Tips for keeping weight off as you age
ssmith110979
Posts: 3 Member
Hello, I am 44 year old female. I am very active, work out 5 days per week, go for walks 7 days per week and various other activities. I’ve noticed in the past couple of years that my weight is creeping up and I’m having a really hard time losing weight and keeping it off. If anyone has any tips/recommendations for how to lose weight and keep it off at this age I’d really appreciate it
0
Replies
-
You're probably eating more.
Perhaps you are less active during the day than before, maybe job or kids related?4 -
At your age, it's likely not metabolism related, that's more of a senior-citizen kind of thing. As Retroguy suggested, you may be moving less, from working a desk job or longer commute compared to before, or from less standing up, shuffling around, fidgeting, etc. Also possible you are eating every so slightly more than before. Researchers followed around professional chefs and determined in many cases they were adding 100 calories per day to their diet from taste-testing, without realizing it or accounting for it. More accurate food logging, combined with honest assessment of movement, and you'll still be able to control the weight at our age. Good luck!3
-
I’m 42. I work at a desk and parent busy teens who cannot drive themselves anywhere yet. My weight creeps up if I’m not weighing and measuring my food so I stay in maintenance calories.4
-
As I aged, I started meeting friends for drinks and meals for fun instead of going hiking or kayaking. I grew less active and started eating and drinking more.4
-
Normally people are less active during the day and dont change their eating habits as they age.2
-
Sounds like you're consistently active. My question would be, how intense is your level of physical activity? Also, how many calories are you consuming in a day? You may want to start tracking your meals throughout the day to establish a baseline, and use the stats to identify what/where you may need to adjust (i.e. eat less/smaller portions, consume better quality foods with better quality ingredients, find ways to supplement, etc.). Consider trying a high-intensity workout. And, lastly, schedule at least an annual visit with your primary care doctor (which I'm sure you're already doing). (Emphasis on the doctors visit if you implement healthy changes and conditions get worse). I hope this helps.
[Edited by MFP mod]-4 -
My weight crept up by just over one stone over two years after a shoulder injury greatly reduced my exercise. Looking at it literally, that was only 67 cals extra each day. So that could have been one sweet, one extra taste when cooking or (more likely) a bit more wine. The “tip” is to track your food for a while and see how many calories you are actually eating, then reduce those a bit to stay stable or a bit more to lose weight.
I took action as a lot of the women in my family are short, round and cuddly people, (we come from good peasant stock) and I’ve seen them all get fatter as they aged. It was a v gradual process but I didn’t want the health issues some were suffering with the weight. And I’m fairly petite so that weight really showed on me. The changes to lose weight really weren’t that severe to be honest, but it was the mental adjustment to tracking and saying “no” which took me time.4 -
I was 105-115 in high school, 120s in my 20s, 130s in my 30s, and now 140s 😅
Trying to avoid the 150s before I turn 50 in a few years, haha
I follow that that smart BMI that accounts for age when trying to access how much I should weigh and really pay more attention to my waist size.
Also, I think it's helpful to watch stress levels and make sure that I take time for myself. This is the age where a lot of people are both worrying over their kids AND aging relatives who need help.1 -
By the time I had reached my forties I was driving everywhere, had an office job, didn't ride my bike very often, started having ice cream way too often, drank alcohol more than just the weekend, and generally had that "reward" mindset - where every day I deserved some food or alcohol reward just for making it through the day.
You can see where I'm going, right? I had more time and more money and less movement. A lot had to change with those bad habits.
I lost 80ish pounds. Logging food, stopping drinking, delegated Ben & Jerry to special occasions, and started walking any time I could.
I'd say it's a lot easier to lose 30 pounds than 80, so don't wait.4 -
Personally it's understanding the importance of quality protein in an amount that reflects closer to an optimal muscle protein synthesis scenario which makes exercise especially weight bearing the most important factor as we age and that result which helps maintain or increases our strength, which again I feel should be seen as mandatory as we age. Of course what we eat is important and I generally advocate for a whole food diet and one that focuses on satiety for the majority of my food choices and I basically follow the 80/20 rule, which works for me.
0 -
The most common scenario is as others have described: As we age, activity level creeps down (daily life and/or exercise), eating creeps up (frequency, portions and/or richness), muscle mass creeps down (because of not systematically challenging strength).
That's all gradual and subtle, can be almost unnoticed . . . but it all reduces calorie needs. 100 extra calories consumed a day is roughly 10 pounds per year weight gain, and it can be a combination of increased intake and reduced activity.
On top of that, statistically speaking many people don't get enough protein, or don't spread it over the day (which is important because we can metabolize protein less efficiently as we age). Various other nutrient deficiencies are also fairly common, but protein is probably the most central when it comes to muscle maintenance, plus protein has a somewhat higher TEF.
It's possible, too, that those who've yo-yo-ed in weight over decades may face an even more difficult situation, because of cumulative adaptive thermogenesis plus reductions in muscle mass due to extreme restrictions during loss cycles (with undernutrition and often still no strength exercise), then regain of primarily fat (with still sub-ideal nutrition and no strength exercise).
All of those factors are nearly 100% under our control, so the situation can be reversed to some extent.1 -
At 44, it's key to balance workouts with diet. Try focusing on whole foods, managing stress and ensuring adequate sleep. Sometimes, consulting a dietitian or personal trainer can help refine your approach.0
-
Invest in a fitness tracker and sync it to MFP.
My generation (I’m 62) had little nutritional education outside learning the “4 Food Groups”.
I had an utter and complete disconnect between calories earned and calories burned.
I truly thought an hour walk in the evening would burn off whatever monster snack I planned to eat that night.
I was totally caught off guard when my fitness tracker showed that walk would - maybe, if I picked up the pace- burn off a serving of two Oreos.
That was when the pieces fell into place for me.
It’s not just “doing” exercise, it’s understanding how it relates to your total food day. Logging and tracking helped me make sense of it and get it all under control.
BTW, I started post menopausal. It was shamefully easy once I figured out the mechanics. “Agin”, “hormones”, “the change”, don’t let them scare you. As others have said, it’s just slowing down and eating more and they creep up on us, much like age, hence the obvious association.
I use and love my Apple Watch. My daughter uses a FitBit that’s 1/4 the price and just as effective for her. Don’t be put off by price. I bet if you ask, some friend or family member has a “good intentions” tracker sitting in a drawer, unused.4 -
<snip> because of cumulative adaptive thermogenesis <snip>
I've never heard of this before...is this a personal theory or something you read in one of your many forays into the Knowledge of Research? I generally believe you but this one I've never seen! Not saying it's not true. I just don't find it to be the way the body works. For me.
Adaptive thermogenesis as I understand it is a temporary adjustment the body makes due to food restriction, but it reverses quite quickly with sufficient intake. It isn't something that is cumulative or permanent over time. I've lost significant amounts of weight twice, and my calorie needs today are on the high end of what would be considered normal, even without exercise.
0 -
One factor to consider is that Muscle Protein Synthesis declines with age so it becomes increasingly important to hit those protein numbers.
Matching overall calories to a typically decreasing calorie output will be crucial.
You can’t discount the fact that as people age, many just don’t hold physical beauty in a high priority as they did when they were younger so enjoying good food, which is now affordable, takes over as a priority in some respects. Couple that with just not having that youthful energy and the extra weight can be the result.
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »<snip> because of cumulative adaptive thermogenesis <snip>
I've never heard of this before...is this a personal theory or something you read in one of your many forays into the Knowledge of Research? I generally believe you but this one I've never seen! Not saying it's not true. I just don't find it to be the way the body works. For me.
Adaptive thermogenesis as I understand it is a temporary adjustment the body makes due to food restriction, but it reverses quite quickly with sufficient intake. It isn't something that is cumulative or permanent over time. I've lost significant amounts of weight twice, and my calorie needs today are on the high end of what would be considered normal, even without exercise.
Adaptive thermogenesis has been studied for many decades and in the 1990's with the discovery of leptin it was considered a breakthrough in further understanding adaptive thermogenesis. It's basically a survival mechanism that goes back to the dawn of time where the body reduces it's metabolic rate in order to survive periods of food scarcity by conserving energy and helping to maintain vital bodily function, pretty basic really.
The main problem is adaptive thermogenesis slows down our metabolism more than predicted based solely on the loss of lean body mass for an individual. Scientifically it has much to do with hormonal regulation, the effect on our sympathetic nervous system, the activity in our brown fat tissue, which gets lower and it also effect mitochondrial efficiency which actually make them more efficient which means they produce the same amount of energy with fewer calories.
The extent of this reduction can vary based on several factors, including the severity of calorie restriction, the duration of the diet, and individual differences like sex, age and someones initial body composition. Suffice is to say that it's going to happen but it can be reduced greatly from what I've learned over the years and practice which was basically my comments in my previous post, anyway, if someone wants to minimize this effect then I would suggest they alternate between times of energy restriction and maintenance calories which are basically diet breaks and refeeds, this is paramount, so alternate calorie restriction almost equally, increasing their protein which helps preserve lean mass and a focusing on nutrient dense foods I would say is also very important and regular exercise with regular weight bearing exercises as well.
There a lot more to it scientifically but this is as I understand the literature I've come across over the years. I'm sure
Ann will have much to say as well. 0 -
@neanderthin
I don't know if you were talking to me or just talking.
I know the mechanics and definition of AT.
She was claiming that it is cumulative and (from what I can gather from her post) permanent. That is to say, it causes people who yo-yo to have a disadvantage forever.
I don't think that has been proven to be a fact.
AT happens with restriction. Yes.
It reverses with sufficient intake. Calorie needs for a given body weight do not change permanently due to restriction other than the muscle factor - which can also be reversed or mitigated with resistance training and diet breaks - it's not permanent. The hormones will reset to the new weight.
What I think is underestimated is the amount of time it may take for that to happen. It definitely wasn't at the moment of total weight loss for me. It took months.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »@neanderthin
I don't know if you were talking to me or just talking.
I know the mechanics and definition of AT.
She was claiming that it is cumulative and (from what I can gather from her post) permanent. That is to say, it causes people who yo-yo to have a disadvantage forever.
I don't think that has been proven to be a fact.
AT happens with restriction. Yes.
It reverses with sufficient intake. Calorie needs for a given body weight do not change permanently due to restriction other than the muscle factor - which can also be reversed or mitigated with resistance training and diet breaks - it's not permanent. The hormones will reset to the new weight.
What I think is underestimated is the amount of time it may take for that to happen. It definitely wasn't at the moment of total weight loss for me. It took months.
Right, I see what your saying. My instinct tells me based on what I know, it's definitely possible and more than likely quite common. I believe it's going to apply differently dependent on an individuals metabolic status in general, dietary protocol, and lifestyle of the individual as well as the other factors that effect metabolism other than lean mass which I specified in my previous post. Some people will be able to rebound but it will be based on the strategy that includes weight training, a higher protein diet and one that contains all the quality nutrients that support a health metabolism,
If you take the average overweight or obese individual in America for example that consumes mostly UPF's which accounts for about 70% of the population and they're sedentary, don't exercise and then go on a calorie restricted diet especially for extended periods of time and that's considering a slowdown of metabolic rate can happen within the first couple of weeks of calorie restriction, the decrease in metabolic rate is pretty much a given and it can be quite a lot as well. If that same person starts to put the lbs back on the ratio of muscle to fat will not rebound to where they were before dieting which basically means they will put weight back on with fewer calories and then this same person basically does a rinse and repeat of the same strategy they will continue to decrease their metabolic rate with additional attempts. One example might be the biggest loser study where after 6 years they still continue to burn significantly less calories after the initial weight loss and that's with just 1 attempt at their weight loss.
There will be people and I'm one of them that have dieted a few times and lost 60 lbs and have increased my metabolic rate and that happened as I've aged. I have more lean mass and less fat mass now at 71 than I had when I was 60 and it reflects my lifestyle which is again higher protein, lots of exercise which includes weight bearing exercise at least twice a week and proper sleeping habits, so both scenarios are considered imo.
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »<snip> because of cumulative adaptive thermogenesis <snip>
I've never heard of this before...is this a personal theory or something you read in one of your many forays into the Knowledge of Research? I generally believe you but this one I've never seen! Not saying it's not true. I just don't find it to be the way the body works. For me.
Adaptive thermogenesis as I understand it is a temporary adjustment the body makes due to food restriction, but it reverses quite quickly with sufficient intake. It isn't something that is cumulative or permanent over time. I've lost significant amounts of weight twice, and my calorie needs today are on the high end of what would be considered normal, even without exercise.
I didn't mean to be claiming Deep Science in 3 words!
All I was trying to say - and maybe expressed poorly - is that doing extreme diets over and over seems likely to have a cumulative effect on calorie requirements.
As you say, AT may be recoverable, but it takes time. All I'm suggesting is that if a person loses weight fast, regains fast, does that repeatedly, never has that recovery time and never follows recovery strategies, the cumulative result is likely to be bad - likely worse than a single round of fast loss, likely worse than fast loss followed by sensible recovery.
I wouldn't assume it's unrecoverable at that point, either - just that keeping up that same cycle of extreme yo-yos seems likely to yield slightly poorer results each round.
Seems like we see people say often "what used to work, doesn't work any more". To me, that seems like a logical outcome of repeatedly training a body to survive many rounds of something it can't tell from famine. It's time to do something different.
0 -
Not to discount anything else you're saying, but just re The Biggest Loser, that was probably a greater shock to their systems than anything a normal person does. Presumably the extreme diet and exercise and resulting very high stress on their bodies is a factor there, which maybe doesn't affect the average person nearly as much, if at all.neanderthin wrote: »One example might be the biggest loser study where after 6 years they still continue to burn significantly less calories after the initial weight loss and that's with just 1 attempt at their weight loss.
Also, we don't know how many times they had previously tried to diet.0 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »
Not to discount anything else you're saying, but just re The Biggest Loser, that was probably a greater shock to their systems than anything a normal person does. Presumably the extreme diet and exercise and resulting very high stress on their bodies is a factor there, which maybe doesn't affect the average person nearly as much, if at all.neanderthin wrote: »One example might be the biggest loser study where after 6 years they still continue to burn significantly less calories after the initial weight loss and that's with just 1 attempt at their weight loss.
Also, we don't know how many times they had previously tried to diet.
Yeah for sure. We have no way of knowing what their history in dieting has been or how that might effect the results.0 -
thanks, @AnnPT77 for the explanation.
I guess I don't like to give people ammunition...i.e., yes, life situations sometimes makes it harder than when you were young, working as a waitress and living on cigarettes, tequila, and caffeine and dancing the night away then riding your bike to the beach. At least, that was me in my 20s. Very easy to stay thin, I was too thin. Even in my thirties I was still active enough that losing ten pounds was easy. Forties and early fifties, whoa. For all the reasons I stated. Not to mention some added chronic medical issues and medications that weren't helping. Short of medical issues, though, I think everyone is capable of losing weight and keeping it off. Is it easy? Not really.
That Biggest Loser study article from the NIH has holes in it. I read the whole thing and I still think there are some big errors in the conclusion(s) but I'd guess this has been discussed before on the forums. I find it nearly impossible to believe it as it's laid out.
I have to look at human nature as the biggest culprit and the behaviors and denial that are so hard to overcome with major weight loss.
Track your food. Find your sweet spot. Prosper.1 -
Studies in general have so many confounders that we need to be critical, always looking for truths, at least that's the way I look at all studies. The biggest loser while there's lots of questions to consider the follow up found they had a drastic metabolic slowdown which was also persistent even after weight regain, they also needed to continue their exercise to maintain their weight loss and their hormones especially leptin made them feel hungrier contributing to weight gain. This basically tells us the importance of a balanced approach to both dieting and exercise, which was pretty obvious. It was a disaster waiting to happen, imo0
-
I see there was a follow-up re-interpretation of the Biggest Loser study in 2022. They note that the greatest long term metabolic adaptations happened with those who had the greatest increase in physical activity, and it was unrelated to weight gain afterwards. In other words, it wasn't the extreme diet that changed their systems, it was the extreme exercise.
This all ties in to the fallacy that 100% of exercise calories burned can be eaten back, when in reality our NEAT and maybe other forms of energy expenditure drops somewhat to compensate, and 50% is probably a more realistic eat-back goal (estimation made by a couple of experienced former pro bodybuilders on YT that I follow), with that ratio perhaps being a bit higher if you're starting from very lean, or the exercise was very intense.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.233081 -
I like this one explanation of that constrained energy expenditure model that is discussed in that paper:...(8) Pontzer et al. speculated that metabolic adaptation may reflect decreases in pathophysiological processes that improve with increased physical activity, such as reduced chronic inflammation
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.23308
That's fascinating, and I find it to be true for me (the inflammation reduction that comes from exercise and better food choices) so why wouldn't there be other processes involved? Thanks, at least I got that one tidbit from the paper which is something I hadn't thought of previously. Eliminate pathology, have a more efficient machine, i.e. lower RMR. Of course! It's like a tune up. :flowerforyou:1 -
Sometimes there's a fine line between ammunition and useful information. The difference is mostly in how the audience acts on it, including what they're led to believe.cmriverside wrote: »thanks, @AnnPT77 for the explanation.
I guess I don't like to give people ammunition...i.e., yes, life situations sometimes makes it harder than when you were young, working as a waitress and living on cigarettes, tequila, and caffeine and dancing the night away then riding your bike to the beach. At least, that was me in my 20s. Very easy to stay thin, I was too thin. Even in my thirties I was still active enough that losing ten pounds was easy. Forties and early fifties, whoa. For all the reasons I stated. Not to mention some added chronic medical issues and medications that weren't helping. Short of medical issues, though, I think everyone is capable of losing weight and keeping it off. Is it easy? Not really.
I think it's fairly certain that AT is real, and that there are ways to minimize or potentially even reverse it.
There have been some good critiques of it, too.That Biggest Loser study article from the NIH has holes in it. I read the whole thing and I still think there are some big errors in the conclusion(s) but I'd guess this has been discussed before on the forums. I find it nearly impossible to believe it as it's laid out.I have to look at human nature as the biggest culprit and the behaviors and denial that are so hard to overcome with major weight loss.
Yes. It's particularly distressing to me when "it's so hard because I'm aging (menopausal, hypothyroid, whatever)" becomes a bonding experience among people, and so much a bonding ritual that it can help some decide it's OK if they stop trying (because it's hopeless in this sad story), or inevitable that they don't make progress. I feel like that bonding style sometimes happens even in threads here.
I feel like the explosion of marketing around menopause as a limitation on weight loss or fitness can contribute to the "it's too hard" trap, too.
Don't get me wrong: I absolutely think some things do make weight loss (or fitness improvement) relatively harder. The core issue is whether it can still work with the right strategies. There may be exceptions, but I think it can, as I know you do.Track your food. Find your sweet spot. Prosper.
Yes. Exactly, 100%.
P.S. I know you've read this thread (because you contributed to it, IIRC):
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
I'd still recommend it to others who haven't read it, but want to understand some of these issues better. This is one case where I think the whole thread (though long) is beneficial: There were a lot of thought-provoking questions and answers scattered throughout. It's IMO a great example of the period when there were serious, calm discussions of controversial topics that actually brought some light to the subject. Some of the research links are dated, supplanted by more recent findings, but overall I think there's still value there.
2 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »I see there was a follow-up re-interpretation of the Biggest Loser study in 2022. They note that the greatest long term metabolic adaptations happened with those who had the greatest increase in physical activity, and it was unrelated to weight gain afterwards. In other words, it wasn't the extreme diet that changed their systems, it was the extreme exercise.
This all ties in to the fallacy that 100% of exercise calories burned can be eaten back, when in reality our NEAT and maybe other forms of energy expenditure drops somewhat to compensate, and 50% is probably a more realistic eat-back goal (estimation made by a couple of experienced former pro bodybuilders on YT that I follow), with that ratio perhaps being a bit higher if you're starting from very lean, or the exercise was very intense.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.23308
Personally, I think you oversell that "fallacy" in some contexts, but this isn't the place to argue that. It's true that over-exercise can reduce NEAT, but there's a lot more to it.1 -
Then we agree it's a fallacy. We just maybe disagree about the extent. As I said, I got the 50% estimate from two, actually I think it's more like three, bodybuilder/powerlifter people on YT.Personally, I think you oversell that "fallacy" in some contexts, but this isn't the place to argue that. It's true that over-exercise can reduce NEAT, but there's a lot more to it.0 -
I am older.. and I think blaming age on weight gain is copout. you've simply been on this earth longer and you have more time to add on pounds from overeating. when I gain weight; it is because I ate my way to it.. my age has zero to do with it.4
-
I don't disagree with the majority of posters here, however, an underlying cause to some of the common issues women face in middle age is hormones. When all the things that "have always worked" suddenly stop working.
Hormones and perimenopause can seriously screw with your body, and OP, you're right in that age range. There are a lot of symptoms of peri that directly lead to weight gain - some of it bloating and the like, some of it fatigue and exhaustion that lowers willpower and energy levels, which cause you to move less, not workout quite as hard as you used to, eat a bit more than you used to, cravings, etc...ya, it's "just" water weight, and yes, it's still CICO, but overlooking the underlying problem is a problem IMO.
It is a topic that has, IMO, historically (and still is, even in the medical world) underplayed, misunderstood, and not studied very well, but can have major impacts on women at this age.
It doesn't impact everyone the same either - some sail through with hardly any issues, others get completely sidelined, and a bunch of us land somewhere in the middle.
Just another factor that may be worth exploring - I would say to join a peri or menopause group specifically for more information, it is a topic generally overlooked outside of those groups.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K 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
- 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