no "set point" at all, empirically speaking, other than that fat people tend to return to being fat people after a bout of dieting, which is, of course, what the dumb idea of set-point was invented to explain (or rationalize - i.e. obesity as something you have no autonomous control over, it's just those damn hormones! It isn't my fault I gained the weight back, I'm programmed to do it!).
Set point as a behavioral idea, though, is more interesting. The notion that the sum total of our habits, our discipline or lack thereof, and many other psychological components kind of come together to bring us to a certain weight level. So for instance, someone who's 250 lbs and used to being 250 lbs, whose whole wardrobe fits perfectly at 250 lbs, whose dinner plans and types of foods preferred and eaten, and dining out habits, and drinking habits, and everything else, just tend to result in a weight of 250. So, said person goes on a diet and gets to 210 lbs but then gains it back, because the weight loss was really a blip in a lifelong group of habits that result in a weight of around 250. It sort of "looks" like a physical set point but is just the sum total of the person's ongoing choices and preferences. Maybe at 250 lbs that person starts subconsciously watching what they eat or not picking up that next candy bar so they don't go up to the next size of clothing, but at 230 feels entitled to a treat or a time out. Maybe there's a long-established comfort level at 250 that the person would never admit to or acknowledge but it's the top weight he or she can tolerate without going all in on a diet, so their weight tends to rise back to that level after struggling through a diet for a while. It could be a million overt or subtle things that tend to drive a person back toward that 250 weight level.
The thing is, that 250 is not written in stone, and if the person can change their habits or routines or find within themselves some discipline that was previously lacking, then miraculously there can be a new, lower "set point". So many tens of millions of people have successfully dieted that it's obvious it can be done.
In the end set point is yet another excuse that people have for not changing what needs to be changed in order to lose weight and then maintain the loss. There are plenty of other kinds of excuses, too. It's all easier than doing the hard work of engaging with the new habits and attitudes required to maintain a lower weight level. I have previously gained back 100 % and then more of 50+ pound weight losses, so I don't mean to sound arrogant or flippant about it, I just think we should be honest with ourselves. Weight loss and maintenance is hard work and excuses don't help - set point is an excuse.17 -
I agree with the "habits" idea - that we have comfortable habits, and those habits tend to have a certain weight range as an output. Those habits change in different life phases, for some of us. I was somewhat overweight in high school, snacky and not very active; dropped to a healthy range in college, *much* more active and snacks not always at hand; then slowly gained after graduating and starting a mostly-sedentary career, plus getting used to eating with (and nearly keeping up with eating like) a taller and healthily-heavier husband. That last habit set eventually more or less stabilized my weight in a range right around the bottom of class 1 obese BMI (180s pounds or so at 5'5'). That weight persisted through a period starting in my mid-40s where I started training regularly, and even competing as an athlete (not always unsuccessfully 😆), because it was easy to eat the extra few hundred daily calories.
Now, starting at age 59/60, I've been in a healthy weight range (BMI lower half of 20s) for 5 years since - different eating habits. (I still count, but the eating level isn't something I perceive as restrictive).
Here's a question, to add to the good one about "if there's genetic set point, why is there an obesity epidemic?**": Why is "set point" so rarely mentioned as a reason that that keeps us from *gaining* weight . . . since many people steadily, maybe slowly, do gain weight as time goes on, if they don't intervene? Set points only act to prevent us *losing*? That seems odd.
** As an aside, as someone who's been adult through the whole obesity crisis, if it's perceived to have really gotten rolling around 1980, the changes in average habits - eating and activity - have been quite dramatic . . . more than enough to explain the few hundred daily calories it takes per person to account for the average weight creep over that time period.I feel better now and I recently realised I don’t want to stay at this weight after thinking about it. Also what about the obesity epidemic? I just felt like the set point theory didn’t make sense because it didn’t consider epi-genetics. Lifestyle and other factors, diet, muscle mass, stress etc. The intuitive eating community are also inline with HAES (a pretty toxic community!) that condemn anyone who loses weight. I think this also stems from fat activism and body positivity. With hindsight, I definitely don’t want to be part of such a community...I mean if I gain anymore weight then I won’t be able to do planks without my wrists hurting (I’m a pear shape with a naturally weaker upper body ) and apparently I’m being toxic if I want to lose weight...!
Long term goals: lose on the lower body and build upper body strength.
I don't think the bolded is really probable, at least in any grand sense, either. Sure, some people seem to have genetic advantages when it comes to adding muscle mass or strength, to some extent. But IMO there's also a big habit component in that, I suspect.
I tend to be stronger than many women my age who've I've known to have similar fitness practices (or similar lack thereof). I've also noticed that even when not "working out", I'm more likely to do chores/tasks that involve strength, whereas some of those same friends routinely call hubby to do it, don't try, hire somebody, etc. I suspect it makes a little difference, over time.
I also think one can have a virtuous cycle, or a negative one, when it comes to daily use of strength. The less one does, the weaker one is likely to become. The weaker one becomes, the less one is likely to attempt let alone do successfully. That's negative. (It's a little analogous to the way weight gain and inactivity can spiral into more weight gain and inactivity, over time, too.) On the opposite side, the stronger one gets, the easier strength-y chores get, so maybe one is more likely to do them. Speculative, I admit.
If you work at strength gain in a smart way, I'll bet you'll gain strength. (Again, kinda like weight management, eh? 😉)The first two years after weight loss are extremely prone to weight regain in part because of hormonal changes that often take place during weight loss.
People who lose weight but are not prepared to apply a similar degree of continuing effort during the first two (to five, if you want your best statistical chance to retain your weight loss) years of maintenance often yo-yo up and down losing and then regaining and then losing again. Maybe a bit more maybe a bit less each time. Most of us know this drill, I think. And from that perspective it sure looks like there's a set point to which our bodies want to return.
(Snip other good stuff in PAV's post for reply length, because I'm gonna focus on one part)
To the bolded: I'm not saying that I found maintenance calories hard/challenging to stay within, mostly (or close 😉) while counting. It's been very manageable, and I've stayed in a healthy weigh range (per BMI) for 5+ years now that way. I had a little ultra slow creeping gain going on for about 3 or so of those years (after some months of level weight range at the start of maintenance), topping out around BMI 23; I'm am now nearing the end of a super-slow intentional creeping loss to BMI 20-ish over the course of about 18 months.
I feel like it's only about the past year or so where my capacity to eat, if I really loosen the reins as I sometimes enjoy doing, has scaled back from the amount that obese Ann could happily consume. My assumption is that this has something to do with the hormonal changes PAV is talking about. Obviously, that's speculative . . . maybe it's just habits? 😉 For sure, there's a subjective difference.5 -
There a mix of nature & nuture!
Your build is, to some extent genetic; in terms of approx height weight & certain functioning BUT what you do with that as enormous effect.
I can trace different body builds through old photos & they certainly ate less & moved more over 100 years ago but the trends are still there. Some family members, like me have to watch every morsal & keep very active: still tough, others can eat what they like & are like stick insects- we can see who they take after BUT the "icing onthe cake" is what you do with what you've got!1 -
I'll throw out an interesting angle: endocannabinoids.
There's a lot there to get into.
I'm not willing to go into what I've learned because ain't nobody got time for that, but it's super interesting in regards to set point and "food addiction" - like behaviors.3 -
I’m just here for the disagree. Someone’s got a trigger finger.
A “set point” is utter nonsense. Believing that is an excuse, a rationalization, a procrastination.
* dusts off hands in satsifaction*. That oughta do it.16 -
That my friend is called an excuse which I get to watch my parents and brothers continue in obesity over 😞
Guess what when I started MOVING my body and eating at a deficit I hit goal weight a lot faster then I ever thought possible! Now I don't believe it is always as easy for some people but it is totally obtainable. And for some they need ralistic goals it takes A LOT of work to be model size or body builder. That is not the normal, but living healthy can be with a lot less effort.
I know for me if I gain it is a set point sin of gluttony, that I have easy control over. What goes in my stomache is 100 percent my resposibility. I am not talking about special occassions or one day here and there of life, but the every day norm do I eat that 600 calorie piece of cake loaded with fat and sugar or make my own sugar free nutrious pumpkin pie that I can eat the whole thing for less then that! Do I eat a whole bag of ripple chips or buy the baked ones, do I eat a whole bag of reeses or a halo top low cal ice cream. Now reeses and chips and cake can totally be worked in but for me I will still be hungry and if I had made better choices in the end I would have been happier, fuller, and have more energy and probably not gained any real weight!
Lord Jesus guide💟
5 -
Homeostasis comes to mind. In this case the body attempting to maintain balance. I don’t honestly believe there is a Set Point per say but at some point you will gain weight and then level off because our habits and intake typically stay the same. If we change habits we can gain or lose and then our body can reset into a homeostasis. The human body is amazing and can do great things.0
-
I'm another person who believes 'habits' is the likely cause.
But also I do think that there is a point where continued loss becomes less easy to sustain and less comfortable to accomplish. And that that makes it harder to stay there, too.
I lost 28lbs fairly easily. I am now to within 11 pounds of being at the top end of a normal BMI (though with my frame I could and probably should lose more like another 30 ) It is way less easy now. As the past week or so? I am ACTUALLY FREAKING HUNGRY. Why? No freaking idea. I am admittedly due another diet break (I do that every 10lbs or so) which I am sure is a factor but for whatever reason I am now absolutely physically (not to emotionally snack, or boredom eat, or having cravings for junk) **hungry**.
And I'm mad about it, LOL.5 -
breefoshee wrote: »It also doesn't make sense on a cellular level. Your body does maintain a certain number of fat cells (adipocytes) throughout your adult life... so that is what this theory seems to be built on.
But you don't keep the same cells forever and ever. Cells die and get replenished through cell division. I think the set point theory assumes that you are stuck at a certain size because the number of fat cells do not change much. So even if they are depleted of fat, they are overstretched and more inclined to be filled with fat.
But if your body is always making new cells, then eventually those cells would be replaced with not-so-fat-filled smaller cells.
Not sure why I got so many disagrees on this post. Is it because I said people maintain the same # of adipocytes throughout their life?
I am currently taking Anatomy and Physiology and took this from my textbook. If there are other science-backed views that show otherwise, I'd be interested to see them.
10 -
It's a theory but if it were as accurate as they think then people should have a much harder time getting to 300, 400, 500 lbs. Once you hit over your set point your body should do things like not absorb the calories in your food or signal you to have an intense desire not to eat and to move more. But if you look at any IE group, you will see loads of very obese women (I was one of them) that do everything correctly and still gain or remain very obese.
I think people get into weight ranges that through habits make it easy to maintain their weight. Like you love to eat but it tips out at 3000k so you stay 300 lbs with little effort etc. I think that's why a lot of dieters fail. I lost 110 lbs and regained it all because 1. I barely ate when losing weight. 2. I didn't change any actual habits. 3. I coveted my usual way of eating and that's how I started to eat again and boom. Regain.
Using CICO you can basically make your weight whatever you want it to be. It'll be slow and hard a lot of the time but it's do able and is done every day!
8 -
It's a theory but if it were as accurate as they think then people should have a much harder time getting to 300, 400, 500 lbs. Once you hit over your set point your body should do things like not absorb the calories in your food or signal you to have an intense desire not to eat and to move more. But if you look at any IE group, you will see loads of very obese women (I was one of them) that do everything correctly and still gain or remain very obese.
I think people get into weight ranges that through habits make it easy to maintain their weight. Like you love to eat but it tips out at 3000k so you stay 300 lbs with little effort etc. I think that's why a lot of dieters fail. I lost 110 lbs and regained it all because 1. I barely ate when losing weight. 2. I didn't change any actual habits. 3. I coveted my usual way of eating and that's how I started to eat again and boom. Regain.
Using CICO you can basically make your weight whatever you want it to be. It'll be slow and hard a lot of the time but it's do able and is done every day!
If you don’t mind me asking- what was your experience of IE? I would love to know, especially if you were part of a group.0 -
Setpoint is like equilibrium. It is what habits you form that train your body to be comfortable at a certain size. This changes as we age, discover new habits (positive or negative). To lose weight or gain weight you need to disrupt that equilibrium and reset it with new habits and rituals.
Many people have long term success but breaking a 20yr habit is difficult, and it is very easy to fall back into old habits that were established and engrained for years. I don't think its the body but more the mind!3 -
I absolutely believe in the set point theory. I've just never heard that it couldn't be changed and reset to another lower or higher weight. It isn't set in stone.2
-
breefoshee wrote: »breefoshee wrote: »It also doesn't make sense on a cellular level. Your body does maintain a certain number of fat cells (adipocytes) throughout your adult life... so that is what this theory seems to be built on.
But you don't keep the same cells forever and ever. Cells die and get replenished through cell division. I think the set point theory assumes that you are stuck at a certain size because the number of fat cells do not change much. So even if they are depleted of fat, they are overstretched and more inclined to be filled with fat.
But if your body is always making new cells, then eventually those cells would be replaced with not-so-fat-filled smaller cells.
Not sure why I got so many disagrees on this post. Is it because I said people maintain the same # of adipocytes throughout their life?
I am currently taking Anatomy and Physiology and took this from my textbook. If there are other science-backed views that show otherwise, I'd be interested to see them.
I didn't click disagree, insofar as I remember. Yes, we know that cells, generically, die and are replaced.
Do we we know that fat cells that die are not replaced, simply because the person has less stored fat? Sure, that's possible. Proven?
Cells of a certain type don't normally die in mass numbers, all around the same time, in a healthy individual, it would seem to me - though I can't prove it. (If lots died all/many at once, wouldn't that cause functional health problems?) I suspect that the cell aging-apoptosis-replacement cycle in an area or cell type would be staggered, time-wise, though I don't actually know that.
If fat cells are used to being over-stretched, and therefore are more inclined to refill, what is the mechanism that causes that? (I grant that hunger/appetite hormones seem like a potential answer, and I'm sure that there are other potential answers, but in implying that existing fat cells somehow "want" to be refilled in a way that new ones don't, you seem to be making unstated assumptions about mechanism. We know that statistically, people are likely to regain, but there's a lot of dispute in science about what the physical mechanisms are, what the psychological mechanisms are, what the role of various multi-effect hormones may be, what role habit and environment may have, and more.)
If the fat cells are replaced when some die, and the cell death is fact staggered in time (<= assumptions in "If" form), what about the new cells would make them less likely to be filled, when the physical environment in the body (and eating behavior, to the extent physically induced) is an output of the totality of the cells, not that one or few new guys on the block? They're bathed in the same biochemicals as the older fat cells.
If a fat-filled fat cell dies, where does the fat go? Is it just excreted/burned, or do the cell neighbors take over storing that fat increment? Is it divided during cell division, sort of farmed out to the kids like the wealth in an estate?
I don't know the answers to those things, nor to many other potential questions that could be relevant. I have no relevant scientific expertise. I haven't even read your textbook (maybe that stuff is covered on page 171 😉). So, I'm pretty clear on what I don't know, in this scenario. I got nuthin'.
Still, reasoning from "cells die" to "set point theory is unsound" seems to involve some assumptions and leaps. Frankly, I'm not even sure that scientific-expert set point hypothesis advocates (if there are any these days) base their belief entirely on the idea that the number of fat cells don't change much. Maybe. Dunno. They know more about it than I do, too. My point of view on the set point hypothesis comes entirely from the human-behavior side of things, where I also have limited expertise beyond a few psych/soc/etc. classes in college, a little pleasure reading, and 65 years of hanging around with diverse people while also being a person myself.
I know more about MFP culture, though, I think. Unstated important assumptions or leaps tend to attract disagree-clicks, even outside the Debate section. Maybe slightly moreso outside the Debate section, even, because lots of people who hang out over there like to use their words when they debate, not just click? That last sentence is pure speculation, though.3 -
It's a theory but if it were as accurate as they think then people should have a much harder time getting to 300, 400, 500 lbs. Once you hit over your set point your body should do things like not absorb the calories in your food or signal you to have an intense desire not to eat and to move more. But if you look at any IE group, you will see loads of very obese women (I was one of them) that do everything correctly and still gain or remain very obese.
I think people get into weight ranges that through habits make it easy to maintain their weight. Like you love to eat but it tips out at 3000k so you stay 300 lbs with little effort etc. I think that's why a lot of dieters fail. I lost 110 lbs and regained it all because 1. I barely ate when losing weight. 2. I didn't change any actual habits. 3. I coveted my usual way of eating and that's how I started to eat again and boom. Regain.
Using CICO you can basically make your weight whatever you want it to be. It'll be slow and hard a lot of the time but it's do able and is done every day!
Yes, I think I like to eat around 2500 calories, which is fine when I had an active job and lifestyle, but not so good once my job became sedentary.4 -
breefoshee wrote: »breefoshee wrote: »It also doesn't make sense on a cellular level. Your body does maintain a certain number of fat cells (adipocytes) throughout your adult life... so that is what this theory seems to be built on.
But you don't keep the same cells forever and ever. Cells die and get replenished through cell division. I think the set point theory assumes that you are stuck at a certain size because the number of fat cells do not change much. So even if they are depleted of fat, they are overstretched and more inclined to be filled with fat.
But if your body is always making new cells, then eventually those cells would be replaced with not-so-fat-filled smaller cells.
Not sure why I got so many disagrees on this post. Is it because I said people maintain the same # of adipocytes throughout their life?
I am currently taking Anatomy and Physiology and took this from my textbook. If there are other science-backed views that show otherwise, I'd be interested to see them.
Honestly don't remember if I actually clicked disagree or not, but I know when I read your post I mentally disagreed with the idea of fat cell "stretchiness" being a meaningful factor in weight gain or loss, which depends on the relationship between energy intake and energy expenditure. "Stretchy" fat cells can't turn an energy deficit into an energy surplus.2 -
I tried intuitive eating and HAES. I even bought a workbook. I really wanted it to work. I loved the g entke idea abd the way there was positivity for fat people. But..... It didn't work. Its stressed me out and I felt guilty that I didn't want to intuitively eat right!
All this is to say, I don't believe in the setpoint thing anymore. And thank goodness for that or I wouldn't be inclined to make the healthy changes that are making my life better.
There is no 'setpoint' limit to what we can achieve, in my opinion.
11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 389K Introduce Yourself
- 42.9K Getting Started
- 259K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.2K Recipes
- 232K Fitness and Exercise
- 340 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.4K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.3K Motivation and Support
- 7.6K Challenges
- 1.2K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 21 News and Announcements
- 708 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 1.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions