Is age really a factor or an excuse?

135678

Replies

  • bluebird321
    bluebird321 Posts: 733 Member
    Age is a factor and it is an excuse. You just learn to work and stick with it.
  • MRSpivey
    MRSpivey Posts: 270 Member
    IMO it's an excuse! If you want something bad enough you will do what it takes to achieve it!

    34277608.png
  • Deipneus
    Deipneus Posts: 1,862 Member
    So my question is, is this common as you get older or is there something wrong with me?
    Probably varies by every individual. In my mid twenties I ate constantly and was athletic. By 59, it took months of monitoring food intake and exercise to get to the same weight. Of course, no matter how hard I work you can't make a 60 year old body into a 25 year old body. :wink:
  • RushBabe_214
    RushBabe_214 Posts: 115
    Age is a factor, but definitely not an excuse.

    Our metabolism slows as we age and we tend to move less or get less exercise.

    I'm 51 and I work at it every day. It can be done. Just depends on how badly you want it.
  • _AwesomeSauce_
    _AwesomeSauce_ Posts: 96
    This thread is classic!

    Let's see, 20-30 year old's mostly agree that it's an excuse, while 30-40 year old's agree it's both age AND an excuse, and those 40+ agree it's age-related, and NOT an excuse.

    It shouldn't take a software engineer to see 'the' pattern here :glasses:
  • Blacklance36
    Blacklance36 Posts: 755 Member
    I'm over 50.

    Yes it is a factor.

    Yes, it is an excuse.
  • obrientp
    obrientp Posts: 546 Member
    When I turned 40 I noticed my metabolism slowed down quite a bit. i have to be more disciplined in watching what I eat, now, and exercise more. I can still manage my weight, though, and I am in better shape than I was in my 20s.
  • hbrittingham
    hbrittingham Posts: 2,518 Member
    If you believe in science, it's a factor, not an excuse. Our metabolisms slow as we age, which means if we do exactly the same thing we always did, we'd still weigh more, the older we get (to put it, unscientifically).

    I agree. When I was younger, I also smoked. If I wanted to drop a little weight, I'd just cut back a little and the weight would come right off. Now I don't smoke and I log all of my food and exercise at least 5 times a week, running three of those days, and the weight is very slow to come off. My Bodymedia Fit and my TDEE both had me at over 2000 calories a day at a 20% deficit. Supposedly I should lose weight eating that much. I don't. I have to stay within 1300-1400 net calories to lose weight.

    I do agree it's calories in vs calories out. It's just that some of us require less calories at our height and weight than others of the exact same height and weight require. Nobody has the exact same metabolism and to tell people they are using that as an excuse when they aren't losing weight is ridiculous.
  • craftywitch_63
    craftywitch_63 Posts: 829 Member
    I don't believe in science, so can I use it as an excuse?

    Sorry, no. If you don't believe in science you must blame your inability to lose on a deity of yoiur choice.

    :bigsmile:
  • fast_eddie_72
    fast_eddie_72 Posts: 719 Member
    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.
  • stellastar2014
    stellastar2014 Posts: 1
    hi i'm stella and i'm 47 years old, i weigh 169 llbs at 5'3. i've been on a diet on mfp for several weeks and i'm doing 1300 calories aday and i've lost NO WEIGHT, so not sure what i'm doing wrong, am i under eating or eating too much. i weigh 99% of my food. i'm a vegetarian, but i eat eggs. i try and do a 30-40 mins walk every day, and i do aqa fit class on monday evenings. today i felt low and so i've had a mars bar, i bought a pack of 7 and could probably eat the lot. please can someone advice me on why i'm not loosing weight? is it the age?

    Thanks Stella
  • wilsoje74
    wilsoje74 Posts: 1,720 Member
    Yes it is a factor.

    You need less calories as you get older, and you also tend to move less than you did when you were younger. It's not an excuse and it can be done, but it takes me longer to lose now than it did five years
  • 1princesswarrior
    1princesswarrior Posts: 1,242 Member
    Age is an excuse.

    It's a factor, but a very small factor. Metabolism slow down with age is mostly attributed to muscle loss. Another reason why strength training is so important.

    I took some time reading studies on this stuff at one point, and the conclusion was, as this poster pointed out, that metabolism is correlated with muscle, not age. Seems harder to gain muscle now, so we get round to the same thing in a way.

    I just did a quick Google scholar search and read through some abstracts. It appears that protein synthesis slows down by about 3.5% per decade so age is a factor but not insurmountable. How much of a factor is still a debate in the scientific community after reading through five or six abstracts (I don't have access to the full text articles).
  • alizamanuk
    alizamanuk Posts: 31
    BIG EXCUSE - YOUR JUST BEING LAZY 1
  • Annie_01
    Annie_01 Posts: 3,096 Member
    This thread is classic!

    Let's see, 20-30 year old's mostly agree that it's an excuse, while 30-40 year old's agree it's both age AND an excuse, and those 40+ agree it's age-related, and NOT an excuse.

    It shouldn't take a software engineer to see 'the' pattern here :glasses:

    Well...I am 61...I think a little differently maybe...

    Since I didn't start an exercise routine until I was 60...yea...that part was harder than if I had of started it when I was 20-30.

    However...the diet part...eating at a deficit...might be a little easier.

    IMO...when someone is young their social life often centers around meeting up with friends at restaurants...cafes...bars. They have to figure out ways of dealing with those social outings. I don't have to as much at 61.

    So while physically it might be harder at my age...socially I believe it is easier now.

    It is difficult at any age to make these types of changes...the obstacles are just maybe a little different.

    I don't know...other than some aches and pains I think that it has been easier for me this time than ever before...maybe because I realize that at my age...I don't have that many more years to accomplish this...no putting it off...
  • lunapetu0311
    lunapetu0311 Posts: 96
    I absolutely believe age is a factor!! For me atleast. I am 35 years old (and have two kids) and I am about 15lbs heavier than I was in college. I have been working out way harder and eating way better than I did in colllege and I just CANNOT get back to that weight!! I used to be able to eat anything and not gain weight but now I easily gain weight. So age is definitely a factor in losing/maintaing weight. I am sure for many it's an excuse too :)
  • Annie_01
    Annie_01 Posts: 3,096 Member
    hi i'm stella and i'm 47 years old, i weigh 169 llbs at 5'3. i've been on a diet on mfp for several weeks and i'm doing 1300 calories aday and i've lost NO WEIGHT, so not sure what i'm doing wrong, am i under eating or eating too much. i weigh 99% of my food. i'm a vegetarian, but i eat eggs. i try and do a 30-40 mins walk every day, and i do aqa fit class on monday evenings. today i felt low and so i've had a mars bar, i bought a pack of 7 and could probably eat the lot. please can someone advice me on why i'm not loosing weight? is it the age?

    Thanks Stella

    Nope...not age...I am 61 and average losing 2lbs a week...I eat these caramel nut protein bars...have one every day. I eat more calories than you do but it sounds as if I workout more than you.

    So...can't say why you are not losing...but IMO...age has nothing to do with it.
  • amm8589
    amm8589 Posts: 55 Member
    I don't know if it's age as much as it is lifestyle. When I was in my 20's, I was very active. I would run 4 miles before I would go to work, walked two miles on my lunch break, and would walk again in the evening. Weekends were spent taking long bike rides, spending a couple hours in the gym, etc. At 5'4", I was 110 pounds, wore a size 2, and felt great. In my 30's I had 3 kids and my constant movement became chasing toddlers rather than aerobics and jogging. When I reached my 40's, my kids were older and in school but I just wasn't motivated to exercise as much. Last year, weighing 130 pounds, I decided I wasn't going to be a middle age cliché and blame my age for my weight gain. I began logging into MFP faithfully, started exercising an hour every morning, and made smart food choices. I don't have hours on end to exercise anymore but I do make the most of my workouts, enjoying intense cardio such as Turbo Fire and in-line skating, as well as light weight training. Now, at age 46, I'm back to 110 pounds and wearing a size 2. I feel better than ever!
  • uconnwinsnc
    uconnwinsnc Posts: 1,054 Member
    Yes, age is probably one of the biggest factors. Younger people can work out longer and harder and recover quicker. Younger people can also eat more and generally have a better metabolism.

    People in their 40's and 50's can still be as strong and active as someone in their 20s, but recover time is multiplied exponentially. A longer recovery time means less time spent working out and more time spent...recovering. Someone in their 20s can realistically be completely recovered from a long day working and being active on beer and only a few hours of sleep.

    I call BS on this.

    My father in law is 63 and puts my husband and son along with a lot of younger men to shame, eats more, works harder etc.
    I have a guy friend who is 50 and is in better shape than most young men I know.
    My sister is 43 and looks great, hard all over, active with a child and a job.

    Ditto with me...I put younger women to shame, my recovery time is almost null and void due to my health being very good and being active (more active than I was in my 20's)

    Age can play a factor esp if you have always been overweight or a woman hitting menopause. I was very active in my teens and early 20's and I think that plays a factor...

    IMHO age is an excuse, I see lots saying oh no in my 20's it was easier...lose 5lbs by skipping lunch etc...Yah no.

    Losing 5lbs in your 20 requires the same equation as it does in your 40's, 50's and beyond. You need to take in 17500 calories less than you are burning...either through eating less or moving more or both...if you are inactive yes it will be harder and as we age and become "adults" with jobs, kids etc we are less active but not because our age it's because we get lazy and blame being tired on our jobs/kids/houses etc when in fact if we exercised more we wouldn't be so tired.

    so again it's an excuse.

    ETA: OP your diary is a mess...1200 calories??? really...and you don't weigh your food and use quick add calories a lot. If you aren't losing weight it is because you are not in a deficet you are at maintenance due to inaccuracies in logging which results in underestimates in intake and over estimates in burns...

    You can be 50-60 and in great shape, but it is simple biology that the body is more worn down and unable to handle stress that it could handle when 25. I would bet money that the average 25 year old could handle more repeated physical stress than your 63 year old father-in-law. Maybe for a day or two the 63 year old can keep up. Maybe for a week he can keep up. But you cannot argue against that over an extended period of time, 25 year olds are more physically capable and therefore able to burn more calories and therefore able to lose weight easier.

    This is no knock on older people, it is only reality. Losing weight is possible at all ages, but it is just easier when you're younger.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Yes, age is probably one of the biggest factors. Younger people can work out longer and harder and recover quicker. Younger people can also eat more and generally have a better metabolism.

    People in their 40's and 50's can still be as strong and active as someone in their 20s, but recover time is multiplied exponentially. A longer recovery time means less time spent working out and more time spent...recovering. Someone in their 20s can realistically be completely recovered from a long day working and being active on beer and only a few hours of sleep.

    I call BS on this.

    My father in law is 63 and puts my husband and son along with a lot of younger men to shame, eats more, works harder etc.
    I have a guy friend who is 50 and is in better shape than most young men I know.
    My sister is 43 and looks great, hard all over, active with a child and a job.

    Ditto with me...I put younger women to shame, my recovery time is almost null and void due to my health being very good and being active (more active than I was in my 20's)

    Age can play a factor esp if you have always been overweight or a woman hitting menopause. I was very active in my teens and early 20's and I think that plays a factor...

    IMHO age is an excuse, I see lots saying oh no in my 20's it was easier...lose 5lbs by skipping lunch etc...Yah no.

    Losing 5lbs in your 20 requires the same equation as it does in your 40's, 50's and beyond. You need to take in 17500 calories less than you are burning...either through eating less or moving more or both...if you are inactive yes it will be harder and as we age and become "adults" with jobs, kids etc we are less active but not because our age it's because we get lazy and blame being tired on our jobs/kids/houses etc when in fact if we exercised more we wouldn't be so tired.

    so again it's an excuse.

    ETA: OP your diary is a mess...1200 calories??? really...and you don't weigh your food and use quick add calories a lot. If you aren't losing weight it is because you are not in a deficet you are at maintenance due to inaccuracies in logging which results in underestimates in intake and over estimates in burns...

    You can be 50-60 and in great shape, but it is simple biology that the body is more worn down and unable to handle stress that it could handle when 25. I would bet money that the average 25 year old could handle more repeated physical stress than your 63 year old father-in-law. Maybe for a day or two the 63 year old can keep up. Maybe for a week he can keep up. But you cannot argue against that over an extended period of time, 25 year olds are more physically capable and therefore able to burn more calories and therefore able to lose weight easier.

    This is no knock on older people, it is only reality. Losing weight is possible at all ages, but it is just easier when you're younger.
    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.

Categories