Is the idea that we should gain just a little as we age a fallacy?

Pastaprincess1978

It's generally accepted that we (women in particular) will inevitably gain some weight as we age, and that if it is not too much (not sure how much exactly), it isn't a problem. Or at least that is what I pick up through the media etc.

Is this a fallacy? Can anyone comment on this - obviously there will be less muscle but what about fat gain?

AnnPT77

Pastaprincess1978 wrote: »

It's generally accepted that we (women in particular) will inevitably gain some weight as we age, and that if it is not too much (not sure how much exactly), it isn't a problem. Or at least that is what I pick up through the media etc.

Is this a fallacy? Can anyone comment on this - obviously there will be less muscle but what about fat gain?

I have no idea whether it's a fallacy. As I understand it, there's some evidence that someone not at the low end of healthy weight might have a bit more resilience when struck with debilitating illness, but some of the studies seem tainted by including people who may already be on the downhill slide health-wise, but undiagnosed.

I set my initial goal weight (which I knew was provisional) around 10 pounds heavier than my lowest happy adult weight, despite having fewer body parts than I did at that time (bilateral mastectomies in the interim). Once I reached the provisional goal, I didn't feel I was where I wanted to be, and ended up feeling better at something pretty close to the 20-year-old weight. (I'm 62 now). Some of my friends, including my most rational friend, feel that this is too thin for me. I don't care.

Also: It's not obvious to me that there would be less muscle, at least for quite a while. If someone were a competitive athlete at 20, and kept up their training schedule until 60, there might be loss. Similarly with someone who started unathletic and stayed that way. Probably eventually, some loss is inevitable despite one's best efforts. I do have a rowing buddy who's weight trained since her 30s; I don't know if she's lost muscle since then, but at 72 I think she's stronger and more muscular than most women several decades younger.

Personally, at 20, I was active but unathletic (walked and rode my bike miles a day for transportation, worked in a college dormitory dishwashing area, which was moderately physical). At 62, I'm materially more athletic, but not as active in daily life. I don't have data, but my best guess would be that my LBM isn't much less, and might even be more than it was at age 20.

Personally, I think there are a bunch of personal choices that affect this question, and no one answer for everyone. I think there's decent evidence that a small amount of "unnecessary" body fat isn't terribly dangerous, and might be advantageous in some situations. Muscle has always got to be good, I think. Assuming it's functional, the more the better, even.

Just opinion, though.

Pastaprincess1978

Thanks @AnnPT - I am just speculating too - and I do see your point about how individual factors are very important. Also, like you, I have reached my first goal weight and decided that I want to go for more - so now losing that final 7lb.

paperpudding

I guess it is individual too - when I was 20 I was 46 kg which was actually below bottom of healthy BMI range.

Several children and several decades later had crept up to 72 - which was overweight with BMI of about 28.

I lost 10 kg and now sit at 23 - I am happy with that and I don't ever expect or want to get to the weight I was 3 decades ago.
I think at my age a healthier BMI is not at the bottom of the range. - not for me anyway.

hesn92

I think it’s just because our metabolisms slow down, and typically we are less active as we get older. Also, horomones wreak havoc on our bodies as we get closer to menopause

annaskiski

There was a study that people who were a little overweight lived longer. However, followup studies showed that the people who lived longer, were the ones with more muscle mass, not fat.....

I'll see if I can find the reference.

annaskiski

We'll here's an article regarding muscle mass, study linked.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/older-adults-build-muscle-and-271651

GottaBurnEmAll

As Ann mentioned, I think the notion stems from the idea that a higher starting weight seemed to be a better predictor of surviving a wasting type of illness and assumed a lot of things like having a higher body fat content as opposed to muscle mass.

Newer studies that control for those variables dispute the findings, IIRC.

I weigh less now at almost 56 than I did at my school weigh in when I was 13 years old, and I'm working on losing more vanity weight.

Muscle is important to me, though, and I take pains to protect it by lifting weights and keeping an eye on my protein intake. I think that's far more important to keep an eye on as you age than packing on a few pounds of fat.

try2again

I'm not sure I've ever heard it said that a person *should* gain weight as they age, but I think the health risks associated with extra weight may go down with time. I've used this calculator before- https://www.smartbmicalculator.com/ - which takes age & gender into account, and it seems to suggest that, as a person ages, the healthy range for one's weight becomes broader, though I wonder if that just reflects that an older person has less time for weight-related health concerns to crop up?

WinoGelato

I used to believe that’s just what happens as you get older, have kids, etc. I used it as a convenient excuse for 10+ years as to why my weight was creeping up and why it wasn’t worth trying to lose weight, I figured it would be a futile exercise.

Then I found MFP, decided to give weight loss a serious go, learned about CICO, NEAT and my TDEE, figured out that not only could I lose weight I could do so while becoming more fit and active, so that I actually eat more now that I’ve lost weight than I did 30 lbs ago because I’m so much more active.

So now at 43 I weigh less than I did when I was 23, and I’m in better shape than I was at any point post college (I was a competitive gymnast and cheerleader in high school and college so I don’t actually aspire to that as a weight/body type).

So yes I think it’s a bit of a fallacy and a bit of a convenient excuse for why women in particular put on weight as they get older. There are plenty of badass women in their 40s, 50s and 60s on this site who are fit and active and have achieved these goals later in life, some like @AnnPT77 and @GottaBurnEmAll already posting here but also @middlehaitch and @LivingtheLeanDream also come to mind.

middlehaitch

I truely think it depends on the person and age.

I had been 100-110 most of my life, a weight I liked without knowing my BMI. When I hit menopause at 130, I lost back to my previous weight and maintain a very healthy 100-105, and have done for 8 years.

I'm 64 now, and am still happy with my weight, health, fitness, and muscle/bone density, however, by the time I am in my 70's I would not be adverse to putting on 10-15 lbs as long as I retained my health and fitness levels close to what they are now.

Why? My mum at 91 has just gone through a bout of the flu which saw her losing about 10lbs. If she had been any lighter than the 130 that she was, I think she may not have had as good recovery as she did. That extra bit of padding really did help.

The weigh difference between us is that I am at the bottom of my BMI, she was close to the top, now in the middle.

I suppose what I am saying is- older, and retaining a little more weight, to me is someone who is in the 70+ range not the 40-50 age range.

Sorry this is a bit garbled. I am having a quick cup of coffee before flying (10:15 am) for Scotland to visit my little mum and give her a hand while she recovers. She is still fully independent.

Cheers, h.

AnnPT77

annaskiski wrote: »

We'll here's an article regarding muscle mass, study linked.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/older-adults-build-muscle-and-271651

While I think there's great value and the point being made, it's worth noting that this is a correlation, not established as a cause. In particular, muscle mass may also be correlated with other beneficial health practices in those people.

Not that I'd argue against increasing muscle mass at any age! Strength is functionally useful, and the people I see around me who are strong at older ages are not just more independent, they're healthier in a diversity of ways (fewer drugs needed, fewer surgeries, faster recovery, and more - though this is likely a result of multiple healthy habits). It doesn't much matter which direction the causation arrows point, in this complex of positive behaviors and positive outcomes. The net result is worth pursuing.

CarvedTones

try2again wrote: »

I'm not sure I've ever heard it said that a person *should* gain weight as they age, but I think the health risks associated with extra weight may go down with time. I've used this calculator before- https://www.smartbmicalculator.com/ - which takes age & gender into account, and it seems to suggest that, as a person ages, the healthy range for one's weight becomes broader, though I wonder if that just reflects that an older person has less time for weight-related health concerns to crop up?

Sort of related, there is a new study out that says a man at age 50 who doesn't smoke, has a healthy BMI, exercises regularly, eats a healthy diet and does not drink excessively has a life expectancy 12.2 years longer. It has to be all 5 and I don't know what the criteria for the subjective ones is; I read an article about the study rather than the study itself. But what is related was a comment made (I think by Gupta in a side bar video) that getting there at 60 or 70 is almost as good if you have dodged the bullets (cancer, heart disease and diabetes) so far. It was all about lowering your likelihood of dying from the common causes.

Aaron_K123

I think there is an important distinction to make between what often happens and what should happen. I think it is often true in at least American society that with age comes some extra pounds however I see no reason to think that that somehow "ought" to happen like it is a moral imperative or important to do.

CSARdiver

Physiologically there is little difference in metabolism. The primary driver being body mass.

Socially speaking it is normal, understood, and accepted, but I believe that is changing recently and more are not accepting diminished activity as they age.

So you could use it as an excuse, but it's not a very good one.

cwolfman13

Don't know how true it is, but I have read that the human body has a biological propensity for greater fat storage as we age. Not that being overly fat is acceptable, but that a 40 year old male for example might have an ideal BF% of 15% vs a 20 year old who might have an ideal BF% of sub 10% and that much of this has to do with hormones.

I can maintain pretty well at 12-15% BF...I have a tremendous amount of difficulty dropping below that and I've always kind of hypothesized that it's a biological aging thing and that my 43 year old body doesn't want to be super lean...IDK. When I was in my 20s I had zero problem being sub 10%...but then again, I was a lot more active in my daily life though I did very little in the way of deliberate exercise and I ate whatever I could get my hands on.

kimny72

I've heard it's typical to gain a bit, but I've never heard it suggested that was a good thing.

I remember that study about being slightly overweight being protective, but it was correlation and plenty of other reports I've heard since have suggested otherwise.

I know it isn't optimal for the elderly to be underweight, but there are lots of lbs between underweight and overweight. My personal aim is to stay around the middle or just below middle of the healthy weight range for my height for as long as my diet and activity is under my control :drinker:

nettiklive

I don't know the biology, but from personal experience of what I see around me, plenty of young women effortlessly maintain a trim body with no exercise and lightly active or fairly sedentary lifestyles. But only very very few older women keep the same shape, and those are usually ones who are hardcore into fitness and make it a huge part of their lives. I'd say 95% of women over 50 I meet have a tummy and generally some excess fat and flabbiness all around. My maternal grandmother for instance, was borderline underweight all her life; never exercised ('fitness' wasn't really a thing for women back then as it is now) never mind lifted weights, and maintained a slender figure with a washboard-flat stomach and tiny waist even after giving birth. Once she hit her 70s she started complaining that she's gaining weight in spite of eating less and less (she always ate healthy and was never a big eater) and had trouble losing the 20 or so lbs that crept up around her middle.

RoxieDawn

I've never heard of this and since I am turning 50 in a few months I should probably look at this closer.

When we age what I do understand is body fat ranges can change, bone density, muscle mass, etc. I would have to look at this closer from body fat point of view, since we have 3 types of fat: subcutaneous (under the skin), visceral (around the organs), and intramuscular (in between muscle). I am assuming that we can have the same subcutaneous body fat, but the visceral and intramuscular fat may increase as you age. I have to look at this closer when I have more time.

sgt1372

There is no doubt that the data shows that, as a group, people gain weight as they get older.

That's why "old age" (along w/weight lifting and certain ethnic differences) is listed as an acknowledged exception to the BMI scale.

Does that mean there's a cause and effect relationship between between aging and weight gain. I don't think so.

While there may be genetic and gender differences, I think that people, as a group, gain weight as they get older simply because they are less active and exercise less as they get older.

It really just comes down to CICO. If you burn fewer cals than you consume, you're going to gain weight.

If you become sedendary when you age, you're going to gain weight and the solution to this "problem" is simply to eat less and exercise more.

The many stories told on MFP by seniors (including by me) who have lost weight and gained strength and fitness by means of diet control and exercise is proof of that.

mk2fit

Up front, I am a 59 year old woman. I was slim, but not necessarily fit most of my life. I quit smoking six years ago, discovered food tasted good and blew up to almost obese. I would not say I gained the weight because I was in my 50s, rather I quit smoking and ate a lot and did not exercise.

Using the tools I learned from my doctor and CICO here, I lost 70ish pounds and have kept them off for over a couple of years. I exercise daily - running, walking, strength training - and am stronger than ever (except maybe when I was in my teens and played softball every day and swam a lot in the summer).

I am not as well read as @AnnPT77, yet I agree with her. Also, there are plenty of us seniors and almost seniors here as @sgt1372 said who contradict the idea that we do/should gain weight as we age.

My dad always said that people tend to gain a pound or two every year in adulthood IF they don't pay attention to what they are eating. Ha, he is 82, slim and trim and walks a couple of miles most days.

MegaMooseEsq

I think people underestimate how much even small changes in lifestyle effect our weight, and how the cumulative effect of less-than-great habits builds up over the years. We gain more responsibility at work, our social lives might become more limited with marriage and kids, and less free-time and more stress might mean less physical activity across the board. You drive to the store instead of walk both to save time and because you're shopping for more people at once, your friends buy houses in the suburbs, you turn into a taxi service for your kids, etc.

Physically, the longer you live the more time you have to accumulate injuries or health conditions that might make it more difficult to be physically active, leaving aside gradual loss of muscle mass as you age. Yo-yo dieting (as so many women in particular do) can accelerate that loss of lean body mass, which lowers your BMR slowly but steadily. All of that can lead to weight gain, which itself can contribute to various health conditions, which make it more uncomfortable to be physically active.

All of those things can certainly be compensated for, but also lends themselves to an easy "well, that's just getting old" narrative that I think discourages people from taking control of their bodies. And when much of society encourages us to take shortcuts and save time and so on, while making high calorie, low satiation food available for cheap, it doesn't make that fight any easier.

spinnerdell

For me, complacency about extra weight as I got older lulled me into denial of weight-related health problems. Now that I'm down to the upper end of my healthy weight range and feeling so much better, my goal has shifted downward towards the middle of my range. My 71 year old knees are thanking me.

SaunaSuit

HISTORY:
I was a chubby baby they say,
10yrs old I was about 100lbs.
14yrs old I was 127lbs,
18yrs old 155lbs,
21yrs old came and I was 101lbs, I worked really hard on this.
22yrs old I got baby in my tummy jump to 187lbs. - 103lb with in 6months.
Baby 2 came at age
24 in the belly and jumped to 178lbs. - 8months later121lbs.

27yrs old my husband made a sugestion too me, ( OUCH ). In my brain I thought if I gained weight I would get top heavy~ WRONG~ instead I got hips~

32yrs old I became 200lbs. Well he asked for it and I got them~ but I became a Apple!

42 I dropped a lot of weight and stayed at 163lbs that seemed to fit me. I was happy~

46yrs old and (just out of c-cancer). I dropped weight to only start putting it on and by the time I hit 2010 I was going up-hill I jumped back up to 200lbs and climbed up to 300lbs by 2013 and it is now 2018. I am going back down that "Hill" the hard way.

57yrs old. But I will ease up and take it slower from here on out!

AnnPT77

I just had a thought - well, a couple of them. (It was hard work! ).

1. I had a good long think about all the people I know who are materially older than me (I'm 62, so people in 70s and 80s). Those whose current lifestyle I think I could enjoy are not significantly overweight (maybe 5-10 vanity pounds or thereabouts).

Among those whose current lifestyle I could tolerate are some who are probably up around the overweight/obese line, but they're fairly active. Pretty much all of those who are definitely obese are in lives I wouldn't choose voluntarily (as to capabilities, independence, health). (I'm sure there are some out there who are obese, 70+, leading enviable lives, healthy lives, but I can't think of any among my acquaintance.)

It's anecdotal, and a clearly biased sample, but it has influenced my thinking - how I'd place bets, if I were a betting woman.

This was an interesting thought experiment. What do others see around them in their lives?

2. I'm surprised to read so many people say they've never heard the theory that we should weigh a bit more as we age. I've heard it fairly frequently.

I had a think about who I've heard it from, IRL (as opposed to blogs and such). Yes, it was from people I'd consider over-fat, i.e. mostly up around the overweight/obese border and beyond.

Now, it makes sense that people who believe this would want to be a little heavier, for their health. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone who was thin and healthy say they'd like to gain a bit for the sake of their health (maybe some who were thin after illness). Again, why would they, if they think it's healthy to be thin.

Still, food for thought about motivations.

ryenday

Ann, I have heard fairly often that a few extra pounds in old age are better than being underweight. Like you, I can’t recall the source, EXCEPT for my friend the nurse.

Her observation is also, obviously, anecdotal, but she believes the older folks who are carrying that ‘vanity’ weight (that is if she saw them outside the hospital she’d say they could lose a little weight but didn’t really need to) come through most of the hospital stays better than the overweight/obese or the people that are lower weight (the ones she would recommend To NOT lose any weight.). I asked her about lean folks with lots of muscle and she said most of the folks she sees in the hospital are NOT fit and working out so she has no opinion or relevant observation.

MegaMooseEsq

ryenday wrote: »

Ann, I have heard fairly often that a few extra pounds in old age are better than being underweight. Like you, I can’t recall the source, EXCEPT for my friend the nurse.

Her observation is also, obviously, anecdotal, but she believes the older folks who are carrying that ‘vanity’ weight (that is if she saw them outside the hospital she’d say they could lose a little weight but didn’t really need to) come through most of the hospital stays better than the overweight/obese or the people that are lower weight (the ones she would recommend To NOT lose any weight.). I asked her about lean folks with lots of muscle and she said most of the folks she sees in the hospital are NOT fit and working out so she has no opinion or relevant observation.

I've also heard that datapoint about older people having better life expectancy when slightly overweight than at normal or low weights. I've generally assumed that this says more about the dangers of being underweight as you age (and the factors that might cause one to be underweight) than the "benefits" of being slightly overweight. I want to say that more recent studies have controlled for this factor and not found an advantage to being slightly overweight.

kimny72

Also, if I could be pedantic for a moment though isn't there a difference between vanity lbs and being overweight? And isn't there a difference between "it's bad to be underweight" and "it's good to be a bit overweight"?

At 5'4 I have been maintaining at @ 125 which is right around the middle of the healthy weight range for my height. If I dropped all the way down to 110, that would be underweight and probably not the best place to be in my 70s if longevity is a goal. But I could gain 10 vanity lbs putting me at 135 and still not be "overweight".

I'd also guess older folks who are in fact overweight would be more likely to take to heart the idea that the extra weight is protective, simply because it sounds better than "I never figured out how to lose it like I wanted to"

motivatedmartha

The BMI calculator I use asks for your age and I had always assumed that it was taken into account when calculating a healthy BMI range. I do think that if I were to get down to the same weight I was at 18 I would look pretty wrinkly now.

CarvedTones

MegaMooseEsq wrote: »

ryenday wrote: »

Ann, I have heard fairly often that a few extra pounds in old age are better than being underweight. Like you, I can’t recall the source, EXCEPT for my friend the nurse.

Her observation is also, obviously, anecdotal, but she believes the older folks who are carrying that ‘vanity’ weight (that is if she saw them outside the hospital she’d say they could lose a little weight but didn’t really need to) come through most of the hospital stays better than the overweight/obese or the people that are lower weight (the ones she would recommend To NOT lose any weight.). I asked her about lean folks with lots of muscle and she said most of the folks she sees in the hospital are NOT fit and working out so she has no opinion or relevant observation.

I've also heard that datapoint about older people having better life expectancy when slightly overweight than at normal or low weights. I've generally assumed that this says more about the dangers of being underweight as you age (and the factors that might cause one to be underweight) than the "benefits" of being slightly overweight. I want to say that more recent studies have controlled for this factor and not found an advantage to being slightly overweight.

I read that overweight but not obese was better than underweight but healthy was best. That was in a study in the news maybe a couple of months ago. I don't find that surprising at all. I know several people who are in great shape at a BMI of 25 to 27 and know of lots more (pro athletes and whatnot); I don't know anyone at 18.5 or below that seems all that healthy. Yeah, that's anecdotal, but with lots of examples of the healthy "overweight" and none for the underweight. I think it is an indictment of the BMI range more than anything. Few people below 20 are very healthy. Lots of people 25-27 are healthy, though many aren't.

stanmann571

CarvedTones wrote: »

MegaMooseEsq wrote: »

ryenday wrote: »

Ann, I have heard fairly often that a few extra pounds in old age are better than being underweight. Like you, I can’t recall the source, EXCEPT for my friend the nurse.

Her observation is also, obviously, anecdotal, but she believes the older folks who are carrying that ‘vanity’ weight (that is if she saw them outside the hospital she’d say they could lose a little weight but didn’t really need to) come through most of the hospital stays better than the overweight/obese or the people that are lower weight (the ones she would recommend To NOT lose any weight.). I asked her about lean folks with lots of muscle and she said most of the folks she sees in the hospital are NOT fit and working out so she has no opinion or relevant observation.

I've also heard that datapoint about older people having better life expectancy when slightly overweight than at normal or low weights. I've generally assumed that this says more about the dangers of being underweight as you age (and the factors that might cause one to be underweight) than the "benefits" of being slightly overweight. I want to say that more recent studies have controlled for this factor and not found an advantage to being slightly overweight.

I read that overweight but not obese was better than underweight but healthy was best. That was in a study in the news maybe a couple of months ago. I don't find that surprising at all. I know several people who are in great shape at a BMI of 25 to 27 and know of lots more (pro athletes and whatnot); I don't know anyone at 18.5 or below that seems all that healthy. Yeah, that's anecdotal, but with lots of examples of the healthy "overweight" and none for the underweight. I think it is an indictment of the BMI range more than anything. Few people below 20 are very healthy. Lots of people 25-27 are healthy, though many aren't.

That is a fair indictment of the BMI range in that there is a "healthy range" Which spans "normal" and "overweight" but isn't actually identified clearly anywhere.