i also have doubts about the set point theory, but i also don't understand the set point theory, so . . .
All of the functions in our bodies are regulated by strict homeostatic-inducing mechanisms. We have a "setpoint" for our body temperature, our circulating blood sugar levels, electrolytes, hormones, rate of hair and skin growth, rates of tissue regeneration and tissue death. Why would it be such a stretch to think that we have a "setpoint" for our weight as well?
We just haven't figured out how it works yet. I don't know how my computer works on the inside either, but I can still use it...
again, not saying it's impossible either, just confused about it.
right now, i set around 128 with no real effort. my body just sort of naturally goes there. during 'bad times' such as bad diet and/or emotional eating (with some controls), I'll get up to 135 or so.
So, say set point is right here. My appetite is adequately suppressed through IF (or whatever mechanism is doing that), such that I'm eating 15-1700 calories per day.
If this lowers my set point, how low will it go? What is reasonable and/or likely? Also, would this mean consuming less -- such as going down towards 14-1600 or even lower?
Calorie restriction -- you know, those who do it for longevity -- are looking at anywhere from 1000-1500 cals/day depending upon the person, and i was just wondering what this was doing. or if that is part of it or what. IDK. Just ideas in my head.
I think our body's 'set point' is the level at which we're most comfortable eating in terms of calories. That is, WE regulate our weight by how we eat.
For example, I have a friend who has lost some weight, and is currently 120 lbs. She looks and feels great at this weight, but she had a desire to get back to her college weight (she's 48 now), and so she lost to 115 lbs. She felt fine, but she realized that she wasn't willing to eat at the caloric level that would allow her to maintain at 115 lbs. At 120 lbs, she's comfortable with her eating.
I suspect that most people who don't have weight issues and disregard calories eat at a similar caloric level from habit, so their weight stabilizes at a weight consistent with their food consumption. That isn't a 'set point' for the body; if the person ate a lot more, he/she would gain weight and similarly by restricting, the person would lose.
As to 'how low' a person can go, the stories I've read of anorexia suggest that if a person limits eating enough, the body will respond accordingly--to the point of death if there's no intervention.
I started yesterday with two tablespoons of virgin pressed unrefined coconut oil. One when I got home from work (3pm) and another at 8pm. I couldn't believe how well the appetite suppression worked. I chased both doses with water and so it I tasted nothing. I've never lost weight in over two years of primal so I'm really curious how this will work for me.
I wasn't saying I would EAT macadamia nuts. I would swallow them like pills with a glass of water. Maybe halves. I tried swallowing beef tallow like pills this morning but it got stuck in my throat. Chunks too big.
It doesn't bother me to skip a meal, but it does bother me to be hungry. I am interested in appetite suppressant. I don't know if I like the whole flavorless thing. I mean, as soon as you open the container you can smell it so trying to completely avoid taste and smell seems like an exercise in futility.
By the way, Enig's book is titled Eat Fat, Lose Fat.
You can download a free PDF of Eat Fat and Grow Slim, a book by Richard Mackarness written in 1960. It is a low carb/high fat book.
Female, 5'3", 48, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135.
Starting squat: 45lbs. Current squat: 145 x 4.
The feedback in the hunger-driven systems is normally accomplished by those things that are hard to understand--insulin, leptin, ghrelin, cortisol, melatonin, etc...
Any normally functioning animal, including humans, should be able to be fed ad libitum or 'free choice', meaning that you should be able to live in a banquet hall full of all the foods in the world and you'd only eat what you need to thrive. It's also well known that there is an internally controlled weight setpoint. The normally functioning body wants to stay at a certain weight and has ways to make minor changes...most of the excess calories you consume are burnt at night while you sleep through the manipulation of uncoupling proteins and increased body temp. I don't think this can keep up, though, with constant overfeedings on poor nutrition foods.
The weight setpoint is more obvious in animals...take a flock of pen-raised chickens; feed them ad libitum, with allowances for sex and breed, they will all be the same weight. Look at a herd of deer or a troop of monkeys--they are all weight normalized within a narrow band. I think if you could go back in time, you'd see the same thing in a village of paleolithic people.
Dogs, cats, hamsters, birds, chickens, pigs, cows, horses, monkeys...the list goes on, can all be fed 'free choice'. Humans are capable of this as well, but just as with animals being fed free choice, if you throw them a treat, they will eat it despite being full. Throw your dog enough treats and eventually he will become tired of them and they are no longer a treat and he will stop eating them.
Humans are constantly being bombarded by treats that lead us to overeat. Most of us have broken feedback loops on hunger, whether from out-of-synch circadian cycles, improper nutrition, psychological issues, medical issues, etc...
It seems to me the SLD may be a way to circumvent some of the normal feedback signals and help a person 'get their groove back' so to speak concerning a weight set-point.
Last edited by otzi; 01-06-2013 at 10:02 AM.