Is age really a factor or an excuse?

While this is changing in what many consider an increasingly sedentary society, younger people are generally more active, making weight maintenance/loss somewhat easier for them than for older adults whose lives are generally more sedentary. Couple this with the statistical increase in movement-inhibiting factors like arthritis that tend to increase as one ages, and it's often (not "always", 'often') easier for younger people to lose or maintain their weight than it is for older adults.

There is also the frequently seen condition of sarcopenia.

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.
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.

True, it sure does. I added it to clarify that I'm not a "Prancerciser" - no worries that I'm going to get bulkay. If my age has been a factor in my goals, the impact has been negligible.

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...

I see now. So fewer calories burned as you age.

It's got nothing to do with age.

Oh.

You make total sense. lol

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...

I see now. So fewer calories burned as you age.

It's got nothing to do with age.

Oh.

You make total sense. lol

For me, the difference between maintenance calories for 25 vs. 45 is about 112 calories... So... Meh... a granola bar.
I can live with that.

I completely agree. As I said, I believe the point they're trying to make is that the difference is small enough that it can be overcome so should not be used as an excuse. Which I agree with.

As I showed several posts ago, if you compare what someone can eat at age 25 with what they can eat ages 35-45, the small differences do add up if you don't compensate. But I completely agree that anyone *can* compensate if they chose to and know what is happening as they get older. People on here probably do. People in America in general? Many do not. And that is a factor in explaining why so many are over weight.

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?

What does change as you get older (towards 40+) is that you lose bone density and muscle mass. This can obviously be counteracted with proper nutrition and training protocols. If you keep your lbm significantly high, then TDEE differences as you move towards 40 will be negligible.

As far as fat loss is concerned, then a modest deficit coupled with non-retarded training will lead to success at any age.

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.

Last one, just to make sure this hasn't muddied the waters, then I'll excuse myself from this one.

If you care to, take a look at my math again you'll see that you've simply misunderstood what I was saying. No big deal. I probably should have said it more clearly. So I'll try to clear it up in case anyone else was confused.

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 how *that* difference added up 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 in our example, the actual difference at age 45 is even bigger than my simple exercise pointed out. In fact, by age 45, it's *another* 40 calories per day. As DamePigglet points out, for her, it's not 40, or 80, but 112 calories a day which would add up to even more if not offset.

Again, if you care to, you can compare it to investment. It's the same concept as compound interest. (Which is what you were describing when you said "a day per year" - sorry I was confused by that) The idea there, again, being that a small change that happens on top of the same small change many times, over the course of years, adds up to a big change. It's why your 401k balance increase isn't linear, but a steeply up sloping curve that gets steeper and steeper each year. And practice bears that out. I remember when I took a job 19 years ago rolling over my 401k balance of something like $3,000 dollars and thinking "what's the point?" Now, at age 46, I see the point and plan to retire early.

Okay. If you have a question about any of that, just shoot me a message and I'll try to explain. Sorry if I was confusing. Point is, it's a significant enough factor that you should be aware of it, and becomes more so as you get older. It is not significant enough that it should be used as an excuse.

Granulation for all the weigh loss. I think S you get older everything is harder, but yo

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.

Check your thyroid. It is even harder at 50... I am hypothyroid and 50 - gotta work a bit harder... cutting out starchy carbs...

(edit) Oops. Sorry.

Call it a bump.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.