Is age really a factor or an excuse?
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
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.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.
Example: Jack LaLanne, who continued his 2 hour daily exercise routine until his death at age 96.0 -
My lifestyle is so vastly different now than it was in my 20s that whatever effects aging may have had in the process is tiny in comparison.
Agree with this.
Stay active, eat smart, and the effects of age on weight pale in comparison. It is true that a young body will handle more physical strain than an older body, but that only matters for people who are trying to maintain elite levels of fitness. And even that we're not really sure about, as it is only very recently that professional athletes have made a serious go of competing into their mid-40s.0 -
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.
Yes.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
I believe age is less a factor than people think it is. Yes, we do lose muscle mass as we age, but more importantly our lifestyles change. Calories burned from NEAT tend to drop dramatically and I really don't think peole put as much emphasis on that as they should.
I'm in way better shape than I was in my twenties and I'm thinner than I was in high school. I'm 38.0 -
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'm 45 and I call BS on this one, hun. Sorry.0 -
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'm 45 and I call BS on this one, hun. Sorry.
<
45 as well.
QFT0 -
My personal experience says recovery is not so good. When I was in my 20s I could get up Friday 6am, go to work all day, then party all night, come home Saturday 10am, sleep for 3-4 hours, go out Saturday evening all night. And be fine to work the next week.
If I tried that now (42), I'd be ****ed. I'll get a cold or something. My cousin is still big into clubbing all night and does day parties as well. He's always coming down with a cold, flu and even pneumonia on a couple of occasions. I avoid ultra late nights as I work with cancer patients and can't afford to get a cold as that could be seriously bad news for them if I pass it on!
I'm also doing more exercise, sleeping more and eating healthier than when I was in my 20s.0 -
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.
You're talking performance athletes. The OP was about average joes.
And the OP was weightloss, not athletic performance.0 -
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 am 66 and have lost just under 50 pounds in the last ten month. I can't say if weight loss is more difficult now than when I was 30-35 years younger, because I did not get overweight until my late 50's. I do however think that the same general rules of healthy weight loss apply to me as much as to any other person of any other age.
I can however say that I no longer can take two or three steps at a time to get to my fourth floor home, or yesterday I discovered that I am no longer as sure footed on the top rung of a 2meter high ladder than I was 15 or 20 years ago.
I think that being in one's 30's is still young enough to not be able to use " ageing " as a reason for impaired weight loss ability, apart from the fact of course that no one really " gains " back a kilo/2.2 pounds after a " bad " meal, because that would mean an extra 7700 calories on top of your regular calories. To me using this arguments sounds like an excuse.
If I eat something that makes me retain water I can increase as much as 4 kilos/8.8 pounds and it takes a couple of days before the water is flushed out.
Maybe in your 20's you were more active than you are now , which means that the " calories out " part of the equation played a bigger role than it does now. I personally assume you have gained 10% of your bodyweight last year because you either ate 10% over maintenance, or you ate what you ate in your 20's and burned 10 % ( or whatever the amount is to get to that number ) less.0 -
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).0 -
The Mifflin-St Jeor equation used by MFP is:
BMR (kcal/day) = 10*mass(kg) + 6.25*height(cm) - 5*age(year) +s, where s is 5 for men and -161 for women.
AFAIK this is only applicable to adults who are not growing, but I'm no physiologist.
From a purely mechanistic standpoint: age is a factor in BMR, but not a large one. You lose 5 kcal per day each YEAR, so that a 60 year-old has a 150 kcal disadvantage compared to a 30 year-old with the same height and weight.
An obvious confounding factor is that, in general, 30 year-olds tend to be more active than 60 year-olds, which works in the same direction as the reduction in basal metabolism with age.
None of this means that anyone is exempt from conservation of energy. But one can easily posit a several hundred calorie daily difference in energy requirements over a few decades, making it harder to lose weight as one gets older.
So age is a factor, but it shouldn't be an excuse more than any other factor: men need more calories than women, tall people need more calories than short people, active people need more calories than sedentary people, etc.0 -
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.
It's also important to understand where the MFP numbers come from - they don't come from some sort of deliberate biological calculation - they come from studies of (generally active) 20 year olds and (generally inactive) 50 year olds. What they are doing is, in effect, baking in the assumption that older people have stopped being active.
Violate that assumption by staying active, and the "drop" in required calories goes away.0 -
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.0 -
The difference in BMR of someone age 25 and someone the same height and weight age 35 is only 40 calories a day.
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.
^^^
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions