Cutting Calories in Anticipation of Metabolism Slowing
Tabbycat00
Posts: 146 Member
Everyone says that your metabolism slows after age 40. I am now, officially, over 40. I've maintained my weight since recovering from anorexia in 1995 using the same diet plan my nutritionist gave me all those years ago. On my birthday I made the decision to cut my calories by 100 a day to counter effect Father Time. My husband thinks I'm nuts and that I should continue eating normally until I can prove I've put on weight and reevaluate the situation then. Just curious as to some of your thoughts, options, and personal experiences on the subject of aging and metabolic rate. Just as a side note: working out for longer intervals is not an option at this time.
1
Replies
-
The metabolism slows down a tad with each decade but you can keep it being efficient by just moving more.
I'm lighter now in my late 40s than I was during my late 20's and 30s but I am a lot more active now plus I watch my calorie intake so its fairly easy keeping the weight off.
If you haven't gained then maybe you are worrying over something that might not happen.14 -
Good morning! Your metabolism has adjusted to your current eating habits. If you change things, then it (your metabolism) will adjust accordingly. There is usually a little bit of time involved - all things being equal - for this process to occur. Two to four weeks for most. Sometimes sooner. Sometimes longer.
I am 50 and things are a little more interesting but not much different for me. I really never use age as a reason for anything, to be honest. Age is just a silly number....to me, anyway. But, I have always been athletic and very active (with one five-year period in my life where I was the opposite of that...and gained 60 lbs to prove it).
If you are happy with your (A) body weight and (B) body composition then I would stick to the old addage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
And, "everyone" says a lot of things.
Your metabolism - assuming that there are no medical conditions - is absolutely going to adjust - over time - to your eating habits naturally. In super simplistic terms (not saying this in a disparaging way to you.....I just use way too many words most of the time) if you consume more calories than you burn, you will gain body fat. If you consume fewer calories than you burn, then you will loose body fat. So, calories in | calories out. Again, very simplistic.
I mention "assuming that there are no medical conditions" because some medicines are well known "problems" when it comes to weight maintenance. Thyroid medicine, for example, will likely cause a pretty substantial weight increase for most people.
There is this thing called the Basal Metabolic Rate, or BMR. The human body is a system of systems. Each of these systems does 'things'. You breathe, you digest food, blood flows because your heart 'beats', etc. All of these systems work because they have energy. You get that energy from the foods that you consume. So, everyone has a BMR. Let's say that your BMR is 1175 claories. What that means, essentially, is that if you just sat down on the couch all day long and did not do anything....you did not move, you did not physically move then at all then your body needs 1175 calories to do all of those things that it just does naturally for you to continue living.
SIDEBAR - I am pretty sure that the BMR more refers to a a human being in a comatose state.....I believe that there is something called a Resting Metabolic Rate that is more like what I describe, but let's just agree for this conversation that your BMR is what I described.
Now, you also do things all day long. Gonna to assume that, anyway!
You walk up the stairs at work, you go to the gym and do Pilates one day a week and Strong Curves program four days a week and and and. All of those things require energy as well. Again, "energy" is "food consumed" is "calories in".
So, your maintenance caloric intake is pretty much your BMR + your activity. Let's just say that, for you, this number is 1675 calories. Per day. Or, 11,725 calories per week. Now, I am going to overlook the whole "macro breakdown of your food" at this point....so please excuse the intentional oversight on that.
So, using that example set of numbers, if you continue to eat the "usual" 1,675 calories a day then you will maintain your current body weight. Let's not worry about the day-to-day weight. We humans fluctuate a bit every day and women have a menstrual cycle that - for most - throws that a bit askew. So, if you weigh yourself every day (at the same time on the same scale) and you take your weekly average....you will be the same. Or, really really close.
If you were to drop that 1,675 Calories down to 1,575 Calories then your body....metabolism....would adjust over time and you would start loosing body fat.
Generally speaking, it is a very positive thing to have as high a caloric intake for your maintenance as possible as this gives you more "play room" when you do decide to cut. So, what I mean here....if you have a maintenance value of 2,325 calories (just an example) and that number is well proven over time then you have soooooo much more "room" to play if and when you decided to cut some body fat. Take the same situation but your maintenance value is 1,675 calories then you have far less "play room". Your BMR (again, for my example) is 1,175.
So, you would have only 500 Calories a day to play with for your cut given your maintenance of 1,675. But, if your maintenance WERE that 2,325 Calories then you would have 1,150 Calories a day to play with for your cut.
See? I know what I am trying to describe - just don't know if I am doing it well.
So, if your current weight and body composition are fantastic (to you....) then I would not suggest dropping that 100 calories at all. You would actually be putting yourself in a less than ideal position for something down the road.
So, what are your goals?
2 -
Tabbycat00 wrote: »Everyone says that your metabolism slows after age 40. I am now, officially, over 40. I've maintained my weight since recovering from anorexia in 1995 using the same diet plan my nutritionist gave me all those years ago. On my birthday I made the decision to cut my calories by 100 a day to counter effect Father Time. My husband thinks I'm nuts and that I should continue eating normally until I can prove I've put on weight and reevaluate the situation then. Just curious as to some of your thoughts, options, and personal experiences on the subject of aging and metabolic rate. Just as a side note: working out for longer intervals is not an option at this time.
I'm with your husband. Don't just assume anything...
Personally, I'd recommend maintaining your activity level and incorporate resistance training to your exercise. I think most of the "metabolism lowering" problems of getting older are due to becoming less active and losing muscle mass. Do what you can to limit those things being an issue imo!18 -
Especially with your past IMHO you should keep eating normally until there's a very good reason not to. Age isn't one of those reasons.
Personal experience:
I'm 57 and eating more than I ever did in my 30's and 40's despite being lighter.
By the way on my birthday MFP automatically took 20 calories off my maintenance goal - no idea where you came up with the idea of 100.12 -
It slows a little, but mostly people gain weight because they stop exercising. So don't do that. Stay active and healthy. You'll be fine at your regular maintenance + exercise calories.
Source 1: Me, age 46. I gained weight when I became less active. Now that I'm doing endurance sports I enjoy again, my weight is dropping steadily and should level off at my previous healthy weight, without much of a change in my calorie intake.
Source 2: "Our results are consistent with the concept that the age-related decline in RMR in sedentary women is not observed in women who regularly perform endurance exercise."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9329340/6 -
If you have a history of anorexia and you want to cut 100 calories off your diet, be sure it's not the anorexia that's talking you into it. I wouldn't cut until you are sure that you are gaining weight.17
-
Cutting calories in anticipation of something without any other changes such as weight gain is a bad idea, especially with your history. Just keep going with what you are doing. It is not like at 40 your metabolism suddenly slows down. It is a gradual thing, and most, if not all of it, is because people become less active and thus lose muscle as they age. If you stay active and incorporate resistance training much of that would be mitigated.
TLDR: Keep eating the way you have.5 -
If you have a history of anorexia and you want to cut 100 calories off your diet, be sure it's not the anorexia that's talking you into it. I wouldn't cut until you are sure that you are gaining weight.
That's what I was thinking.
I've always heard -- through my recovery process, at least -- that there's no such thing as a former ED-patient, or a former anorexic. It's always in recovery. Because it's surprisingly easy how fast those thought patterns come back -- it's part of the nature of the illness (and part of what makes recovery processes so dang hard).5 -
OP I think that cutting your calories in anticipation of a slowing metabolism, is actually going to end up being a self fulfilling prophecy. A lot of people who yo yo diet or who engage in sustained periods of extremely low calories end up doing long term damage to their metabolism in the form of adaptive thermogenesis.
A better approach would be to look at the many cases of active women here on MFP, many of whom are over 40, who have continually worked to elevate their TDEE through focused efforts to get more day to day activity (doesn't have to be strenuous exercise - just extra steps, extra movement, every chance you get) which results in an elevated NEAT and thus TDEE.
I'm over 40, 5'2 and maintaining my weight at 118 lbs and my TDEE is 2200. If anything, my burn has gone up in the last few years, compared to when I was younger, and more sedentary. Activity is by far a bigger contributor to keeping a respectable maintenance calorie level, rather than the effects of aging.
@middlehaitch
@AnnPT77
@GottaBurnEmAll
May also want to chime in too.8 -
I'm with your husband...just keep eating normally until you have an actual reason to reduce...don't do it in some anticipation of something that is fairly negligible anyway. Metabolism slows as you age due in large part to losing lean mass...exercise regularly, including resistance training and you'll be fine.
I'm 43 and eat anywhere between 2900-3000 calories per day. I'm leaner and more fit than I've been since my early to mid 20s...
My wife is 42 and short and she eats around 2200-2300 to maintain her weight.5 -
Your metabolism doesn't suddenly slow down at midnight on your 40th birthday. There's zero reason to reduce your intake if you are still maintaining your weight. It makes no logical sense. So I am also with your husband on this.7
-
why would you cut 100 calories a day? That means by the end of week 1 you would have reduced your calories by 700? This sounds like a horrible idea, and you may want to look into if your past eating disorder is triggering this.4
-
I think your husband is correct. Metabolism slows very little from age alone. Most of the slowing is from a progressively more sedentary lifestyle. It may slow for you or it may not. Why solve a problem that does not yet exist?4
-
WinoGelato wrote: »OP I think that cutting your calories in anticipation of a slowing metabolism, is actually going to end up being a self fulfilling prophecy. A lot of people who yo yo diet or who engage in sustained periods of extremely low calories end up doing long term damage to their metabolism in the form of adaptive thermogenesis.
A better approach would be to look at the many cases of active women here on MFP, many of whom are over 40, who have continually worked to elevate their TDEE through focused efforts to get more day to day activity (doesn't have to be strenuous exercise - just extra steps, extra movement, every chance you get) which results in an elevated NEAT and thus TDEE.
I'm over 40, 5'2 and maintaining my weight at 118 lbs and my TDEE is 2200. If anything, my burn has gone up in the last few years, compared to when I was younger, and more sedentary. Activity is by far a bigger contributor to keeping a respectable maintenance calorie level, rather than the effects of aging.
@middlehaitch
@AnnPT77
@GottaBurnEmAll
May also want to chime in too.
Oh, heavens - yes to every single thing Winogelato said there!
"Slowing metabolism" (so called) as we age is not a scheduled event that comes in decade increments for individuals! It's a gradual trend seen in averaged numbers from large population research studies involving huge numbers of people.
The average 40 year old burns fewer calories at the same weight than the average 20 year old. This has nearly zero predictive for individuals.
Just for fun, I just went to a TDEE calculator (Scooby, if it matters), and put in my stats - 129 pounds, 5'5", sedentary - but told it I was 21 instead of 61. It still gave me a TDEE 300+ calories lower than what I eat in real life to maintain this weight . . . and I'm no activity dynamo. I'm pretty sedentary outside of intentional exercise (retired, sedentary hobbies), and row or spin for 45 minutes to an hour or so, 6 days a week. My actual sedentary TDEE before intentional exercise (a.k.a. NEAT) is around 2100-2300, depending on season, and exercise adds another 200-300.
BTW, I also tried telling the calculator I was 30, then changed it to 40. Differrence in calories: 56. That's way, way smaller than the probable unavoidable estimating error in our daily exercise or eating - i.e., meaningless.
Don't reduce your calories, OP. It's unscientific. It's counter-productive. It's unnecessary. Just don't. Stay active and strong, and eat what the real, individual actual you needs in order to thrive.
Remember last week Tuesday? How about last week Thursday? OK: The change in you, from the day before your 40th birthday, to the day after your birthday: It will be exactly that dramatic, metabolically. Eat accordingly.
And have a happy birthday: The best is yet to come!
Edited: Typo12 -
WinoGelato wrote: »OP I think that cutting your calories in anticipation of a slowing metabolism, is actually going to end up being a self fulfilling prophecy. A lot of people who yo yo diet or who engage in sustained periods of extremely low calories end up doing long term damage to their metabolism in the form of adaptive thermogenesis.
A better approach would be to look at the many cases of active women here on MFP, many of whom are over 40, who have continually worked to elevate their TDEE through focused efforts to get more day to day activity (doesn't have to be strenuous exercise - just extra steps, extra movement, every chance you get) which results in an elevated NEAT and thus TDEE.
I'm over 40, 5'2 and maintaining my weight at 118 lbs and my TDEE is 2200. If anything, my burn has gone up in the last few years, compared to when I was younger, and more sedentary. Activity is by far a bigger contributor to keeping a respectable maintenance calorie level, rather than the effects of aging.
@middlehaitch
@AnnPT77
@GottaBurnEmAll
May also want to chime in too.
Oh yes!
It's sort of true that metabolism slows, but what's not true is that it's a lost cause. , That of slowing metabolism with aging comes down to not just slowing activity, but decreasing muscle mass. As we get older, our body composition tends to shift and we tend to lose muscle and gain fat.
So, how to combat this? Don't cut calories!
1. Eat higher protein than the FDA recommends. At least .85 grams per pound of ideal body weight.
2. Strength/resistance train at least twice a week. You don't need to lift heavy, you can do bodyweight fitness or resistance bands or work with dumbbells, but do some kind of strength training.
3. Move more throughout the day as @WinoGelato mentioned. Become inefficient. For a while there, I think it was back in the 80's, everything was about time saving, and we all got really good about combining tasks and doing everything with as little effort as possible. Unlearn all of that. Put all your laundry away one piece at a time. Take your groceries into the house one bag at a time. Walk around while you're one the phone or while the coffee is brewing or the chicken is browning. These things add up.
4. If you really want to get into this extra movement thing? Get a fitness tracker with hourly move reminders or set a timer to move every hour.
I'm 55 years old now and I have a TDEE of 2200-2400 calories, and a good chunk of that is from incidental movement.
I currently weigh 119 and I'm still losing weight.2 -
I turned 40 last year. My metabolism is pretty much the same as it was when I was 30. The only reason I gained any weight was because I dropped my activity level and increased the amount I ate.0
-
RunRutheeRun wrote: »The metabolism slows down a tad with each decade but you can keep it being efficient by just moving more.
I'm lighter now in my late 40s than I was during my late 20's and 30s but I am a lot more active now plus I watch my calorie intake so its fairly easy keeping the weight off.
If you haven't gained then maybe you are worrying over something that might not happen.
This is me too ... I am 45 and in the midst of perimenopause ... oh and I also am in remission from ulcerative colitis but still am prone to inflammation in the rest of my body. Overall, I look and feel better than I did since college days.
After I surpassed my weight loss goal, I decided to keep my MFP settings at 1240 calories a day (set to lose half a pound a week in a sedentary lifestyle) and just eat all my exercise calories back. That way, if I "zero" out, I am still ahead of the game and the leeway can take care of excess inflammation weight that might creep up depending on menopausal hormones (or lack thereof) or me over-exerting myself in any gym workouts .... It is totally a mind game but it works for me.1 -
I agree with hubby. You can't anticipate metabolism slowing because you turned 40. You have bigger issues to address successfully.0
-
Your husband is right. If anything, cutting calories before you know you need to, you might cause your own metabolic adaptations.1
-
I increased my TDEE with age. And calorie intake.
Age 41 ~2500 a day.
Age 42.5 ~3000 a day.3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »OP I think that cutting your calories in anticipation of a slowing metabolism, is actually going to end up being a self fulfilling prophecy. A lot of people who yo yo diet or who engage in sustained periods of extremely low calories end up doing long term damage to their metabolism in the form of adaptive thermogenesis.
A better approach would be to look at the many cases of active women here on MFP, many of whom are over 40, who have continually worked to elevate their TDEE through focused efforts to get more day to day activity (doesn't have to be strenuous exercise - just extra steps, extra movement, every chance you get) which results in an elevated NEAT and thus TDEE.
I'm over 40, 5'2 and maintaining my weight at 118 lbs and my TDEE is 2200. If anything, my burn has gone up in the last few years, compared to when I was younger, and more sedentary. Activity is by far a bigger contributor to keeping a respectable maintenance calorie level, rather than the effects of aging.
@middlehaitch
@AnnPT77
@GottaBurnEmAll
May also want to chime in too.
Sorry, late to the party- was on a lovely 3 week holiday in the U.K.
Just thought I would endorse what the above women have said, and to advise you not to drop your calories.
Just as an experiment I ran my numbers through the decades and between 24 and 64 with no body fat % added. I lost 200 calories due to most calculations expecting a slowing of activity and a subsequent loss of muscle and bone density as I aged.
I then ran the numbers with a 25% bf (my visual estimate) and the numbers were the same no matter the decade.
(ETA- At 64 I got the same calories as I would have if I had counted calories when I was 24. That number is close to my actual intake now at 64)
Keeping active and maintaining (or increasing) muscle mass and bone density will help keep your BMR higher as you age.
Cheers, h.
2 -
Tabbycat00 wrote: »Everyone says that your metabolism slows after age 40. I am now, officially, over 40. I've maintained my weight since recovering from anorexia in 1995 using the same diet plan my nutritionist gave me all those years ago. On my birthday I made the decision to cut my calories by 100 a day to counter effect Father Time. My husband thinks I'm nuts and that I should continue eating normally until I can prove I've put on weight and reevaluate the situation then. Just curious as to some of your thoughts, options, and personal experiences on the subject of aging and metabolic rate. Just as a side note: working out for longer intervals is not an option at this time.
your husband is right.1 -
Your husband is right. She who can maintain in the most calories wins!3
-
Cutting calories in anticipation of your metabolism slowing at some point is like spending money now because you might get a raise in the future.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions