BACK after a long time - is a calorie a calorie?

MissFitNotFat

Hi
Thanks for reading.
I lost two stone in 5 months over a decade ago using MFP and it was easy.
I worked out several times a week and counted calories. I ate back my calories burned off with whatever I wanted.
Chocolate, cheese, bread etc.
I was about 30 ish

I'm now 43 and thinking this approach won't work anymore.

Ive got about a stone and a half to shift and am working out loads - I do Les Mills classes on demand and I run.
I've only just started counting calories and macros yesterday and it seems I might be under-eating.

BUT - my question is - any over 40s women able to eat what they want if they burn enough?
Or are those days over for me? (I think I know the answer. I do know the answer, Don't I?)

THanks
Amanda

Unknown

This content has been removed.

MissFitNotFat

Thanks for replying
I'm sort of approaching a certain age and thought it might impact.
I've got my TDEE sorted and think I'm not eating enough...

Best wishes.

Lietchi

You might have a slightly lower metabolism than before (generally speaking it goes down with age, although I believe that may be linked to a decrease in muscle mass with age). And if you're perimenopausal, you might see more weight fluctuations, due to fluctuations in water retention, which might make it harder to determine your progress/require more patience.
Not my personal experience (yet), just from reading these forums 🙂

BarbaraHelen2013

Lots and lots of older women on here who’ve been spectacularly successful using calorie counting, with or without exercise. Me included, much older than you.

There’s no appreciable difference quite honestly. Physics is physics at the end of the day! The actual slowing of metabolism with age is truly infinitesimal, so don’t let all the rubbish you can read on the internet from the ‘woe is me, I’m a woman over 40’ brigade deter you!

Eat at a calorie level suitable for a slow and steady rate of loss, adjusted for exercise, stick with it - it will happen just as it did when you did it previously.

charmmeth

BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »

Eat at a calorie level suitable for a slow and steady rate of loss, adjusted for exercise, stick with it - it will happen just as it did when you did it previously.

I am another of the ones who has achieved a very respectable loss (12kg, which is 2 stone; 28lbs) since May last year. I am in my late 50s. I lost about the same amount 2014-15 (pre-menopause), but put it back on again, helped by an acid reflux medication and by not keeping an eye on things in peri-menopause. I was still in my smaller clothes so it was in different places (for me especally my lower stomach area).

This time around, I found losing to normal bmi and just below a very similar experience from last time. However, losing to goal has been a lot harder, and although I touched my goal weight of 75kg just after Christmas, I regained 2kg during January which I am now losing again. I am still not there (and fortunately having a break a regain does seem to have increased my ability to lose now). My own experience has been that I have needed to log more carefully and think more about my macros this time than last time.

Looking at my weight loss graph from last time, compared to to this time, I can also see that I found it a lot easier to get below 75kg then than I am finding it this time. What I am currently not shifting at all is the bulge around my lower midriff. Maybe that will go, maybe not. On the plus side, I am miles fitter this time around and have much more muscle.

wunderkindking

Things about where and how you store/gain fat will change, and your metabolic rate may be different, and certainly weight fluctuations likely will but.

It's still all about how many calories you eat vs how many you burn.

(Also 43. 30lbs down. 9 until healthy BMI, 19-29 to what would probably be ideal. Am I losing fast? No. Am I losing steadily while eating a lot of chocolate and chips? Yes.)

ninerbuff

A calorie is a calorie. Regardless of source. And while aging does have and impact on how many calories you may burn, when you apply CICO correctly, you should still get the desired result.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

MissFitNotFat

Thanks everyone.
I suppose I need to keep an eye on the macros too.
A 100 calorie snack with low fat is better than one with higher.

Amanda

wunderkindking

Be careful with the fat - as in getting enough. It's satiating and it's also required for some body processes and the absorption of some vitamins. It's tempting to do low fat or no fat everything because it saves you calories but it is a macro nutrient and you do need to make sure you get enough of it.

Speakeasy76

Yes, I'm over 40 and was able to lose those last "stubborn pounds" at 43 by basically eating less calories than I was burning. Like others have said, a calorie is still a calorie when it comes to weight loss. However, a long time ago I decided to focus more on eating for health than just eating for weight loss. So in that sense, no, a calorie isn't just a calorie when you're looking at it from a nutrition/health benefits standpoint. However, that doesn't change regardless of age, but I know personally I"m way more concerned about that when I lost weight in my 20's and even early 30's. Also, when I started viewing what I eat from that lens rather than just the weight loss lens, actually made losing weight easier.

I will say that yes, I have to be more careful than when I lost weight in my 20's, but I don't deprive myself and eat treats and probably due eat too much added sugar. I don't feel it was particularly "hard," but I also set out to lose those last few pounds slowly.

cwolfman13

MissFitNotFat wrote: »

Hi
Thanks for reading.
I lost two stone in 5 months over a decade ago using MFP and it was easy.
I worked out several times a week and counted calories. I ate back my calories burned off with whatever I wanted.
Chocolate, cheese, bread etc.
I was about 30 ish

I'm now 43 and thinking this approach won't work anymore.

Ive got about a stone and a half to shift and am working out loads - I do Les Mills classes on demand and I run.
I've only just started counting calories and macros yesterday and it seems I might be under-eating.

BUT - my question is - any over 40s women able to eat what they want if they burn enough?
Or are those days over for me? (I think I know the answer. I do know the answer, Don't I?)

THanks
Amanda

I'm not a female...though I don't think that really makes a difference...I am an almost 47 year old male well on my way to losing my 20 Lbs of COVID weight. I eat a pretty nutritionally sound diet, but I have chocolate or cookies for desert pretty much every night...pizza or takeout most Friday nights. Aging does have an impact on our BMR...though not as pronounced as many think...but CICO still holds true as an energy equation.

A calorie is still a calories just as an inch is an inch...it's simply a unit of measure.

MissFitNotFat wrote: »

Thanks everyone.
I suppose I need to keep an eye on the macros too.
A 100 calorie snack with low fat is better than one with higher.

Amanda

Maybe yes, maybe no...there's nothing inherently bad about dietary fat...it's actually a highly essential nutrient and required for a lot of body functions and hormone regulation and some fats like mono and poly unsaturated fats are very good for your heart health. It is the most calorie dense of the three macros, but not necessarily something to avoid, especially not completely. Personally, for a snack I would get more satisfaction from 100 calories of cheese for example than I would a 100 calorie rice cake...it's 100 calories either way and the one with more fat is going to satisfy me a lot more than eating caked rice and air.

sijomial

"I'm now 43 and thinking this approach won't work anymore."

Oh Amanda, you poor old thing! Maybe you should take up crochet?


Your body still burns calories, a sustained energy deficit still uses up your energy reserves just like it always has and always will.

"I'm sort of approaching a certain age and thought it might impact."
The major impact of getting older is that people tend to do less, less exercise, less general movement. If you have good health and determination you don't have to follow the herd though - actively choose not to rather than think yourself old.
I'm 61 and have cycled 124 miles so far this week enjoying the lovely Spring-like weather in England, that would be about 124 miles than I would ridden when I was 43.

"I've got my TDEE sorted and think I'm not eating enough..."
What do you mean by this comment? Not enough for good nutrition or not enough to lose weight at a sensible rate or something else? The clearest signs of under-eating are too rapid weight loss and low energy levels

"Is a calorie a calorie?" - yes a unit of energy is just a unit of energy.

AnnPT77

I think you're thinking several things that are common in diet-marketing mythology, unfortunately; and eliminating the misconceptions can only help.

* Over 40s is different, dooming weight management. Nope. I lost 50+ pounds at age 59-60, without even changing my exercise routine. (I didn't even get an exercise routine happening until my mid-40s, coincidentally.)

* Over 40, you can't eat anything you want. Guess what? Under 40, you can't eat anything you want, as much as you want, and expect to manage your bodyweight . . . unless "what you want" matches up calorically with how much you burn. It's the same at any age, and there's no law that says you can't burn plenty of calories at age 40+. (I'm 65, at a healthy weight for 5+ years now, after decades of obesity previously. I can eat pizza, craft beer, desserts, . . . . As much as I want? No. Because I want it all. Enough to be satisfying emotionally and physically? Sure. I eat cheese daily, usually more than one portion, and chocolate often, BTW.)

* Fat is bad. No, you need a certain minimum amount of fat, or Bad Things happen. For a woman, 0.35-0.45g daily per pound of bodyweight would be a reasonable minimum. Men might get away with a little less. Fats are calorie dense, so it can make sense to limit fat-dense foods. But some is essential to health. Bonus if more of them are polyunsaturated/monounsaturated (nuts, seeds, avocados, olive oil, etc.) and higher in Omega-3s vs. Omega-6s, not because saturated fats or O-6s are evil, but because most people are over-consuming those vs. the others.

Yes, don't undereat. The way you know you're undereating is if you lose weight too fast, averaged over multiple weeks (more than 0.5-1% of current body weight would be too fast for anyone not severely obese and under close medical supervision). With a stone and a half to shift, you want to be within in that 0.5% of current body weight per week zone. In the shorter run, if you start feeling fatigued or weak, that would be an indicator of undereating (probably calories, but possibly certain nutrients). Slow loss can take longer to show up on the scale, amongst normal daily water weight fluctuations, but it's a healthier choice.

A calorie is a calorie, just as an inch is an inch, whether it's an inch/calorie of spaghetti or an inch/calorie of poison-ivy plant. That doesn't mean all foods are equal nutritionally, obviously.

Nutrition is important, so it's good to get a sensible minimum of protein, a sensible minimum of fats, and plenty of varied, colorful veggies/fruits for micronutrients and fiber. Once that's in place most of the time, on average, it's fine to have chocolates, cookies, alcoholic beverages within reason, or anything else that sounds good and isn't poisonous. Don't confuse calories with nutrition.

There's nothing magically different about being over 40, as a woman. As we age, we tend to become less active (daily life as well as exercise), and to lose muscle mass (if we do nothing to keep it). Stay strong, stay active, eat nutritiously in a way that aligns with calorie expenditure, and everything will be fine.

Best wishes!

janejellyroll

Just another person chiming in to say that I'm in my 40s and I manage my weight by counting calories. I'll still have foods like ice cream or french fries or wine, I just make sure to measure my portions accurately and log them. Obviously you want to meet your nutritional needs, but as long as treats aren't crowding out what you need, that isn't really hard to do.

hesn92

A calorie is a unit of energy. For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie, but obviously some foods are better at keeping you full longer, and they all have different nutrient profiles... I think metabolism typically goes down as you age due to muscle and bone loss, not to say living a healthy active lifestyle can't combat those things.

ChickenKillerPuppy

To add to the chorus, my TDEE at 40, 45, and now at 48 is higher than it ever was in my 20s or 30s because I am way more active and I am stronger than I was in my 20s and 30s. In fact right now my TDEE or the number of calories I need to eat to maintain my weight is around 2200 calories a day, and I'm only 5'4" and 125 pounds (and as I said 48 years old). I actually had gained about 10 pounds between Nov-January and just lost much of it at a rate of about 1 pound a month (a little faster than I intended) simply using CICO. I did not feel my age was a barrier at all.

rheddmobile

I’m 52, type 2 diabetic, lost 125 lbs starting at age 48, maintaining normal BMI 3+ years.

Stuff I ate this week: chocolate, pizza, spaghetti, fruit, cheese, French fries, bbq ribs.

I’m a diabetic so I have to limit portions of high-carb foods and time them to my exercise, but I can eat almost anything as long as I keep it within the limits of what my pancreas can handle. A healthy person has even fewer limitations. Being post-menopausal was not a problem when losing weight.

dragon_girl26

MissFitNotFat wrote: »

Thanks everyone.
I suppose I need to keep an eye on the macros too.
A 100 calorie snack with low fat is better than one with higher.

Amanda

Just curious..what would give you that impression? If anything, a higher fat snack could be more satiating.

I just hit the big 4-0 this month myself. I haven't noticed any additional hurdles with weight loss yet....still works the same way it always did for me.

nanastaci2020

I am 46 now. I first lost weight successfully in 2014, going from 180ish to 130ish. Maintained a while, then put back on a few. And got serious again about CICO last summer. June to December 2020 went from 150 to 130.

I eat food. I don't worry about 'clean' or any particular 'diet' guidelines. I do try to get a decent amount of protein. I know that if I eat too much food that is high sugar/high calorie then it will use up calories but not leave me full for long, so I try to factor that in. Meaning I plan out most of my calories so that I have food that gets me thru my day. I'd hate to run out of calories at 2pm because I made poor choices. On the other hand, I can plan for scenarios when I need/want to eat more.

So yes, it is simply a matter of calories, planning and choices. It is true you could eat 2000 calories of donuts vs 2000 calories balanced nutrition and be at the same weight loss trend. THe difference is in how you'd feel. The 2000 calories of donuts? You'd probably have sugar rush then crash, and then be hungry/feel lousy for half the day.

LeanButNotMean44

I lost 15lbs and got down to 13% body fat when I was 50 yrs old. I ate (and still do) foods I like, I track pretty closely (save for a restaurant meal or two). It can be done, please don’t be discouraged!

ahoy_m8

Another comment on dietary fat: I tend to have meals that are lowish on fat so I really depend on high fat snacks in order to reach the minimum fat needed daily (~0.35g/lb body weight).

One of my kids asked me once if cheese was a healthy snack or not-- yes or no. It's impossible to answer a question like that with no context. If the rest of a person's diet is short of fat, cheese is an awesome snack, maybe the best choice possible. If the rest of a person's diet is very high fat but low on fiber, then cheese isn't the best choice. With nutrition, it's the big picture -- what you consume over the course of a whole week, not daily or hourly -- that is relevant.

Also, I'm 55 and CICO works reliably for me. The math may not always work on exactly the schedule you want, but the math always works. But you already know that! Rely on the success and knowledge you have in your past. They will serve you well. Best to you, OP!

callsitlikeiseeit

a calorie is always a calorie.

i lost the same in my 30s as i do now at 43.

kshama2001

For me it hasn't been my age that makes weight management challenging but my job. When I was in my 20s, a machine operator, and running around a machine all day - easy. Desk job - much more challenging. Would be less so if I didn't like to eat so much

As I've gotten older, desk jobs have become the norm. I've had desk jobs exclusively since @ 2006. (Not exactly sure when I stopped teaching yoga.)

FitAgainBy55

The difference in BMR between a 25 year old and a 45 year old 5'0 160 lbs women is only 100 calories.

I'm sure my comments will be disregarded by many women, but I'm 55 and I've never had trouble losing weight as long as I tracked my food and exercise -- regardless of the source of my calories. At 45 I transitioned from borderline obese to 12% body fat while eating pasta, bread, Hershey kisses (every day), pizza and drinking beer. At 55 I'm losing 1.5 lbs per week (eating fewer carbs this time because my wife prefers a lower carb diet) still drinking lots of beer but not as much pizza (only once per week or so).

If I were at the same weight at 25 my BMR would be 1,728 ... instead at 55 it is 1,578. That's only 150 calories. While you have very little control over your BMR short term, your TDEE is totally up to you. A sedentary 25 year old with my stats would have a TDEE of 2,074. I've CHOSEN a TDEE of about 2750 calories per day and thus I can eat like a 25 year old sedentary person and still lose 1.5 lbs per week at 55.

springlering62

I’m 58. Starting at 56, I lost 40% of my body weight. I am always busy, walking, working out, cleaning, moving, except when I sit down to (ahem, @sijomial ) crochet or do needlework. I maintain at an average of about 2500 or so per day.

I would give anything for the do-over to have started this at 43.

Take this as the opportunity it is, and get out there and kill it.

I just want to take all the women who come on MFP pissing and moaning about how they can’t do it because of age, or menopausal status, shake them, scream at them, and then hug them. Yes, you can. If you get off your *kitten* and do something about it!!!!