The FastDay Forum

Australian obesity expert who wrote the "Never Go Hungry" diet book talks a lot about the 'set point'. Your body fights to stay at that point. It works in your favour too in that, despite what we might think, it is quite difficult to gain weight permanently (see actresses and actors who have to gain weight for roles - they say it is more difficult than losing). I think the idea is that you need to maintain for a long time at your new weight to reset the point. It can be done but it is not easy - hence why so many people gain back. This author stresses steady weightloss and allowing the body to 'catch up'. Perhaps the dreaded plateau should be looked upon as the catch up time.

[carorees]

I think not. I'd say you're still consuming enough calories to prevent big weight loss. Taking it to extremes victims of the axis powers in ww2 plus famine victims don't show any signs of successfully maintaining a natural body weight.

The #setpoint concept theorizes that the body defends its set point(s), but of course in a famine situation it cannot succeed. The survivors of the concentration camps over ate massively as soon as food was available in order to reach the lower setpoint as soon as possible. The set point theory then does not exude the possibility of passing the set point, just that the body resists passing it and may make efforts to return to it when food is more available. See also my thread here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=395

The upper set point may account for people who can eat a lot and not gain weight...they have a low upper set point. Some people have a very high upper set point.

I like the set point theory but I still don't think we have a natural bodyweight. 20 years ago when I was a student was c80kg, my weight the climbed up to 107kg 6 years ago, 1 year ago I was c95kg, a few days ago i was 90kg. There may be set points in there that I have broken on the way up (effortlessly...) and on the way down but I don't see how I can say I have a natural bodyweight?

I don't know what Harvard says (and I respect it since my uncle is a professor) but in my knowledge we all gain a small amount of weight as we grow old and it is only natural.

Not sure about set points in either direction but earlier today I looked out my old Weight Watchers details and was surprised to see that my waist size at 10 st was 30.25" and 15 years on, I started 5:2 at 10st but my waist was a whopping 36" so it looks like the old 'middle age spread' is a horrible reality! I am back to my youthful weight of 8 st 7 lbs but cannot get my waist back to 24" and am stuck at 28"boo hoo,

Ballerina x

[carorees]

To me it's absurd that it seems to be there's only a 'set' point on the lower side but apparently no 'set' point on the high side. If there's a 'set' point why has the incidence of obesity increased considerably over the last 30 years?

The article I linked to explains the two set point theory. Briefly, the theory is that all animals have two set points. The lower set point represents the point at which the organism starts to starve, the upper set point is the point where the organism cannot escape from predation due to being too heavy. In humans the lack of predation combined with (until relatively recently) not generally having too much food available meant that having a very high upper set point did not confer any reproductive disadvantage so the gene remains in the population and the upper point could even drift higher. Of course the lower set point if too low impacts reproduction so it does not drift downwards.

[carorees]

I like the set point theory but I still don't think we have a natural bodyweight. 20 years ago when I was a student was c80kg, my weight the climbed up to 107kg 6 years ago, 1 year ago I was c95kg, a few days ago i was 90kg. There may be set points in there that I have broken on the way up (effortlessly...) and on the way down but I don't see how I can say I have a natural bodyweight?

Just because your body weight was stable for some years does not mean you were at either set point you could be just somewhere in the middle!

Ever since I was 18 years old, if I do nothing my weight is steady at 136lbs. My lowest recorded weight is just before I was married 114 lbs and in 2005 when my husband was diagnosed with a serious illness the pounds just dropped off and I went down to 124lbs. On both occasions my calorie input was very low and it about two years to return to 136lbs. When I started 5:2 two weeks ago I was 128lbs, but even though my clothes feel looser and I am doing more walking/power walking I am not anticipating a huge weight loss. Hence I am following 5:2 for the health benefits rather than weight loss.

[carorees]

I suggest anyone on a plateau etc shouldn't think they're at some sort of 'set point' etc.

I agree that a plateau does not necessarily represent reaching a set point, but it may do for some people who have got down to a fairly low body weight and "just want to lose those last few pounds".

The paper I linked to did not produce this dual intervention model but reviewed the validity of the model as defined by others.
:

An attractive alternative to the set point and settling point models to explain how body weight and fatness are regulated is the dual intervention point model (Herman and Polivy, 1984; Levitsky, 2002; Speakman, 2007). In this model there is not a single set point. Instead, there are upper and lower boundaries that define the points at which active physiological regulation becomes dominant, and between which there is only weak or no physiological regulation of weight and/or fatness (although there could still be physiological control of some of the components of energy balance such as food intake and/or energy expenditure)

It seems to make evolutionary sense as I described above.

As for plateaus, I think there are several reasons including not adjusting for decreasing TDEE, variations in hormone levels (especially thyroid), changes in activity (probably NEAT as people are not aware of the change) being obvious candidates.

Just bumping this thread as it seems relevant to some questions asked today about plateaus and 'set points' etc

Just bumping this thread as it seems relevant to some questions asked today about plateaus and 'set points' etc

Thanks for bumping up.

that other contraversial thread seemed to die out in the heat of the moment or should i say anger 5-2-diet-chat-f6/what-is-the-right-target-weight-loss-goal-can-it-be-too-low-t10468.html


anyhow some good discussion was made here.

still not sure of the answer for myself setting a target.

small steps.. just want to first see my >ibra trend weight under 70kg .. i shall revisit this then i guess when I get to say 68.9 and see if it should be lower. I've set a goal weight of 68.0 in the system when i started in April and not sure if its right.. still.

Not all scientists buy into the set point theory. This is from Krista Varady's Facebook page, in response to a question about set points:

"Do our bodies really have a set point weight?"

The "set point theory" suggests that the body strives to maintain a specific preset weight, and as such, when you lose weight, your body will try to gain it back. Although this theory is fairly well known, there is no convincing evidence to show that a "weight set point" actually exists.

The main reason that people gain back the weight they have lost is because their metabolism has decreased. When a person loses weight, 75% of the weight lost is fat, and 25% of the weight lost is muscle. Muscle mass is a key determinant of metabolism, and as you lose muscle, your metabolism decreases (generally by 200-400 calories/day). It is very difficult for people to adjust to the drop in metabolism, and therefore, they tend to gain the weight back.

The only way to prevent this drop in metabolic rate is to exercise 5 times per week for 45 min/session (which increases your muscle mass). Increasing muscle mass will ensure your metabolism stays high, which can help keep the weight off long-term.

[janeg]

Juliana.RIvers said "small steps.. just want to first see my >ibra trend weight under 70kg "..

Oh juliana. giggling at the mental picture i bra has made for me...