so /fit/, your opinion on set points? is it true or just another excuse of fat people to explain why their weight goes up again after a diet (if they diet in the first place)?
>>36971465
What's the point of calling it a "set point" if it changes? Fatties can't even keep their own bullshit excuses straight.
I went from skelly to ottermode-esque over the course of a couple years, and I plateau'd a few times
Couldn't eat enough to break 165, then I couldn't get over 175, and now I'm stuck at 180
Set point is an excuse for fatties who are addicted to food. When I marathon train, I eat more. As a result, I get more hungry more often wven on very fulfilling foods. When I'm finished, I cut. Yes, I get hungry but I eat less despite my body wanting more. It eventually calms the fuck down because it realizes it doesn't NEED the extra food--it just WANTED it. Fatties fall for their bodies thinking it NEEDS the food.
Thst is why Set-point theory is bullshit.
>>36971517
thanks, i see
i had the same experience, like my body constantly complaining when cutting, but after a few does it shuts up, like you said
>>36971465
To some extent, but as shown by the image they can be changed. It's not an excuse to get fat.
>>36971465
I never heard of set point changing, so that defeats the purpose entirely and makes the concept nonsensical. The closest thing to an actual set point would be like your BMR/TDEE at a given weight that matches your health and aesthetic goals. But that's not some magic number set by your body, it's one you can calculate reliably based on your weight. And it's a goal, not something you automatically hit. So set point sounds mostly like HAES bullshit.
>>36971465
I think I remember from first-year biology lectures that set points are a thing, that there is a biological basis for some people struggling to go below a certain weight
From what I remember, the idea is that some people might get stuck at slightly overweight or something due to to genetics (so people saying set points don't exist based on personal experience might just not have a 'high' set point). It doesn't mean they can't lose weight, just that it's harder
Pretty sure a set point can't be at morbidly obese though, so super-overweight people can't really use it as an excuse for their size
>>36971517
To illustrate the point further that "set point" is bullshit, you have to look at the mechanism of why fat people overeat. To them, food is a reward. When you get a reward, you brain receives dopamine which sets off our pleasure response. When our brains get rewarded like this, it wants to repeat the experience. Due to how easy it is to reward our brain, it becomes an addictive behavior. The same thing happens to drug addicts--they take the drug, their brain gets a reward. Since it was so easy, it will attempt to do it again.
That's where fatties fall. They continue to seek that reward, whereas us who work out know we have to do some fitness exercises to get it. It teaches our brains about delaying pleasure and how it's worth it because the good feeling lasts longer instead of having to redose over and over again. It becomes a vicious cycle for the fatties that their brain feels like they need the easy reward to survive, else it will die. Dopamine is essential for our survival. It is also what helps us get the energy we needed to do to get that reward. Fatties circumvent this and their bodies pay the price.
When you take all that away, the defense mechanisms kick in. This is where "muh set point" and denial comes inyo play. Remember: the brain wants that easy reward and feels it needs it to survive. Anything threatening this purs the brain into survival mode. It will do anything to keep the cycle going.
The trick to beating this is knowing that as long as you are getting proper nutrients and are eating enough calories even at a deficit, you will survive. The brain will kick into high gear trying to tell you it is going to die. Ignore this. Do something else to distract yourself. It goes away.
>>36971602
>genetics
a healthy pituitary gland has a lot of feedback mechanisms to maintain the status quo by regulating appetite and metabolic processes, even down to things like the amount of fidgeting
it's one of the main reasons why we have "fudge factors" in calorie intake calculations, and also why you can eat more calories to maintain 140 pounds than you need to eat to drop from 145 to 140, for instance
That said, the whole system is still obviously dynamic. The system does not necessitate any specific point, nor does it necessitate returning to the starting point over time. It just means that your body will alter its processes with a lifestyle change and it will take time for the system response to stabilize at your new point.
The reason these ambuloceti believe it is because they try fad diets or crash diets, which cause an underdamped response by the pituitary gland. That's why they end up bingo eating and gaining even more weight.
>>36971602
Barring a ridiculous digestive or metabolic disorder (which would be fatal in early childhood at best), it is always possible for a person to lose fat.
The standard deviation of maintenance calories is around 300 from the mean, so some people's bodies DO need less calories than others. There's still an amount that they will lose weight, though.
It's generally believed that the maximum weight "above the mean" due to genetics is 15 to 20 pounds, and another maximum of 10 due to hypothyroidism. You're looking at 30 pounds max that a person can blame on their body, but if a person is being treated for hypothyroidism, they won't have the extra weight.
>captcha" Drinkwater"
>that's the name of the "I'm mostly vegetarian" ham that was in the Julius interview
>>36971856
>it is always possible for a person to lose fat.
even if you give them high doses of insulin?
>>36971875
>injecting substances from outside the body
Yeah, if you shoot them full of stuff their body isn't producing itself, it'll change the equation. Idiot.
>>36971793
>bingo eating and gaining even more weight.
All this bingo eating and they never get full house
>>36971889
Fat people have natural high doses of insulin and insulin resistance, pretty much the same.
>>36971910
>some guys have naturally high testosterone, it's pretty much the same as injecting anabolic steroids
Kill yourself
>>36971602
yes they are, but as you said it doesn't justify being fat.
also set points are real, but very malleable, animals are very good at adapting, so humans are too good at adapting.
by a set point in someones weight should be the weight of that person when eating at maintenance, but a body will easily adapt to different calorie intakes.
>>36971934
that is a bad analogy, go back to school anon
>>36971875
pretty much every IFBB pro takes insulin and is <8% bf, but yes it will change the number
>>36971897
kek
>>36971910
yeah but it's been shown that insulin resistance is partially a function of body fat, meaning it's just another feedback mechanism that needs to be accounted or adjusted for
