Did our metabolism slow down after 50 or did WE slow down after 50??

bebeisfit

For years, I've heard women say, "wait til you hit 50 and your metabolism slows down to nothing"

True or false?

For me..weight gain happened because I slowed down. When I was in my early 50's, I had night sweats and hot flashes that were brutal, but I still worked out, I was still pretty active. I put on a few pounds, but also had a job (that I hated) that continually bought the staff pizza, we had a candy jar that was never empty and I was depressed.

But for the last few years, I slowed down my workouts, less consistent. Stopped running and did elliptical and some bike riding, but I know I never worked out as hard as I did in my 40's, when I trained for 10k's and half marathons.

My eating habits also changed. I no longer live alone (for financial reasons), and I work from home a whole lot more.

sarah7591

For me personally I think a little of both. I think it is natural aging process for your metabolism to slow after 50. I think exercise and an active life style are very underrated when it comes to our metabolism. I try to run 4-6 miles daily and people are always telling me I have a fast metabolism because I can eat more but it is ONLY because I exercise. Just my .02. Keep exercising and moving! I guess the point I am trying to make. Best to you!

tmbg1

I agree that it is a bit of both.

AnnPT77

I think it's more us, than "metabolism" as an unchangeable thing, but I'm not saying that's blameful.

If we haven't done enough to preserve/increase muscle mass, that will lower our calorie requirements a little bit, and that bit would be considered part of metabolism.

A fun experiment I did with a multi-formula online TDEE calculator was look at the estimated calorie differences between same sized me if I were different ages. Really, the difference in estimates for me at 25 and me at 65, everything else equal, from the basic formulas, was about 200 calories a day, at sedentary. So, one serving of peanut butter, more or less. Really not huge. Then, I went to the formulas that take body fat percent as an input (i.e., they use muscle mass data, in effect). Difference between estimates for 25 & 65, same body fat percent? Zero.

Now, those are just estimates, and muscle mass doesn't add *that* many calories to metabolism anyway. It's like 4 calories per pound (of muscle compared to fat) per day difference, which is underwhelming in itself. But I'd speculate that those who stay stronger, probably do more, too, in daily life and exercise, because doing physical things is easier and more fun.

Obviously, there are huge variations, but in general we also tend to be in different life stages at different ages. The first jobs, in our younger years, probably on average are more active, more on our feet (servers, retail), with many of us shifting to more desk-oriented jobs as we get a little older. When young and cash-strapped, maybe more likely to walk, bike, take the bus; later, maybe have our own car parked right at the door. Younger years, maybe we're getting into a house, fixing up house and yard; chasing small children around the place. Later years, maybe more likely to be enjoying the nest we've created, kids grown and maybe gone. Even later, maybe downsizing to a smaller place, less to clean, fewer stairs. If we're doing better financially, we might hire more things done that we would've done ourselves when younger (mowing, cleaning, landscaping, home repairs, etc.) Or, we have more labor-saving appliances and tools to do the chores with. Leisure activities shift, for some, too: Less likely at 50 to be getting together with our friends to play touch football or go dancing, maybe go to a play or movie instead. Instead of grabbing a fast-food snack after the activity, we might be going to a full-service restaurant with a multi-course range of richer foods. And so forth.

Not all of those things apply to everyone, of course. But I think the average tendency is toward do a little less, eat a little more (richer), as the years go on. The less active, the less fit, the more likely weight gain; the less fit, the more overweight, the less fun or appealing it can be to be active. That's a spiral in the direction we don't want.

Small changes in activity have big impact: I've seen some research studies that looked at fidgety people vs. otherwise similar non-fidgety ones, and found calorie-needs difference up to low hundreds per day. So, minor change in lifestyle can have a surprising impact. So can minor changes in eating. Eating 100 calories over maintenance calories would be expected to add 10 pounds in a year.

It doesn't take much, when I think about that couple hundred calories difference in the estimates for young vs. older me, to adding weight if I don't pay attention (or don't have the time to pay attention, given responsibilities). Happily, most of those factors are things we have a lot of influence or control over. It ought to be possible to consciously increase our calorie needs, if we want to, and can make that a priority. Or, if it's just changes in eating, alone . . . around 1 daily serving of peanut butter, perhaps? 😉