Is age really a factor or an excuse?

chatnel

So my diet has stayed the same and been on here awhilel so I know what I should and should not be eating/excercising etc but now I am getting into my thirties my weight has slowly been going up for no reason. I have gained an extra 10% within the last year.

And trying to lose it now is alot harder than in my twenties, I seem to work my butt off to lose 1 kilo and then gained it back after having one bad meal or a few drinks, it is so frustrating. In my twenties would just have to say the word diet and the weight would come off.

So my question is, is this common as you get older or is there something wrong with me?

serindipte

I'm 39 and mine has been coming off at a fair pace with me doing little to no exercise. Our metabolism does slow some as we age but it is most likely your inaccurate logging that is causing your current issues. Weigh and log everything, stick to your calorie goals and you will lose weight.

ETA:
To verify your calorie goals:
http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

The two calculators above are the generally accepted around here. Use both and take an average of the two and then pull off the percentage that you want to use to maintain a deficit.

acogg

In my experience, age is not much of a factor. I probably lose a little slower than when I was a teenager, but about the same as when I was in my twenties. I have lots of friends in every age group and they all seem to lose at about the same rate and complain about the same issues. Weight loss is a slow tedious process, so be patient.

lesteidel

Yes it is a factor.

You need less calories as you get older, and you also tend to move less than you did when you were younger. It's not an excuse and it can be done, but it takes me longer to lose now than it did five years ago.

lemon629

I don't think age alone is a big factor for me. When I am focused, I lose as easily as I did in my 20s. (I am 43.) The main difference for me is that it is more difficult to stay focused. I am not as active as I was then-- no longer wait tables, no longer walk all over a college campus, no longer walk three blocks up a very steep hill to catch the city bus, etc. Plus now in a professional environment I am constantly inundated with food. If I'm not careful, I eat too much and frankly if I'm not focused I even eat when I'm not hungry. I didn't have to deal with issues like that twenty years ago.

uconnwinsnc

Yes, age is probably one of the biggest factors. Younger people can work out longer and harder and recover quicker. Younger people can also eat more and generally have a better metabolism.

People in their 40's and 50's can still be as strong and active as someone in their 20s, but recover time is multiplied exponentially. A longer recovery time means less time spent working out and more time spent...recovering. Someone in their 20s can realistically be completely recovered from a long day working and being active on beer and only a few hours of sleep.

chatnel

I look back at my diet when i was 20, hot chips, pizza, ice cream, carbs and was like half the size I am now. Guess sitting in front of computer and driving everywhere is having more of an effect that I first thought.

Siobhan108

Trust me it gets a lot harder when you pass 65 !

capperboy

In my case as I aged my lifestyle and work life become more sedentary I have also found that increased financial security (kids left home) means that more money available for activities that centre around pleasure and this includes food and drink. The plus side I now have more time for exercise.

ninerbuff

Age is a factor, but not an excuse. At 50, I'm still in better shape and more fit than many males half my age.

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

manda1978

yes I think age is a factor, just means you need to be more aware and diligent.

I'm 36 and in the best shape of my life, however I train 6 days a week and monitor my nutrition closely.

Shaky44

Take the example of a 5'10", 200 lb man who gets 1-3 hours of light exercise per week. At age 25, he will burn 2791 calories per day. At age 35, he will burn 2698 calories per day. It's only 93 calories per day, but over the course of a year it adds up to just under 34,000 calories: the equivalent of over 9 lbs.

Add to that issue that a 35 year old is not as likely to have a job that requires physical exertion or as much free time to go to the gym and it's no secret why you're going to gain weight unless you eat less as you grow older.

florentinovillaro

To a person that doesn't eat right or exercise, I think it does matter. The weight gain is compounding too. The more you weigh, the lazier you end up getting. The additional weight causing damage to hip and knee joints doesn't help either. Speaking from personal experience. I'm 45, it's not an excuse for me.

1pandabear

My doctor said due to hormonal changes, everyone loses muscle mass with age, but he also says that is why we need to do weight bearing exercise especially as we age. Muscle mass requires more calories to maintain than fat; therefore as we lose muscle mass, our bodies require fewer calories, meaning generally we need to eat less as we age. Age is not an excuse, it's something to deal with using our knowledge of how age affects us.

Omar_USAF

If you were half the size you are now, you'd disappear :noway:

Jrowens2013

If you believe in science, it's a factor, not an excuse. Our metabolisms slow as we age, which means if we do exactly the same thing we always did, we'd still weigh more, the older we get (to put it, unscientifically).

OverDoIt

If you have had a 10% change then work 15% harder. Age is a number, plain and simple. Do not ever let a name or number define you. I can guarantee you are much more than just a name and number.

bonoeuf

I don't believe in science, so can I use it as an excuse?

fast_eddie_72

There's no question it's harder for me now at 46 than it was even 5 years ago. I never had to count calories before. Training for running events always had a dramatic effect. This last time, it just didn't. I lost 10 lbs and that was it. But, I started eating less and exercising more often and it's coming off now. Realizing how hard it is to drop the weight this time, I'm going to be real darn reluctant to let it get ahead of me again. Can't imagine what it will be like in another 10 years.

waxwingdesign

I believe it is a factor. When I was in my 20's all I had to do to lose 5 pounds was skip lunch. Now that I'm 44 it's taken me 2 months of hard slog and 1350 calories a day to lose 5 lbs and it's hard to keep it off. But, once you come to terms with that and realize you can't just eat everything you want because you used to be able to and you'd like to keep doing it that way, then it gets easier... hang in there and keep trying...

kezzola

Yep, I'm in my 60's and things have certainly slowed down in the weight loss department.

annie7hudds

I think that yes, it probably is.

However that doesn't mean that you have to give in to it.

I am struggling to lose anything at the moment. It could be that I just don't have the focus.

Also, when you have other commitments it isn't as simple. If you are young and single - then you have loads of time to go and exercise, plan healthy meals (*and stick to them).

I find it tough as I have to cook for teenage boys and a husband. They don't want to eat my delicious salads and bean concoctions.

But I say just keep at it - try hard and look after your body.

Right - off to workout now

SephiraRose

On my part I feel age plays some part because we aren't as active as we were in our 20's. Also you may have more unhealthy habits. Just take it one day at a time and never stop working at it. But it sure would be fabulous if our weight loss goal was achieved in like 6 months of better eating and more activity, then we could just maintain.

SezxyStef

Yes, age is probably one of the biggest factors. Younger people can work out longer and harder and recover quicker. Younger people can also eat more and generally have a better metabolism.

People in their 40's and 50's can still be as strong and active as someone in their 20s, but recover time is multiplied exponentially. A longer recovery time means less time spent working out and more time spent...recovering. Someone in their 20s can realistically be completely recovered from a long day working and being active on beer and only a few hours of sleep.

I call BS on this.

My father in law is 63 and puts my husband and son along with a lot of younger men to shame, eats more, works harder etc.
I have a guy friend who is 50 and is in better shape than most young men I know.
My sister is 43 and looks great, hard all over, active with a child and a job.

Ditto with me...I put younger women to shame, my recovery time is almost null and void due to my health being very good and being active (more active than I was in my 20's)

Age can play a factor esp if you have always been overweight or a woman hitting menopause. I was very active in my teens and early 20's and I think that plays a factor...

IMHO age is an excuse, I see lots saying oh no in my 20's it was easier...lose 5lbs by skipping lunch etc...Yah no.

Losing 5lbs in your 20 requires the same equation as it does in your 40's, 50's and beyond. You need to take in 17500 calories less than you are burning...either through eating less or moving more or both...if you are inactive yes it will be harder and as we age and become "adults" with jobs, kids etc we are less active but not because our age it's because we get lazy and blame being tired on our jobs/kids/houses etc when in fact if we exercised more we wouldn't be so tired.

so again it's an excuse.

ETA: OP your diary is a mess...1200 calories??? really...and you don't weigh your food and use quick add calories a lot. If you aren't losing weight it is because you are not in a deficet you are at maintenance due to inaccuracies in logging which results in underestimates in intake and over estimates in burns...

DamePiglet

My lifestyle is so vastly different now than it was in my 20s that whatever effects aging may have had in the process is tiny in comparison.
In my 20s, I had babies / young kids that I chased around and I shared the meals I cooked.
As an empty nester with a mostly sedimentary career, I have to actually try to maintain a healthy weight.

rybo

IMO, age is definitely a factor, but not an insurmountable one. It's just something to account for, but shouldn't be seen as an excuse not to achieve your goal.

beaches61

Your weight is not going up for no reason. It's going up because you consume more than you burn.

Age is somewhat of a factor, but in your 30s, not a significant one, IMO. It does gradually get more challenging to lose weight, although mostly because most people continue to become less active and lose muscle mass as they age, and because these changes happen slowly, they don't realize it.

You can certainly lose weight as you age, and still quite easily in your 30s, I believe. I'm 52, and I am losing weight with diet and exercise. There are plenty of other folks here in their 50s and older who are losing weight too.

It's not easy though.

Yanicka1

It probably does...but muscle loss is not inevitable .....I have a bigger muscle mass now than I did at 20.

Jeneba

I am 57 and have been working out since my early twenties. The only difference for me now is that I cannot afford ANY prolonged period of inactivity. The muscles (including heart and lungs) need to be continually challenged - if not, I start to be susceptible to injury.

VaralKrieger

Age causes us to change how we do things but as long as you have motivation, you can accomplish anything you set your sights on.

darrensurrey

ISTR your metabolic rate falls by 0.1% per year. So it's not really a factor on its own. But as we get older, we tend to move less frequently so even if the metabolic rate didn't fall, we'd still tend to get wobbly. So, make sure you participate in some kind of physical activity regularly for the rest of your life.