I've read a lot about "set point" weights, or certain weight ranges that our bodies are naturally inclined to gravitate toward. I have noticed that throughout my efforts and struggles, it has always been an epic battle of the wills to stay below 130 for any period of time. I can maintain no problem between 130-135 but feel uncomfortable and unattractive at that size. It has occurred to me that perhaps this range is my "set point" in the healthy range (I definitely have an overweight set point of ~155 but I refuse to go there ever again), and it will be an eternal struggle to go below.
What are your thoughts, maintainers? I'm very interested to hear what you've experienced and discovered.
I've got almost the same numbers as you krampus. I can maintain at 133-135 with a little diligence but getting under 130 is really tough and I've never stayed there. That's why I changed my goal to 130 from 125 (which is a # I picked out of the air).
I believe in them. I've read too many stories of those awful struggles to think otherwise. Myself, I don't think I've found mine - I've merely found a comfy way of eating that maintains a certain size for me, and I haven't been willing enough or motivated enough to alter the pattern. I'd call my situation an eating setpoint instead of a body setpoint.
I still don't know if they're psychological or demonstrable scientific reality, but yes, I believe in them.
I've got a pretty good idea of how I handle certain weights within a span of 10-pound increments.
I could be 150 by eating carefully, with an occasional splurge, and with the exercise that a lot of people do, that is, about a half hour of cardio every other day & maybe 45 minutes of weights on the other days, with a rest day of no activity.
At 140-138, I'm eating with great care, though not counting, I'm not splurging and I'm exercising pretty hard. This describes my current state.
At 135-125, I'd have to count calories & work hard. I'm not willing to do math all my life. I do see that as a sustainable strategy for other people, but I get obsessive & edge into an eating disorder when I do this.
Under 125, I live more rigidly & compulsively. It's not fun to be my friend or to spend a lot of time with me socially. I can't eat anything like "normal" people eat & my habits are an impediment to a social life.
Under 115, I make a devil's bargain & am living with a raging eating disorder to maintain my weight.
Yes...there is such a thing as a "set point" and we all have it. The good news is that you CAN reset your "setpoint". It requires time and patience and education. There's plenty of helpful info on the net about the specifics.
For me...it's 150...my lowest weight was 145, but for some reason it was like salmon swimming upstream the whole time...it was very hard (almost impossible) to sustain. My body clearly is NOT HAPPY below 150.
I think maybe...
I was chubby growing up, even in elementary school. I was 172 in 5th grade...
But now I am 172 again and haven't been able to lose much more. Of course...I am an adult now and much taller than my 5th grade self, and am probably smaller than my 5th grade self (I figure I was about size 16/18 in 5th-6th grade and now I'm size 12)
But, I have started to wonder maybe 172 is where I am supposed to be?
I believe that the body wants to have a certain amount of fat for survival. And that amount of fat is more than you would see, say... on a model in a magazine or a fitness competitor. Especially for women, I think our bodies biologically are driven to have some fat stores in case of emergency and/or pregnancy.
Not sure if that's what's meant by a "set point" but I think staying below a certain level of body fat percentage will always be a battle for a lot of us. To me, it isn't one worth fighting. I'd rather easily maintain and have a little padding than fight for an ultra low body fat percentage.
Yes. From tracking it seems to me there is an average calorie level that I'm just not able to eat below without hunger/cravings driving me mad. I pretty much have eaten the same calorie range for my entire weight loss. That amount wasn't enough to maintain a 265 lb. body but seems to be exactly the right range to maintain 165. So while I'd mentally like to get down to 145, seems like each time I try to restrict the calories even more I end up overeating them all back in a way I don't like (binging, secret eating). So whether it's physiological or pyschological, I know set points are real for my body.
Yes...mine is 150...but i have been overeating for so long that that is just my "normal" eating now...so when i eat "normally" (which is really more than i SHOULD be eating) i stay around 150. If i learned to stop overeating then i could get below 150 for sure...the problem is actually doing that.
According to my neurology professor, yes, there are physical set point weights for people. That's not to say that you can't be over or under those points, but it is harder. There are studies that back this up if you look for them (mostly in rats).
The body wants to maintain a certain level of fat. But environment (eating, sleeping, exercise) heavily influences fat levels.
So yes, people have natural set points with fat (not weight), things like age, metabolism, genes, etc. also play a role. Psychological factors also affect things.
This is why I scoff when people say weight loss and maintenance are as simple as "eat less, move more." Yeah, but there's a lot of other crap going on, too.
I think there are, because I've noticed some patterns on the scale that didn't jive with my food intake - and I mean that both in terms of seeing a weight stubbornly persist despite very strict calorie control but also seeing a weight stubbornly persist despite overeating (though I find it a lot easier to "break" a plateau to gain rather than to lose, but even so I've occasionally overeaten to the point I should have seen a gain and didn't).
But I think the set points are'nt written in stone, they're just a reflection of systems in the body designed to maintain equilibrium (I suspect).
I think body temperature is also on a set point. My "normal" body temperature fluctuates around a normal point, but it's a much lower temperature than average. I just thought "my normal" was different than other people's, but over the years, my normal kept dropping. Then I discovered that eating low carb, has been bringing my new "normal" higher.
My "new" normal is about 98 degrees. Three or four years ago, temperatures in the 96's weren't unusual, and any reading higher than 97.8 WAS a fever. Once even with pneumonia, my temp only rose to 98.2.
I figure that if I can reset my body temperature, I can also reset my weight set points also.
I don't think you're born with a particular set point. I think that your behavior and your environment, and your genetics all interact to set the setpoint. I suspect that duration is a factor. The longer you stay at a specific weight (I suspect) the more likely your body is to work to maintain that weight.
I think it's a matter of recalibrating. The longer you are able to maintain a specific weight, the more likely you're body will (eventually) work with you rather than against you, at maintaining that weight.
Of course, that works against you as much as it works for you. The longer you've been at an undesireable, the more work you may have to do to get your body's thermostats to work for you, rather than against you.
At least that's my theory. It's in part a waiting game. The longer you can maintain your desired weight, the easier it becomes, not only because of established patterns, but because "set point" is working for you, rather than against you.
I think it's literally like a thermostat. There are many ways to reset normal, but the body works to maintain as close to normal as it can. It just means you need to learn the ways to reset.
The thermostat analogy is brilliant. That's sort of my belief too - that the "set point" can be moved but certainly not easily or instantaneously. I have 23 years of being either overweight or yo-yo-ing to fight against, but I think I'm ready to fight the good fight and see if I can't move that set point a couple pounds lower.
I agree wholeheartedly with the setpoint theory. In a book I read on the subject years ago the authors explained setpoint as the weight you maintain without consciously thinking about it. For most of the nineties my setpoint was 125 pounds. Not too bad, but I felt chubby at that weight and would periodically try to diet to get under 120. I would lose a few pounds, go back to eating "normally" and the weight would come back. But I rarely went over 125 and if I did it usually meant something was very out of kilter in my eating and activity levels.
Then in the early 2000's the balance tipped the other way and I found myself twenty pounds above my setpoint. Not only was I an emotional wreck at 145 pounds but I was physically miserable. I think my body was happy when I decided to lose weight. Originally I had just intended to go back to 125 pounds but I dropped below that without much trouble. It was then I determined to keep going to reach my ultimate goal of 110. My body started fighting me at 115 pounds. I stayed stuck at 115 for two years despite continued dieting. I think 115 is my new setpoint since to get below that weight I have had to drop my calories to rock bottom levels. I'm very active (physical job plus exercise) but I'm lucky to lose half a pound a month. If I do the math (calories in- calories burned) my calorie deficit should be massive and I should be losing weight at a fast clip, but that just isn't happening.
Do you believe in set points?
The good news is that you CAN reset your "setpoint". It requires time and patience and education. There's plenty of helpful info on the net about the specifics.
