I've been struggling to get past this number even though I feel I've been doing everything right. I'm at 172.4 and it's occured to be that the last time I was trying to get past this number (almost exactly, around 170-175) it took a lot of time and extra Jillian time (haha) and my Richard Simmons diet (which I recently learned may be too few calories) I finally broke past it and got down to 161. I let it all slip again and went up to 178 over months. Basically, I know I can get past this weight, but I've been reading about "set points" and was curious. Is this something that's totally true, and have any of you experienced getting stuck at a number, maybe more than once?
For those of you that don't know, set points are supposed to be a number that your body is "happy" with in some way, it decides this is a good weight to stick to, and it can be really hard to break that.. Any thoughts?
Definitely experienced it. Any time I stop dieting and start eating normally (not unhealthily or anything), my body likes to settle into the low 160s and is very happy there.
With normal eating, aka, eating only when physically hungry, and stopping when the stomach (not the mind) is satisfied, then yes, I do believe the body reaches a natural weight and stays there for the adult life. It's not a number though, more like a 5-10lb range. Let's face it: the body likes homeostasis and constantly gaining and losing hundreds of lbs every year is not what it had in mind.
I also do not believe anyone's natural set point is set at obese, but I do believe that some people may get stuck at a number for some time even after they return to normal eating after dieting, because dieting hurts the metabolism by causing a faux-famine state.
Been there... Am there! But I am confident that if I persist, the scale will eventually get convinced. I could never stay at a healthy weight and always gained back, but now I am mentally/spiritually more balanced than in the past, so who knows? This may be the time when I finally get over the "comfort plateau" and reach my ideal weight... And the same may happen to you!
It sounds like this has more to do with your pattern of "normal" eating than with some sort of biological sweet spot. If you eat less than 'normal' (using caps here because I'm not quite sure what that means for you) you will weigh less. If you eat more, you will weigh more. If you are not happy at your current weight you will probably have to eat less than what you consider to be normal. It's up to you to decide what is best.
Set point theory has been an absolute fact for me, over the course of several different iterations of my personal plan, over several years. In my experience and research, both moving past previous set points and setting up new ones is a crucial aspect of weight loss and maintenance.
Set Point Theory has been pretty true for me - even when I suffered from an eating disorder as a teen by body weigh didn't go below 130, it was actually the psychologist there who first explained it to me. But everyone does have a range, like even when I wasn't really watching what I ate I didn't go above 150..and I have a friend who is taller than me and eats way more than me and her range is about 130-140.
I'm not a big believer in the set point theory. If it were true, then how do we explain that all of North America has gotten fatter over the past 30 years? Surely our genetic set points wouldn't have changed in such a short time span. I'm in agreement with those who posit a "settling point" rather than a set point. The settling point has both a cultural component and a personal habit component. In other words, the obesogenic environment we live in, coupled with the eating habits we pick up, predispose us to settle at a particular weight.
Freelance
Last edited by freelancemomma; 03-19-2012 at 11:45 PM.
We must be talking about different set point theories - I'm thinking of the naturally resistant floors and ceilings our weight can settle at where previous homeostasis was maintained. They can be moved, created, overpowered, you name it, but they are metabolically significant enough to be noticed as 'different' from the pounds surrounding them.
For me, any permanent weight loss must come with the creation of a new set point or my body resists staying there no matter what my activities or calories. Resetting involves purposeful maintenance within a range, refeeds, and body composition adjustments with working out for me. It isn't just a calorie level or habit set, but a specific set of adjustments to convince the body metabolically that this is its new normal.
Amanda Sainsbury-Salis has done tons of research on this and she was the first one who not only convinced me of its existence but how to make it work for me (and explain some particularly stubborn plateaus).
I'm not sure I'm on board with a natural genetic happy point for everyone, and yet there is a fair bit of anecdotal evidence for that, too. I tend to believe that is more habit based, too, though. The set point theory I am familiar with is manipulation of the body and systems for weight management, not a natural settling range. That just goes to show how much information is out there on these subjects!
Last edited by Arctic Mama; 03-19-2012 at 11:56 PM.
Wow, so much to read. I really appreciate everyone's opinions on this. As far as eating less than "normal" I've been eating about 1300-1500 depending on whether I work out that day or not. It was recommended to me up raise my calorie level cause I was only eating about 1200 and not losing. I can't really go lower and still be healthy. I know, I probably need to up my workouts to break out of this. Was just curious if this "plateau" had more to it. Seems like lots of people get stuck around the same number, numerous times. The body is a complicated thing.. Kinda frustrating. Never sure what to believe or think. I just know I got past this "decade" (if you will lol..) before. So I can't give up. Just gotta keep at it, and maybe workout more. Good luck to those who are stuck as well!! Thanks y'all!
Freelance that's interesting. Definitely thought provoking. My thoughts are that we can easily gain to get past our possible set point (clearly haha. As you pointed out this country has a real problem) I'm just wondering if certain weight ranges are harder to drop below
I have been on a plateau since December. Regardless of whether I am eating 1700 or 1300 calories, my weight will not move past 70.8kg (156lbs) and it settles (consistently) at 71.4kg (157lbs). So I guess that is my set point.
I am really desperate to move past it. Working out every day and eating at 1300 every day without any movement is killing my willpower.
I've been struggling to get past this number even though I feel I've been doing everything right....Any thoughts?
Your post is not a good demonstration of set point theory is my primary thought. No offense intended.
Your post is more of an example of how it is not easy to get below a certain level of body fat for men or women due to how our hormones function and the fact that fat in certain areas can be difficult to mobilize. This is yet another reason I suggest people closing in on their goal weight take a look at intermittent fasting.
Your post is more of an example of how it is not easy to get below a certain level of body fat for men or women due to how our hormones function and the fact that fat in certain areas can be difficult to mobilize. This is yet another reason I suggest people closing in on their goal weight take a look at intermittent fasting.
Going to have to agree w/John P. here--along w/Spike Diet for me.
My body loves 148-150 & I hung out there for 6 months.
I started incorporating the IF and SD approach and broke it
meeeeel I to got stuck but have shifted it by changing my exercise...i think my body just got used to the same routine or something. I changed my workouts and wallaah..the weight shifted. I also reduced the carbs as well.
"Set Point" Theory or Fact?
