Set point
chulipa
Posts: 650 Member
I’ve just been hearing and reading about it. How can it be true when people are losing weight and keeping it off. If it is true and only weight loss surgery can change your set point than I guess we need to have weight loss surgery or just give up
1
Replies
-
We had a good conversation about set point theory last month:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10822721/set-point-weight-theory
Many people made the point that brains/behaviors were stickier than weight. In other words, change your habits and the weight will come off.17 -
Here's a recent discussion:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/45687454#Comment_456874543 -
There was recently a lively thread on this topic. https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/45695198#Comment_45695198
Basically, science says, "sure, DNA plays a role, but behavior and Western diets play a bigger role." I love this quote in the abstract of a 2010 NIMH study:- There is evidence for the idea that there is biological (active) control of body weight at a given set point. . . . However, regulation may be lost or camouflaged by Western diets, suggesting that the failure of biological control is due mainly to external factors. . . . Searching for the genetic background of excess weight gain in a world of abundance is misleading since the possible biological control is widely overshadowed by the effect of the environment. (emphasis added)
5 -
We all three posted the same thread.
We pay too much attention.8 -
Funny0
-
If set point was really a thing, then a lot of immigrants shouldn't gain weight when they start living in the US.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
12 -
If set point was a thing then I'd not gain weight because I really wanted to eat a pack of crisps or liquorice each evening, but because my body made me do it.4
-
Did someone ask about set point theory? I think fat point therapy would be better. Lol
Anyways, this is such a large freaking topic to discuss. The brain effects our adiposity, but habit can help dictate weight. We know the brain is central for weight homeostasis because you can give people drugs or make lesions on the brain and effect energy intake. Leptin is most likely the culprit as the key hormone that drives long term appetite. What's odd is obese people have loads of leptin. I think there is a leptin point on the hypothalamus that regulates our appetites, but environment over rides our natural satiety centers. Make a rat obese on an american diet and the.n switch it to a more "natural" diet and they lose most of the excess adipose tissue, but not all? Why? Hmmmm...1 -
I am somewhat convinced by the idea that one can become leptin resistant too. Exercise is one of the things that is theorized to help increase leptin sensitivity.1
-
Leptin resistance and insulin resistance explain a lot about why some people's cells take up the hormones streaming in their bloodstreams while other people's cells do not, despite an abundance present. I'm not familiar with the rat study you cite, but once someone develops hormone resistance, it can have a lasting impact.
Separately, is there a reason there seem to be an increasing number of threads on this topic lately? Is "set point" back in the news or something? This idea has been around for decades but has never to my knowledge garnered evidence to support it.2 -
Leptin resistance and insulin resistance explain a lot about why some people's cells take up the hormones streaming in their bloodstreams while other people's cells do not, despite an abundance present. I'm not familiar with the rat study you cite, but once someone develops hormone resistance, it can have a lasting impact.
Separately, is there a reason there seem to be an increasing number of threads on this topic lately? Is "set point" back in the news or something? This idea has been around for decades but has never to my knowledge garnered evidence to support it.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19401758/
Note, that the control rats and the post obese rats were eating nearly the same calories on the ad lib diet, but the post obese rats maintained 40% more body fat than the never obese controls. Why? Leptin resistance maybe? We know that leptin also helps control how much energy we burn.1 -
Can someone tell me what "set point" is?1
-
What's NOT said though is the actual activity level of the groups. Like people, leaner people have a tendency to be more physically active so even if they were eating the same amount of calories, were they burning off also a higher rate than the obese group?psychod787 wrote: »Leptin resistance and insulin resistance explain a lot about why some people's cells take up the hormones streaming in their bloodstreams while other people's cells do not, despite an abundance present. I'm not familiar with the rat study you cite, but once someone develops hormone resistance, it can have a lasting impact.
Separately, is there a reason there seem to be an increasing number of threads on this topic lately? Is "set point" back in the news or something? This idea has been around for decades but has never to my knowledge garnered evidence to support it.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19401758/
Note, that the control rats and the post obese rats were eating nearly the same calories on the ad lib diet, but the post obese rats maintained 40% more body fat than the never obese controls. Why? Leptin resistance maybe? We know that leptin also helps control how much energy we burn.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
Oops wrong post... sorry.1
-
yeah, I don't believe hormone resistance is set in stone. I think the body wants homeostasis and at a healthy weight leptin and insulin resistance are not going to remain unless there's some underlying other pathology.
Maybe the leptin "resistance" takes a few months to balance out - that makes sense. It's a huge stress on the body to lose a lot of weight and there's likely a correlation between cortisol and leptin/insulin. Why wouldn't there be?
I'm with ninerbuff on that rat study.1 -
What's NOT said though is the actual activity level of the groups. Like people, leaner people have a tendency to be more physically active so even if they were eating the same amount of calories, were they burning off also a higher rate than the obese group?psychod787 wrote: »Leptin resistance and insulin resistance explain a lot about why some people's cells take up the hormones streaming in their bloodstreams while other people's cells do not, despite an abundance present. I'm not familiar with the rat study you cite, but once someone develops hormone resistance, it can have a lasting impact.
Separately, is there a reason there seem to be an increasing number of threads on this topic lately? Is "set point" back in the news or something? This idea has been around for decades but has never to my knowledge garnered evidence to support it.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19401758/
Note, that the control rats and the post obese rats were eating nearly the same calories on the ad lib diet, but the post obese rats maintained 40% more body fat than the never obese controls. Why? Leptin resistance maybe? We know that leptin also helps control how much energy we burn.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Sorry, should have posted the full text. It was noted at the end of the study, energy expenditure in the post obese animals was in line with the controls.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2670508/0 -
Ok I googled it. That theory does not make any sense. Your preset weight is hardwired in your DNA and weight loss surgery is best to get past the preset weight is absurd. Weight loss surgery like anything else forces the body to take in less calories. Hence you will lose weight. This sounds like some money making thing.5
-
But is the energy expenditure by percentage to body weight or did the rats do the same exact physical expenditure?psychod787 wrote: »
What's NOT said though is the actual activity level of the groups. Like people, leaner people have a tendency to be more physically active so even if they were eating the same amount of calories, were they burning off also a higher rate than the obese group?psychod787 wrote: »Leptin resistance and insulin resistance explain a lot about why some people's cells take up the hormones streaming in their bloodstreams while other people's cells do not, despite an abundance present. I'm not familiar with the rat study you cite, but once someone develops hormone resistance, it can have a lasting impact.
Separately, is there a reason there seem to be an increasing number of threads on this topic lately? Is "set point" back in the news or something? This idea has been around for decades but has never to my knowledge garnered evidence to support it.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19401758/
Note, that the control rats and the post obese rats were eating nearly the same calories on the ad lib diet, but the post obese rats maintained 40% more body fat than the never obese controls. Why? Leptin resistance maybe? We know that leptin also helps control how much energy we burn.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Sorry, should have posted the full text. It was noted at the end of the study, energy expenditure in the post obese animals was in line with the controls.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2670508/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.
I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.
12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.10 -
Given that it takes MONTHS just to change your body in general, I agree.cmriverside wrote: »I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.
I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.
12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
cmriverside wrote: »I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.
I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.
12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.
Mamma bird, the average rat lifespan is 2-3 years. 3months is a large chunk of that. Rats are not that much different than humans in some ways. You can also do things with rats that you cant do in humans. I mean ethically. I do not deny that I think hormones can change and balance. There is evidence in rats and humans. If anything this study suggest that the lowering of adiposity can be done with lifestyle changes. I just think we have to be careful to deny that there are biological changes that occur to make maintenance of a lower adiposity level more difficult.0 -
psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.
I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.
12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.
Mamma bird, the average rat lifespan is 2-3 years. 3months is a large chunk of that. Rats are not that much different than humans in some ways. You can also do things with rats that you cant do in humans. I mean ethically. I do not deny that I think hormones can change and balance. There is evidence in rats and humans. If anything this study suggest that the lowering of adiposity can be done with lifestyle changes. I just think we have to be careful to deny that there are biological changes that occur to make maintenance of a lower adiposity level more difficult.
More difficult than...what, exactly? No one said it's easy.
...and, it was mice.
Regardless, they were eating ad libitum.
If I had eaten ad libitum I would have gained too.
The "set point" MAY be a thing right after weight loss, I'm not denying that because I would have eaten a lot more if I was just set free without a care about my weight.
I have a brain in my head, so I don't HAVE TO let my desires overwhelm.
Your approach says we're all doomed. I don't believe that is true. I believe in watching what I eat now, yes. Mice don't have that ability, and had I eaten the same as the always/forever thin person in that first year post-weightloss I may have had more body fat than she did. So what? I needed to let my hormones settle back down.
I did not deny biological changes. I said that we have bigger brains than that and if we get past the push to continue eating too much then the hormones will settle.
Otherwise you're telling me I've overcome Nature for 13 years. Where do I go for my prize?? Are we saying the same thing again and arguing over it? I can't tell.
6 -
cmriverside wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.
I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.
12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.
Mamma bird, the average rat lifespan is 2-3 years. 3months is a large chunk of that. Rats are not that much different than humans in some ways. You can also do things with rats that you cant do in humans. I mean ethically. I do not deny that I think hormones can change and balance. There is evidence in rats and humans. If anything this study suggest that the lowering of adiposity can be done with lifestyle changes. I just think we have to be careful to deny that there are biological changes that occur to make maintenance of a lower adiposity level more difficult.
More difficult than...what, exactly? No one said it's easy.
...and, it was mice.
Regardless, they were eating ad libitum.
If I had eaten ad libitum I would have gained too.
The "set point" MAY be a thing right after weight loss, I'm not denying that because I would have eaten a lot more if I was just set free without a care about my weight.
I have a brain in my head, so I don't HAVE TO let my desires overwhelm.
Your approach says we're all doomed. I don't believe that is true. I believe in watching what I eat now, yes. Mice don't have that ability, and had I eaten the same as the always/forever thin person in that first year post-weightloss I may have had more body fat than she did. So what? I needed to let my hormones settle back down.
I did not deny biological changes. I said that we have bigger brains than that and if we get past the push to continue eating too much then the hormones will settle.
Otherwise you're telling me I've overcome Nature for 13 years. Where do I go for my prize?? Are we saying the same thing again and arguing over it? I can't tell.
Not arguing at all. I think this one of several studies is not doom and gloom at all, it gives up insight in how we can change our adiposity and not be miserable. Even the post obese rats ended with a bodyfat of around 18% vs 11% of controls. Still damn fine change in adiposity and is healthy. Yes, we have the cognitive ability to hold off hunger when food is available and rats dont, but some folks, not you, denied that our brains fight back.3 -
Unfortunately I've read lots of animal studies but to correlate the same findings in humans doesn't always work out. Aspartame studies on rats kept showing issues including cancer, but I have yet to read one where when applied to a human, the results were similar.psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.
I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.
12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.
Mamma bird, the average rat lifespan is 2-3 years. 3months is a large chunk of that. Rats are not that much different than humans in some ways. You can also do things with rats that you cant do in humans. I mean ethically. I do not deny that I think hormones can change and balance. There is evidence in rats and humans. If anything this study suggest that the lowering of adiposity can be done with lifestyle changes. I just think we have to be careful to deny that there are biological changes that occur to make maintenance of a lower adiposity level more difficult.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
Unfortunately I've read lots of animal studies but to correlate the same findings in humans doesn't always work out. Aspartame studies on rats kept showing issues including cancer, but I have yet to read one where when applied to a human, the results were similar.psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I really dislike mouse studies and spending my time reading them - but this one fed them for only 12 weeks for that experiment and used that data.
I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
I now eat a good 500-700 calories per day to maintain my weight above what I ate at the end of my weight loss. My exercise and daily activity level is very nearly the same. It's been 12-13 years and I maintain on a lot higher calories than MFP suggests.
12 weeks just doesn't feel long enough to me...based on my N=1 experience.
Mamma bird, the average rat lifespan is 2-3 years. 3months is a large chunk of that. Rats are not that much different than humans in some ways. You can also do things with rats that you cant do in humans. I mean ethically. I do not deny that I think hormones can change and balance. There is evidence in rats and humans. If anything this study suggest that the lowering of adiposity can be done with lifestyle changes. I just think we have to be careful to deny that there are biological changes that occur to make maintenance of a lower adiposity level more difficult.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Yes, but look at how much aspartame they were giving those animals in comparison to total body weight. Just l like there are studies that show that artificial sweeteners made rats eat more. Look at human studies and it seems to decrease caloric load. No, not every study done in rats transfers to humans, but, there are studies in pigs and humans that seem to back that there is a biological set range per environment. So, do habits matter? *kitten* yeah, but does genetics and prior weight history influence it? *kitten* yeah.6 -
I have a general idea of what set point means, and here's my interpretation: It's how our genetics influence our weight, whether that's in terms of how much muscle mass we are genetically predisposed to carry, how we handle stress, our BMR, or our natural build/body frame, for example. We can't discount genetics when it comes to our weight and health, we just can't. However, as with anything else related to our health, there's the influence of our environment: from how we were raised, how our diet was influenced by our family growing up, external stress factors, etc. I absolutely believe that genetics will make it harder for some to reach and maintain weight (and that includes how our brains are hardwired as well), just as genetic predisposition can make it harder for some to moderate addictive substances. However, that's not saying that we can't alter our environment, change our habits and mindset, etc., to reach and maintain a healthy weight and to blame our weight on genetics (or "set point") is also not a healthy approach.3
-
@ninerbuff , have you ever bulked?0
-
cmriverside wrote: »I really think it took me about a year post weight-loss to reach my (now) maintenance calorie number. Prior to that one year time frame, I had to eat quite a bit less to maintain. I was eating at Myfitnesspal's recommended maintenance calories, I was super hungry and I had to stick there or gain. It was pretty miserable that first year. I probably would have had less discomfort but I lost about 70 pounds in a year. That big leap likely didn't give my hormones time to catch up/balance. That's just my guess based on my experience. Plus...mice.
After the year, I was able to raise my calories, and again about a year and a half later.
That's encouraging. Based on what I'm seeing, your body takes time for your hormones into homeostasis after a weight loss. Your N=1 study supports that. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of hard literature into setpoint theory much less effective weight loss with applied set point reset principles. That said, we might see more data eventually. My gut feeling though is that your personal experience is likely representative of most people. It takes time for your body to settle in a set up housekeeping at a new weight. Until then, it can be a bit of a struggle.
There is some theorizing that the sustained metabolic drop for Biggest Loser contestants is a result of their heavy exercise loading. https://npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/16/1016931725/study-of-hunter-gatherer-lifestyle-shows-why-crash-weight-loss-programs-dont-wor But without that activity level their metabolism would have rebounded allowing for a more typical caloric intake.
1 -
if set point theory is true and we can all only lose weight toa set point - how come all the WW2 POW's lost so much weight??
every single one of them cant have had a set point of BMI 16 or so which the general population does not8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions