ggjj

It shouldn't be a dramatically different level of calories now.

If I run a calculator to estimate my BMR (basal metabolic rate, the estimated amount I'd burn if I stayed absolutely still in bed all day) at age 24, and then again with the same other settings but my real age (64), the difference is about one daily serving of peanut butter: Couple of hundred calories for 40 added years of age. (I'm using BMR rather than TDEE here, because it's the harder-to-influence piece that most people think of as "metabolism".)

The biggest differences with aging, as a practical matter, come from two sources: Lower muscle mass, and reduced daily life activity. Further, those two tend to reinforce and increase each other. (If we do little to keep it, we lose muscle mass as we age. As we lose muscle mass, activity becomes more difficult/less pleasant, so we do less . . . which, of course, tends to lead to more loss of muscle mass. Bad cycle.)

If I run the same BMR calculator (I used Sailrabbit, but any one will work, as long as it specifies BMR), and claim that 24-year-old Ann and 64-year-old Ann have the same body fat percent (same muscle mass), the BMR for those 2 Anns, with the estimating formulas that use BF% . . . are exactly identical, at both ages.

Daily life activity level (not specifically exercise) is the other big variable. It's not universal, but for many of us, the 20-something has a more physical job, maybe uses public transit instead of having her own car and driving so walks or bikes more, maybe has small children to chase around and carry, might be getting into a first home or apartment so doing decorating or landscaping more, not settled enough to be paying for services like cleaning or lawn mowing or whatever (or using robot vacuum cleaners and riding mowers and what-not), with a social life that has more volleyball and window-shopping and dancing (maybe can't afford as much of fine dining, theater performances, and other sit-down stuff). On top of lifestyle differences that are common with age, right now many of us are in a "stay at home orders" situation, so doing less than we normally would.

So, something is off. EIght weeks is a long time for it to be just water weight masking fat loss, but too soon to be meaningful muscle mass gain (strength is probably noticeably better though). So, the issues are more likely to be either in the calorie tracking (including exercise estimates if you eat those calories back), or daily life activity levels, unfortunately.

A few women need to eat 1200 calories to lose weight, but they tend to be older and lighter and quite sedentary. When I lost weight at age 59-60, I tried 1200 plus all exercise, and it was too low for me (even at 5'5", mid 150s, sedentary). I admit I'm mysteriously a good li'l ol' calorie burner, but you should lose weight at your age at some number above 1200, with your stats.

This might be food for thought:

https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/

I'm sure someone here will tell you it's OK to go below an accurate 1200, but it's not going to be me.

Wishing you the best in figuring out what's going on!

P.S. I'll add this link. Some of it won't apply during "stay at home" orders, but some still can be useful:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10610953/neat-improvement-strategies-to-improve-weight-loss/p1