Set Point - real or imaginary?

I've read several things on the topic... basically, your set point is the weight your body is pre-programmed to weigh, similar to your height or shoe size. Some literature suggests it's inherent and permanent, that once you hit your set weight as an adult, that's it. (Set weight doesn't apply to adolescents).

Other literature suggests there are ways to break through your set point, which seem to be combinations of most of what I read here on CC - healthy eating, getting active, and realistic goals.

My problem is this: as some of you know, my weight pre-birth control was a happy 130 pounds (I'm 5'6"). Two weeks after I started on the Pill, my weight shot up to 150. That was in May 2007. I went off the Pill in March 2008, and I've been trying to get back to 130 since then. Since June 2008, I've been stuck at 145. My body is ardently refusing to lose more weight, and it's really depressing for me.

A friend suggested that 145 is my set weight and I just have to live with it. I'd been at 130 for 6 years until my weight shot up! Is it realistic to think that a set weight can change? Has anyone had any luck "breaking through" their set weight, or debunking the claim that a set weight even exists?

Personally, I wouldn't believe in such a "set point."  If my body had a specific weight it wanted to be at, it would go there and stay there.  It would up its own metabolism to burn off extra calories, it would throw off extra food, etc.  In other words, it would maintain itself at that set point.  Just my opinion.     

^that's not the idea of a "set point."

I totally have a "set point" aka "happy weight." For me it's the weight I maintain comfortably at. That's not to say I "can't" gain at this weight, it's just the weight that's not a constant struggle (or hyperfocus) to maintain at.

This "happy weight" was a struggle for me to come to terms with at first because I was so used to striving for an ever decreasing "perfect number" (read: eating disorder). It was an adjustment to eat "normally" and focus on personal wellness and fitness instead of eating a certain number of calories each day.

My experience was totally worth it. At my "happy weight" I can focus more on living life than on each calorie that passes my lips.

I also think, in general, it's important to develop a healthy relationship with ones body, whatever that means to you.

For instance, I may not look like a girl on tv, but I can do 68 pushups in a minute. That right there makes me fall in love with my body all over again. Bodies are more than socially contrived aesthetic standards.

Anyway, It's not like you "have to" live with the weight your at, it's that you might lead a happier healthier life if you stick to what your body likes and focus more on life & less on a number. You can fight it, but it is clearly a struggle for you.

Life's already a struggle without struggling to reach a weight when you're already healthy. 150 at 5'6 sounds great! I'm a very happy girl at 5'4 130 (previously a sickly looking 114). I'm healthy, fit & can eat 3 peices of pizza and a beer without some crazy guilt trip. Happy life!

i don't buy it.  i think we have comfort weights, but that's much more to do with the level of activity and eating habits we're comfortable with.

I buy it. My "set point" is between 110-115 (I'm 5'2".) If I eat in moderation and exercise every day, this is where I stay. In order to reach my goal weight of 100-105 lbs I need to eat maddeningly little food - less then 1500 calories per day, even with exerise. It's just the way my metabolism works. I am not willing to suffer / be hungry / unhappy to maintain my ideal weight, so I am trying to become content with this so-called "set point" my body remains at.

right, mel.  you're not comfortable eating and exercising the way you would have to to maintain 100-105.  that's not a physiological set-point, it's a behavioural one.

Original Post by freshbakedpi:

^that's not the idea of a "set point."

 

Maybe we're talking about something that isn't actually a "set-point" then.  You seem to be talking about a "comfortable level" that has nothing to do with where your body mandates itself to be.  A "set-point," such as on a heater thermostat, will maintain the temperature at that point, adjusting on it's own.     

I hear what you're saying, pg. But I think it's not just behavioral (although it can play a role) - I think that my body is trying to express that it does not want to be at a lower weight then it is now, and therefore getting lower then my CW is extremely difficult. And when I said less then 1500 calories a day, I didn't mean while I'm trying to lose, I would have to eat less then that forever. On top of a daily 1 hour workout, and walking both ways to work (4 miles total.)

I think that a "set point" isn't set in stone, it's the point where your body is healthy. And if you try get lower then that, your body will resist. But this can vary from person to person... it's all pretty vague, and I am no expert is physiology (is that even the right science?)

i just think that things like drive, tolerance for discomfort, rigidity, etc. are more about personality than physiology.  my best friend maintains a bmi under 19 - has done as long as i've known her (18 years).  it used to be easy; now it's harder (especially since she has a disability and can't go to the gym 12 times a week like she used to).  but she's driven in all areas of her life, not just in this one. 

if she had a physiological set-point, it would probably 130-135, but her comfort zone is ~120.  that's where she feels best, even if it causes her physical pain to maintain it.

Totally agree mel.

While we might not know exactly how a "set point" works, it's clear that the body is meant for survival. Sure, you can modify your behavior to reach your ideal weight, even if that weight is underweight, however at some point your body is going to take over, or you are going to die of starvation.

I don't understand how anyone could make a blanket statement that eating habits and activity is psychological, not physiological. Why would we ever get hungry if it weren't for physiological cues? We do have physiological cues for hunger, why does it seem far fetched to wonder if they aren't based on the body's nature to equip us for survival (e.g. store fat) The desire to lose weight is what's psychological.

Anyway, here's a recent article about research regarding set points in RATS:

http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2009/010909/meta bolism.shtml

Obviously there is a lot left to learn about the body.

I totally buy the set point theory. I can't imagine a body would allow itself to starve or go below a certain "set point" before it overrode any PSYCHOLOGICAL desire to "lose weight."

Original Post by pgeorgian:

if she had a physiological set-point, it would probably 130-135, but her comfort zone is ~120.  that's where she feels best, even if it causes her physical pain to maintain it.

 That's the point man. Her psychological set point is 120. Her physiological set point is 130.

Original Post by freshbakedpi:

I don't understand how anyone could make a blanket statement that eating habits and activity is psychological, not physiological.

who did that?

Original Post by flonklar:

Original Post by freshbakedpi:

^that's not the idea of a "set point."

 

Maybe we're talking about something that isn't actually a "set-point" then.  You seem to be talking about a "comfortable level" that has nothing to do with where your body mandates itself to be.  A "set-point," such as on a heater thermostat, will maintain the temperature at that point, adjusting on it's own.     

 Exactly. If I gain after a week of korean food/pizza/pancake extraveganza, my body regluates & all I want are veggies & salads. If I drop weight after a stressful week, I eventually get overridden with hunger cues. 

My body regulates me at my comfort level.

Original Post by freshbakedpi:

Original Post by pgeorgian:

if she had a physiological set-point, it would probably 130-135, but her comfort zone is ~120.  that's where she feels best, even if it causes her physical pain to maintain it.

 That's the point man. Her psychological set point is 120. Her physiological set point is 130.

so explain to me how it makes sense that so many people--apparently--have physiological set points that put them at risk for chronic and accute disease.

I don't believe in the set point, but I do think everyone has a happy weight where they will feel and perform their best.  It just depends on that person.

Are you thinking over weight (heart disease, diabetes, etc.) or low weight (hormonal problems, brittle bones, etc.)? Because both of those states are not set, they're the effect of eating too much / little or too much / lack of exercise (caloric imbalance over time, unless there are underlying medical problems, like thyroid imbalances).

I think the set point is where you stay when one eatsand exercises in moderation - like, maybe the long plateaus some folks on CC experience are a sign that their bodies have reached a healthy state. Maybe not their ideal state, but healthier then before and therefore desirable to their organs and brain? I dunno, I'm just thinking out loud.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

Original Post by freshbakedpi:

Original Post by pgeorgian:

if she had a physiological set-point, it would probably 130-135, but her comfort zone is ~120.  that's where she feels best, even if it causes her physical pain to maintain it.

 That's the point man. Her psychological set point is 120. Her physiological set point is 130.

so explain to me how it makes sense that so many people--apparently--have physiological set points that put them at risk for chronic and accute disease.

 Ummm... since I'm not a biologist I cannot, however the article I cited says this:

"Leptin is a hormone produced by fat tissue. It crosses the blood–brain barrier and signals the body to stop eating. In its absence, the body craves food. A decreased sensitivity to leptin results in unnecessarily high food intake, so it is thought to be a cause of diet-induced obesity. It is also thought to be a consequence of obesity because, as fat stores increase, leptin concentrations also increase, eventually triggering the development of resistance."

"Different individuals, based on their genetics and behavior, may have one, two, or more stable weights. Simulated mice that are not susceptible to leptin resistance, for example, have one stable weight. Add leptin resistance and, in the simplest case, two stable weights emerge (see diagram). A third weight—which is unstable—acts as a tipping point between the low and high stable weights.

Once this tipping point is crossed on the high side, the body gravitates toward the high weight even if the lower weight is closer. To reach the lower weight, the body must first fight its way through the forces impelling it toward the high weight until it passes the tipping point. “If you can change these curves”—perhaps, someday, with a drug that increases leptin sensitivity—“you can make it easier for people to get from one state to the other,” said Tam"

Also, it's clear there are psychological factors involved with food thus weight. I mentioned that... hence your friend is psychologically set at 120 whereas other are psychologically set at 300.

Physiologically, however, she resets to 130. Many obese people can lose weight quickly, but will eventually hit a weight at which weight loss slows and it becomes uncomfortable for them, physiologically and psychologically, to continue weight loss.

The body is a survival machine. It wants to feel secure.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

Original Post by freshbakedpi:

I don't understand how anyone could make a blanket statement that eating habits and activity is psychological, not physiological.

who did that?

  pgeorgian
Mar 18 2009 12:49
Member posts
Member groups
Send message

i don't buy it.  i think we have comfort weights, but that's much more to do with the level of activity and eating habits we're comfortable with.

pgeorgian
Mar 18 2009 13:12
Member posts
Member groups
Send message

right, mel.  you're not comfortable eating and exercising the way you would have to to maintain 100-105.  that's not a physiological set-point, it's a behavioural one.

we learned about this in psychology last year. according to what we learned, each individual has a set point weight and supposedly, it is rather easy for a normal person (i.e. someone who does not frequently overeat, have a food obsession, ever/does have an e.d., etc etc) to maintain this weight. according to our professor, if you do eat a little over calories one day, your metabolism DOES speed up and make up for it, and if you eat a little under another, you dont immediately lose, thus staying at the set point. i don't know if i believe this, just with my own personal experience. no, i dont think that eating 10 extra calories a day would really make me gain weight. 100, yes i do. its called slowly letting yourself go. an extra cookie here, an extra slice of pizza there, you dont notice it at first and bam in 3 years you're 20 lbs heavier. just my opinion. and i find that i make my own set points. i think they are more mental barrier although i totally agree with mel_e_mel, im the same size and i exercise alot and its very difficult for me to get under 110. so maybe there is some truth in it but its more that i do not choose to make myself that uncomfortable with hunger to lose those extra lbs. if at anytime i did choose to do so, i do think i would lose the weight.

personally, i believe in set points.. and i think everyone can reach theirs if they didn't:

• count calories
• measure out food portions
• calculate their exercise burn
• weigh themselves
• follow a fad diet
• avoid certain foods or label them as "bad"
• do pretty much anything un-natural

you reach your set point by:

• listening to your body and understanding its need
• eating mostly healthy/nutritious foods but still allowing yourself treats in moderation when you really want them
• enjoying all the foods you truly love, not depriving yourself
• staying active
• using your eyes, energy level, clothes, etc etc instead of a scale
• NOT OBSESSING

that's just from my personal experience. your set point is the natural weight your body feels comfortable at. it's where you have the most energy, look healthy, feel good and live life. you don't reach this natural weight doing un-natural things like depriving yourself or making sure you eat "x" amount of calories. i've been overweight and i've been underweight.. and neither of those times was i happy. my body settled where it is now because i don't force it to do anything. i eat what i want, but i'm smart about my choices. i exercise when i want, but i don't drain myself out.

re #17: freshbakedpi, neither of those remotely resemble the "blanket statement" that you describe.

re #18: rikaj, for every psychology study that explains a phenomenon, there are probably 100 that explain it differently.  ask your profs.  there are no absolute answers in psych; there are only descriptions and explanations, which change constantly.

re # 19: that's quite a list of do's and don't's.  and it doesn't really describe the kind of set point that others are talking about in this thread; it's actually much closer to the kind of comfort zone that i'm talking about.

here's the problem with the set-point concept: it makes perfect intuitive sense in reference to people who are at a healthy weight and trying to lose a few pounds; it's about health, having a little energy in reserve, and being able to function at a high level. 

but the theory falls apart when you expand your perspective to look at the whole population: there's nothing healthy or adaptive about being obese or underweight, and nobody's set point is 350.

and if you understand physiology and adaptivity, you understand that set point, if it existed, was established through tens of thousands of years of evolution.  which means there's absolutely no reason that one-third of the western world should be overweight and one-tenth should be eating-disordered.

it just doesn't make sense.  would it be comforting for me to decide that 140 is my set point, and therefore i should just maintain?  sure.  and i might do just that.  but it won't be because my physiology dictates that; it will be because my motives lean less toward achieving and maintaining a lower weight and more toward other things.