"Set Point"

An interesting and long webpage interview.

http://home.comcast.net/~bkrentzman/obesity/liebel.html

These studies are the kind I take seriously, because the test subjects were
prisoners in the lab.

It suggests that having body fat below one's set point triggers a 15%
reduction in caloric burn rate. It seems to suggest that there is no
"starvation mode," as a reaction to recent caloric intake.

Also, of interest was the info that 30% of an obese person's extra weight is
from lean tissues.

It says that an obese person who is at his set point has the same metabolic
efficiency as a non-obese person at their set point.

I'm thinking that a low carb high fat diet changes the set point. This
could alter the results of these studies. They were unquestionably done
with what I would consider high carbs. It will be interesting to see the
result of future studies on low carb high fat.

"Cubit" writes:

It suggests that having body fat below one's set point triggers a
15% reduction in caloric burn rate. It seems to suggest that there
is no "starvation mode," as a reaction to recent caloric intake.

Except that metabolic slowdown as a result of short-term dieting is a
well-accepted fact, at least in weight lifting circles. Most
"cutters" NEED to eat more every few days to keep their metabolism up.

I think this is all related to leptin levels - leptin production
depends (1) on stored body fat, and (2) on caloric intake. Leptin
*sensitivity* determines your "set point". Between the three, they
conspire to keep you at a given weight. This is also why it's harder
to lose more as you approach your goal weight, and why obese people
can diet harder and keep losing.

Note that leptin sensitivity *can* be changed, but it's not easy, and
it prefers changing towards more fat storage :-P

Also, of interest was the info that 30% of an obese person's extra
weight is from lean tissues.

I figure 25% but yeah, it's not all fat. There's support tissue in
there also.

I'm thinking that a low carb high fat diet changes the set point.

If anything, it would hurt it - leptin production is boosted by
glucose in the fat cells. Less glucose = less leptin = more hunger.

But that only matters when you eat above maintenance anyway.

We know so little about the hormonal influences of metabolism that
it's possible that the altered hormonal signature of a LC diet has all
sorts of effects on your body, but we don't know if/what they are.

"Cubit" writes:

It suggests that having body fat below one's set point triggers a
15% reduction in caloric burn rate. It seems to suggest that there
is no "starvation mode," as a reaction to recent caloric intake.

Except that metabolic slowdown as a result of short-term dieting is a
well-accepted fact, at least in weight lifting circles. Most
"cutters" NEED to eat more every few days to keep their metabolism up.

I think this is all related to leptin levels - leptin production
depends (1) on stored body fat, and (2) on caloric intake. Leptin
*sensitivity* determines your "set point". Between the three, they
conspire to keep you at a given weight. This is also why it's harder
to lose more as you approach your goal weight, and why obese people
can diet harder and keep losing.

Note that leptin sensitivity *can* be changed, but it's not easy, and
it prefers changing towards more fat storage :-P

Also, of interest was the info that 30% of an obese person's extra
weight is from lean tissues.

I figure 25% but yeah, it's not all fat. There's support tissue in
there also.

I'm thinking that a low carb high fat diet changes the set point.

If anything, it would hurt it - leptin production is boosted by
glucose in the fat cells. Less glucose = less leptin = more hunger.

But that only matters when you eat above maintenance anyway.

We know so little about the hormonal influences of metabolism that
it's possible that the altered hormonal signature of a LC diet has all
sorts of effects on your body, but we don't know if/what they are.

"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...

"Cubit" writes:

It suggests that having body fat below one's set point triggers a
15% reduction in caloric burn rate. It seems to suggest that there
is no "starvation mode," as a reaction to recent caloric intake.

Except that metabolic slowdown as a result of short-term dieting is a
well-accepted fact, at least in weight lifting circles. Most
"cutters" NEED to eat more every few days to keep their metabolism up.

I think this is all related to leptin levels - leptin production
depends (1) on stored body fat, and (2) on caloric intake. Leptin
*sensitivity* determines your "set point". Between the three, they
conspire to keep you at a given weight. This is also why it's harder
to lose more as you approach your goal weight, and why obese people
can diet harder and keep losing.

Note that leptin sensitivity *can* be changed, but it's not easy, and
it prefers changing towards more fat storage :-P

The study addresses the leptin issue.

Peace,
Pen

"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...

"Cubit" writes:

It suggests that having body fat below one's set point triggers a
15% reduction in caloric burn rate. It seems to suggest that there
is no "starvation mode," as a reaction to recent caloric intake.

Except that metabolic slowdown as a result of short-term dieting is a
well-accepted fact, at least in weight lifting circles. Most
"cutters" NEED to eat more every few days to keep their metabolism up.

I think this is all related to leptin levels - leptin production
depends (1) on stored body fat, and (2) on caloric intake. Leptin
*sensitivity* determines your "set point". Between the three, they
conspire to keep you at a given weight. This is also why it's harder
to lose more as you approach your goal weight, and why obese people
can diet harder and keep losing.

Note that leptin sensitivity *can* be changed, but it's not easy, and
it prefers changing towards more fat storage :-P

The study addresses the leptin issue.

Peace,
Pen

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Cubit wrote:

An interesting and long webpage interview.

http://home.comcast.net/~bkrentzman/obesity/liebel.html


I'm thinking that a low carb high fat diet changes the set point. This
could alter the results of these studies. They were unquestionably done
with what I would consider high carbs. It will be interesting to see the
result of future studies on low carb high fat.


As a low carber of several years (roughly from when the Taubes article
came out), and a data point of one, I have to say that my set point is
exactly the same from having been on a low carb diet as it was when I was
using other methods to lose weight.

It is possible for me to lose weight below that point, but only by
seriously ramping up my exercise and throttling back my calories. Since
every time I've tried to get below it I've ended up rebounding higher,
I've declared this my maintenance weight and am not actively seeking to
diet away any more fat.

Martha




--
"ALPO is 99 cents a can. That's over SEVEN dog dollars!!"
Revek - ASDLC

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Cubit wrote:

An interesting and long webpage interview.

http://home.comcast.net/~bkrentzman/obesity/liebel.html


I'm thinking that a low carb high fat diet changes the set point. This
could alter the results of these studies. They were unquestionably done
with what I would consider high carbs. It will be interesting to see the
result of future studies on low carb high fat.


As a low carber of several years (roughly from when the Taubes article
came out), and a data point of one, I have to say that my set point is
exactly the same from having been on a low carb diet as it was when I was
using other methods to lose weight.

It is possible for me to lose weight below that point, but only by
seriously ramping up my exercise and throttling back my calories. Since
every time I've tried to get below it I've ended up rebounding higher,
I've declared this my maintenance weight and am not actively seeking to
diet away any more fat.

Martha




--
"ALPO is 99 cents a can. That's over SEVEN dog dollars!!"
Revek - ASDLC

I find these studies interesting. My husband has a ridiculously low body
fat percentage, but he eats whatever he wants and never puts on weight.
Why? Exercise. Don't forget the importance of exercise as a factor in
this equation.
More specifically, however, I can tell you this with 100% certainty,
because of all of the studies I have done on my own metabolism: on a
low-carb diet I now get nearly 2/3 of my calories from fat (previously it
was around 20% when I ate the low-fat way). I weigh 116, with a BMI of
about 21....my fat level is good for my weight and height. I have
discovered that on a low fat diet, without exercise, I was only able to
eat 1450 calories a day without gaining weight. On low-carb, that number
has risen to 1650-1700 calories a day without exercise. On either diet, I
can increase my daily caloric intake more as I exercise more. I hope this
helps......

I find these studies interesting. My husband has a ridiculously low body
fat percentage, but he eats whatever he wants and never puts on weight.
Why? Exercise. Don't forget the importance of exercise as a factor in
this equation.
More specifically, however, I can tell you this with 100% certainty,
because of all of the studies I have done on my own metabolism: on a
low-carb diet I now get nearly 2/3 of my calories from fat (previously it
was around 20% when I ate the low-fat way). I weigh 116, with a BMI of
about 21....my fat level is good for my weight and height. I have
discovered that on a low fat diet, without exercise, I was only able to
eat 1450 calories a day without gaining weight. On low-carb, that number
has risen to 1650-1700 calories a day without exercise. On either diet, I
can increase my daily caloric intake more as I exercise more. I hope this
helps......