Who was talking way upthread about set point weight? Was it
Marmalade?
I am honestly not having a go, but I thought it worth mentioning that maybe your set point isn’t 195, maybe it had something to do with demolishing a pick & mix?
My understanding of set point—and let’s be clear, it’s a theory—is that this is a weight one can easily maintain but is also the weight that is resistant to long-term attempts at weight loss.
Which means after sticking to a weight loss plan for quite a long time, your body struggles to budge down from that weight. Is that correct?
But that’s not what happened, is it?
I’m not trying to Big Stick you—like Jackie Weaver, I have No Authority Here
!
But your post made me think, and I wanted to point out that there are plateaus, stalls, and all sorts that occur during a long-term weight loss plan, but the most important thing is to follow the plan as best and long as possible.
I say this as someone who has lost around 60lbs on Bootcamp over a few years and only about a stone in the last year, and I’ll take it because I’m still about 60lbs down. Feels great. Still 2+ stones to go for Normal BMI, so still staying with it. I don’t believe 176 is my set point. Not at 5’4” and small bone structure. Nope.
So, I don’t believe I’m at my set point; I believe that I’m not following the rules as much as I should!
TL;DR—KOKO, follow the Rules, and WATER!!!
Ps—if you got this far, I wanted to add that it occurred to me you might have been making a joke of it, in which case I apologise for the reply. I’m just worried that this set point theory is gaining traction without—from what I can deduce—huge amounts of research. It could encourage people to simply give up. 