I dare say most of us fatties know MORE about trying to lose weight, not less.
I would like to shout this from the motherfucking rooftops.
It's why I get a little crazy-eyed ragey when someone who has never even flirted with obesity thinks they have the "answer" for me. It is inevitably something as nonsensical as "everything in moderation!"
Or when someone wants to dismiss something I am trying as hokum or a fad. Blanket statement here that's almost always true: I know my body better than you, mmmkay?
"Have you tried only drinking water and not eating after 8 pm?" "Have you tried Weight Watchers? I hear that works well" "Have you tried just eating in moderation? Don't cut things out, that is unhealthy for you" "Have you tried joining a gym?" "You should only lift weights, that burns the most fat and ups your metabolism, did you know that?" "Aren't you dieting? Why are you eating that fudgsicle?"
I didn't read the piece to mean that she's saying that "your normal weight" equals "a normal weight" or "a healthy, non-obese weight." She's talking about the weight that your body feels stuck at, the point where it always seems to return after a failed diet.
Years of yo-yo dieting fuck with the metabolism, as this article says. A fucked up metabolism encourages yo-yo dieting. It's a vicious cycle that people get stuck in, and it's really hard to break out of it. You don't just get out of it because you need to buy natural peanut butter, FFS.
I totally agree, sorry if that wasn't clear.
You know what kills me about the "eat natural peanut butter" crowd? Why do they think we haven't tried that? Why do they think their "let a Hershey kiss melt in your mouth" advice is new? I don't have bingeing issues, myself. But I've done it their way and I've done it my way, and I'm the same weight. I'm going to eat healthy, because it's better for me, but no matter what you want to think about my personal failures, it's not changing my weight.
I dare say most of us fatties know MORE about trying to lose weight, not less.
YES!
I daresay my pantry looks a hell of a lot healthier than most people's who are half my weight. My pantry is not the problem. My problem is being in this perpetual state of having to choose whether to live my life like a normal human or a hungry human and the mind fuck that comes with it.
I don't get the vitriol - I'm not saying that everyone can be a size 2 if they just try a little harder. I'm just saying that the idea of set points is self-defeating and not productive.
Because you say this every.single.weight.thread. Or really any other thread. Just change your name to sanctimommy for truth in advertising.
I don't get the vitriol - I'm not saying that everyone can be a size 2 if they just try a little harder. I'm just saying that the idea of set points is self-defeating and not productive.
You don't? Weight is incredibly emotional topic for a lot of people, filled with shame, anger, resentment, sadness, and constant struggle.
"I don't agree this article. I also don't agree with the idea that people have a "set point" or happy weight. Sure you have a certain set point if you're sitting on the couch everyday and eating junk, but if you become more active and start eating better your set point changes."
This implies heavily that the people who are struggling with their weight do so because they sit down on the couch everyday and make bad choices, which is contrary to what a lot of women on this board have experienced. They've tried running on 1200 calories a day while running and having an exercise routine. It doesn't work. And your statement makes light of their experience, and then shifts the blame once again back onto to the person who is trying their hardest to lose the weight, despite science saying "no it doesn't work that fucking way!". Look at the statement objectively and see if you can figure out why it might spark an emotional response.
I don't get the vitriol - I'm not saying that everyone can be a size 2 if they just try a little harder. I'm just saying that the idea of set points is self-defeating and not productive.
Do you have research to back this up? Like, science?
I don't get the vitriol - I'm not saying that everyone can be a size 2 if they just try a little harder. I'm just saying that the idea of set points is self-defeating and not productive.
Uh...did you read the article? It's not trying to be "productive." It's not trying to provide weight loss advice. It's meant to explain why people have trouble losing weight. It's meant to tell people who struggle, "hey, the thoughts you are thinking are totally normal and I get it."
Feeling like you aren't alone is actually it's own form of productivity.
You coming in here and taking a shit all over that without knowing what it's really like is what is actually "not productive."
I don't get the vitriol - I'm not saying that everyone can be a size 2 if they just try a little harder. I'm just saying that the idea of set points is self-defeating and not productive.
How is the idea of set points self-defeating and not productive?
When scientists talk about set points, they're usually referring to the +/- 10% of the body weight that a person is able to maintain without restricting calories, excessively exercising, or overeating. For example, someone who weighs 200lbs, that set range would be 180 - 220. Anything much more or much less will likely be unsustainable.
Let's look at an example. Person A weighs 250 pounds. We know that likely her set range is between 225 - 275 pounds. She wants to weight 150 pounds. She restricts her calories and increases her activity and over the course of many months (slow and steady and all that), she loses 100 pounds.
However, now at 150 pounds, she hasn't reset her set-range. Her range is likely still much higher (perhaps not as high has previously, but higher than 135 - 165 pounds.) She will have to maintain her restricted calorie intake and increased activity if she wants to stay at this new weight. She will not be able to deviate from the plan at all because her body will want to store additional calories for her body's benefit and get her back to her previous set range. The body wants to protect itself. It needs calories and fat to sustain itself. It does not like being in a famine state and when calories are severely restricted, the body thinks its in danger.
I don't think set-points are self-defeating or unproductive. I think they're realistic and beneficial. What IS self-defeating and unproductive is the current rhetoric that calories-in-calories-out is all it takes to lose as much weight as one wants. We have to reject that line of thought. We also have to reject that there is no magic weight range that fits everyone of a certain metric like height. We have to reject the notion that being slim equals being healthy.
I don't get the vitriol - I'm not saying that everyone can be a size 2 if they just try a little harder. I'm just saying that the idea of set points is self-defeating and not productive.
So it doesn't matter if it's true and borne out by decades of scientific research? Does that not mean anything to you?
Eta the vitriol is because you're saying "well, I *feel* like people can easily diet and lose weight if they really want to" even though all the evidence is saying this isn't true.
Ok, so here is my question- And I didn't read the whole article so forgive me if it's in there.
How do we change our set-point? Obviously it can be changed because over time people do actually achieve and maintain different weights. At what age is our set-point determined? Age has to be a factor.
If I maintain a 60lb loss for say, 6 months to a year, am I steadily lowering that set-point? I can't imagine the set-point is finite forever. And if I do, I may cry.
Ok, so here is my question- And I didn't read the whole article so forgive me if it's in there.
How do we change our set-point? Obviously it can be changed because over time people do actually achieve and maintain different weights. At what age is our set-point determined? Age has to be a factor.
If I maintain a 60lb loss for say, 6 months to a year, am I steadily lowering that set-point? I can't imagine the set-point is finite forever. And if I do, I may cry.
Ok, so here is my question- And I didn't read the whole article so forgive me if it's in there.
How do we change our set-point? Obviously it can be changed because over time people do actually achieve and maintain different weights. At what age is our set-point determined? Age has to be a factor.
If I maintain a 60lb loss for say, 6 months to a year, am I steadily lowering that set-point? I can't imagine the set-point is finite forever. And if I do, I may cry.
for losing, I rarely think this is the case. I keep reading more and more about how hard it is for anyone to maintain a significant weightloss. I think if you lose a small percentage and are still in your set point range, it's easier. But if you go drastically below that set point, I don't think it gets "reset".
Ok, so here is my question- And I didn't read the whole article so forgive me if it's in there.
How do we change our set-point? Obviously it can be changed because over time people do actually achieve and maintain different weights. At what age is our set-point determined? Age has to be a factor.
If I maintain a 60lb loss for say, 6 months to a year, am I steadily lowering that set-point? I can't imagine the set-point is finite forever. And if I do, I may cry.
for losing, I rarely think this is the case. I keep reading more and more about how hard it is for anyone to maintain a significant weightloss. I think if you lose a small percentage and are still in your set point range, it's easier. But if you go drastically below that set point, I don't think it gets "reset".
I wonder how weight loss surgery affects this. Or liposuction. With something like lap band, you still have to lose weight the traditional way, but you just physically can't eat as much. There are stories of people who do get back up to their previous weight, but I feel like most would have a new set point.
With lipo, I've always wondered what happens with hormone levels. Your weight literally changes within hours.
for losing, I rarely think this is the case. I keep reading more and more about how hard it is for anyone to maintain a significant weightloss. I think if you lose a small percentage and are still in your set point range, it's easier. But if you go drastically below that set point, I don't think it gets "reset".
I wonder how weight loss surgery affects this. Or liposuction. With something like lap band, you still have to lose weight the traditional way, but you just physically can't eat as much. There are stories of people who do get back up to their previous weight, but I feel like most would have a new set point.
With lipo, I've always wondered what happens with hormone levels. Your weight literally changes within hours.
Body Weight “Set Point” – What We Know and What We Don’t Know
by Stephen C. Woods, PhD
The amount of fat in the body, also known as total body adiposity, is a major component of body weight. Although it may go up and down from time to time, the amount of body fat (and hence body weight) most people carry is relatively stable and appears to be controlled or maintained at a level that is sometimes called a “set point.”
Evidence of Set Point in Action
The best evidence for this is that when people go on a diet and voluntarily eat less food, most are able to lose at least some weight. However, throughout time, as attention to maintaining the lost weight decreases, body weight creeps back up, generally to about the same level as occurred before the dieting began. This discouraging outcome may occur several times for some individuals throughout their lifetime as they keep attempting to lose weight; i.e., they try one or another diet that is popular at the time, lose some weight, and then regain it throughout a period of weeks or months.
If body fat tissue is removed by means other than dieting, for example when someone undergoes lipectomy or liposuction to reduce body fat, the typical result is that while body weight is initially lowered, the person increases the amount of food eaten, allowing body fat to return to its former, pre-operation level.
The factors influencing body weight are symmetrical, working in both directions. That is, when weight-stable individuals are paid to eat more food and gain weight, they are able to do it; but throughout time, the process becomes harder and harder and they typically fail at some point and fall back to the lower weight they were carrying before the period of overeating occurred, and they accomplish this by eating less food than normal.
All of these findings imply that the brain areas that control food intake and energy usage are able to monitor how much fat is present in the body, and to respond to changes in body fat by making offsetting changes in food intake. In this regard, the control of body weight and food intake is somewhat like the system that keeps your house at the appropriate temperature. You determine the set point for the room temperature you want to experience by adjusting the thermostat. When room temperature decreases below that set point, the furnace turns on and room temperature is increased. If the room temperature rises above the set point, the furnace shuts off; and in some home-temperature systems an air conditioner might come on. Unless there is a major problem (such as a furnace breakdown or a door left open), this kind of regulatory system maintains the temperature inside your house at near the set point most of the time.
Body Weight Regulation
Body weight regulation (or control) appears to be similar to set point, relying upon an internal body fat thermostat that is sensitive to total body fat and has the ability to influence a range of responses to increase (eating more food, reducing metabolic rate) or decrease total body fat (eating less food, increasing metabolic rate). While the nature of the body fat thermostat is not completely understood, it relies in part upon hormones (such as leptin and insulin) that are released into the blood in proportion to body fat and that enter the brain in areas including the hypothalamus where they influence specific brain centers controlling food intake.
If a person’s weight starts creeping up, the body secretes more leptin and insulin, and these in turn act on the brain to reduce food intake; similarly, when weight is reduced by dieting or other means, the reduced hormone levels signal the brain to increase appetite. Because of these processes, it is difficult for most people to maintain a weight that is different from their set point for long periods of time.
Specifics of the Set Point
The set point for body weight varies among people, with some remaining lean throughout their lives while others remain at a normal weight or in the obesity range. There is also evidence for a genetically determined weight trajectory in some people, for example that keeps weight low until middle age and then allows it to increase. The genes one inherits from his or her parents are one major influence on the value of the set point, and nutritional factors before and soon after birth are also thought to be important.
Rather than being permanently fixed, the weight set point is influenced by several environmental factors and can change. For example, the average palatability or desirability of one’s food is important, with chronic consumption of more palatable food generally resulting in a higher weight set point. Because of this, people tend to change weight when the food environment changes, for example when students go off to college. Stress is also an important factor, with most people maintaining lower body weights when faced with chronic stress. In contrast, some individuals tend to eat more food and gain weight in certain stressful situations, and this is often known as the comfort food phenomenon in which certain foods provide relief from stress. Excessive exercise can also lower the average amount of body fat carried.
An important question is whether an individual is stuck with whatever set point they happen to have; i.e., Are individuals affected by obesity doomed to remain affected by it in spite of their best efforts at dieting and healthy living? The answers are important for several reasons:
The concern over excess body fat, of course, is that more body fat is associated with poorer health and increased risk for cardiovascular disorders, diabetes mellitus, some cancers and many other health problems.
Obesity is also associated with numerous negative psychological and social factors.
The United States and many other countries are experiencing an obesity epidemic, making it more critical to find ways to lose weight and keep it off.
Brain Activity and Weight
It has been recognized for decades that brain activity is a major factor affecting the body fat set point. When certain parts of the brain’s hypothalamus are destroyed in experimental animals, this can lead to a permanent change in the level of body fat that is maintained throughout time. Brain injuries in some parts of the hypothalamus result in elevated set points, while injuries in other areas result in greatly reduced set points. Likewise, tumors or strokes in those same areas of the brain in humans can also permanently change the set point.
Causing brain injuries in order to treat obesity is not a viable option, for in addition to the safety and ethical issues, any such injury also impacts brain circuits controlling other behaviors, such as mood. However, simply recognizing that there are brain circuits that can be manipulated and that have selective effects on the body fat thermostat is a major step forward.
The important point is that activity in certain specific areas of the brain is capable of changing the body weight set point, and while creating injuries in the brain is not a realistic treatment option, there may be other ways to tap into the system and reset the thermostat. Historically, the two options open to individuals affected by obesity in their attempts to lose weight have been lifestyle changes (chronic dieting and exercise) or medication. While both can be effective in producing some weight-loss, most people find it difficult to follow these treatments for the long term. More recently, a third option has become available, bariatric surgery.
Bariatric Surgery – Can it change your set point?
Although several different such procedures that have been developed in recent years result in successful weight-loss, they all share the property of interfering with the passage through the gastrointestinal tract of food that has been eaten. By far, the two procedures that are most effective in this regard are roux-en-y gastric bypass (RYGB) and vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG). Both result in reduced food intake and long-term meaningful weight-loss as well as improved metabolic and health parameters; and both result in longer lives and an improved quality of life.
RYGB and VSG
In RYGB, the gastrointestinal tract is altered such that as swallowed food exits the esophagus, rather than passing into the stomach and then on to the intestines as would normally occur, it bypasses the stomach altogether and directly enters a midpoint of the intestine.
In VSG, most of the stomach is surgically removed such that only a thin cylinder of stomach tissue remains between the esophagus and the start of the intestines. Thus in RYGB there is no contact of food with the stomach or the first half of the intestine, whereas in VSG the food passes through a smaller stomach and the entire length of the intestine.
While it was initially thought that the weight-loss was due either to a restricted stomach size and/or poor absorption of food, neither is now known to be the case.
What is particularly striking is that in spite of quite different ways of rerouting swallowed food, the two procedures result in comparable improvements in body weight, diabetes and other metabolic symptoms. Body fat in particular settles at a new, considerably lower weight and acts as if there has been a lowering of the body fat thermostat. The question many laboratories are trying to answer is how does it work? Do RYGB or VSG somehow fool the weight-regulatory process in the brain?
While this is currently a hot area of research and exact mechanisms are not yet known, the best evidence is that the body fat set point is indeed lowered. In both humans and animal models, the events that occur after RYGB or VSG are similar. Appetite is initially reduced and body weight/fat declines throughout time. However, body weight does not keep going down indefinitely. Rather, as less food is eaten, body weight keeps declining until it settles at a new, much lower and much healthier level, and once that lower plateau is attained, food intake returns to near normal. Interestingly, symptoms of diabetes mellitus also start improving soon after the surgery, with many individuals seeing normal blood sugar levels long before significant weight is lost.
Recent research with animals has shown that some process common to VSG and RYGB likely results in changed information reaching the brain’s body fat thermostat, and individuals respond to this new information by eating less and attaining a new and healthier weight. While it is not known exactly how signals related to body fat content that reach the brain are altered after bariatric surgery, considerable research is currently aimed at this question. Nonetheless, the process takes advantage of the natural weight control system that already exists.
Conclusion
The overall take-away point is that, unlike what happens with dieting or taking weight-loss medications in an effort to lose weight, some types of bariatric surgery seem to change the body fat set point such that it is permanently set at a lower level. What is especially exciting is that people undergoing bariatric surgery have been found to maintain their new, lower body weight for 20 years or more and to live longer on the average than individuals not receiving surgery, presumably due to reduced health risks.
I also have the same question about whether this applies to vegans, or gluten-free or the others in the "diets that aren't about losing weight" category.
I think it depends on your reasons.
I think that maintaining a certain restrictive diet is a lot more difficult when you're doing it just because you feel like you should.
I have celiac disease. I MUST maintain a gluten free diet, and have for 10 years now. I have never intentionally cheated on the diet. But I will tell you, even after 10 years, the stuff I know I can't have is still incredibly desirable. People always say "oh, such and such must not even seem appetizing anymore." (Usually said while stuffing food item in question into their mouths.) YES IT FUCKING DOES AND I AM SAD THAT I HAVE TO SIT HERE WATCHING YOU PEOPLE EAT DELICIOUS DONUTS THAT I WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO EAT AGAIN!
If I didn't have such serious consequences attached to my food choices I can easily see how one would fail at this.
I am sure the same goes for vegans who are vegan for animal welfare reasons. The consequences are simply not worth it.
My mom (who is an asshole in general) is one of those eating = morality assholes. She likes to say "I eat to live, not live to eat" as though there is something wrong with enjoying food. Like her naturally thin self (who's never had a child) is somehow morally superior because she doesn't crave sweets. We had fat free pudding snacks as a rare treat so that we didn't get fat. (This while I was in the lowest 3 percentile for weight). I really dislike the bitch.
Yeah, mmmmmmm whatever her name is sounds the same.
I don't think it is as simple as this. I think there is still a lot we don't know about weight and there is more to it than "just eat less and move more" and "your body will put you in your natural set zone and if you try to get out of it, you will fail." I think our food in America is a HUGE HUGE HUGE problem. It's ridiculous. I've lived in the UK and Belgium, and each time I've lived in another country, my set point has magically lowered by at least 15 lbs without me putting in any effort. Actually, I probably ate out more (even at McDs) although I was certainly walking more. So I think the deck is stacked against us here.
for losing, I rarely think this is the case. I keep reading more and more about how hard it is for anyone to maintain a significant weightloss. I think if you lose a small percentage and are still in your set point range, it's easier. But if you go drastically below that set point, I don't think it gets "reset".
I wonder how weight loss surgery affects this. Or liposuction. With something like lap band, you still have to lose weight the traditional way, but you just physically can't eat as much. There are stories of people who do get back up to their previous weight, but I feel like most would have a new set point.
With lipo, I've always wondered what happens with hormone levels. Your weight literally changes within hours.
What's really intersting is that some studies have shown that abdominoplasty aka tummy tuck can actually lead to long term weight loss beyond the fat that is surgically removed. And it's not just increased willpower or motivation - it seems that the fat itself releases hormones making you feel hungry and that removing some of it helps you feel full faster.
I wonder how weight loss surgery affects this. Or liposuction. With something like lap band, you still have to lose weight the traditional way, but you just physically can't eat as much. There are stories of people who do get back up to their previous weight, but I feel like most would have a new set point.
With lipo, I've always wondered what happens with hormone levels. Your weight literally changes within hours.
What's really intersting is that some studies have shown that abdominoplasty aka tummy tuck can actually lead to long term weight loss beyond the fat that is surgically removed. And it's not just increased willpower or motivation - it seems that the fat itself releases hormones making you feel hungry and that removing some of it helps you feel full faster.
What's really intersting is that some studies have shown that abdominoplasty aka tummy tuck can actually lead to long term weight loss beyond the fat that is surgically removed. And it's not just increased willpower or motivation - it seems that the fat itself releases hormones making you feel hungry and that removing some of it helps you feel full faster.
Links? This would be awesome.
Not a huge study but still interesting. There doesn't seem to be a lot of research into this, which is unfortunate.
It's been so depressing having a miscarriage at 13 weeks. I was gaining weight and have no baby to show for it. And that fucking weight hangs around like a daily reminder. Fuck you extra no baby weight!! Anyway last week I started a "diet." Really just monitoring my caloric intake and staying under 1200 calories per day and also monitoring my nutritional balance. I think it's working? More than anything though its giving me control over an uncontrollable situation. For that, I feel happy. I'm not sure what I think of this article. It's too broad.
Hugs. I've been there and it sucks. It took a long time for me to finally say fuck it, I'm sad and grieving but I need to be healthy for the son I do have. I'm glad you're gaining control over your diet and feeling good about it.
This is the problem for me in a nutshell. Eating "well," the way you're supposed to, is so boring. This article says that 30% of your calories should be protein and you should be eating 9-12 servings of fruit and vegetables. 9-12! Fruit I can do but I can't make myself choke down that much vegetable. Plus it says if you're trying to lose weight, you should limit your servings of fruit to 3.
I had a piece of grilled chicken and brocoli for dinner. I ate it because I was hungry and I need energy to fuel my body. But taste wise it is barely tolerable. t's hard to look into your future and see mostly grilled chicken and brocoli, kwim?
Most definitely. We've been taught from a very young age to want the salt, fat, and sugar. Our food is engineered to force cravings. It's hard to undo that.
I think I used up all of my willpower quitting cigarettes.
After smoking for 7 years, I found that "dieting" is significantly harder than it was to quit smoking. I'm definitely more addicted to food, especially sugar, than I ever was nicotine.
I would think that one of the issues is that once a fat cell has been established within a body it is there forever, it can be emptied of fat but the cell remains. This is why it is so easy to regain lost weight. So...it is, in fact, easier for people with less body fat to cheat occasionally because those fat cells are not present in as many numbers, whereas for someone who has lost the weight, the fat cells are there, just waiting to be filled again.
I would think that one of the issues is that once a fat cell has been established within a body it is there forever, it can be emptied of fat but the cell remains. This is why it is so easy to regain lost weight. So...it is, in fact, easier for people with less body fat to cheat occasionally because those fat cells are not present in as many numbers, whereas for someone who has lost the weight, the fat cells are there, just waiting to be filled again.
I read something the other day that said fat cells are regenerated even after lipo!
I don't get the vitriol - I'm not saying that everyone can be a size 2 if they just try a little harder. I'm just saying that the idea of set points is self-defeating and not productive.
You know what was self-defeating and unproductive? Actively starving myself for 6-12 weeks at a time to try to get below my set point during my 20s. No hyperbole here - under 1000 calories while working out 2 hours a day was pretty damn defeating. I'd stop only because I'd reach a point where I was too tired from lack of sustenance to get through my basic activities in the day. And I STILL didn't get very much below my set point. I would've been a much happier young adult if I just accepted those literal 5 pounds that separated me from a normal BMI and being overweight. So really, go fuck yourself.