Is age really a factor or an excuse?

fast_eddie_72

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.

Age is a factor.
It does not have to be an excuse.

fast_eddie_72

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.

Ang108

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.

I absolutely agree with you...if we look at it from a perspective over several decades. However trying to focus on the OP I still think that the decrease in calories burned between someone's 20's and 30's ( she is stating " I am getting into my thirty's ", which means she is closer to her 20's than 40's ) is insignificant. I would expect to see a difference between someone age 30 and someone in their 50's or 60's, but would not expect a noticeable difference between someone age 27 and 32, as an example.

fast_eddie_72

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.

I absolutely agree with you...if we look at it from a perspective over several decades. However trying to focus on the OP I still think that the decrease in calories burned between someone's 20's and 30's ( she is stating " I am getting into my thirty's ", which means she is closer to her 20's than 40's ) is insignificant. I would expect to see a difference between someone age 30 and someone in their 50's or 60's, but would not expect a noticeable difference between someone age 27 and 32, as an example.

Well said, and I agree.

szabof

WOW... some of these RAH! RAH! answers.... those younger or more genetically blessed seem to be having lots of fun standing in judgement!!!!

FACT: Accumulated Injuries slow you down... at 25 I had never broken a bone, and had very few joint or ligament injuries
at 55 I have accumulated 7 broken ribs, 3 broken vertebrae, multiple compound collar bones breaks and surgeries, MCL/ACL injuries, fallen arches, multiple shin-splint injuries, multiple planiofaciaitis injuries, multiple sprained ankles, etc, etc. There are a lot of things I just can't do any more (like run for more than 3 miles, P90 workouts, etc.); stuff just plain don't work any more, and it hurts to try make it work, and you re-injure it if you try too hard to make it work. And add a little arthiritis into that mix!

FACT: Your metabolism changes, and depending on your genetics, sometimes radically. I went back and recreated my diet from when I was 25, and it was well in excess of 5,000 calories a day, and I never gained a pound. Now, if I even look at a single calorie over 2,500, I turn into a blimp. At age 40, I cut my Thanksgiving/Christmas/NewYears/Football calories in HALF, and still gained 13 Lbs in 3 months (that never happened at 25!). At age 50, I cut those Holiday Calories in HALF.... AGAIN... and gained 16 Lbs... eat less, gain more: don't try to tell me old age doesn't suck!

FACT: your endurance goes way down... a few genetically select 60 year olds may still be able to do Marathons, but I still don't see them posting times like a 25 year old! AT 25, I would run 4-7 miles every day, and then stay out drinking till 4 AM... and then run a half Marathon the next day! Today, I can barely make a 3 mile jog, and if I am not in bed by 10 PM, I can barely function the next day... and I don't drink at all (too many calories!) You lose a lot more than just hair, with old age!

FACT: Your recovery time goes way up. When I was 23, I took a dare and swam 5 miles accross a lake (I was a runner, not a swimmer)... I made it, but was so sore, I could hardly move the next day... but I was only sore for a day. If I do an unexpected workout at 55 (for example, buck 150 bales of hay from my field into my barn), I can hardly move for 2 days, and still am pretty stiff on the 3rd. Old Age really does suck! Also, Your healing times goes way up! Severely sprained ankle at age 18 (running cross country, stepped in a wood chuck hole covered with leaves), 2 weeks on crutches with a boot, 2 weeks limping with a wrap, and bingo, I was back running 4-7 miles every day. Same type of injury at age 51, it was 12 weeks of hard rehab and working through pain, just to get back to a 3 mile slow jog!

FACT: Use it or Lose it really accellerates!!!! At age 24, I was doing 100 pushups, 100 situps, 12 pull-ups every day. Went on a vacation for 30 days (never did a single calorie of excercise, besides hiking, the whole time), and when I returned, the next day, back at the base gym, a little extra sweat, and walla, right back doing 100, 100, 12. This winter, got pneumonia from shoveling snow, when it was below zero (something else that never happened when I was 25!). Was out sick for 2 weeks, and my daily 50 pushups, 50 situps, 7 pull-ups, went down to 35, 35, 4. 6 weeks later, I am back up to 44,44, 6. And those last couple really hurt!

Now none of this is an excuse to QUIT, and retire to a rocking chair... but just know that "Adapt and Overcome", will take a hell of a lot more adapting and overcoming!

A lot more stretching exercises, a lot more different short excercise sessions (stretching/calisthentics in the morning, walking/slow jogging up/down hill at lunch, weights or farmwork at night, etc...) A lot more No, No's: No Fried chicken, no Oreos, no Donuts, no French Fires, No Ice cream, No Soda, No Kit Kat bars, etc.

The worst part, for me, is how much I love to cook, and eat... and trying to enjoy life on 2200 calories a day, is just not very much fun, AT ALL! Right now, I am so sick and tired of Rabbit Food, I am almost ready to kill and DEEP FRY the rabbit!

Ang108

WOW... some of these RAH! RAH! answers.... those younger or more genetically blessed seem to be having lots of fun standing in judgement!!!!

FACT: Accumulated Injuries slow you down... at 25 I had never broken a bone, and had very few joint or ligament injuries
at 55 I have accumulated 7 broken ribs, 3 broken vertebrae, multiple compound collar bones breaks and surgeries, MCL/ACL injuries, fallen arches, multiple shin-splint injuries, multiple planiofaciaitis injuries, multiple sprained ankles, etc, etc. There are a lot of things I just can't do any more (like run for more than 3 miles, P90 workouts, etc.); stuff just plain don't work any more, and it hurts to try make it work, and you re-injure it if you try too hard to make it work. And add a little arthiritis into that mix!

FACT: Your metabolism changes, and depending on your genetics, sometimes radically. I went back and recreated my diet from when I was 25, and it was well in excess of 5,000 calories a day, and I never gained a pound. Now, if I even look at a single calorie over 2,500, I turn into a blimp. At age 40, I cut my Thanksgiving/Christmas/NewYears/Football calories in HALF, and still gained 13 Lbs in 3 months (that never happened at 25!). At age 50, I cut those Holiday Calories in HALF.... AGAIN... and gained 16 Lbs... eat less, gain more: don't try to tell me old age doesn't suck!

FACT: your endurance goes way down... a few genetically select 60 year olds may still be able to do Marathons, but I still don't see them posting times like a 25 year old! AT 25, I would run 4-7 miles every day, and then stay out drinking till 4 AM... and then run a half Marathon the next day! Today, I can barely make a 3 mile jog, and if I am not in bed by 10 PM, I can barely function the next day... and I don't drink at all (too many calories!) You lose a lot more than just hair, with old age!

FACT: Your recovery time goes way up. When I was 23, I took a dare and swam 5 miles accross a lake (I was a runner, not a swimmer)... I made it, but was so sore, I could hardly move the next day... but I was only sore for a day. If I do an unexpected workout at 55 (for example, buck 150 bales of hay from my field into my barn), I can hardly move for 2 days, and still am pretty stiff on the 3rd. Old Age really does suck! Also, Your healing times goes way up! Severely sprained ankle at age 18 (running cross country, stepped in a wood chuck hole covered with leaves), 2 weeks on crutches with a boot, 2 weeks limping with a wrap, and bingo, I was back running 4-7 miles every day. Same type of injury at age 51, it was 12 weeks of hard rehab and working through pain, just to get back to a 3 mile slow jog!

FACT: Use it or Lose it really accellerates!!!! At age 24, I was doing 100 pushups, 100 situps, 12 pull-ups every day. Went on a vacation for 30 days (never did a single calorie of excercise, besides hiking, the whole time), and when I returned, the next day, back at the base gym, a little extra sweat, and walla, right back doing 100, 100, 12. This winter, got pneumonia from shoveling snow, when it was below zero (something else that never happened when I was 25!). Was out sick for 2 weeks, and my daily 50 pushups, 50 situps, 7 pull-ups, went down to 35, 35, 4. 6 weeks later, I am back up to 44,44, 6. And those last couple really hurt!


Now none of this is an excuse to QUIT, and retire to a rocking chair... but just know that "Adapt and Overcome", will take a hell of a lot more adapting and overcoming!

A lot more stretching exercises, a lot more different short excercise sessions (stretching/calisthentics in the morning, walking/slow jogging up/down hill at lunch, weights or farmwork at night, etc...) A lot more No, No's: No Fried chicken, no Oreos, no Donuts, no French Fires, No Ice cream, No Soda, No Kit Kat bars, etc.

The worst part, for me, is how much I love to cook, and eat... and trying to enjoy life on 2200 calories a day, is just not very much fun, AT ALL! Right now, I am so sick and tired of Rabbit Food, I am almost ready to kill and DEEP FRY the rabbit!

You are making your point comparing your personal fitness levels over several decades, while the OP was questioning the difference between her " 20's " and early " 30's ". What can and probably does apply to one comparison, I think does not apply to the OP in her case....she is just too young to experience what you experienced over 30 years.
Did you really gain 60 pounds or more each Christmas season before cutting your calories twice ? Because that is what the math would indicate....I am impressed.....that is 210 000 calories on top of your normal calories during holiday season....wow.....maybe it's just me....but I have a hard time imagining someone in their 20's, eating that much extra and not having any consequences.

uconnwinsnc

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. The "average joe" 25 year old can athletically perform more than the "average joe" 60 year old, therefore burning more calories. The 25 year old also has a better metabolism and requires less recovery time for muscles so they can get in more workouts in a shorter period of time to burn even more calories.

It really is simple. Losing weight is easier for younger people, but it isn't impossibly hard for older people.

DamePiglet

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.

DamePiglet

WOW... some of these RAH! RAH! answers.... those younger or more genetically blessed seem to be having lots of fun standing in judgement!!!!

FACT: Accumulated Injuries slow you down... at 25 I had never broken a bone, and had very few joint or ligament injuries
at 55 I have accumulated 7 broken ribs, 3 broken vertebrae, multiple compound collar bones breaks and surgeries, MCL/ACL injuries, fallen arches, multiple shin-splint injuries, multiple planiofaciaitis injuries, multiple sprained ankles, etc, etc. There are a lot of things I just can't do any more (like run for more than 3 miles, P90 workouts, etc.); stuff just plain don't work any more, and it hurts to try make it work, and you re-injure it if you try too hard to make it work. And add a little arthiritis into that mix!

FACT: Your metabolism changes, and depending on your genetics, sometimes radically. I went back and recreated my diet from when I was 25, and it was well in excess of 5,000 calories a day, and I never gained a pound. Now, if I even look at a single calorie over 2,500, I turn into a blimp. At age 40, I cut my Thanksgiving/Christmas/NewYears/Football calories in HALF, and still gained 13 Lbs in 3 months (that never happened at 25!). At age 50, I cut those Holiday Calories in HALF.... AGAIN... and gained 16 Lbs... eat less, gain more: don't try to tell me old age doesn't suck!

FACT: your endurance goes way down... a few genetically select 60 year olds may still be able to do Marathons, but I still don't see them posting times like a 25 year old! AT 25, I would run 4-7 miles every day, and then stay out drinking till 4 AM... and then run a half Marathon the next day! Today, I can barely make a 3 mile jog, and if I am not in bed by 10 PM, I can barely function the next day... and I don't drink at all (too many calories!) You lose a lot more than just hair, with old age!

FACT: Your recovery time goes way up. When I was 23, I took a dare and swam 5 miles accross a lake (I was a runner, not a swimmer)... I made it, but was so sore, I could hardly move the next day... but I was only sore for a day. If I do an unexpected workout at 55 (for example, buck 150 bales of hay from my field into my barn), I can hardly move for 2 days, and still am pretty stiff on the 3rd. Old Age really does suck! Also, Your healing times goes way up! Severely sprained ankle at age 18 (running cross country, stepped in a wood chuck hole covered with leaves), 2 weeks on crutches with a boot, 2 weeks limping with a wrap, and bingo, I was back running 4-7 miles every day. Same type of injury at age 51, it was 12 weeks of hard rehab and working through pain, just to get back to a 3 mile slow jog!



FACT: Use it or Lose it really accellerates!!!! At age 24, I was doing 100 pushups, 100 situps, 12 pull-ups every day. Went on a vacation for 30 days (never did a single calorie of excercise, besides hiking, the whole time), and when I returned, the next day, back at the base gym, a little extra sweat, and walla, right back doing 100, 100, 12. This winter, got pneumonia from shoveling snow, when it was below zero (something else that never happened when I was 25!). Was out sick for 2 weeks, and my daily 50 pushups, 50 situps, 7 pull-ups, went down to 35, 35, 4. 6 weeks later, I am back up to 44,44, 6. And those last couple really hurt!

Now none of this is an excuse to QUIT, and retire to a rocking chair... but just know that "Adapt and Overcome", will take a hell of a lot more adapting and overcoming!

A lot more stretching exercises, a lot more different short excercise sessions (stretching/calisthentics in the morning, walking/slow jogging up/down hill at lunch, weights or farmwork at night, etc...) A lot more No, No's: No Fried chicken, no Oreos, no Donuts, no French Fires, No Ice cream, No Soda, No Kit Kat bars, etc.

The worst part, for me, is how much I love to cook, and eat... and trying to enjoy life on 2200 calories a day, is just not very much fun, AT ALL! Right now, I am so sick and tired of Rabbit Food, I am almost ready to kill and DEEP FRY the rabbit!

Recovery time going way up is not a "fact" for me. I work out harder and smarter than I did when I was younger.

You may want to try to eat a little of your no-no foods and stop being so restrictive with your diet. You sound miserable.

Mr_Knight

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.

fast_eddie_72

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.

tapirfrog

Age is certainly a factor for me. I have to work harder and longer to see the same results I did 20 years ago.

cwolfman13

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.

tigersword

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.

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.

tigersword

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.

Michael Jordan was hampered far more by overtraining, injuries, and being at his genetic limit physically, than "just getting older."

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.

fast_eddie_72

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.

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.

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.

SunofaBeach14

Definitely more an excuse than a factor.

BinaryPulsar

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).

acogg

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!