Tips for keeping weight off as you age

ssmith110979
ssmith110979 Posts: 3 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
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
«1

Replies

  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,774 Member
    edited July 30
    You're probably eating more.

    Perhaps you are less active during the day than before, maybe job or kids related?
  • nossmf
    nossmf Posts: 10,939 Member
    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!
  • csplatt
    csplatt Posts: 1,187 Member
    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.
  • LiveOnceBeHappy
    LiveOnceBeHappy Posts: 449 Member
    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.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,133 Member
    Normally people are less active during the day and dont change their eating habits as they age.
  • jaetariussmith
    jaetariussmith Posts: 2 Member
    edited July 31
    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]
  • claireychn074
    claireychn074 Posts: 1,557 Member
    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.
  • AdahPotatah2024
    AdahPotatah2024 Posts: 1,988 Member
    edited July 31
    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.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,333 Member
    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. :lol:

    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.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,157 Member
    edited July 31
    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. :)
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 33,783 Member
    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.
  • DrBenja
    DrBenja Posts: 32 Member
    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.
  • springlering62
    springlering62 Posts: 8,283 Member
    edited August 1
    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.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,333 Member
    edited August 1
    AnnPT77 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.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,133 Member
    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.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,157 Member
    edited August 1
    cmriverside wrote: »
    AnnPT77 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. :)
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,333 Member
    edited August 1
    @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.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,157 Member
    edited August 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.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 33,783 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    AnnPT77 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! :D

    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.

  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,774 Member
    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.
    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.

    Also, we don't know how many times they had previously tried to diet.

Categories