Women 40+ Question...
TranquilityBreeze
Posts: 36 Member
I am definitely going through the "hit the 40s and harder to drop pounds" issue. What do you find has worked for you? I keep reading how hard it is to lose weight after 40 but I also find articles where people are not seeing a major difference.
In order to drop 1 pound a week MFP says to have 1240 calories. I have put me down as inactive, though I do the stationary bike 3-4 times a week and walk the dogs almost everyday with an average of 2.5 miles. Is 1240 too low? I would love to hear how others are doing. I know the calorie intake depends on height and weight but it still seems low.
Thanks!!!
In order to drop 1 pound a week MFP says to have 1240 calories. I have put me down as inactive, though I do the stationary bike 3-4 times a week and walk the dogs almost everyday with an average of 2.5 miles. Is 1240 too low? I would love to hear how others are doing. I know the calorie intake depends on height and weight but it still seems low.
Thanks!!!
0
Replies
-
MFP expects you to log your exercise and eat back those calories, so you would only eat 1240 if you did no measurable exercise all day. You should be logging your walks an biking and eat those calories back. Do that for a few weeks and see what happens. MFP or any other calculator can only estimate your calories, you might need to adjust as you go.
The reason weight loss can get harder as you get older is we tend to get more sedentary and lose muscle mass. Staying active and doing strength training can help. Good luck!7 -
Enter the, "you just have to burn more than you consume" crowd. The trouble with that statement is that how do we really know just how much we burn? I am convinced that a simple mathematical formula is just not accurate. Eating the calories we figure we burned during exercise never did anything but get me backsliding. I don't know what my body is doing honestly. All I know is that in order to lose even a pound a month I have to keep my calories consumed to 1,200 and that is even with any amount of exercise. MFP tells me that if I want to lose a pound a week I should be eating 1,580 calories a day. I would love to know why it's near impossible to drop another single pound.7
-
I get 1200 per day and I don't eat back my exercise calories.6
-
Enter the, "you just have to burn more than you consume" crowd. The trouble with that statement is that how do we really know just how much we burn? I am convinced that a simple mathematical formula is just not accurate. Eating the calories we figure we burned during exercise never did anything but get me backsliding. I don't know what my body is doing honestly. All I know is that in order to lose even a pound a month I have to keep my calories consumed to 1,200 and that is even with any amount of exercise. MFP tells me that if I want to lose a pound a week I should be eating 1,580 calories a day. I would love to know why it's near impossible to drop another single pound.
Try using a food scale for a couple of weeks for all solid and semisolid food. I used to swear I was eating 1400 cals a day and couldn't lose an ounce. Got a kitchen scale and started weighing and logging every single thing I ate - and realized I had actually been eating more like 1700-1800 cals a day. Total eye-opener!3 -
I'm a bit older than you and last year when I started MFP, I was given 1240 calories based on no exercise (I definitely was not exercising). I lost weight pretty rapidly on that without exercise. It took about 3 weeks to really start rolling off, but it did. But that amount was not sustainable for me long term (I am 5'7" and was around 155 lbs). I think you should probably shoot for 1400 calories at your current level. Oh, and make sure you become a measuring NINJA!!! Most people don't do it right and in reality your 1400 calories will be 1600 calories and then you'll not know why you didn't lose weight.3
-
We know what we're really burning by following the MFP estimates for a few weeks, including eating back at least some exercise calories, then adjusting based on experience. It's science . . . not rocket science, but more like a fun science-fair project.
Realistically, any if us with a non-trivial amount of weight to lose are going to be at this for months, if we want to stay healthy while losing. This "healthy = slow" idea is especially true for those of us who are over 40 and female, because too-fast weight loss "costs" us more health-wise, and why would a smart person risk it?
We really shouldn't be losing more than about 1% of body weight weekly, less if closer than about 50 pounds to goal.
So, if we want to keep it slow, healthy and predictable, the "try the MFP goal for a few weeks then adjust" approach is very sensible.
I lost 50+ pounds using MFP, in 10-11 months, at age 59-60 (and hypothyroid), while eating back pretty much all of my carefully-estimated exercise calories. I did have to adjust from my starting point. After a month or so, I could quite accurately predict my loss rate, including impact of any over-goal choices. The process works.
Edited to add: Now in 2nd year of maintenance at age 61, 5'5", 120s.11 -
MFP expects you to log your exercise and eat back those calories, so you would only eat 1240 if you did no measurable exercise all day. You should be logging your walks an biking and eat those calories back. Do that for a few weeks and see what happens. MFP or any other calculator can only estimate your calories, you might need to adjust as you go.
The reason weight loss can get harder as you get older is we tend to get more sedentary and lose muscle mass. Staying active and doing strength training can help. Good luck!
Thanks so much! I am logging all of my exercises. And, have been using Map My Walk so that makes it easy for the walking.
That makes sense with more sedentary and muscle mass. I have a bad knee and broke my hip a year and a half ago, so was not able to do as much. Even now, my surgeon (I will be getting a new knee at some point) said no high impact exercises! So, the bike and walking it is. I am aiming to drop 30. It'll help with my knee and hip. In the fall I will be more active as I'm a teacher. I run around all day!
1 -
Enter the, "you just have to burn more than you consume" crowd. The trouble with that statement is that how do we really know just how much we burn? I am convinced that a simple mathematical formula is just not accurate. Eating the calories we figure we burned during exercise never did anything but get me backsliding. I don't know what my body is doing honestly. All I know is that in order to lose even a pound a month I have to keep my calories consumed to 1,200 and that is even with any amount of exercise. MFP tells me that if I want to lose a pound a week I should be eating 1,580 calories a day. I would love to know why it's near impossible to drop another single pound.
Try using a food scale for a couple of weeks for all solid and semisolid food. I used to swear I was eating 1400 cals a day and couldn't lose an ounce. Got a kitchen scale and started weighing and logging every single thing I ate - and realized I had actually been eating more like 1700-1800 cals a day. Total eye-opener!
Agreed! I have a digital kitchen scale that is wonderful. It's very helpful. I try to weigh my portions as much as possible. It's so easy to take a bite here and there when cooking! Excellent advice.
0 -
Enter the, "you just have to burn more than you consume" crowd. The trouble with that statement is that how do we really know just how much we burn? I am convinced that a simple mathematical formula is just not accurate. Eating the calories we figure we burned during exercise never did anything but get me backsliding. I don't know what my body is doing honestly. All I know is that in order to lose even a pound a month I have to keep my calories consumed to 1,200 and that is even with any amount of exercise. MFP tells me that if I want to lose a pound a week I should be eating 1,580 calories a day. I would love to know why it's near impossible to drop another single pound.
Try using a food scale for a couple of weeks for all solid and semisolid food. I used to swear I was eating 1400 cals a day and couldn't lose an ounce. Got a kitchen scale and started weighing and logging every single thing I ate - and realized I had actually been eating more like 1700-1800 cals a day. Total eye-opener!
It would be great if it were as simple as that.But it isn't. I have been using a food scale for 15 years. I am not accidentally eating more than I think. I am very well practiced in weighing food. I also log everything I eat so that would also not be the problem. The problem is in my body. Unfortunately.
At any rate I was only joining the club on this one. Sometimes the weight just refuses to move at this stage in life. At least for some of us.4 -
Enter the, "you just have to burn more than you consume" crowd. The trouble with that statement is that how do we really know just how much we burn? I am convinced that a simple mathematical formula is just not accurate. Eating the calories we figure we burned during exercise never did anything but get me backsliding. I don't know what my body is doing honestly. All I know is that in order to lose even a pound a month I have to keep my calories consumed to 1,200 and that is even with any amount of exercise. MFP tells me that if I want to lose a pound a week I should be eating 1,580 calories a day. I would love to know why it's near impossible to drop another single pound.
Try using a food scale for a couple of weeks for all solid and semisolid food. I used to swear I was eating 1400 cals a day and couldn't lose an ounce. Got a kitchen scale and started weighing and logging every single thing I ate - and realized I had actually been eating more like 1700-1800 cals a day. Total eye-opener!
It would be great if it were as simple as that.But it isn't. I have been using a food scale for 15 years. I am not accidentally eating more than I think. I am very well practiced in weighing food. I also log everything I eat so that would also not be the problem. The problem is in my body. Unfortunately.
At any rate I was only joining the club on this one. Sometimes the weight just refuses top move at this stage in life. At least for some of us.
Have you had your thyroid checked? Unless you are very short and light, the only reason you should be that far off the predicted calories is a medical condition.4 -
Small deficit and being active works for me. If your size and activity level require low cals that's one thing but in general I'm a full grown active woman and I'm going to eat like one.3
-
Enter the, "you just have to burn more than you consume" crowd. The trouble with that statement is that how do we really know just how much we burn? I am convinced that a simple mathematical formula is just not accurate. Eating the calories we figure we burned during exercise never did anything but get me backsliding. I don't know what my body is doing honestly. All I know is that in order to lose even a pound a month I have to keep my calories consumed to 1,200 and that is even with any amount of exercise. MFP tells me that if I want to lose a pound a week I should be eating 1,580 calories a day. I would love to know why it's near impossible to drop another single pound.
Try using a food scale for a couple of weeks for all solid and semisolid food. I used to swear I was eating 1400 cals a day and couldn't lose an ounce. Got a kitchen scale and started weighing and logging every single thing I ate - and realized I had actually been eating more like 1700-1800 cals a day. Total eye-opener!
It would be great if it were as simple as that.But it isn't. I have been using a food scale for 15 years. I am not accidentally eating more than I think. I am very well practiced in weighing food. I also log everything I eat so that would also not be the problem. The problem is in my body. Unfortunately.
At any rate I was only joining the club on this one. Sometimes the weight just refuses top move at this stage in life. At least for some of us.
Have you had your thyroid checked? Unless you are very short and light, the only reason you should be that far off the predicted calories is a medical condition.
Don't get me started on the thyroid.... There's my soap box. Gonna try to make this a short story. After my first child I developed thyroid nodules which caused hyperthyroidism. This was discovered in my second pregnancy. Lots of extra checkups and blood work as I was seeing both my OB/GYN as well as an endocrinologist. About a year and a half after my second pregnancy I was told that my thyroid is "normal". I also discovered that "normal" is apparently subject to individual medical opinion. One doctors normal was another's gray area was another's sub-clinical hyperthyroidism. Fast forward to lately, I have been told by the only endocrinologist within 50 miles of me that my thyroid has nodules but my blood work is normal. I suspect my thyroid is running a little high but I don't have another endocrinologist or doctor who willing to listen. So here I am. Also I kind of felt cheated that I had a hyper thyroid yet couldn't lose weight. Leave it to me to be "that" one. LOL!
Also I wonder how often people posting about this over 40 weight loss problem have just enough of a thyroid problem to cause a weight loss funk but not enough to get a dr to treat it.3 -
I'm 47, 5'8", and currently 197, aiming for 1lb/week loss. MFP sets me at 1480 cals per day, which just isn't quite enough to satiate. I have lately been getting 10k steps a day, which gives me another 300-400 calories to work with. 1800 cals a day works fine for me, and I lose on pace. As long as I get those steps in.0
-
I'd say eat back your exercise calories if you are hungry - otherwise don't bother and just stick to your calorie goal for the day, or keep them in reserve as a buffer in case of unexpected food/drink situations. Listen to your body - make sure it's proper hunger and not just the chatter in the back of your head going 'ooh more food please because I wants it'. If you find that in general that the target is just too aggressive, try for a half pound loss a week instead. In the end there is no hard and fast rule but working out what works best for you. We are all different.1
-
I'd say eat back your exercise calories if you are hungry - otherwise don't bother and just stick to your calorie goal for the day, or keep them in reserve as a buffer in case of unexpected food/drink situations. Listen to your body - make sure it's proper hunger and not just the chatter in the back of your head going 'ooh more food please because I wants it'. If you find that in general that the target is just too aggressive, try for a half pound loss a week instead. In the end there is no hard and fast rule but working out what works best for you. We are all different.
MFP gives you a lower calorie goal expecting you to eat back exercise calories. If you don't eat at least some of them back, you are most likely undereating. Why purposefully misuse a tool?2 -
Weight lifting. It also tightens up everything!!!! I'm about to turn 41 and I can wear bralettes (you know, those cute lacy things with no real support).0
-
Enter the, "you just have to burn more than you consume" crowd. The trouble with that statement is that how do we really know just how much we burn? I am convinced that a simple mathematical formula is just not accurate. Eating the calories we figure we burned during exercise never did anything but get me backsliding. I don't know what my body is doing honestly. All I know is that in order to lose even a pound a month I have to keep my calories consumed to 1,200 and that is even with any amount of exercise. MFP tells me that if I want to lose a pound a week I should be eating 1,580 calories a day. I would love to know why it's near impossible to drop another single pound.
Try using a food scale for a couple of weeks for all solid and semisolid food. I used to swear I was eating 1400 cals a day and couldn't lose an ounce. Got a kitchen scale and started weighing and logging every single thing I ate - and realized I had actually been eating more like 1700-1800 cals a day. Total eye-opener!
It would be great if it were as simple as that.But it isn't. I have been using a food scale for 15 years. I am not accidentally eating more than I think. I am very well practiced in weighing food. I also log everything I eat so that would also not be the problem. The problem is in my body. Unfortunately.
At any rate I was only joining the club on this one. Sometimes the weight just refuses top move at this stage in life. At least for some of us.
Have you had your thyroid checked? Unless you are very short and light, the only reason you should be that far off the predicted calories is a medical condition.
I really don't think that's the only possible reason. The standard deviation is large enough that perhaps 1 in 20 will be a fairly significant outlier in one direction or the other. Some of those will be medical, surely.
But I suspect - completely without direct proof - that there are some other potential causes. Among older women especially, I think the cumulative adaptive thermogenesis penalty for 2-3 decades of VLCD yo-yo weight loss, perhaps combined with persistent underconsumption of protein even in the re-gaining phases, plus possibly some general lifestyle factors that foster faster muscle loss, potentially stacked on top of a lower than average NEAT in the first place . . . I think that could get pretty ugly, maybe even as few hundred calories daily worth of ugly. Maybe there are other possible reasons, too - dunno.
It's an unpopular opinion, but I think there are a few ultra-low-burn people out there. Yes, a fair fraction of those who claim to be such are miscounting, in denial about the effect of periodic frustrated DGAF food-fests, etc. But I think there are a few like this in this demographic that are truly outliers - 1 in 50, maybe? 1 in 75? And to the extent they do exist, I think they're far more likely to post than are those for whom the population-average burn estimates work adequately.
This is not actually "CICO doesn't work". It's the extremes of variation around the mean, with respect to standard goal estimates. The estimates are just statistical estimates. They aren't principles of physics. CICO still works. CO is just a little haywire.
P.S. I'm not one of these women, though I have at least one in my MFP friend feed that I believe is. I'm an outlier in the other direction. For some reason, that direction gets a person less vehement disbelief around here.
5 -
Enter the, "you just have to burn more than you consume" crowd. The trouble with that statement is that how do we really know just how much we burn? I am convinced that a simple mathematical formula is just not accurate. Eating the calories we figure we burned during exercise never did anything but get me backsliding. I don't know what my body is doing honestly. All I know is that in order to lose even a pound a month I have to keep my calories consumed to 1,200 and that is even with any amount of exercise. MFP tells me that if I want to lose a pound a week I should be eating 1,580 calories a day. I would love to know why it's near impossible to drop another single pound.
Try using a food scale for a couple of weeks for all solid and semisolid food. I used to swear I was eating 1400 cals a day and couldn't lose an ounce. Got a kitchen scale and started weighing and logging every single thing I ate - and realized I had actually been eating more like 1700-1800 cals a day. Total eye-opener!
It would be great if it were as simple as that.But it isn't. I have been using a food scale for 15 years. I am not accidentally eating more than I think. I am very well practiced in weighing food. I also log everything I eat so that would also not be the problem. The problem is in my body. Unfortunately.
At any rate I was only joining the club on this one. Sometimes the weight just refuses top move at this stage in life. At least for some of us.
Have you had your thyroid checked? Unless you are very short and light, the only reason you should be that far off the predicted calories is a medical condition.
I really don't think that's the only possible reason. The standard deviation is large enough that perhaps 1 in 20 will be a fairly significant outlier in one direction or the other. Some of those will be medical, surely.
But I suspect - completely without direct proof - that there are some other potential causes. Among older women especially, I think the cumulative adaptive thermogenesis penalty for 2-3 decades of VLCD yo-yo weight loss, perhaps combined with persistent underconsumption of protein even in the re-gaining phases, plus possibly some general lifestyle factors that foster faster muscle loss, potentially stacked on top of a lower than average NEAT in the first place . . . I think that could get pretty ugly, maybe even as few hundred calories daily worth of ugly. Maybe there are other possible reasons, too - dunno.
It's an unpopular opinion, but I think there are a few ultra-low-burn people out there. Yes, a fair fraction of those who claim to be such are miscounting, in denial about the effect of periodic frustrated DGAF food-fests, etc. But I think there are a few like this in this demographic that are truly outliers - 1 in 50, maybe? 1 in 75? And to the extent they do exist, I think they're far more likely to post than are those for whom the population-average burn estimates work adequately.
This is not actually "CICO doesn't work". It's the extremes of variation around the mean, with respect to standard goal estimates. The estimates are just statistical estimates. They aren't principles of physics. CICO still works. CO is just a little haywire.
P.S. I'm not one of these women, though I have at least one in my MFP friend feed that I believe is. I'm an outlier in the other direction. For some reason, that direction gets a person less vehement disbelief around here.
This may be a pie in the sky kind of dream, BUT wouldn't it be great if they invented a fitness gadget that actually could detect actual calorie burn? I am not into gadgets, but I would gladly put money down for that.
The muscle loss you mention, I am also suspecting is a more common reason for the thermogenesis penalty that comes with age. Which may not be entirely preventable but perhaps it can be lessened by taking better care of ourselves in our youth.1 -
Enter the, "you just have to burn more than you consume" crowd. The trouble with that statement is that how do we really know just how much we burn? I am convinced that a simple mathematical formula is just not accurate. Eating the calories we figure we burned during exercise never did anything but get me backsliding. I don't know what my body is doing honestly. All I know is that in order to lose even a pound a month I have to keep my calories consumed to 1,200 and that is even with any amount of exercise. MFP tells me that if I want to lose a pound a week I should be eating 1,580 calories a day. I would love to know why it's near impossible to drop another single pound.
Try using a food scale for a couple of weeks for all solid and semisolid food. I used to swear I was eating 1400 cals a day and couldn't lose an ounce. Got a kitchen scale and started weighing and logging every single thing I ate - and realized I had actually been eating more like 1700-1800 cals a day. Total eye-opener!
It would be great if it were as simple as that.But it isn't. I have been using a food scale for 15 years. I am not accidentally eating more than I think. I am very well practiced in weighing food. I also log everything I eat so that would also not be the problem. The problem is in my body. Unfortunately.
At any rate I was only joining the club on this one. Sometimes the weight just refuses top move at this stage in life. At least for some of us.
Have you had your thyroid checked? Unless you are very short and light, the only reason you should be that far off the predicted calories is a medical condition.
I really don't think that's the only possible reason. The standard deviation is large enough that perhaps 1 in 20 will be a fairly significant outlier in one direction or the other. Some of those will be medical, surely.
But I suspect - completely without direct proof - that there are some other potential causes. Among older women especially, I think the cumulative adaptive thermogenesis penalty for 2-3 decades of VLCD yo-yo weight loss, perhaps combined with persistent underconsumption of protein even in the re-gaining phases, plus possibly some general lifestyle factors that foster faster muscle loss, potentially stacked on top of a lower than average NEAT in the first place . . . I think that could get pretty ugly, maybe even as few hundred calories daily worth of ugly. Maybe there are other possible reasons, too - dunno.
It's an unpopular opinion, but I think there are a few ultra-low-burn people out there. Yes, a fair fraction of those who claim to be such are miscounting, in denial about the effect of periodic frustrated DGAF food-fests, etc. But I think there are a few like this in this demographic that are truly outliers - 1 in 50, maybe? 1 in 75? And to the extent they do exist, I think they're far more likely to post than are those for whom the population-average burn estimates work adequately.
This is not actually "CICO doesn't work". It's the extremes of variation around the mean, with respect to standard goal estimates. The estimates are just statistical estimates. They aren't principles of physics. CICO still works. CO is just a little haywire.
P.S. I'm not one of these women, though I have at least one in my MFP friend feed that I believe is. I'm an outlier in the other direction. For some reason, that direction gets a person less vehement disbelief around here.
This may be a pie in the sky kind of dream, BUT wouldn't it be great if they invented a fitness gadget that actually could detect actual calorie burn? I am not into gadgets, but I would gladly put money down for that.
The muscle loss you mention, I am also suspecting is a more common reason for the thermogenesis penalty that comes with age. Which may not be entirely preventable but perhaps it can be lessened by taking better care of ourselves in our youth.
There's testing you can have done, but I don't know how expensive it is.
I remember someone who had issues like yours and she had all sorts of tests run (sorry, I have a bad memory as to the specific nature of the tests), but they did verify that her BMR was quite outside of the norm. She was able to somewhat compensate for it with exercise.2 -
Don't put your hopes on the thyroid issues please. Yes, when you become hypothyroid your BMR goes down a bit, but it's not much more than 4% of your BMR. If your BMR was 1400 then that's 56kcal per day. Not having a spot-on medication and feeling down and tired, and being less active, even fidgetting less can have a much bigger impact.
And yes, as some people said: CICO works but there are always a few people that are statistical outliers who burn less than they should. But those are rare and only testing can find this out.
What about your muscles? Do you have a good set? If not then maybe that would be something worth working towards. Strength training itself doesn't burn a lot of calories, but having good muscles does. Plus it counteracts osteoporosis at age. It takes some dedication though.
Yirara, just a hypothyroid sheep at over 40, and losing fine1 -
I am 46 and have lost 45 lbs fairly easily. I am lightly active, eat 1,300 calories plus 1/2 my exercise calories ( I only record intentional exercise from my Fitbit.) I walk/jog 45 min/4x per week and do a bit of resistance training. I lose around 1 - 1 1/2 lbs a week.
I am not finding it any harder to lose weight now than when I was younger, plus, I feel like I am doing it in a more healthy manner now than years ago when I would starve myself and exercise hours daily.2 -
Hi i found it hard job to lose weight i have hypothyroidasm as well i tried afew diets not losing much i have been on lchf diet for 2 weeks now and it seems to be working for me0
-
Enter the, "you just have to burn more than you consume" crowd. The trouble with that statement is that how do we really know just how much we burn? I am convinced that a simple mathematical formula is just not accurate. Eating the calories we figure we burned during exercise never did anything but get me backsliding. I don't know what my body is doing honestly. All I know is that in order to lose even a pound a month I have to keep my calories consumed to 1,200 and that is even with any amount of exercise. MFP tells me that if I want to lose a pound a week I should be eating 1,580 calories a day. I would love to know why it's near impossible to drop another single pound.
Try using a food scale for a couple of weeks for all solid and semisolid food. I used to swear I was eating 1400 cals a day and couldn't lose an ounce. Got a kitchen scale and started weighing and logging every single thing I ate - and realized I had actually been eating more like 1700-1800 cals a day. Total eye-opener!
It would be great if it were as simple as that.But it isn't. I have been using a food scale for 15 years. I am not accidentally eating more than I think. I am very well practiced in weighing food. I also log everything I eat so that would also not be the problem. The problem is in my body. Unfortunately.
At any rate I was only joining the club on this one. Sometimes the weight just refuses top move at this stage in life. At least for some of us.
Have you had your thyroid checked? Unless you are very short and light, the only reason you should be that far off the predicted calories is a medical condition.
I really don't think that's the only possible reason. The standard deviation is large enough that perhaps 1 in 20 will be a fairly significant outlier in one direction or the other. Some of those will be medical, surely.
But I suspect - completely without direct proof - that there are some other potential causes. Among older women especially, I think the cumulative adaptive thermogenesis penalty for 2-3 decades of VLCD yo-yo weight loss, perhaps combined with persistent underconsumption of protein even in the re-gaining phases, plus possibly some general lifestyle factors that foster faster muscle loss, potentially stacked on top of a lower than average NEAT in the first place . . . I think that could get pretty ugly, maybe even as few hundred calories daily worth of ugly. Maybe there are other possible reasons, too - dunno.
It's an unpopular opinion, but I think there are a few ultra-low-burn people out there. Yes, a fair fraction of those who claim to be such are miscounting, in denial about the effect of periodic frustrated DGAF food-fests, etc. But I think there are a few like this in this demographic that are truly outliers - 1 in 50, maybe? 1 in 75? And to the extent they do exist, I think they're far more likely to post than are those for whom the population-average burn estimates work adequately.
This is not actually "CICO doesn't work". It's the extremes of variation around the mean, with respect to standard goal estimates. The estimates are just statistical estimates. They aren't principles of physics. CICO still works. CO is just a little haywire.
P.S. I'm not one of these women, though I have at least one in my MFP friend feed that I believe is. I'm an outlier in the other direction. For some reason, that direction gets a person less vehement disbelief around here.
This may be a pie in the sky kind of dream, BUT wouldn't it be great if they invented a fitness gadget that actually could detect actual calorie burn? I am not into gadgets, but I would gladly put money down for that.
The muscle loss you mention, I am also suspecting is a more common reason for the thermogenesis penalty that comes with age. Which may not be entirely preventable but perhaps it can be lessened by taking better care of ourselves in our youth.
Two things:
I mentioned that in my MFP friend feed, there is someone I believe is one of these "slow burn" older women. We've been MFP friends for nearly 2 years, IIRC, and I looked at her very meticulous diary repeatedly, as well as communicating with her directly (messages, status comments) though with no contact in real life.
She was able to lose - very slowly for her size, which is not ultra-petite (I think she's 5'7" or 5'9" or something) - on a calorie level we're not allowed by terms of service to discuss here . . . and absolutely the best nutrition I've ever seen here at that calorie level and even from most people with a calorie budget hundreds higher daily.
As she got near goal, she seems to have been able to - very slowly - move her burn rate noticeably higher through a combination of disciplined, quite intense (for her) strength training, alongside very gradual reverse dieting while maintaining that same excellent nutrition. This was not a case of simply adding yet more cardio to buy more calories (though that's a good strategy, too). I could not do what she did; I don't have the strength of character. But perhaps it does work for some.
Second: I don't really aspire to the device you mention. I feel like attentive experimentation (including meticulous logging, especially for the first year) has gotten me plenty close enough to knowing what I eat/burn, for practical purposes.
I do use a heart rate monitor for most of my intentional exercise, and the exercise i do (mostly rowing, spin, cycling) is close to the type for which HRM are relatively more accurate.
It helps that I like data, and am fairly good at analyzing it (plus find that fun
), and have a simple enough life that I can fit that in (given its importance to me). And who knows, maybe some of us are simply more metabolically predictable . . . though offhand I can't think of a mechanism that would cause that.
I can understand why someone with a different nature/disposition than I have would be more eager for a device that would produce a solid answer more automagically, however. 2 -
I am 46 and have lost 45 lbs fairly easily. I am lightly active, eat 1,300 calories plus 1/2 my exercise calories ( I only record intentional exercise from my Fitbit.) I walk/jog 45 min/4x per week and do a bit of resistance training. I lose around 1 - 1 1/2 lbs a week.
I am not finding it any harder to lose weight now than when I was younger, plus, I feel like I am doing it in a more healthy manner now than years ago when I would starve myself and exercise hours daily.
Thanks! I hope this will be my experience. I do need to add some strength training. My teen daughter said she would do it with me as she does strength training for rugby. I told her... light weights for me!!! I do 45-60 minute walks a day with our dogs. And I do try to add the stationary bike or elliptical a few times a week.
I don't have a scale and was thinking of going scaleless as I get discouraged easily with them. But, perhaps I need one just to weigh in once a month. We shall see!!!
Congrats on your weight loss!!!
0 -
TranquilityBreeze wrote: »I am definitely going through the "hit the 40s and harder to drop pounds" issue. What do you find has worked for you? I keep reading how hard it is to lose weight after 40 but I also find articles where people are not seeing a major difference.
In order to drop 1 pound a week MFP says to have 1240 calories. I have put me down as inactive, though I do the stationary bike 3-4 times a week and walk the dogs almost everyday with an average of 2.5 miles. Is 1240 too low? I would love to hear how others are doing. I know the calorie intake depends on height and weight but it still seems low.
Thanks!!!
I lost 25 kg when I was 48 with no problem at all.
I was on net 1250 cal for the first 16 weeks and lost 15 kg.
I took a 1-month break.
Then I was on net 1350 cal for the next 16 weeks and lost the final 10 kg.
0 -
Don't put your hopes on the thyroid issues please. Yes, when you become hypothyroid your BMR goes down a bit, but it's not much more than 4% of your BMR. If your BMR was 1400 then that's 56kcal per day. Not having a spot-on medication and feeling down and tired, and being less active, even fidgetting less can have a much bigger impact.
And yes, as some people said: CICO works but there are always a few people that are statistical outliers who burn less than they should. But those are rare and only testing can find this out.
What about your muscles? Do you have a good set? If not then maybe that would be something worth working towards. Strength training itself doesn't burn a lot of calories, but having good muscles does. Plus it counteracts osteoporosis at age. It takes some dedication though.
Yirara, just a hypothyroid sheep at over 40, and losing fine
Where did you get this information? It seems a tad general for a condition with varying degrees of severity.0 -
I suppose I am fortunate, thus far, as in spite of having had hypothyroidism since the age of 28, I lose weight on 1700-1800 calories as long as I am active and eat back my exercise calories. It may be because I am tall or because I have a lung issue that means I have to work harder to breathe when exercising but I cannot remember a time I ever had trouble losing weight. I am 42.0
-
Thank you all so much for the replies. I am doing fine on the 1240 as it encourages me to make better choices. And I exercise everyday with calories burned ranging from 200-450. I definitely have some of those if I'm hungry. It's great to hear that weight loss is still possible in your 40s. I made the mistake of googling it!!! 2
-
Untreated hypothyroidism stinks, and it's very common, especially in women as we age. It's worth getting checked out, perhaps along with iron, B12 and D.
That said, I was over 40 and menopausal when I was diagnosed with a fairly severe case, and weight gain was not among my symptoms. Years later, when my drug dosage needed a tune-up, I did notice it being slightly harder to lose, but the effect was small. (I know others' experiences differ.)
Correctly medicated, at 59-60, I lost straightforwardly . . . and relatively quickly, while eating more calories than MFP estimated I'd need to maintain. Hypothyroidism is not a universal deal-breaker for weight loss.0 -
Don't put your hopes on the thyroid issues please. Yes, when you become hypothyroid your BMR goes down a bit, but it's not much more than 4% of your BMR. If your BMR was 1400 then that's 56kcal per day. Not having a spot-on medication and feeling down and tired, and being less active, even fidgetting less can have a much bigger impact.
And yes, as some people said: CICO works but there are always a few people that are statistical outliers who burn less than they should. But those are rare and only testing can find this out.
What about your muscles? Do you have a good set? If not then maybe that would be something worth working towards. Strength training itself doesn't burn a lot of calories, but having good muscles does. Plus it counteracts osteoporosis at age. It takes some dedication though.
Yirara, just a hypothyroid sheep at over 40, and losing fine
Where did you get this information? It seems a tad general for a condition with varying degrees of severity.
I can try to find out back. It's a study done in Germany, written in German on the effects of being hypothyroid on the body. It included measuring BMR, and the outcome was that only about 4% can be attributed to a decrease in BMR, while most weight gain is due to being less active, fidgetting less, being more hungry, being unhappy about oneself and compensating with eating more, water weight gain (usual reversible with good dose of medication).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions