[a-priori]

That paragraph in the article really got on my nerves, because the whole idea of a "set point" for weight is wrong. There is no set point for weight. The only reason people think there is one is because it's a nice, neat hypothesis. Unfortunately, it is directly contradicted by evidence.

Your body does not try to return to a some weight, but rather resists changes in weight. Given constant diet and exercise, weight will asymptotically settle at some value and stay there. Make a significant change to diet and/or exercise, and the asymptote changes accordingly.

[flipbrad]

your theory is one theory, and it's the view held by society. does not hold that the set point theory is invalid. I would not be at all surprised if your (extremely complex) body system had an 'equilibrium' weight which it will attempt to normalise itself at, at the translational, post-transcriptional or homonal level. likely a mix of both.

[a-priori]

It's not "my theory", but rather the theory I learnt in a Behavioural Neuroscience course. There was a chapter on hunger and eating that spent a good deal of time debunking set point theory. The textbook is "Biopsychology" by Pinel, chapter 12, if you're interested.

If there is such an fixed "equilibrium" weight, there's no evidence for it I know of. I find it curious you call the settling point model "extremely complex", since what I've described so far is very simple: body weight remains constant under constant conditions, and weight changes are dampened by negative feedback. Yours is actually the same so far, but adds a fixed, constant set point.