Set Point Theory - Do you believe it? Why or why not?

[bubble_tea]

Basically, the theory suggests your weight - like your height - is pretty much determined by your genes.

"Set point theory suggests that our body has a particular range of weight that it is comfortable in, usually about 10% of a body’s weight. That means, if you weight 175, you have about an 18 pound range; if you weigh 325, you have about a 33 pound range. Most people lose and gain within this set point on a pretty regular basis. They may put on a little weight in the winter and lose it in the spring. Or get busy and drop a little weight. Or gain a little when stressed. Or lose a little during an illness. Or whatever. Movement within this range is normal. However, movement outside of that range is not. In fact the body seeks homeostasis – that is the body seeks to stay within that range. To move outside of that range something must go on, something must happen to the body.

This range appears to be set by a number of factors. The strongest factor seems to be genetic, as a number of studies have found. In fact, adoption and twin studies have determined that about 75% of us have the body size we do because of genetics. For that other 25%, a number of factors can mess with your set point, moving it either up or down. Disease is one of those factors."

source: www.bigfatblog.com/set-point-theory-explained

Yes, it makes sense.

No, it doesn't make sense.

[NotJustAnotherGuy]

There's absolutely no truth to this. Even height can be extremely manipulated.

However, weight-- unlike height-- has well established proof in being entirely dependent on nourishment and activity and not at all genetics. 100% of people on a calorie deficit lose weight. 100% of people on a calorie surplus gain weight.

This is basic science and homeostasis isn't some magic in your body that creates energy from nothing. Matter/mass/energy can not be created or destroyed, only transferred. So as an intellectual being, how does this equate in to your weight? Easily, you just consume less calories than you expend and you 100% of the time, always lose weight. Again, I must stress, it's not magic. It's science. You can't create energy from nothing, if you stop eating you will lose weight. Your genetics don't matter. Homeostasis doesn't matter. You don't go into "starvation mode" and gain weight. All these stupid excuses don't actually exist.

Homeostasis would be if you ate a bunch of sugar all at once, and your body converted the sugar in your blood stream into fat in order to maintain a certain threshold for glycogen content in your bloodstream. It is NOT why you choose to eat pastas, or load dressing on your salad, over better options like high protein / low calorie content. It is NOT why you choose to watch soaps instead of working out today, or why you give up 10 minutes into what should be an hour long workout routine.

And I don't see how anyone could ever say genetics makes you do that.

[bubble_tea]

Are you telling me two 5'2" parents can have a 6'0" son without giving him growth hormones and such?

If nobody diets or excercises, and everyone eats the same amount of calories and food (according to their height, age and gender). Do you think every 5'6" person of the same age and gender (even same race if you will) will weight the same? If you answer with no, you agree with the set point theory.

I thought everyone knew that some people have superior digestive systems (it can use all energy you put into it) and others have less than optimal ones (their body can only break down and use SOME of it). Of course in a world with plenty of food, people with inefficient digestive systems are praised.

[NotJustAnotherGuy]

First off, is giving growth hormones gene manipulation? No. So growth hormones would be further proof height isn't genetic but a matter of nutrition (which greatly effects hormone production).

I don't agree with set point theory, and my answer to that question is yes. With the same nutrition, environment, activity and rest, people will come out to be extremely similar in height. Proof that environment also effects height, is shown in social classes (upper class people tend to be taller than their lower class counterparts).

But since this discussion is about weight and the set point theory, let's focus on that, which is 10x easier to disprove.

Superior digestive systems? lol. This is not a widely accepted belief-- particularly not as a significant factor in obesity. Even if you meant METABOLISM (calories you burn at rest), metabolism is mostly guided by daily nutrition and activity.

Genetics don't determine obesity.

[NotJustAnotherGuy]

Here's the proof:

www.plosone.org/.../...1371%2Fjournal.pone.0019657

People are becoming less and less active and as a result more and more obese, while calorie intake remains roughly the same over the last 50 years.

There is no reasonable genetic explanation for the growth in obesity. If were genetically smaller, why did ALL our parents suddenly pass off fat genes? In 50 years how does this evolution in digestive systems find itself spontaneously in every families genes?

That's not how gene mutations work.. they can't over 50 years redefine an entire population. It takes much more time for the mutated gene to replicate and outlive and out reproduce non-mutated genes.

Obesity is a sudden problem
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17349447

The rapid growth in obesity can't be explained by genetics-- ergo, set point theory is utterly ridiculous and false.

[bubble_tea]

"upper class people tend to be taller than their lower class counterparts" - maybe one major factor is upper class people tend to marry among themselves or models who are >5'10" for generations.

If you need to inject prescription drugs (HGH) to grow, it's not nutrition anymore. Nutrition is food, supplements, not drug use.

No, I meant digestive system as in small intestine where most digestion takes place. It varies greatly in length. "The average length of the small intestine in an adult human male is 6.9 m (22 ft 8 in), and in an adult female 7.1 m (23 ft 4 in). It can vary greatly, from as short as 4.6 m (15 ft) to as long as 9.8 m (32 ft)." (wikipedia)
Since most digestion happens there (I assume food just get pushed through it whether the nutrients get absorbed or not and doesn't just stay there until it is) and women have longer small intestines than men even though they are shorter in average, it's no wonder why it's harder for women to stay in shape compared to men.

[NotJustAnotherGuy]

Rather than waste my time again proving all that wrong.. I'm going to reiterate that genes can not be responsible for a sudden increase in obesity over the last 50 years. There is no way a mutated gene outproduced and out lived in a population of 300million in just 50 years. Our genetics are largely the same, yet our bodies are largely-- LARGE! Why is this?

Why? If genes determine your weight and some made up definition of homeostasis is going to make us a certain weight-- why is our weight changing when our genetics are the same?

[bubble_tea]

Couple that with the fact that women genetically store more fat in their bodies than men and growing sedentary lifestyle, and we have a disaster.

I'm not saying lifestyle isn't an important factor too, I'm saying this small fact is usually dismissed, but in my opinion it is a large factor.

There is a study that proves when your grandparents were anorexic/forced into starvation for an extended period (due to wars), it will change their genes, or at least the genes they pass on. And the mutation can be found in their grandchildren.
The percentage of overweight/obese descendants of Holocaust survivors is much higher than the percentage of the general population for example.

[NotJustAnotherGuy]

You're talking about a bunch of kids who grew up with parents suffering from PTSD... Hardly isolates a genetic discrepancy beyond an environmental one, especially since the whole idea hinders on epigenetics.

Homeostasis does affect your choice of food or whether you work out or not. And there is no explanation for sudden increases in obesity.. war and epigenetics wouldn't cover that much grounds either (2million soldiers opposed to 300million people in the nation).

Genetics is not a factor. Certainly not the reason for 75% of people being the weight they are. More like 10% or less (and that's people born with serious physical/mental defects).

[NotJustAnotherGuy]

excuse me-- homeostasis does NOT affect your food choice*

[mydestiny]

This is a good point and there is some truth in it but personally I am not 100% confident that genetic is the only reason.
It very much depends upon your upbringing and what all you eat when you were child. Send a child of a wealthy family to a poor family or vice versa and you will see the condition can totally change the way the child weights when he is an adult.
Yes but I will agree that genes has its part to play to determine how we are but there are other factors which also influences it, I will rate the success rate of the theory to be about 80%.

[bubble_tea]

"In fact, adoption and twin studies have determined that about 75% of us have the body size we do because of genetics."

you are almost correct ;)

[mydestiny]

The rest 25% can be categorized into 3 parts
1. The people whose lifestyle was different from the way there parents were and that lead to less or extra weight.
2. People who does not like the way they are and do there best to achieve the perfect body structure and
3. People who are super lazy and even when they are blessed with a good body they ruin it by enjoying there life and not don't care about how they look."Who cares. Chilllll"

[bubble_tea]

MHO. The others didn't disprove the theory, but only put emphasize on how much the other 25% matters. I would like to see their body in 20 years, when life doesn't permit daily gym visits without sacrificing friendships and family.

[bubble_tea]

*their bodies

[mydestiny]

Haha!! after 20 years I don't think any theory will work, especially in here. Here the BMI of people start increasing after 25 years and there is no going back afterwards. Lol.
But I like everybody's views, everyone is different and correct in their way, which brings variety. There are very few people who can have a similar thought process and that makes life more interesting.

[bubble_tea]

True, but I like those people with similar thought process more =P

[mydestiny]

Yes, it is easy to talk to them as the thought process matches, and they can have a long creative conversation without much quarrels and fights. But yes, their should be some difference in thought process otherwise the conversation might become monotonous. I think 75% similarity like the theory will be the best. Lol.

[hopefuldancer]

It makes sense but can be modified by gender and height - of course. My 6"2' husband stays at 140 lbs and ranges between 130 to 150. Without exercise. I'm 5"5' and I have a medical condition (thyroid and PCOS) and I range all over the place. Before these conditions, I ranged from 135-160 (I'm Italian and eat lots of pasta and bread, lol). I think ethnicity and cultural diet should take place in the study as well. He's Italian and Irish but lives an American lifestyle. My parents were 1st Gen Italian-Americans.

[bubble_tea]

I'm not from the States. What is the American diet? Highly processed food? kidding! Meat on top of other meat? I have no idea..

I live in a western European country, people here eat lots of carbs too because meat is expensive.

[BertMacklinFBI]

it makes sense but I mean I don't credit sex point theory for it making sense. it just makes sense plain and simple. yeah my body will hover around a certain weight due to living conditions and whatever else that may happen lol. of course.

[bubble_tea]

sex point theory xD

[BertMacklinFBI]

hahaa :D SPT! lol

[bubble_tea]

please tell me more about that sex point theory xD

[BertMacklinFBI]

I would if I could! xD

[Anonymous]

Yes and no.

Yes- there is a particular build that your body will aim for per your genetics. It also determines what kind of metabolism you have, which consequently determines what your caloric intake is for maintaining your weight with your current activity. The body is not built to be it's strongest self, contrary to popular belief. Your body actually looks for the easiest way to adapt to external stimulus. So if you workout, that's great... unless you do the same workout/activity over and over. In which case, your body adapts to do THAT activity in the easiest way it can.

But no- people (a lot of them being in that "fat acceptance movement") like to use this as an excuse for how they can't do this or that. While you can get as advanced as you like with dieting, nutrition, and exercise and see amazing results, there still is a pretty simple formula for weight management: caloric intake vs. metabolism (the breaking down of nutrients for body fuel). To lose weight, burn more calories than you take in and maintain (or vice versa).

I watched a show from Australia I believe it was from, talking about obesity, surgeries for weight management devices, etc. While I felt for the people who were overweight and on that show discussing their issues, their reasoning just didn't hold up. They tried to explain (and ultimately exaggerate) how dieting was tough, is a long-term process, how exercise isn't easy, and things of this nature. A gentleman in the audience spoke up and said "Exercise isn't easy, but that wasn't the question. The question was 'Are there people that absolutely cannot lose weight?' and the answer is no".

I'm not saying that everyone uses these same excuses nor that I have this outlook on every overweight or obese person. But what essentially amounts to bodybuilding or sculpting isn't easy or a quick process for most anyone.

[bubble_tea]

Thank you for your thoughtful opinion.

I agree that everyone can lose weight. All this theory is saying that it's harder work for people to get to a certain weight when it's further away from their set point. In that link they mentioned a study with prisoners; a prisoner ate 10'000 calories a day just to maintain the 25% he put on.

Bodybuilding and sculpting is hard work, but not as hard as it used to be. Many people are cheating with protein powder, keratin, steroids and what not. Back in the Schwarzenegger days, he literally ate 20 eggs or a plate full of chicken in one sitting every 3-4 hours to get his protein.

in my opinion people can expect overweight people to make healthy food choices and regular exercise, but people shouldn't expect them to get to that "healthy weight" no matter what (e. g. smoking, eat cotton balls). After all, skinnyfat isn't exactly healthy. Sumo ringers are as far as I know healthy.

[Opinion Owner]

Well of course it's harder to maintain, ESPECIALLY when you are trying to pack it on as opposed to taking it off. This is because the more mass you pack on (and especially muscle mass), the more nutrients your body needs to maintain. So when you're heavy trying to shed weight, your body is wanting to stay in the rut it has carved for itself. It takes discipline, smart dieting/exercise, and consistency. I've seen it all too often where people just won't stick to something because it hurts or is uncomfortable. Exercising isn't supposed to be comfortable, but it's also not a dangerous type of hurting assuming you're doing it properly. With the first of the year coming up, I fully expect to see the usual "New Years resolution" gym newbies packing into the gym... and then start dropping like flies a month into the new year.

[Opinion Owner]

And it's not any more harder or easier than it was before. Yes, there are supplements (don't mistake them for replacements, though). Supplements are best used for people who are far enough into a goal, such as myself where I've hit a plateau of weight gain. You want to keep it as natural as possible and only resort to supplements to really step your training and dieting into high gear. And yes, Arnold himself took protein supplements. He used to work as a construction worker/brick layer, and would have protein supplements between meals. He was also noted as saying that he preferred NOT to eat huge meals, and instead had 4-6 smaller meals + supplements throughout the day. So no, he wasn't packing down the food like you think.

[Opinion Owner]

And lastly it's reasonable to assume that someone with a bigger body build isn't going to become the cliche bikini model. And when I say bigger body build I don't mean their weight but just how they're proportioned.

They aren't obligated to listen to what society tells them they should look like, which is my biggest annoyance with the "pity me" types of obese people. They seem to think waaaay inside the box and never think that they could just ignore what they see on the media. But when they cross that line and start discussions about how they're somehow expected to look a certain way, of course they're going to have people responding to what they say. It's not my problem if they start a discussion but can't handle any responses.

The fact remains that you stand to be more prone to diseases or disorders when you're obese. There's no other way around it. If they want to remain the way they are, fine. But don't expect everyone to agree with that reasoning

[bubble_tea]

This is actually what he said in an "instruction video" in a TV coverage shown here on his 40th? 50th? birthday. Maybe it was scripted.

If you are a bodybuilder, you should know that weight/BMI is only one factor determining someone's health. A bodybuilder can very well be in the overweight/obesity range.
metro.co.uk/.../

If it's that easy to ignore what media tells you, all those ad agencies would go bankrupt and marketing people would have no job. I think there is an underlying pressure and judgement you just cannot escape when you are visibly different than the majority.

[Opinion Owner]

I've seen a few different docu's about him and his life, and have read a lot on his careers, training, etc... and that's the general jist of what he did: basically he was ingesting something at most points throughout the day, but wasn't cramming it down. But that's a relatively minor detail in regards to what your question is about here lol

Yeah, and any body builder worth his/her salt will know that BMI is an awful system to gauge themselves against. Hell, even shooting for a particular body weight (when you aren't an athlete like a boxer or fighter with weight classes) is a poor system when your goals are more complex than just being X-amount of pounds.

And just because "it's hard to ignore the media"... doesn't mean that one shouldn't. That's the very same reasoning that I'm talking about when it comes to diet and exercise- just because it's hard doesn't mean it's not the way to go ;)

[AdamThomas]

It makes no sense. I put on or lose as much weight as I want to. I used to be 120lbs. In the space of a year I bulked up to 160lbs. That required me to cut out cardio, lift heavy weights and eat 3500 calories a day. I was a little bit fat (by my standards at least) I was 15% body fat. So I decide I'd cut my calories down to 1500 calories a day, do more cardio, ride the bike to work rather than drive. I lost 8lbs in just over a month, and now I'm 152lbs at 9% bodyfat. I've done similar before, bulked then cut. I can get to any weight I want to get to, all it takes is the willpower to stick to whatever I need to do. I think too many people read stuff like this then make excuses not to get to a healthy weight.

[bubble_tea]

I'm sorry, but you're not disproving the case.

"To move outside of that range something must go on, something must happen to the body." ... "For that other 25%, a number of factors can mess with your set point, moving it either up or down."

By eating 3500 a day (when 2000 is recommended) and changing your work out routine, you did change a lot. There's also the question if you can keep your 152 lbs 9% bodyfat in the long run, meaning 5+ years.

[AdamThomas]

If you're comfortable with your lifestyle and you aren't going to change your diet or your exercise routine, of course you're going to stay within a certain range, but that's just because calories in vs. calories out remains the same, only slightly changing with things such as stress, illness etc. I don't think it's anything to do with your body trying to stay in that range, your body adapts to whatever you're doing right now and whatever you're putting into it.

[bubble_tea]

If nobody diets or excercises, and everyone eats the same amount of calories and food (according to their height, age and gender). Do you think every 5'6" person of the same age and gender (even same race if you will) will weight the same? If you answer with no, you agree with the set point theory.

I agree regular excercise will change the set point, but I wonder if people should expect overweight people (due to genetics) to do absolutely everything to be thin. If I had to jog an hour everyday and cut pasta, potatoes, rice from my food list to weigh as much as I weigh, I don't know if other things in life would matter more to me. I would certainly excercise 3x a week, and try to eat less carb, but if I were still overweight then, I would say it's genetics.

[AdamThomas]

With few exceptions, if they eat the same thing and do the same thing they won't weight exactly the same but they'll weigh similar. And it depends on what they eat. When I was on my 3500 calorie diet I ate pretty clean, always made sure there was plenty of protein in each meal, fruit and veg, I didn't drink alcohol and I didn't eat high fat foods that I usually enjoy, and I cut out sugar completely. If I'd eaten 3500 calories of shit I would have put on mostly fat, but instead I put on mostly muscle.

As for people not doing what they can to get to a healthy weight, I think they should. Again this is just excuse making. Also the trouble is that a lot of people just don't know the best ways to get to the weight they want to get to e. g. jogging for an hour a day is no good.

[bubble_tea]

I think you put on muscle, because you worked out and gave your muscles protein to repair and grow. Without excercise, the excess of those 3500 calories would have surely become stored energy as fat instead of muscle.

See, I don't believe in BMI as a health indicator. I think it's more important where the fat gets stored. Under the skin is maybe not be pleasing to the eye, but it doesn't have a negative affect onyour health (sumo ringers are healthy) In or betweeen the organs, however, is unhealthy.

[AdamThomas]

Exactly. If I didn't workout or work a heavy manual job I'd be huge with the amount I eat. That's my point, a lot of bigger people who don't do anywhere near the amount of physical activity I do will look at me, the way I look, and what I eat, then look at themselves and say "it must be genetics". I worked a desk job for a little while, very quickly gained weight. And again sorted out diet and gym to lose it. But also like I said if I'd have eaten shit I still would have gotten fat because you need protein to build muscle, but instead the Western diet is very carb heavy.

[Illusive_Man]

Now that's just lazy people giving themselves excuses.
Certain people have affinity towards certain mesotypes , but that's it... affinities , if you're an endomorph , it's not a license to be a fatass , if you're an ectomorph , it's not a license to be a skinny skeleton.

[bubble_tea]

"if you're an ectomorph , it's not a license to be a skinny skeleton." - so eat till you vomit and then eat some more?

[Illusive_Man]

If you "eat till you vomit" and you're still a walking skeleton , you're obviously eating wrong.
Count your macros.

[bubble_tea]

lol, I knew a girl who wanted to put on weight so much, she stuffed herself with chocolate bars (up to 5 daily) between meals for weeks. She may have gained 1 or 2 pounds. She stopped because she couldn't eat chocolate bars anymore and because she didn't see any results.

[Illusive_Man]

You ain't gonna gain any pounds on chocolate bars alone, you need complex CARBS and high bioavailability PROTEIN.

[bubble_tea]

good to know that everyone can eat chocolate bars as much as they want, as often as they want and not gain at all.

[bubble_tea]

*as long as they don't eat "complex CARBS and high bioavailability PROTEIN."

[Illusive_Man]

Lassie , there is a limited rate to how fast your body can synthesize cells.
All you are jamming down there with chocolate is sugar and fat , you need a WELL ROUNDED diet to utilize your body's synthesis capacity.

[Anon-ee-mous]

As @Illusive_Man has put it, it's not simply a matter of eating until you vomit. You have to really know WHAT you're eating, and how your macronutrients are really affecting you.

I'm an ectomorph body type, and have packed on ~23 pounds in the course of 6 months. I'm currently at a bit of a plateau but am slowly finding ways to get over it (keeping tight track of macros, eating smaller but more frequent meals for a faster metabolism, etc.)

A lot of people have a very basic idea of what really goes into nutrition and fitness, and expect it to be a quick process when it isn't.

[Illusive_Man]

@Anon-ee-mous

It's always easier to blame on the difficulty then to actually tackle it but since when that has gotten people anywhere eh?

[NotJustAnotherGuy]

Try eating nothing but chocolate bars, see how far you get through the week kiddo. You won't succeed in following the diet either. She gained 1-2 lbs you said, that's proof it makes you gain weight. But no one likes eating the same stuff over and over, that's not homeostasis that's taste buds and boredom. This is only proof of her intelligence, not that set point theory is even remotely accurate-- because it isn't.

[Illusive_Man]

well shit's about to hit the fan.
Time to hide lol

[ClauseViter]

Inteseting concept. However seems far fetched. You can always change how much you way by adjusting caloric input (and working out, if u wanna gain muscle). Literally you can 5 foot nothing and become morbidly obese, no genetics in that shit.