[xurukefi]

> To use that terminology though, your body could be said to have a "set point" that it aims for, but that "set point" can change.

Which I acknowledged. You can decrease (or increase) your set point, but there is a limit to that. Thinking that everybody has the potential to be at BMI x simply does not match reality. The vast range of human physiology is stunning. Everybody is different. Some people need to carefully watch every bite they take and they still struggle with overweight, whereas others can eat "what they want" and they are underweight.

Totally neglecting any genetic component here is equally as false as neglecting the impact of factors like diet, exercise and environmental ones.

[gaganyaan]

> Thinking that everybody has the potential to be at BMI x simply does not match reality

This is wrong, and why set point theory is trash. Nobody is destined to be fat, everybody's "set point" can in fact be at a regular, healthy weight.

[jawarner]

I see your point that there's no way that weight levels are entirely predetermined by genetics. To your point there are various cultures around the world who suffer more or less from obesity.

I don't understand this genetic determinism of weight to be the claim of Set Point Theory, which to my understanding is involved in energy homeostasis, which you acknowledged. Your body sets your metabolism, and it can tune it up or down. There are homeostatic processes in place such that your body "knows" whether it is underweight or overweight.

I'm not sure if there is a more specific objection you have to set point theory. It certainly has its limitations as to what it can explain, but it seems to be a useful concept or model.