Is age really a factor or an excuse?

Options
1234568»

Replies

  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    The example given was that a person at age 35 burns 40 fewer calories a day than they did when they were 25. The math I did showed what *that* difference added up to over the *next* 10 years, so age 35 to 45. It was just a simple example to make the point that it adds up if you don't offset it. In reality, the compounding variable continues, so the actual difference at age 45 is even bigger than my simple example pointed out. In fact, by age 45, it's *another* 40 calories per day.

    What if you added 15-20lb of muscle between the ages of 25 and 35 or 35 and 45? Or is that what you mean by offset it?

    Exactly. If you change other things, it makes a difference. If you make a difference greater than the effect of the decreasing BMR, you won't gain weight. But if you try to eat the same diet you ate at 25 with no changes, you may be unhappy at 45.

    Yeah, just wanted to put this out there.

    Katch-McCardle and Cunningham calculate BMR/RMR without reference to age just with reference to lbm. I'm sure there are others out there in use too.

    Other formulas (the standard ones like Harris-Benedict, for example) must assume you're going to lose lbm as you age, which makes them poor estimates for athletes/body builders/strength athletes/etc who may purposively train to retain/increase lbm as time goes by.

    There are non-LBM related changes in pituitary function as we age but, as these equations show, the age related factors can be pretty much offset from building and maintaining LBM.

    Compare someone who spent twenty years being sedentary and slowly losing LBM versus someone who spent twenty years training/active and slowly building LBM - lifestyle over time has more impact than just "age". It's reversible to a large extent.

    Be active.
  • chatnel
    chatnel Posts: 688 Member
    Options
    bump - cause I still making excuses and need to get back on track
  • karenj_m
    karenj_m Posts: 215
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Age is a factor, but not an excuse. At 50, I'm still in better shape and more fit than many males half my age.

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

    DITTO!!!
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    FACTOR. One of many.
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    Options
    It amazes me how resistant people are to either eat just a little bit less, or work out a little bit more, to counter age related metabolism drops.

    The only difference between a typical 20 year old and say a 45-50 year old is less than a 200 calories a day.

    Drop a daily latte or go on a long walk. Come on now. Age is a MINOR factor that's become a MAJOR excuse.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Options
    Oh my goodness, you are in for an awakening. Age a factor in your 30's? Wait till you hit menopause!
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    Age is an excuse

    Eat at a defecit

    Move more to eat more

    strength train at any age - the benefits are so worthwhile
  • Branstin
    Branstin Posts: 2,320 Member
    Options
    Age is a factor just like a calorie surplus is a factor. Using age as a reason for lack of weight loss is pure BS at its finest in my opinion.
  • LiveLoveRunFar
    LiveLoveRunFar Posts: 176 Member
    Options
    I didn't notice any difference in ability to lose or put on weight from 30s-40s. When 50 hit a whole different story. But I agree, different stages of your life cause you to move more or less, and eat more or less. The only thing that has worked for me at any age is calorie counting.
  • suzynam
    suzynam Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    yes it's a factor. one reason -- we lose muscle mass as we age so even if we weigh the same, we're fatter percentage wise. it's also increasingly harder to build muscle and you burn slightly less because of that. hunger hormones (which we still don't know tons about) seem to be more entrenched, too, so you need more "will power" to stay on a diet. but it's also that much more important to stay in shape as we age.
  • LAWoman72
    LAWoman72 Posts: 2,846 Member
    Options
    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
    LAWoman72 Posts: 2,846 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories