Is age really a factor or an excuse?

Options
123468

Replies

  • uconnwinsnc
    uconnwinsnc Posts: 1,054 Member
    Options
    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. :smile:
    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.
  • SherryTeach
    SherryTeach Posts: 2,836 Member
    Options
    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!
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Options
    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!
  • spoiledpuppies
    spoiledpuppies Posts: 675 Member
    Options
    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.
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    Options
    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. :smile:
    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?
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    Sure, at 44 all I do is sit on the couch...
    openpike_zps53721435.gif
  • uconnwinsnc
    uconnwinsnc Posts: 1,054 Member
    Options
    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. :smile:
    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.
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 Member
    Options
    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. :smile:
    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.
    I agree with you.

    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.
  • uconnwinsnc
    uconnwinsnc Posts: 1,054 Member
    Options
    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. :smile:
    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.
    I agree with you.

    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! :smile:
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 Member
    Options
    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. :smile:
    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.
    I agree with you.

    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! :smile:
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmhfib7vi6FnDRpZGWjHI0GqGffVmL0GkSyqXP8m5BNulTeIZP
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    Options
    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. :smile:
    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!)
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 Member
    Options
    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. :smile:
    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!)
    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.
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 Member
    Options
    Sure, at 44 all I do is sit on the couch...
    openpike_zps53721435.gif
    i love this gif
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    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. :smile:
    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!)
    That and weight loss is about creating a deficit, but it's not about creating the biggest deficit.
  • fast_eddie_72
    fast_eddie_72 Posts: 719 Member
    Options
    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.
  • fast_eddie_72
    fast_eddie_72 Posts: 719 Member
    Options
    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.
  • HollisGrant
    HollisGrant Posts: 2,022 Member
    Options
    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.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Options
    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?
    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.

    The most important thing I've learned is that I am 100% responsible for my weight loss.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    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.
    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.

    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.