Is age really a factor or an excuse?

LAWoman72

I thought my age was going to be a factor - I'm 47, and I AM definitely more sedentary than I was in my 20s; definitely more sedentary.

But weirdly, I am losing weight based on what MFP allotted me. And I'm losing it fast. I have my settings to one pound a week. I lost two pounds this week. The week before I lost 1.5 lbs. even with one pretty massive meal cheat. And so on.

I am 5'1", my allotment is 1380 and I remember that when I was around 120 lbs. in my mid-20s and up to my mid-30s (after which I lost control and all hell broke loose), I had to eat 1200 calories to maintain that. (I did have to go lower than that to be under 120.) Given how much more I weigh now (203 as of this morning, 17 lbs. down!), plus my age, you'd think I'd have to eat MUCH less...but I don't.

LAWoman72

Oh, as to whether it's an excuse - that's been covered (and covered and covered and covered) here, but I'm not about to say that just because it obviously isn't for me, that must mean it isn't for everybody. Things do happen, people do get sick...and some people very obviously age faster than others in a variety of ways...so who knows what a given person's individual metabolism is going to do, and when. So, definitely no judgment here, I think I just won the genetic lotto and I'm not about to lord that over anyone. It does seem that even given the potential of a slowing metabolism due to age, it's still surmountable, so I'm leaning against "excuse" but again, I'm in no position to judge.