Do you believe it's true that each person has a weight that his or her body thinks is the natural weight for them, and that trying to get below that weight is futile?

I've heard people say this a lot, especially to those trying to lose weight but who hit a plateau or can't get the scale to budge. Just wondering what you think of it all.

I do think my body has a natural weight (163.8) that leaves me with no work or maintenance as long as I don't overeat (which is how I got to 183! lol).

However, I do believe I can make my goal wait my natural weight. I believe its all just about having an active lifestyle and being conscious of what food your eating to keep yourself down at a lower weight.

I think there is a weight below which your body will fight you pretty hard if you get lower than that. If the body thinks its starving, it will fight pretty hard to put some weight on and get to where it feels healthy again.

I think that this WOE will probably be a very good tool for helping us find out what weight our bodies would like to be.

People say that to me all the time when I complain about the fact that I can't get under 150. (Well, 153, but let's not split hairs.) The thing is, though, I am five feet tall. There is no way 150 is my 'natural weight'. That's barely scraping the 'overweight' category.

Truth is I am just extremely metabolically resistant, and most people don't believe that low carb will work, so they give me the 'natural weight' speech. It gets old after awhile, so I have stopped complaining about my plateaus, even though I am no less frustrated than ever.

Having said that, Atkins hasn't broken my plateau yet either, but I'm pretty sure that's my own fault. I need to figure out exactly what is going to work for me, and I think that means cutting out pretty much everything for awhile and adding stuff back in slowly to see what stalls me.

Whoa, huge tangent! Sorry. Clearly this subject is on my mind this morning.

I think I have a natural weight...the weight that I was the healthiest for the longest period was 220lbs. This was when I was in the Infantry and I exercised 5 to 10 times a week (ok, perhaps that's not natural...lol). Either way, that was the weight where I felt the healthiest and was the healthiest. Yes, I probably could have ate better and lost another 10 or 20 lbs, but that would have been a long and hard battle. This is why I set 225lbs as my goal...who knows, once I reach it I may try for something lower. But I'll save that additional 10lbs for the end...the part where you're supposed to really drag out your weightloss.

I also think I have a "natural" weight based on my history and my body frame. I think it's around 130 more or less (less is better). Even though I am 5'6 I have skinny legs and arms so all my weight went to my middle, darn, I used to wish some of my weight would have went to my legs since I am all legs but that didn't happen..

I most definitely inherited my Dad's body without the male parts, LOL!

Toby

I completely agree with everyone here.

At one time, they called this your "set-point" weight. It seems to me that for most of my life, there was a weight where I could practically almost eat what I wanted and not gain.....yet it was very difficult to get below it. For me, it's been 140 lbs. and that's the weight I've been most of my adult life.

To be honest, I set my goal at 135 lbs. to give myself a cushion. I think many of us do this....it goes along with the fear of gaining any of it back...so you give yourself a little cushion or leeway to absorb just a small gain...so you won't panic if you gain a pound or two.

Caroline....it's very interesting what you wrote regarding the height issue. I am 5'4" yet am very big-boned. I literally have hands like a peasant...I should take a photo of them. Needless to say, I'd never be hired to do hand lotion commercials. But I've had friends who weighed in the 130's and even the 120's who have looked the same or even heavier than me. And every single time, they had the most delicate hands that put mine to shame. Delicate, slender hands and fingers.

So...not making excuses at all here....I do think one can look good carrying more weight depending on their bone structure, etc. I feel that I look extremely normal at 135 to 140 lbs.....and I don't think anyone reasonable would think I look too heavy at that weight. But this would be too high for others built differently than me.

But I have always noticed and wondered about the fact that my body can be at a certain weight and it seems it will stay there almost regardless of what I eat....yet it is extremely difficult to get below it. AND, that at any weight below that specific one, I really have to watch carefully what and how much I eat or I'll gain. So for instance, why should it be so much more difficult for me to maintain at 130, let's say, than it is at 140? Why do I have to literally diet to not gain at 130 but can eat normally without worrying at 140?

This has always made me suspect that they'd hit on something when they were promoting the concept of the "set-point" weight.

deena

I think that our modern environments are so unnatural, that it's almost useless to talk about something like a "natural" weight.

I think you can't really talk about natural weight until you are living a natural life, and we've removed ourselves so far from that, that there's no going back. Trying to recreate the amount of physical activity that it took our ancestors just to stay alive is futile. We have no need to hunt, gather and avoid being hunted. Even the most active among us is a couch potato by neolithic standards.

I do suspect though our bodies do have processes that work to maintain stasis - the status-quo. I think an example is when people experience weight loss in "whooshes," how else to explain that you may diet strictly for a month and then all of the weight seems to come off almost overnight. It's almost as though a dam burst, finally releasing the weight.

I notice that when I gain weight every month with TOM, I gain almost the exact same 5-6 lbs as I always do (unless I eat the increased amount of salt I find myself craving only during that time of month, in which case I'll gain 7-8 lbs - always the same 7-8 lbs that I do when I indulge in the salt-cravings at that time of the month).

It seems a bit odd that I don't gain 3 lbs one month and maybe 6 lbs the next. It always seems to be the same amount.

I think there is some real science bethind set-point theory, but I also think that it is not a rigid point, but a malleable one. It's more like a thermostat. A thermostat can be set at any temperature, and the furnace and/or air conditioner will maintain that temperature, but you can reset the thermostat to another number - and I think the body's thermostat can be reset too. If your "natural weight" for a sedentary lifestyle is 190 lbs, your natural weight at a more active lifestyle is likely to be less.

I think calorie intake and activity level are part of the "set point" equation, but I think there are others too. If we knew them all, it would be a lot easier to reset the system as desired, but I think some of the factors are still mysteries.

For example, I suspect that sleep has a role in metabolism's setpoint. I believe this because when I was prescribed a cpap for my sleep apnea, the doctor told me I could expect to lose some weight without even trying, because it's very common to. I thought the doctor was nuts, in decades and decades of dieting, I'd never lost a pound "accidentally" in my life.

And then I lost 20 lbs without trying (I didn't own a scale at the time so it ws several months before I discovered this).

I think it's going to be a very long time before we understand thoroughly the physiology of weight loss, weight gain, and weight maintenance. I think the time will come, but probably not in our lifetimes.

Hi dosbabe,

Welcome and good luck to you! This is a fantastic diet and I love it! I also felt my best when I was around 130 and I remember how that felt, yeah, it felt good physically, mentally, emotionally, every which way!

As far as "natural" weights go, I do think we all have our own natural weight. Just like we all have our "natural" core body temperature, everyone is different. Or is that a bad comparison? LOL!

I can only speak for myself and I know when I felt the best healthwise and that was at my natural weight.. There was a time when I was thinner (I weighed 120) and I didn't feel that good, I didn't go down the scale deliberately, I was very busy at that time and was not eating enough so 120 was unhealthy for me. Amazing how 10 pounds makes a huge difference for me.

Thanks! I'm sad to say that my current weight is the smallest I have been as an adult (since junior high, actually) so I have no idea what it will feel like to be in the 120s. I am determined to get there, but I haven't quite gotten the hang of Atkins yet.

Welcome! This really is a great plan, and the science makes a ton of sense. It's tricky for me to figure out the right balance, but I'm hanging in there because I'm confident once I get it down, it will help me finally reach my goal.

I think kaplods made some great points here...well, she usually does, I've noticed.

I have known people (my mother, for one)...who lost a good bit of weight due to circumstances, not intentionally by dieting....and then remained at that weight for years or for the rest of their lives. And of course, there are those who gain a good bit of weight and remain that way for years or even for the rest of their lives.....even though these were not the weights they'd been for most of their lives prior to that.

So I certainly acknowledge that people seem to be able to develop new set-points...which does confuse the picture a bit.

And I do agree that there are all sorts of etiologies and outside factors that can affect this....medical conditions, medications, lifestyle and change in lifestyle, issues like depression, anxiety, etc.

There does seem to be something to the concept of a set-point weight...many factors that would support this supposition. But then there are other factors that complicate it.

deena

In my experience there are "natural" weights where we can maintain without too much effort. Those are good places to be when life gets crazy and we can't concentrate on losing.

But I also think they can and do change with time, and that we all have SEVERAL of those weights. I know I can hover around 220 pretty easily, and I maintained my weight around 190 for several years pretty easily too.

I suspect as we age & our metabolisms slow down that comfortable weight rises a bit, but that if we work to get below it we'll find another comfortable weight... and another again if we keep going. I do think sometimes people set weight goals for themselves that are below a comfortable maintenance lifestyle. Sometimes those people go into all-or-nothing thinking and gain it all back, sometimes they can maintain for long periods at an above 'ideal' weight.

I was always, always at 145. Still a little bit pudgy on my 5'5" frame but not too bad. Then I made the mistake of going on the Depo shot which shot my weight up to 190. And I stayed there for two years. Then I got salmonella(sp?) poisoning and my boyfriend left for basic training all in one week.

Between the sickness and the stress, I dropped back to 150 in a months time. Just like that. But since I've gotten married and we moved in together I have gained it all back. That's what cooking for a hungry soldier will do for ya. I mean, I guess it's my fault that I EAT like a hungry soldier right along with him.

My point is, 145 seems to be my go to weight. But I'm determined to get back to the 130's because it's been a long time since I have seen them!