Harder as we age 🤔

We tend to burn fewer calories as we age due to two things:

1. If we don't work to retain muscle mass, we lose muscle mass

Losing muscle mass means burning every so slightly fewer calories per day at the same body weight, but not many. At rest, research suggests muscle burns only around 2-4 calories more per pound per day than body fat (which is also metabolically active). What's probably more meaningful is that as our body composition declines, we don't feel like being as active, can't do as much so don't do as much, etc. I suspect yo-yo dieting can contribute to muscle loss, done many times, and if done the way many of my peers do it. (Extreme calorie restrictions, mostly salads (not enough protein), lots of cardio when losing, but no strength training; still not enough protein and little exercise when regaining mostly fat . . . every round loses a tiny, tiny little bit of muscle during each losing phase, and replaces it with fat during regain. One round makes little difference, but many rounds over many years . . . it adds up.)

2. We tend to do less, especially in daily life terms, than we did when we were younger. Maybe in our 20s/30s we were in the early stages of a career with lots of hustle, or even still doing physical jobs. Later jobs are more likely to be desk-oriented. We spent energy earlier chasing toddlers, remodeling our homes/gardens, etc. Now, maybe the kids are pretty independent, and we're enjoying the wonderful homes we created, or maybe even downsizing. If we're doing better financially, we may hire things done we used to do ourselves (mowing, cleaning, etc.) or use more automated methods (Roomba, riding mower). Where we used to go out dancing, we now dine out and go to spectator events (plays, movies, sports). Nothing big, but lots of little things.

The good news is, all of that is stuff we control. We can strength train, and increase muscle mass and fitness. We can work on creating a more active daily life, in a variety of ways. We can get more exercise, have more active hobbies generally.

It sounds like you have a good start on the exercise, but you'd probably guess I'd encourage some strength exercise in there if you're not doing any/much.

When you say "lack of progress", what kinds of progress have you seen: How many pounds lost, in how many weeks? This is a process that takes some patience, unfortunately. If you've just (re-)started exercise, that can add water weight for muscle repair, and hide fat loss on the scale for a while, besides.

I can' speak for you, but for me 1200 was way too low: I lost too fast, felt great (and not hungry) until suddenly I was weak and fatigued. It took several weeks to recover. It's normal to want fast loss, but fast loss isn't always the best plan.

I lost most of around 50 pounds in less than a year at age 59-60 on 1400-1600 calories daily, plus eating all my exercise calories. Now, some women do find they need to eat less than that (I'm mysteriously a pretty good calorie burner), but the point is that shooting for 2 pounds a week may not be a great plan, unless you have well over 50 pounds to lose; and it may not be very sustainable, either (partcularly if you want to keep including that whole bottle of wine ). Even now, at 130 pounds (I'm 5'5") and in year 4+ of maintenance (I'm 64), I'd lose like a house afire at 1200, and that would not be a good thing. But I'm not you. I have no idea how active you are in daily life, how tall you are, how much you weigh, or any of the other things that go into estimating calorie needs.

For sure: Age, as such, is not a big issue. People older than you or (gasp) even me lose weight here all the time. Even the online TDEE calculators say that someone my size at age 20 would be expected to have a basal metabolic rate (BMR, pre-activity calorie burn) only about one daily serving of peanut butter higher than 64-year-old me. That's not much. And if I tell the calculator that old and young me have the same body fat percentage (same muscle mass), that statistical difference disappears completely: Zero difference in estimated BMR.

If you have any meaningful amount of weight to lose (you didn't say), it's necessarily going to take a while. So, you need a sustainable process. It's better to lose half a pound a week for 20 weeks, than it is to lose 5 pounds in two weeks then fall off the wagon - maybe exaggerating a little here, but you get my point.

The good news is that you really can't damage your metabolism. You can lose muscle mass, you can move less, and those things will reduce calorie expenditure. But you control them, so you can improve them, too.

Best wishes! :flowerforyou:

bickymc wrote: »

AnnePT77 Thank you so much xx very insightful. I only have about 6kg or I guess 15 lbs. I will add some strength training to my weekly workouts.

With 6kg to lose, if you set up MFP to lose 2 pounds a week to get that 1200 calorie goal, I'd strongly encourage you to reset to one pound a week.

Or, if you got that goal outside MFP, let MFP estimate a calorie goal for you, using your daily life (pre-exercise) activity level, log and eat exercise separately, and eat that much or very close daily - though it's fine to bank a few calories most days to "buy" that wine on the weekend. After at least one full menstrual cycle (if you're not menopausal, 4-6 weeks if you are), evaluate your average weekly weight loss and adjust calories to hit the 1 pound per week average going forward.

@Ikeeptrying2 gave excellent advice up there a few posts: Make the process as easy as possible. That's a success strategy. It also helps you experiment and learn ways of eating and exercising that will work to keep your weight where you want it long term: Eating nutritious, filling, tasty food you enjoy, and that's practical in your life; allowing for some treats and celebrations; finding exercise you can enjoy in a "dosage" that leaves you with good overall life balance (time for all the other important parts of your life).

Best wishes!