Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / March 2005
Weight set points
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Rachael Reynolds - 05 Mar 2005 13:27 GMT I thought I recalled a discussion about "set points" a while ago but I can't find it now. I think it was about a study which said actually there was no evidence that there were set points and that not losing below a certain point was psychological rather than physical. Anyone have any thoughts?
Rachael 176/122/119-124
Ignoramus28861 - 05 Mar 2005 13:37 GMT > I thought I recalled a discussion about "set points" a while ago but I can't > find it now. I think it was about a study which said actually there was no > evidence that there were set points and that not losing below a certain > point was psychological rather than physical. Anyone have any thoughts? there is a prisoners study:
`` Sims was interested in whether the metabolic differences observed between fat and thin people were the result or the cause of their body type. Put simply, he wanted to know whether people are born fat or made fat. He decided that the best way to sort this out was to convince a group of slim volunteers to eat themselves fat and to observe what happened to them when they reduced to their original weight.
Sims was fortunate to have nearby a ready source of experimental subjects: the inmates at Vermont state prison, sufficient numbers of whom were willing to gorge themselves for science. At first the prisoners proved enthusiastic trenchermen, as much as doubling their usual daily intake of food. But as they fattened, they became increasingly reluctant to overeat. Most found it extremely difficult to gain weight, and eventually some started to drop out of the study. Only 20 made it through the requisite 200 days, achieving an average weight gain of 20-25lbs. Relieved of the high-calorie, low-exercise regimen, all but two of the inmates quickly dropped the newly acquired ballast. The pair of inmates who found it most difficult to lose weight were those who had experienced the least difficulty gaining weight in the first place. It was later discovered that both these men had a family history of obesity.
>From this experiment Sims concluded that the body was remarkably well equipped to balance energy intake and output, and to reach an energy equilibrium, or "homeostasis", at which it felt naturally comfortable. What was particularly interesting was that body weight seemed somehow fixed, and was in most subjects resistant to change over the short term. The prisoners with obesity in their backgrounds were, it seemed, genetically inclined to reach homeostasis at a higher weight than were others; the high-calorie diet only helped manifest their genetic proclivity.''
Lictor also wrote about it once:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.diet/browse_frm/thread/4201b6160 703b9f2/7721581ca6647878?q=set+point+prisoners+group:alt.support.diet#7721581ca6 647878
 Signature 223/173.2/180
Rachael Reynolds - 05 Mar 2005 14:28 GMT >> I thought I recalled a discussion about "set points" a while ago but I >> can't [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.diet/browse_frm/thread/4201b6160 703b9f2/7721581ca6647878?q=set+point+prisoners+group:alt.support.diet#7721581ca6 647878 Many thanks!
Rachael 176/122/119-124
greg - 05 Mar 2005 14:39 GMT > I thought I recalled a discussion about "set points" a while ago but I can't > find it now. I think it was about a study which said actually there was no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Rachael > 176/122/119-124 It seems to be real.
http://www.obgyn.net/newsheadlines/womens_health-Endocrinology-20040726-23.asp
Studies of a stomach hormone called ghrelin in normal-weight women indicate that the hormone may play a part in re-establishing a body weight set-point after dieting and exercise.
http://www.foodproductdesign.com/archive/1995/0295CS.html
Other research by Duke's Schiffman points to one characteristic that separates the overweight from their leaner counterparts: They want more intense and varied taste
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=15005834
Experimental demonstration of human weight homeostasis: implications for understanding obesity.
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/287/6/R1297
The drive to regain is mainly in the brain Levin Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol.2004; 287: 1297-1300.
...on the behavioral and metabolic responses during the development of obesity, chronic food restriction, and relapse after ad libitum access to food.... ...up to 16 weeks of restricted feeding ("weight-reduced") followed by 8 additional weeks of refeeding ("relapsed-obese")....
Rachael Reynolds - 06 Mar 2005 00:18 GMT >> I thought I recalled a discussion about "set points" a while ago but I >> can't find it now. I think it was about a study which said actually [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > food.... ...up to 16 weeks of restricted feeding ("weight-reduced") > followed by 8 additional weeks of refeeding ("relapsed-obese").... Thanks for all of those! That is very helpful!
Rachael 176/122/119-124)
Dr. Dickie - 06 Mar 2005 09:43 GMT >I thought I recalled a discussion about "set points" a while ago but I can't >find it now. I think it was about a study which said actually there was no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Rachael >176/122/119-124 Google leptin. You might start here: http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/bodyweight/leptin.html
Basically, leptin is secreted by adipose tissue (fat). When leptin levels drop below a certain level, you get hungry. Drop to far, you get really hungry. Here is the killer: leptin falls, when your fat cells begin to lose too much of their fat stores, so losing weight (adipose tissue specifically) causes leptin to drop, and you get hungry all the time--I think of this as that weird body hunger I get when my weight get down to where I want it to be. More bad news (ain't I a ray of sunshine so far) when someone is obese for a long period, their body gets more fat cells (once the ones you get full, the body has to create more to store the extra fat--bad news, these do NOT go away when you lose weight :-( More adipose tissue means that your body gets used to HIGHER leptin levels (more secreting tissue don't you know), so when you lose weight the leptin effect is even worse and wants you stay at the higher weight (and remember you do not lose that damn extra adipose tissue). What is the final story? Don't know. Of course all of this is effect to a great degree by your genes, and all this leptin stuff is pretty new, so very little is truly known.
One side note: DO NOT BUY products claiming to have leptin replacement for you. The stuff is hugely expensive to isolate (so likely anything they sell is fake) and IIRC there is no evidence that oral replacement had ANY effect. Also again, it is not all gloom and doom, this is likely only one of a couple thousand players that interact and regulate each other, so your specific genes will cause so variability that any blanket statement is not true.
The bottom line is, your body wants to be fat. For some, the call to be fat is dramatic, for others their body might only whisper. For those of us that have the call loud, the struggle is hard. BUT that does not mean that we cannot overcome it! Fight the good fight, and try to establish good habits (psychological can help offset physiological). Don't give up, do not waver, and remember life is not where you end up, but the journey to get there. You have your whole life to get it right, so keep trying.
Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick ==================================== "Let be be finale of seem. The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream" Wallace Stevens-1923 =====================================
greg - 06 Mar 2005 15:23 GMT > The bottom line is, your body wants to be fat. For some, the call to > be fat is dramatic, for others their body might only whisper. For [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > where you end up, but the journey to get there. You have your whole > life to get it right, so keep trying. What would be your arguments for continuing the struggle against being overweight? Why diet when 50% of being overweight is genetic?
Polar Light - 06 Mar 2005 16:06 GMT >> The bottom line is, your body wants to be fat. For some, the call to >> be fat is dramatic, for others their body might only whisper. For [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What would be your arguments for continuing the struggle against being > overweight? Why diet when 50% of being overweight is genetic? Ever heard 'mind over matter'? Psychological factors are as important as physiological ones, as the doctor points out above.
I know in my case I tend to eat compulsively because of stress & other emotional issues. Nothing genetic about my weight gain, my mom was underweight till she had me, my dad was always normal weight (but died young of a heart attack!)
greg - 06 Mar 2005 16:17 GMT >>What would be your arguments for continuing the struggle against being >>overweight? Why diet when 50% of being overweight is genetic? > > Ever heard 'mind over matter'? Psychological factors are as important as > physiological ones, as the doctor points out above. I have heard of it. I have also noticed it doesn't work very well or society would very different. Every instinct you have is to eat for survival so you can reproduce.
> I know in my case I tend to eat compulsively because of stress & other > emotional issues. You eat when stressed because food is psychoactive. It makes you feel better. It makes you calmer. You eat because it works. Notice you don't drink water when stressed. There's a reason why we turn to food.
Nothing genetic about my weight gain, my mom was
> underweight till she had me, my dad was always normal weight (but died young > of a heart attack!) Some people are genetically destined to be thing, just like some are tall. I can't be taller using mind over matter.
Ignoramus17028 - 06 Mar 2005 23:06 GMT >> The bottom line is, your body wants to be fat. For some, the call to >> be fat is dramatic, for others their body might only whisper. For [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What would be your arguments for continuing the struggle against being > overweight? Why diet when 50% of being overweight is genetic? Empirically speaking, I feel much better being slim, than being overweight. That's my reason.
 Signature 223/173.2/180
greg - 06 Mar 2005 23:43 GMT > Empirically speaking, I feel much better being slim, than being > overweight. That's my reason. At what BMI do you think the cutoff is? It's clear a lot of people don't feel bad being overweight.
Polar Light - 07 Mar 2005 09:14 GMT >> Empirically speaking, I feel much better being slim, than being >> overweight. That's my reason. > > At what BMI do you think the cutoff is? It's clear a lot of people don't > feel bad being overweight. Depends on your concept of 'feeling bad' & whether you guys are referring to the physical or emotional side. In many cases, what makes you 'feel bad' is your reflection in the mirror, not fitting into your clothes or having to buy a bigger size, not any specific physical symptom.
Naturally, if you have a BMI of 30 or over your weight will have more impact on the physical side If your BMI is, say, 24-26 you may not have any health issues but that doesn't mean you like what you see in the mirror & you don't 'feel good'.
Once they get very fat, many people either stop looking (denial: some obese people don't have full length mirrors) or stop caring, some even turn against the current trend to be slim by advocating 'fat acceptance'.
How you feel depends 25% on your BMI, 75% on your state of mind.
greg - 07 Mar 2005 15:25 GMT > How you feel depends 25% on your BMI, 75% on your state of mind. Your state of mind is largely cultural. At a BMI of 30, which is obese, from a physical standpoint i don't think i felt physically any worse than i do at a lower BMI.
Polar Light - 07 Mar 2005 19:34 GMT >> How you feel depends 25% on your BMI, 75% on your state of mind. > > Your state of mind is largely cultural. At a BMI of 30, which is obese, > from a physical standpoint i don't think i felt physically any worse than > i do at a lower BMI. I completely agree, however, I think once you get inside the obese category you may start feeling the physical consequences of obesity more & more as you get fatter.
greg - 07 Mar 2005 19:51 GMT > I completely agree, however, I think once you get inside the obese category > you may start feeling the physical consequences of obesity more & more as > you get fatter. That makes sense. I just wonder where the transitions are.
Polar Light - 08 Mar 2005 16:56 GMT >> I completely agree, however, I think once you get inside the obese >> category you may start feeling the physical consequences of obesity more >> & more as you get fatter. > > That makes sense. I just wonder where the transitions are. They must be different for everybody, depending a lot on your lifestyle. If you only drive to your office, watch TV & drink beer you probably won't notice as much difference between a BMI of 30 & 35. If you like to be more active, I'm sure you'd notice the extra weight 'pulling you down' as you try to play sports, go hiking, etc.
Rachael Reynolds - 08 Mar 2005 23:47 GMT >> I completely agree, however, I think once you get inside the obese >> category you may start feeling the physical consequences of obesity more >> & more as you get fatter. > > That makes sense. I just wonder where the transitions are. For me, really only once I was close to normal BMI did I really feel physically different. And I don't know if that was the weight, self image, or other healthy stuff like eating my fruit and veg that did it.
Rachael 176/121/119-124
Ignoramus26383 - 07 Mar 2005 14:51 GMT >> Empirically speaking, I feel much better being slim, than being >> overweight. That's my reason. > > At what BMI do you think the cutoff is? It's clear a lot of people don't > feel bad being overweight. It is a great question. I wish I had something to say about that. To me, going over BMI of about 28 brought about a big decline in my quality of life.
 Signature 223/173.2/180
greg - 07 Mar 2005 15:27 GMT > It is a great question. I wish I had something to say about that. To > me, going over BMI of about 28 brought about a big decline in my > quality of life. Can you explore quality of life?
Do you mean how you look by cultural standards? Do you mean athletic performance? Do you mean sexually?
If your life is pretty much going to work, watching tv, etc, like a lot of peoples, then would quality of life be equally impacted?
Ignoramus26383 - 07 Mar 2005 15:47 GMT >> It is a great question. I wish I had something to say about that. To >> me, going over BMI of about 28 brought about a big decline in my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Do you mean athletic performance? > Do you mean sexually? All of the above was important to me, yes. Other things were also important.
> If your life is pretty much going to work, watching tv, etc, like a lot > of peoples, then would quality of life be equally impacted? I had heartburn. I was very tired by the end of every day. My feet hurt. Tying my shoelaces was an effort. I had hypertension. Etc etc.
 Signature 223/173.2/180
Chris Braun - 08 Mar 2005 03:38 GMT >>> It is a great question. I wish I had something to say about that. To >>> me, going over BMI of about 28 brought about a big decline in my [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I had heartburn. I was very tired by the end of every day. My feet >hurt. Tying my shoelaces was an effort. I had hypertension. Etc etc. With the exception of the shoelaces (not so much an issue for women unless they exercise and hence wear gym shoes), many people might have these symptoms and not particularly relate them to their weight. I wasn't really conscious of my weight adversely affecting my quality of life; I enjoyed my life when I was heavy and I enjoy it now. I had conditions that I'd now consider negatives -- like those you mention -- but I just blamed aging -- figured that was what happened when you got to middle age. Now I know better :-).
Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004
Ignoramus26383 - 08 Mar 2005 03:50 GMT >>>> It is a great question. I wish I had something to say about that. To >>>> me, going over BMI of about 28 brought about a big decline in my [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > unless they exercise and hence wear gym shoes), many people might have > these symptoms and not particularly relate them to their weight. I did not relate them either. Then, to my great surprise, after only 1-2 weeks of dieting, my heartburn went away, to never return.
> I wasn't really conscious of my weight adversely affecting my > quality of life; I enjoyed my life when I was heavy and I enjoy it > now. I had conditions that I'd now consider negatives -- like those > you mention got to middle age. Now I know better :-). I had a similar experience, I thought that my weight related problems were due to getting older.
 Signature 223/173.2/180
janice - 08 Mar 2005 07:44 GMT >With the exception of the shoelaces (not so much an issue for women >unless they exercise and hence wear gym shoes), many people might have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >-- but I just blamed aging -- figured that was what happened when you >got to middle age. Now I know better :-). I tend to be the other way - I blamed everything like that on my weight (or in some cases such as the heartburn, tightness in the chest, etc.) more specifically on the overeating of which the weight was a side effect. I hope I won't be too disappointed when some of the discomforts are still with me when I get closer to my goal!
As for laces, I don't go to the gym but most of my comfortable walking shoes (mainly Ecco brand) have laces, as do the two pairs of walking boots I use for all my day hikes:)
janice
SnugBear - 09 Mar 2005 03:40 GMT > I had > conditions that I'd now consider negatives -- like those you mention > -- but I just blamed aging -- figured that was what happened when you > got to middle age. Now I know better :-). My dear friend has yet to keep with the program to get to a weight she'd like. She acts quite philosophical and accepting of problems being age related rather than weight related. When we celebrated our birthdays last month, she good naturedly talked about us being old now. I pointed out that I haven't felt so good or *young* in twenty years.
 Signature grrrrr Rain! Pilates & treadmill Laurie in Maine 207/115 New Scale Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03
Dr_Dickie - 07 Mar 2005 15:59 GMT > > The bottom line is, your body wants to be fat. For some, the call to > > be fat is dramatic, for others their body might only whisper. For [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What would be your arguments for continuing the struggle against being > overweight? Why diet when 50% of being overweight is genetic? "Health," end of argument. Look, out bodies were designed to perform fabulously for the way we were living 15,000 years ago or so. Eat huge amounts of calories occasionally, starve occasionally, work (exercise) almost no stop while awake, and die when you're about 40 years old. Problem is, we don't want to get with the plan. ;-)
 Signature Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick
Doug Freyburger - 09 Mar 2005 22:44 GMT > >I thought I recalled a discussion about "set points" a while ago but I can't > >find it now. I think it was about a study which said actually there was no > >evidence that there were set points and that not losing below a certain > >point was psychological rather than physical. Anyone have any thoughts? > > Google leptin. You might start here: http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/bodyweight/leptin.html
> Basically, leptin is secreted by adipose tissue (fat). When leptin > levels drop below a certain level, you get hungry. Drop to far, you > get really hungry. Leptin is also secreted by the liver in response to peak carb intake over some period of time. This is why refeeds are often discussed went leptin is discussed.
Low leptin is a double whammy - It decreases basal metabolism via turning down T3 thyroid and it also increases appetite.
> Here is the killer: leptin falls, when your fat cells begin to lose > too much of their fat stores, so losing weight (adipose tissue > specifically) causes leptin to drop, and you get hungry all the > time--I think of this as that weird body hunger I get when my weight > get down to where I want it to be. Also it's not just more-stored-fat-more-leptin less-stored-fat-less-leptin. The rate of change effects leptin output. Drop fat fast and leptin drops faster. Drop fat slowly and leptin drops slower.
This is an point hated by every beginning dieter in history: When it comes to fat loss, slower is better. When it comes to fat loss, faster brings on a host of problems. Completely the opposite of what everyone wants. Sigh.
Chris Braun - 06 Mar 2005 22:09 GMT >I thought I recalled a discussion about "set points" a while ago but I can't >find it now. I think it was about a study which said actually there was no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Rachael >176/122/119-124 Well, once before when I lost some weight, I got down to 200 and just stayed there forever. This time I thought that would happen too -- some kind of major setpoint -- but it didn't at all. The first time around I wasn't counting calories, and I think my calorie level was just basically at maintenance for 200 lbs., so I didn't lose any more.
I don't know whether I believe in setpoints or not. In the course of losing weight this time, I had a few stalls of 2-3 weeks, but nothing major. Perhaps sometimes people are confused, as I was, by simply reaching a point where intake=output. If you start out losing on x calories a day and lose a fair bit of weight, you are likely to reach a point where x is your maintenance level. This isn't the same thing as a setpoint; it just means you need to cut back on intake some if you want to keep losing.
Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004
Polar Light - 07 Mar 2005 09:38 GMT "> Well, once before when I lost some weight, I got down to 200 and just
> stayed there forever. This time I thought that would happen too -- > some kind of major setpoint -- but it didn't at all. The first time [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > as a setpoint; it just means you need to cut back on intake some if > you want to keep losing. Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004
Yes, the above makes sense & is something many people don't take into account. We all know it's a myth that some people can't lose weight, anybody would go down to 100lbs if locked up long enough (there were no fat concentration camp survivors). But you are referring to stalls & plateaus, not 'set points' as such, which refer to people regaining the weight they've lost because their bodies are supposed to have a 'set point' i.e. their bodies 'want' to be, say, 250lbs. They may lose 100 & reach 150 but when they stop dieting they'll start gaining again till they go back to 250, ie. they'll eat enough cals to maintain at 250 because that's their 'set point'. Personally, I don't believe this is true &, if I read your signature correctly (262/130s/130s), you're living proof of this fact!
Dr_Dickie - 07 Mar 2005 16:12 GMT > >I thought I recalled a discussion about "set points" a while ago but I can't > >find it now. I think it was about a study which said actually there was no [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 262/130s/130s > started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 People do confuse the so called "set-point" with not being able to lose weight beyond a certain point. They also often do forget to take into account of a drop in basal metabolic rate due to weight loss (even less effort to just walk around thinner). However, the set-point is not a place were weight loss becomes impossible, it is a place were your body's response to the weight loss makes it harder on you. Such is life, I don't know the alternative, so I'm trying to hang around as long as possible (a be productive too!).
 Signature Dr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick
|
|
|