Set Point Update
Published 9.16.2016; Updated 9.17.2016So I was looking through my notes, and I realized that I hadn't updated my personal record of my progress, and I haven't mentioned it here lately either. Since I don't diet, I am still eating roughly the same as I was before, and maintaining roughly the same weight. In short, after my weight loss, my body settled into a new set point, which I can easily maintain.
The goal, as a reminder, was to try and establish a new set point weight for myself that is ten pounds (4.5 kilograms) lighter than my current maintenance weight. There is no health reason to do this, just to be clear. It was to see if I could do it. Almost two years from the first decision, the answer to that question is, so far, no. Mostly because I have not decreased my intake despite my resolutions at the beginning of the this year.
Movement
A bigger factor is the changing nature of how I move during the day. As I've noted a number of times, I used to walk while working all day, walking as much as 10 miles in a day— which probably sounds extreme, but stop and think how far you'd trudge, even at a slow speed (1-2 miles per hour) if you did it for an entire work day. However, I no longer do that for a variety of reasons, instead I now stand or pedal while working. Neither alternative truly replaces the energy expended while walking however, nor does the gym routine I've established.Back in June, I joined a gym with a friend. Although my friend has so far failed to make it part of her routine, I've established one. Monday through Friday I take either a pilates or yoga class, and twice a week I do some weight lifting. The weights I lift are still not all that heavy, though they are heavier than when I started. And I have added the jumping in place between sets that I mentioned previously. I also still walk on my treadmill at least three days a week, though I'm not running at all at the moment. Instead I walk at an 8-12% incline for at least 30 minutes. Thus I am still active, but it has been difficult to replace the expenditure of all that walking.
Thinking further on the matter, it occurs to me that the treadmill is in my basement, but my standing/bike dies is not. Why should that matter? Because now I'm on the same floor as the fridge and cupboard— and I don't have to stop the treadmill and climb steps to get to them. As my weigh tis stable though, I really don't think I can be eating too much more than I had been, but clearly my energy balance is still settled at a point different than my goal. In fact, if my overall movement is less than it was, perhaps I have adjusted my intake, but only enough to maintain my weight.
Time to be realistic?
Maybe that makes my goal unrealistic because I don't want to do things I need to do to establish that new set point. There are only two ways to easily alter the energy balance, and that's to eat less or move more. I've noted above that I think that I'm actually moving less— I'm exercising more, but my NEAT has decreased. NEAT, of course stands for non-exercise activity thermogenesis. I am a huge proponent of using NEAT as part of any plan to alter the energy balance.I acknowledge that altering the intake side of the equation (in other words, decreasing what you eat and drink) is a very powerful way to tip the balance. As the cliche goes, it's hard to outrun (out exercise) your fork. People consistently under estimate how much they eat, and over estimate how much they move when exercising. Nor will I deny that exercising more can result in an increase in appetite— or the desire to "reward" yourself.
But that's why I think NEAT can be such a powerful tool, and I know I've written this previously. Simply standing or walking expends more energy than sitting, but doesn't result in additional hunger (at least for me) or a need to "reward myself" for doing it.
The bone effect
I want to talk a bit more about my diet and how it's changed in the past year since I've been trying to obtain calcium from food rather than a supplement. As I noted recently, I now take a vitamin D supplement because few foods contain vitamin D. Calcium, on the other hand is abundantly available in foods. Dairy, of course, is a source of calcium, but not my go to because I'm lactose intolerant. Thus I have re-aligned my diet to include plenty of beans, greens, seeds and nuts— all of which are good source of calcium (I will discuss bioavailability differences in a future piece). And I do still eat cheese, but not a lot of it.Cheeses, of course, is very calorie dense, but so are seeds and nuts… and the result is that in my attempt to ensure that I got enough calcium each day from food, I wound up eating more over all. The result was that I packed on five-ish pounds (about 2.26 kilograms). I wasn't happy once I realized what was going on, but once recognized the issue I could try to mitigate it. The fact is altering my diet to try to maximize calcium caused me to eat a bit more than I had been. i don't regret this, but it does mean that I might need to re-arrange my thinking regarding a new set point.
Time will tell.
Clarification
Added 9.17.2016: After hitting publish, I realized that the last part isn't as clear as it should be. The alterations to my diet mean that the slightly lower intake I calculated in 2014 I need to maintain a lower weight (because short term severe restriction is not for me. I eat (and move) at maintenance level for the size I'd like to be then let my body settle where it will) was not achieved. I did alter my energy balance, just not in a way that resulted in weight loss.Bone health at this point is a bit more important than weight loss, though optimally I'd like both.
Disclaimer
Related writings:
Search this site: