Is age really a factor or an excuse?
Replies
-
If I change my birth date to make myself appear to be 20, it gives me 150 more calories per day - more than 1,000 calories per week. It takes me about a seven mile run to burn that many calories. When I was 20, I did it watching TV.
Very misleading comparison.
150 calories/day is 45 minutes of walking or 20 minutes of jogging a day.
I'm just curious why you think that's misleading. "150 calories/day is 45 minutes of walking." Okay. The question was, is it a factor? Yes. If you need to add 45 minutes of walking per day just to maintain the same weight, that *is* a factor. It is not a factor that can not be over come, and there is no reason for it to be an excuse.
It became misleading when you made an implicitly compared a week's worth of eating calories to one outing's worth of exercise calories.Age is a factor.
It does not have to be an excuse.
The factor isn't age, it is activity level. I will concede that by the time you get to 70 or so, age will in and of itself be a factor.
But at 50?
Only for special snowflakes.0 -
It became misleading when you made an implicitly compared a week's worth of eating calories to one outing's worth of exercise calories.
I don't run 7 miles every day. I do it once a week. Seemed the appropriate comparison.0 -
Age is certainly a factor for me. I have to work harder and longer to see the same results I did 20 years ago.0
-
It's both a factor and an excuse (if you let it be). Your metabolism does slow as you age and you do have to work harder to achieve the same results...a lot of people just throw up their hands and say, "oh well...just getting older." and then it becomes an excuse.
That said, your metabolism in your 30s is not going to be that far off from what it is in your 20s. I think the difference between my TDEE at 29 and 39 with the same activity level is maybe 50 calories or so. My weight gain in my 30s had far more to do with my decreasing level of activity than anything else.0 -
That 40 calorie per day difference is over a 10 year period. If you want to break it down per year, it's more like 4 calories per day. Considering the margin of error for calorie estimates is in the range of +/-100 calories or so, I'd say losing 4 calories a day per year is infinitesimal.It's an excuse.
If you eat at a caloric deficit, you lose weight. It's no different at 20 or 50. It's the same math equation.
Fiddle with your age setting on MFP and see what it does to your numbers. Anything that makes it more difficult to maintain a calorie deficit, by definition makes it more difficult to lose weight. And, at least according to MFP, it is different at 20 than 50. If I change my birth date to make myself appear to be 20, it gives me 150 more calories per day - more than 1,000 calories per week. It takes me about a seven mile run to burn that many calories. When I was 20, I did it watching TV.
I'm not saying it's a factor that can't be overcome. I'm overcoming it as are many others here. But it is a factor. Is that factor an excuse? That's up to the individual.
The difference in BMR of someone age 25 and someone the same height and weight age 35 is only 40 calories a day. I agree with you, there is a more noticeable difference between someone in their 20's/30's and someone in their 60's, but that is not what the OP was addressing. Using those 40 calories as the reason why weight loss is much more difficult now than a few years ago, does sound to me a little bit like making excuses......sorry.
And btw; you did not burn an extra 1000 calories sitting on the couch watching TV. We all only think we did......:o).
I see your point. It all depends on how you look at it I guess. 40 calories a day is 14,600 a year. Divided by 3,500, that's just over 4 lbs. per year. Over ten years, that's 40 lbs. I do think that's exactly how a lot of people end up 40 lbs. over weight, and just getting older does explain it. Interestingly, that's about how over weight I was a year ago at age 45, making me an example of the numbers you chose.
But the other way to look at is, 40 calories a day isn't that hard to overcome, and the math works the same way in reverse. So if you are aware of what's happening to your body as you age, there's no reason you have to gain weight.0 -
Michael Jordan was hampered far more by overtraining, injuries, and being at his genetic limit physically, than "just getting older."Nope. It's all about physical fitness. If someone keeps themselves in excellent physical condition, they can keep on trucking right into their 50s, 60s, and beyond.
Example: Jack LaLanne, who continued his 2 hour daily exercise routine until his death at age 96.
Sure Jack was still working out at the age of 96, but are you really using that as an argument for old people being able to handle the same physical stress? His workouts at 96 were not on the same level as when he was 25. There is no purpose in arguing against biology. The human body beings to break down the older it gets, no matter if you want to believe it or not. I am not saying that older people can't be in great shape, but they physically cannot handle the same physical stress that a younger person can. You seem to think I am saying that old people can't lose weight and can't be in shape, but I am only saying that younger people are more capable of losing weight because they can handle harder workouts over an extended period of time with less recovery time. Recovery time is everything when it comes to working out.
Michael Jordan at 38 was still INCREDIBLY talented, but he even admitted that his body just couldn't handle it anymore and he was gassed by the 4th quarter. When Mike was 28 he was invincible day after day.
Recovery time is almost completely dependent on training level, not age. The more you train and the fitter you become, the longer your recovery time. That's why younger people seem too recover faster, they are untrained, and the body can adapt quickly. Once that period of adaptation occurs, it slows down, which makes recovery take longer.
It works that way no matter what age you start and stop at, it's not a young or old thing.
Also, Jordan averaged 40 minutes per game in 1987-88. He was so worn down and broken down by 2002-03 that he only averaged... 37 minutes per game. Yep, huge drop off there.0 -
That 40 calorie per day difference is over a 10 year period. If you want to break it down per year, it's more like 4 calories per day. Considering the margin of error for calorie estimates is in the range of +/-100 calories or so, I'd say losing 4 calories a day per year is infinitesimal.It's an excuse.
If you eat at a caloric deficit, you lose weight. It's no different at 20 or 50. It's the same math equation.
Fiddle with your age setting on MFP and see what it does to your numbers. Anything that makes it more difficult to maintain a calorie deficit, by definition makes it more difficult to lose weight. And, at least according to MFP, it is different at 20 than 50. If I change my birth date to make myself appear to be 20, it gives me 150 more calories per day - more than 1,000 calories per week. It takes me about a seven mile run to burn that many calories. When I was 20, I did it watching TV.
I'm not saying it's a factor that can't be overcome. I'm overcoming it as are many others here. But it is a factor. Is that factor an excuse? That's up to the individual.
The difference in BMR of someone age 25 and someone the same height and weight age 35 is only 40 calories a day. I agree with you, there is a more noticeable difference between someone in their 20's/30's and someone in their 60's, but that is not what the OP was addressing. Using those 40 calories as the reason why weight loss is much more difficult now than a few years ago, does sound to me a little bit like making excuses......sorry.
And btw; you did not burn an extra 1000 calories sitting on the couch watching TV. We all only think we did......:o).
I see your point. It all depends on how you look at it I guess. 40 calories a day is 14,600 a year. Divided by 3,500, that's just over 4 lbs. per year. Over ten years, that's 40 lbs. I do think that's exactly how a lot of people end up 40 lbs. over weight, and just getting older does explain it. Interestingly, that's about how over weight I was a year ago at age 45, making me an example of the numbers you chose.
But the other way to look at is, 40 calories a day isn't that hard to overcome, and the math works the same way in reverse. So if you are aware of what's happening to your body as you age, there's no reason you have to gain weight.
Yes, when I said "over ten years" I did realize that was over a 10 year period. lol Thanks for clearing that up. And no, when you extrapolate 40 calories a day over a ten year period, then back again, it doesn't become 4 calories. And what on Earth does "4 calories a day per year" mean?
Thanks for playing. As a departing contestant you win all these consolation prizes including the home version of our game.0 -
Definitely more an excuse than a factor.0
-
I think that our lives never stay exactly the same. So, as you get older your lifestyle changes. You may be somewhat less active, or be eating more, or both. But, it happens gradually, so you don't realize it has changed. And also if you always do the same thing, maybe it's time to try something new.
Calorie calculators will often set me at less because I'm over 35 (just barely), but I still eat the larger amounts intended for under 35, and I eat even more than that actually. I don't think something magical happens at 35 that changes our metabolism (the way people make it sound). Of course there will be factors that may require us to work more, but time does that. If we don't work hard, then time catches up with us. It doesn't have to, if we work hard on keeping fit and muscular. So, aging will be easier, if we continue working on our fitness. Life has circumstances that may require us to work more (having children, facing illness or injury, etc). But, other than the fact that life changes and time will catch up with us if we slack off, I think it is more of an excuse for most people. Some people do have illness or hormonal issues to deal with (and many of those people are still on here and fit).0 -
53 and I am able to do more than I even tried at 30. Last year I would scoff at the exercise program that I am now on. Just last year, I would read about women who were lifting heavy, and I thought "Never me. Too hard." Now I am a "heavy lifter" LOL. It is all in the head and the calendar. Woot! Feeling good here! Try to do more than you think is imaginable!0
-
You're talking performance athletes. The OP was about average joes.
And the OP was weightloss, not athletic performance.
Athletic performance is related to weight loss.
Nope. Sorry, dear.
We can lose weight without doing any exercise whatsoever. There's no real correlation there. Exercise helps, certainly, but it's not necessary.
We're talking about whether or not losing weight is easier for younger people, not the methods of losing weight. Because younger people can do more physical activity, THEN YES IT IS EASIER. Eating less and working out more=more weight loss. You even said it yourself, "Exercise helps." If it helps, then it makes it easier! Nobody is saying that it is needed to lose weight, but some of us are saying that it makes weight loss easier.0 -
In my experience, age is a positive factor. At 59, I have a lot more time to focus on myself than I did when I had teenagers to raise and a million parenting and household things to do in addition to work. Now I care less about the house and I manage my work much better than I did when I was young. The result is that I cook more and exercise more. I also know more about many things, including nutrition and fitness
So age can be a plus!0 -
In my experience, age is a positive factor. At 59, I have a lot more time to focus on myself than I did when I had teenagers to raise and a million parenting and household things to do in addition to work. Now I care less about the house and I manage my work much better than I did when I was young. The result is that I cook more and exercise more. I also know more about many things, including nutrition and fitness
So age can be a plus!
This is a really good point!0 -
I don't think it's much of a factor. I used a calorie calculator to check once, and for age, calories only went down by 100 from age 20 to 40, then another 100 from 40 to 60.
I'm 42 and didn't find my recent loss to be very difficult, but then I'm quite a rule follower and logged diligently.0 -
You're talking performance athletes. The OP was about average joes.
And the OP was weightloss, not athletic performance.
Athletic performance is related to weight loss.
Nope. Sorry, dear.
We can lose weight without doing any exercise whatsoever. There's no real correlation there. Exercise helps, certainly, but it's not necessary.
We're talking about whether or not losing weight is easier for younger people, not the methods of losing weight. Because younger people can do more physical activity, THEN YES IT IS EASIER. Eating less and working out more=more weight loss. You even said it yourself, "Exercise helps." If it helps, then it makes it easier! Nobody is saying that it is needed to lose weight, but some of us are saying that it makes weight loss easier.
You crack me up! :happy:
So are you saying that a 50 year old can't walk three miles a day like a twenty-something year old person can?0 -
Sure, at 44 all I do is sit on the couch...
0 -
You're talking performance athletes. The OP was about average joes.
And the OP was weightloss, not athletic performance.
Athletic performance is related to weight loss.
Nope. Sorry, dear.
We can lose weight without doing any exercise whatsoever. There's no real correlation there. Exercise helps, certainly, but it's not necessary.
We're talking about whether or not losing weight is easier for younger people, not the methods of losing weight. Because younger people can do more physical activity, THEN YES IT IS EASIER. Eating less and working out more=more weight loss. You even said it yourself, "Exercise helps." If it helps, then it makes it easier! Nobody is saying that it is needed to lose weight, but some of us are saying that it makes weight loss easier.
You crack me up! :happy:
So are you saying that a 50 year old can't walk three miles a day like a twenty-something year old person can?
You're misunderstanding everything. I am saying that a 50 year old can do whatever the hell they want to lose weight, and can do it successfully. A 50 year old can be in wonderful shape. A 50 year old can be stronger than a 25 year old. But, it is easier for a younger person to do MORE working out MORE often to lose MORE weight quicker with LESS recovery needed, therefore making it easier to lose weight. We aren't arguing "Who is in better shape?" We are arguing, "Who can lose weight quickest?" Look, I can go out and play hours of basketball and lift heavy, come home and eat whatever I want. For the most part, I won't gain any weight. I've had days where I've eaten thousands and thousands and thousands of calories over my limit and I just exercise until I am back to where I am comfortable with my calories for the day. I've gone out drinking and woken up the next day and worked out. I can do that because my body is at the age where it can handle almost any demand I ask of it. Now, if I take a 50 year old out to the bar with me until 3 AM, then wake up at 7 to go lifting...who do you think will have an easier time burning calories? Who do you REALLY think it is easier for? I am not mocking age, I am only talking simple biology. The younger body can handle more stress, therefore making losing weight easier.0 -
I agree with you.You're talking performance athletes. The OP was about average joes.
And the OP was weightloss, not athletic performance.
Athletic performance is related to weight loss.
Nope. Sorry, dear.
We can lose weight without doing any exercise whatsoever. There's no real correlation there. Exercise helps, certainly, but it's not necessary.
We're talking about whether or not losing weight is easier for younger people, not the methods of losing weight. Because younger people can do more physical activity, THEN YES IT IS EASIER. Eating less and working out more=more weight loss. You even said it yourself, "Exercise helps." If it helps, then it makes it easier! Nobody is saying that it is needed to lose weight, but some of us are saying that it makes weight loss easier.
sure I can lose weight eating less.
but I sure have had a great result from lifting and been able to achieve a better body and lost weight along the way and eat more than I would if I did not lift.
:flowerforyou:
OH and I am forty two.0 -
I agree with you.You're talking performance athletes. The OP was about average joes.
And the OP was weightloss, not athletic performance.
Athletic performance is related to weight loss.
Nope. Sorry, dear.
We can lose weight without doing any exercise whatsoever. There's no real correlation there. Exercise helps, certainly, but it's not necessary.
We're talking about whether or not losing weight is easier for younger people, not the methods of losing weight. Because younger people can do more physical activity, THEN YES IT IS EASIER. Eating less and working out more=more weight loss. You even said it yourself, "Exercise helps." If it helps, then it makes it easier! Nobody is saying that it is needed to lose weight, but some of us are saying that it makes weight loss easier.
sure I can lose weight eating less.
but I sure have had a great result from lifting and been able to achieve a better body and lost weight along the way and eat more than I would if I did not lift.
:flowerforyou:
OH and I am forty two.
Because you're awesome and so is everyone else on this site...Best of luck to you all on your journey! 0 -
I agree with you.You're talking performance athletes. The OP was about average joes.
And the OP was weightloss, not athletic performance.
Athletic performance is related to weight loss.
Nope. Sorry, dear.
We can lose weight without doing any exercise whatsoever. There's no real correlation there. Exercise helps, certainly, but it's not necessary.
We're talking about whether or not losing weight is easier for younger people, not the methods of losing weight. Because younger people can do more physical activity, THEN YES IT IS EASIER. Eating less and working out more=more weight loss. You even said it yourself, "Exercise helps." If it helps, then it makes it easier! Nobody is saying that it is needed to lose weight, but some of us are saying that it makes weight loss easier.
sure I can lose weight eating less.
but I sure have had a great result from lifting and been able to achieve a better body and lost weight along the way and eat more than I would if I did not lift.
:flowerforyou:
OH and I am forty two.
Because you're awesome and so is everyone else on this site...Best of luck to you all on your journey!0 -
You're talking performance athletes. The OP was about average joes.
And the OP was weightloss, not athletic performance.
Athletic performance is related to weight loss.
Nope. Sorry, dear.
We can lose weight without doing any exercise whatsoever. There's no real correlation there. Exercise helps, certainly, but it's not necessary.
We're talking about whether or not losing weight is easier for younger people, not the methods of losing weight. Because younger people can do more physical activity, THEN YES IT IS EASIER. Eating less and working out more=more weight loss. You even said it yourself, "Exercise helps." If it helps, then it makes it easier! Nobody is saying that it is needed to lose weight, but some of us are saying that it makes weight loss easier.
You crack me up! :happy:
So are you saying that a 50 year old can't walk three miles a day like a twenty-something year old person can?
You're misunderstanding everything. I am saying that a 50 year old can do whatever the hell they want to lose weight, and can do it successfully. A 50 year old can be in wonderful shape. A 50 year old can be stronger than a 25 year old. But, it is easier for a younger person to do MORE working out MORE often to lose MORE weight quicker with LESS recovery needed, therefore making it easier to lose weight. We aren't arguing "Who is in better shape?" We are arguing, "Who can lose weight quickest?" Look, I can go out and play hours of basketball and lift heavy, come home and eat whatever I want. For the most part, I won't gain any weight. I've had days where I've eaten thousands and thousands and thousands of calories over my limit and I just exercise until I am back to where I am comfortable with my calories for the day. I've gone out drinking and woken up the next day and worked out. I can do that because my body is at the age where it can handle almost any demand I ask of it. Now, if I take a 50 year old out to the bar with me until 3 AM, then wake up at 7 to go lifting...who do you think will have an easier time burning calories? Who do you REALLY think it is easier for? I am not mocking age, I am only talking simple biology. The younger body can handle more stress, therefore making losing weight easier.
Actually, you aren't talking simple biology, you're talking about behavior.
Sensible middle-aged people realize trying to out-exercise excess calories is not sustainable - not even for someone in their 20s.
Also... I don't think you've been drinking with enough middle-aged people to make that assumption. :drinker:
ETA: I lift also, but for body re-comp, not weight loss. (Damn autocorrect!)0 -
i dont get your point about the lifting...either way it gives you more calories...which make for a happier, more likely to adhere to experience.You're talking performance athletes. The OP was about average joes.
And the OP was weightloss, not athletic performance.
Athletic performance is related to weight loss.
Nope. Sorry, dear.
We can lose weight without doing any exercise whatsoever. There's no real correlation there. Exercise helps, certainly, but it's not necessary.
We're talking about whether or not losing weight is easier for younger people, not the methods of losing weight. Because younger people can do more physical activity, THEN YES IT IS EASIER. Eating less and working out more=more weight loss. You even said it yourself, "Exercise helps." If it helps, then it makes it easier! Nobody is saying that it is needed to lose weight, but some of us are saying that it makes weight loss easier.
You crack me up! :happy:
So are you saying that a 50 year old can't walk three miles a day like a twenty-something year old person can?
You're misunderstanding everything. I am saying that a 50 year old can do whatever the hell they want to lose weight, and can do it successfully. A 50 year old can be in wonderful shape. A 50 year old can be stronger than a 25 year old. But, it is easier for a younger person to do MORE working out MORE often to lose MORE weight quicker with LESS recovery needed, therefore making it easier to lose weight. We aren't arguing "Who is in better shape?" We are arguing, "Who can lose weight quickest?" Look, I can go out and play hours of basketball and lift heavy, come home and eat whatever I want. For the most part, I won't gain any weight. I've had days where I've eaten thousands and thousands and thousands of calories over my limit and I just exercise until I am back to where I am comfortable with my calories for the day. I've gone out drinking and woken up the next day and worked out. I can do that because my body is at the age where it can handle almost any demand I ask of it. Now, if I take a 50 year old out to the bar with me until 3 AM, then wake up at 7 to go lifting...who do you think will have an easier time burning calories? Who do you REALLY think it is easier for? I am not mocking age, I am only talking simple biology. The younger body can handle more stress, therefore making losing weight easier.
Actually, you aren't talking simple biology, you're talking about behavior.
Sensible middle-aged people realize trying to out-exercise excess calories is not sustainable - not even for someone in their 20s.
Also... I don't think you've been drinking with enough middle-aged people to make that assumption. :drinker:
ETA: I lift also, but for body re-comp, not weight loss. (Damn autocorrect!)0 -
oh and to answer the question it is an excuse.
I have 3 herniated discs and degenerative arthritis in my back.
and I get it done. I cant do everything, but i work with what I can do.0 -
i love this gifSure, at 44 all I do is sit on the couch...0 -
That and weight loss is about creating a deficit, but it's not about creating the biggest deficit.You're talking performance athletes. The OP was about average joes.
And the OP was weightloss, not athletic performance.
Athletic performance is related to weight loss.
Nope. Sorry, dear.
We can lose weight without doing any exercise whatsoever. There's no real correlation there. Exercise helps, certainly, but it's not necessary.
We're talking about whether or not losing weight is easier for younger people, not the methods of losing weight. Because younger people can do more physical activity, THEN YES IT IS EASIER. Eating less and working out more=more weight loss. You even said it yourself, "Exercise helps." If it helps, then it makes it easier! Nobody is saying that it is needed to lose weight, but some of us are saying that it makes weight loss easier.
You crack me up! :happy:
So are you saying that a 50 year old can't walk three miles a day like a twenty-something year old person can?
You're misunderstanding everything. I am saying that a 50 year old can do whatever the hell they want to lose weight, and can do it successfully. A 50 year old can be in wonderful shape. A 50 year old can be stronger than a 25 year old. But, it is easier for a younger person to do MORE working out MORE often to lose MORE weight quicker with LESS recovery needed, therefore making it easier to lose weight. We aren't arguing "Who is in better shape?" We are arguing, "Who can lose weight quickest?" Look, I can go out and play hours of basketball and lift heavy, come home and eat whatever I want. For the most part, I won't gain any weight. I've had days where I've eaten thousands and thousands and thousands of calories over my limit and I just exercise until I am back to where I am comfortable with my calories for the day. I've gone out drinking and woken up the next day and worked out. I can do that because my body is at the age where it can handle almost any demand I ask of it. Now, if I take a 50 year old out to the bar with me until 3 AM, then wake up at 7 to go lifting...who do you think will have an easier time burning calories? Who do you REALLY think it is easier for? I am not mocking age, I am only talking simple biology. The younger body can handle more stress, therefore making losing weight easier.
Actually, you aren't talking simple biology, you're talking about behavior.
Sensible middle-aged people realize trying to out-exercise excess calories is not sustainable - not even for someone in their 20s.
Also... I don't think you've been drinking with enough middle-aged people to make that assumption. :drinker:
ETA: I lift also, but for body re-comp, not weight loss. (Damn autocorrect!)0 -
It's an excuse.
If you eat at a caloric deficit, you lose weight. It's no different at 20 or 50. It's the same math equation.
Fiddle with your age setting on MFP and see what it does to your numbers. Anything that makes it more difficult to maintain a calorie deficit, by definition makes it more difficult to lose weight. And, at least according to MFP, it is different at 20 than 50. If I change my birth date to make myself appear to be 20, it gives me 150 more calories per day - more than 1,000 calories per week. It takes me about a seven mile run to burn that many calories. When I was 20, I did it watching TV.
I'm not saying it's a factor that can't be overcome. I'm overcoming it as are many others here. But it is a factor. Is that factor an excuse? That's up to the individual.
It's not harder. You're burning less, so you need to eat less. The math equation hasn't changed.
Oooooh good. Another semantic argument. Guess it depends on what you mean by "hard". To me, running 7 miles is harder than watching TV.
As you say, I'm burning less (at rest). The question was, is it a factor? Burning fewer calories is a factor in weight loss. So the answer is, yes - it is a factor.
Is it an excuse? No it is not, because at 46, I can and do run the miles. At 20 I couldn't and didn't.
I'll agree that the math isn't any harder. But that wasn't the question.
I disagree with you. It is NOT a factor.
If your goal is to lose weight, create a deficit. That's all. What is so hard about that? It is not age dependent nor age related.
The MFP calculations (and all other BMR calculations) say age is a factor in calculating the number of calories you burn. Do you disagree with them?
You said, accurately, that I'm burning less than I was when I was younger. Calories in, calories out. Burning less is a factor regardless the cause. If I exercise less, I have to eat less. Completely doable. But it is a factor. If you say it's not a factor, you're saying I can eat the same amount.
As you say, create a deficit. And as you say, you burn less as you age. So a factor in creating the deficit is the reduced number of calories you now burn.
But, it's not harder. It's exactly the same. It's relative.
I've said very consistently here, and in other threads about this, that the equation is the same at all ages. That is true. Therefore, it is not harder than it was. it's the same. Nothing in the equation has changed.
The BMR equation has four variables. They are: height, weight, activity level and age. The formula is the same, the equation is not. Something in the equation *has* changed; the age variable. It is not a constant. By definition, a variable is a factor in an equation.
I think what you mean to say is, it's not a factor that is so significant that it can't be overcome, and therefore shouldn't be used as an excuse. If that is what you mean, I agree.0 -
oh and to answer the question it is an excuse.
I have 3 herniated discs and degenerative arthritis in my back.
and I get it done. I cant do everything, but i work with what I can do.
If you are getting it done, then it isn't an excuse!
Given what you've had to overcome, that's pretty awesome. Well done.
(edited) Now with more awesome.0 -
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?
If you're gaining weight after one meal then sodium in the food might be causing you to retain water.
I'm age 59 and lost over 50 pounds last year, most of it in less than 6 months. I adopted a simple, filling diet without a lot of high calorie food and started walking to work and local errands instead of using my car all the time. I gained weight in the first place from eating too many sweets and junk food for emotional comfort plus I'm basically lazy and hate to cook so I ate out all the time.
I see age-related comments on MFP all the time and to be honest they make me cringe.
Yes, it is a little harder to get the weight off when you're older, but it's not that hard. The principles are the same no matter how old you are -- burn more calories than you take in. Be honest with yourself, log your food accurately, and get off the couch and get moving.0 -
I don't know the answer to your question but I'm 52, have lost 39 pounds over the last year, and this time has been the easiest when it comes to losing weight. I have learned about portion control, weighting food, eating within a calorie limit, figuring out the correct calorie equation (when/when not to eat back exercise calories), and a whole lot of other important things.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?
The most important thing I've learned is that I am 100% responsible for my weight loss.0 -
It means the first year you lose 4 calories per day, or about 1400 calories per year, or about .4 pounds. Losing 40 calories a day total over 10 years also doesn't mean you lose 40 calories every year, which is what your math was trying to prove.
That 40 calorie per day difference is over a 10 year period. If you want to break it down per year, it's more like 4 calories per day. Considering the margin of error for calorie estimates is in the range of +/-100 calories or so, I'd say losing 4 calories a day per year is infinitesimal.It's an excuse.
If you eat at a caloric deficit, you lose weight. It's no different at 20 or 50. It's the same math equation.
Fiddle with your age setting on MFP and see what it does to your numbers. Anything that makes it more difficult to maintain a calorie deficit, by definition makes it more difficult to lose weight. And, at least according to MFP, it is different at 20 than 50. If I change my birth date to make myself appear to be 20, it gives me 150 more calories per day - more than 1,000 calories per week. It takes me about a seven mile run to burn that many calories. When I was 20, I did it watching TV.
I'm not saying it's a factor that can't be overcome. I'm overcoming it as are many others here. But it is a factor. Is that factor an excuse? That's up to the individual.
The difference in BMR of someone age 25 and someone the same height and weight age 35 is only 40 calories a day. I agree with you, there is a more noticeable difference between someone in their 20's/30's and someone in their 60's, but that is not what the OP was addressing. Using those 40 calories as the reason why weight loss is much more difficult now than a few years ago, does sound to me a little bit like making excuses......sorry.
And btw; you did not burn an extra 1000 calories sitting on the couch watching TV. We all only think we did......:o).
I see your point. It all depends on how you look at it I guess. 40 calories a day is 14,600 a year. Divided by 3,500, that's just over 4 lbs. per year. Over ten years, that's 40 lbs. I do think that's exactly how a lot of people end up 40 lbs. over weight, and just getting older does explain it. Interestingly, that's about how over weight I was a year ago at age 45, making me an example of the numbers you chose.
But the other way to look at is, 40 calories a day isn't that hard to overcome, and the math works the same way in reverse. So if you are aware of what's happening to your body as you age, there's no reason you have to gain weight.
Yes, when I said "over ten years" I did realize that was over a 10 year period. lol Thanks for clearing that up. And no, when you extrapolate 40 calories a day over a ten year period, then back again, it doesn't become 4 calories. And what on Earth does "4 calories a day per year" mean?
Thanks for playing. As a departing contestant you win all these consolation prizes including the home version of our game.
As evidence, I'll just point to the fact that BMR equations subtract roughly 5 calories per day for every year of a person's age (which would be 5 calories a day every year, or 50 calories a day after 10 years.)
Enjoy your consolation prizes.0
This discussion has been closed.
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