Body weight set point theory
Discussion
I am 14.5 stone. In the summer I will be 14 stone. Seven years ago, I trained like an athlete, with a trainer, and got down to 13 stone and 13% body fat, where I stayed for a year, more or less. To stay there I had to carry on training hard and eat pretty cleanly, with few treats.
If I stop training, I become a bit lardy and am still 14-14.5 stone. If I have several successive holidays, I might go up to 15.25 stone, I can lose it again in a few weeks, back down to 14-14.5 stone, but no further without a LOT of effort.
Basically, my body wants to be 14-14.5 stone. When I was in my 20s it was 12.25 stone.
So, after a lifetime of observation, it seems to me that my body has had set points of body weight and I have had to work very hard to shift from them. This, despite being active and watching what I eat.
Has anyone else observed this?
If I stop training, I become a bit lardy and am still 14-14.5 stone. If I have several successive holidays, I might go up to 15.25 stone, I can lose it again in a few weeks, back down to 14-14.5 stone, but no further without a LOT of effort.
Basically, my body wants to be 14-14.5 stone. When I was in my 20s it was 12.25 stone.
So, after a lifetime of observation, it seems to me that my body has had set points of body weight and I have had to work very hard to shift from them. This, despite being active and watching what I eat.
Has anyone else observed this?
I think it’s well acknowledged that we all have a weight in our dna. When you see twins etc, they’re normally very similar habitus.
I’m the same as you, trained hard for 2 years and significantly changed physique but gradually went back to the norm which stays consistent.
I see us rhe same as different dog breeds!
I’m the same as you, trained hard for 2 years and significantly changed physique but gradually went back to the norm which stays consistent.
I see us rhe same as different dog breeds!
Gentics and lifestyle play a huge role, I think everyone has a weight that comes most naturally to them ether side of that you ether have to train hard and be strict with eating or just let things slide most people are some where in the middle, as an aside composition is way more important than what the scales say. Also the bodies ability to lose weight doesn't change with age, people just become more lethargic and have less time to train when they get older, or they bs there caloric intake.
Edited by mcelliott on Saturday 24th February 12:03
Louis Balfour said:
I am 14.5 stone. In the summer I will be 14 stone. Seven years ago, I trained like an athlete, with a trainer, and got down to 13 stone and 13% body fat, where I stayed for a year, more or less. To stay there I had to carry on training hard and eat pretty cleanly, with few treats.
If I stop training, I become a bit lardy and am still 14-14.5 stone. If I have several successive holidays, I might go up to 15.25 stone, I can lose it again in a few weeks, back down to 14-14.5 stone, but no further without a LOT of effort.
Basically, my body wants to be 14-14.5 stone. When I was in my 20s it was 12.25 stone.
So, after a lifetime of observation, it seems to me that my body has had set points of body weight and I have had to work very hard to shift from them. This, despite being active and watching what I eat.
Has anyone else observed this?
Overall, this is nonsense. If you were your age now but living in the 1970's or 1980's would your body "want" to be 14.5 stone? Or would it more likely be something like 12.5 stone.If I stop training, I become a bit lardy and am still 14-14.5 stone. If I have several successive holidays, I might go up to 15.25 stone, I can lose it again in a few weeks, back down to 14-14.5 stone, but no further without a LOT of effort.
Basically, my body wants to be 14-14.5 stone. When I was in my 20s it was 12.25 stone.
So, after a lifetime of observation, it seems to me that my body has had set points of body weight and I have had to work very hard to shift from them. This, despite being active and watching what I eat.
Has anyone else observed this?
Clearly, you sit at 14.5 stone based on your current diet and lifestyle, hence as you have noted it changes when your diet and/or lifestyle changes.
Ashfordian said:
Louis Balfour said:
I am 14.5 stone. In the summer I will be 14 stone. Seven years ago, I trained like an athlete, with a trainer, and got down to 13 stone and 13% body fat, where I stayed for a year, more or less. To stay there I had to carry on training hard and eat pretty cleanly, with few treats.
If I stop training, I become a bit lardy and am still 14-14.5 stone. If I have several successive holidays, I might go up to 15.25 stone, I can lose it again in a few weeks, back down to 14-14.5 stone, but no further without a LOT of effort.
Basically, my body wants to be 14-14.5 stone. When I was in my 20s it was 12.25 stone.
So, after a lifetime of observation, it seems to me that my body has had set points of body weight and I have had to work very hard to shift from them. This, despite being active and watching what I eat.
Has anyone else observed this?
Overall, this is nonsense. If you were your age now but living in the 1970's or 1980's would your body "want" to be 14.5 stone? Or would it more likely be something like 12.5 stone.If I stop training, I become a bit lardy and am still 14-14.5 stone. If I have several successive holidays, I might go up to 15.25 stone, I can lose it again in a few weeks, back down to 14-14.5 stone, but no further without a LOT of effort.
Basically, my body wants to be 14-14.5 stone. When I was in my 20s it was 12.25 stone.
So, after a lifetime of observation, it seems to me that my body has had set points of body weight and I have had to work very hard to shift from them. This, despite being active and watching what I eat.
Has anyone else observed this?
Clearly, you sit at 14.5 stone based on your current diet and lifestyle, hence as you have noted it changes when your diet and/or lifestyle changes.
Ashfordian said:
Louis Balfour said:
I am 14.5 stone. In the summer I will be 14 stone. Seven years ago, I trained like an athlete, with a trainer, and got down to 13 stone and 13% body fat, where I stayed for a year, more or less. To stay there I had to carry on training hard and eat pretty cleanly, with few treats.
If I stop training, I become a bit lardy and am still 14-14.5 stone. If I have several successive holidays, I might go up to 15.25 stone, I can lose it again in a few weeks, back down to 14-14.5 stone, but no further without a LOT of effort.
Basically, my body wants to be 14-14.5 stone. When I was in my 20s it was 12.25 stone.
So, after a lifetime of observation, it seems to me that my body has had set points of body weight and I have had to work very hard to shift from them. This, despite being active and watching what I eat.
Has anyone else observed this?
Overall, this is nonsense. If you were your age now but living in the 1970's or 1980's would your body "want" to be 14.5 stone? Or would it more likely be something like 12.5 stone.If I stop training, I become a bit lardy and am still 14-14.5 stone. If I have several successive holidays, I might go up to 15.25 stone, I can lose it again in a few weeks, back down to 14-14.5 stone, but no further without a LOT of effort.
Basically, my body wants to be 14-14.5 stone. When I was in my 20s it was 12.25 stone.
So, after a lifetime of observation, it seems to me that my body has had set points of body weight and I have had to work very hard to shift from them. This, despite being active and watching what I eat.
Has anyone else observed this?
Clearly, you sit at 14.5 stone based on your current diet and lifestyle, hence as you have noted it changes when your diet and/or lifestyle changes.
You probably wanted to hear something else.
Louis Balfour said:
Terminator X said:
Louis Balfour said:
Why do you think the 70s or 80s would be different?
Very little processed food and supermarkets? Less time in front of computer / mobile phone?TX.
Fast food too probably. I don't recall having anything other than fish and chips in the 70s and even then rarely.
TX.
Terminator X said:
Louis Balfour said:
Terminator X said:
Louis Balfour said:
Why do you think the 70s or 80s would be different?
Very little processed food and supermarkets? Less time in front of computer / mobile phone?TX.
Fast food too probably. I don't recall having anything other than fish and chips in the 70s and even then rarely.
TX.
Ashfordian said:
Overall, this is nonsense. If you were your age now but living in the 1970's or 1980's would your body "want" to be 14.5 stone? Or would it more likely be something like 12.5 stone.
Clearly, you sit at 14.5 stone based on your current diet and lifestyle, hence as you have noted it changes when your diet and/or lifestyle changes.
I was going to post something similar.Clearly, you sit at 14.5 stone based on your current diet and lifestyle, hence as you have noted it changes when your diet and/or lifestyle changes.
People 40-50 years ago were less chubby on average than today. Something must have changed their setpoint?
MC Bodge said:
Ashfordian said:
Overall, this is nonsense. If you were your age now but living in the 1970's or 1980's would your body "want" to be 14.5 stone? Or would it more likely be something like 12.5 stone.
Clearly, you sit at 14.5 stone based on your current diet and lifestyle, hence as you have noted it changes when your diet and/or lifestyle changes.
I was going to post something similar.Clearly, you sit at 14.5 stone based on your current diet and lifestyle, hence as you have noted it changes when your diet and/or lifestyle changes.
People 40-50 years ago were less chubby on average than today. Something must have changed their setpoint?
My point is that my average weight over the past five years has been around 90kg. My body doesn't want to drop below that easily, but nor does it want to stay above around 92.5kg for any length of time. My experience suggests there is more to that than caloric intake. I keep a close eye on my weight, which I suspect most people don't, and I see a hysteresis effect.
A couple of comments above appear to imply "you've overweight, unhappy about it and looking for excuses" which isn't the case. I am about sixty, but am still at the gym five days per week and am relatively fit, with a flat stomach. No, I won't be rocking a six-pack this summer, serious illness notwithstanding, but nevertheless I am not fat.
I grew up in the 70's, a bag of crisps was a treat and tiny bag. Now a huge bag is normal.
Seriously I probably had less than 10 cans of coke in the decade.
Just because everyone is chubby these days, it doesn't mean it's a set point.
everyone was thin in the 40's, 50's, 60's.
you are what you eat.
My home town had 1 chip shop and 1 chinese in the 70's, now it has 13 fastfood / takeaway places. you really think fast food peaked in the 70's?
Seriously I probably had less than 10 cans of coke in the decade.
Just because everyone is chubby these days, it doesn't mean it's a set point.
everyone was thin in the 40's, 50's, 60's.
you are what you eat.
My home town had 1 chip shop and 1 chinese in the 70's, now it has 13 fastfood / takeaway places. you really think fast food peaked in the 70's?
Edited by Bob-iylho on Sunday 25th February 08:47
Edited by Bob-iylho on Sunday 25th February 08:47
BMI is a horrible way to check your weight, I don’t think I work with anyone who is within range and actually looks healthy.
I do remember watching a show with a family who lived in each decade and the percentage of salary which went on food in the 80s was far higher than now.
We feed a family of 4 very well on £100 a week and I remember my Mum saying they spent £85 a week back when I was in primary school and being amazed.
Dave!
I do remember watching a show with a family who lived in each decade and the percentage of salary which went on food in the 80s was far higher than now.
We feed a family of 4 very well on £100 a week and I remember my Mum saying they spent £85 a week back when I was in primary school and being amazed.
Dave!
I mentioned a similar thing on the weight loss thread, along the lines of the closer I get to my target (ideal to me) weight, the more it seems to be the law of diminishing returns in effort.
If your doing all the right stuff and not aiming to have a very very low BMI figure (one that you have set as a goal), the constituent body make up is then less dependent on fat (some of it invisible & around the organs as opposed to being just under the skin) and more on muscle mass, which is less able to trap water.
So lots of moving parts which have an effect when losing / gaining weight we just look at as total mass, especially if your doing weights at the gym.
I’ve noticed myself (especially regards the hysteresis effect mentioned above) there can be massive swings even if I think I’ve been eating very clean.
I weighed a “normal” breakfast (for me) the other day which is a large bowl of porridge, a nana and some raisins and got close to 800 calories, which I take as a third of my daily budget.
While I’ve always eaten relatively healthy, the maintenance calorie allowance for a larger male via evolution is quite depressing in terms of how much I like to eat versus how much I can!
The main thing is if you commit to measuring your weight daily, set yourself a banding to sit within and then enjoy your exercise / the balance of life while not exercising, do what’s right for you.
The kids watch the gladiators (honest) and when I occasionally glance up at it, it strikes me that some of the male athletes must be doing 8K calories a day minimum and a huge amount of protein to being able to bulk up to that size at 6 foot 6, one mentioned he ate 7 times a day.
Other end of the scale, to lose a kilo a week I have to forgo just one days worth of his food intake to reach my own banding, hopefully by July.
Aside from illness etc, the process is just down to hard graft, if you are seeing shifts beyond what you’d expect, try keeping a temporary food diary then closely inspect after a fortnight the real calories involved in some of those meals. A recent study stated people (like me) understate their calories consumed by around 30% if not specifically measured, which would certainly account for banding you refer to in your OP.
If your doing all the right stuff and not aiming to have a very very low BMI figure (one that you have set as a goal), the constituent body make up is then less dependent on fat (some of it invisible & around the organs as opposed to being just under the skin) and more on muscle mass, which is less able to trap water.
So lots of moving parts which have an effect when losing / gaining weight we just look at as total mass, especially if your doing weights at the gym.
I’ve noticed myself (especially regards the hysteresis effect mentioned above) there can be massive swings even if I think I’ve been eating very clean.
I weighed a “normal” breakfast (for me) the other day which is a large bowl of porridge, a nana and some raisins and got close to 800 calories, which I take as a third of my daily budget.
While I’ve always eaten relatively healthy, the maintenance calorie allowance for a larger male via evolution is quite depressing in terms of how much I like to eat versus how much I can!
The main thing is if you commit to measuring your weight daily, set yourself a banding to sit within and then enjoy your exercise / the balance of life while not exercising, do what’s right for you.
The kids watch the gladiators (honest) and when I occasionally glance up at it, it strikes me that some of the male athletes must be doing 8K calories a day minimum and a huge amount of protein to being able to bulk up to that size at 6 foot 6, one mentioned he ate 7 times a day.
Other end of the scale, to lose a kilo a week I have to forgo just one days worth of his food intake to reach my own banding, hopefully by July.
Aside from illness etc, the process is just down to hard graft, if you are seeing shifts beyond what you’d expect, try keeping a temporary food diary then closely inspect after a fortnight the real calories involved in some of those meals. A recent study stated people (like me) understate their calories consumed by around 30% if not specifically measured, which would certainly account for banding you refer to in your OP.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff