Losing weight over 50

The calculation of your daily goal does factor in your age, it's part of the BMR estimate from your stats, gender and age which is then multiplied by the activity setting you select to get you a daily target for a non-exercise day aligned with the rate of weight loss you selected.

But it's not a huge difference per year.

Personally I found losing weight in my 50's far easier. Food labelling and tools such as this one took away the guesswork. Now at 60 I'm eating far more to maintain weight than previous decades as I have far more time to indulge in staying active and enjoying a lot of exercise.

Age doesn't define us, it just makes us a bit more wrinkly!

I just turned 51 and I lost 40+ lbs this year. Age isn't a factor.

@charmmeth : Thank you for sharing your experience.

Disagreers: When you clicked that button, you appeared to be denying @charmmeth's personal experience, which makes no sense. If you have a different experience, post it.

I didn't click disagree with Charmmeth's post, but would have some caveats on the subject, personally. (Before I get into the weeds here, let me say that I'm female, age 64, and about 20 years post-menopausal. I'm not speaking entirely from youthful theory.)

My impression is that hormonal changes around menopause mainly cause weight loss challenges via water retention (weirder), appetite (possibly higher, or more stubborn about accepting calorie deficits), or energy level (lower). The size/extent of any of those effects, IMU, could be individual.

In a calorie-counting situation, only the energy level one is an objective limitation IMO, i.e., one may not notice that daily life activity down-regulation has happened, because it's quite subtle, so needing lower calories may seem mysterious.

Water retention confuses things on the scale, but IMU doesn't affect fat loss, just affects one's ability to realize that it's happening. Appetite doesn't limit weight loss, unless one caves in to it (and I'm not saying it's easy to avoid that!)

IMO, most of the affect of aging on calorie needs comes down to two things: Muscle mass, and activity level (daily life, though exercise may also be affected).

It's pretty clear (from research) that adults tend to lose muscle mass on average as they age. This has two negative effects on calorie expenditure: First, a pound of muscle burns a tiny number of calories daily more than a pound of fat (I think it's something like 4 calories per pound difference, per day). Second, it seems likely that people with better muscle retention find it easier to do things, so they probably move more, in daily life as well as exercise activity, burning more calories that way.

If you go to a TDEE calculator that will use body fat percent in its estimates, and compare the calorie burn of a 20 y/o to a 50 y/o at the same size, activity level and *body fat percent*, the estimated age difference in calories disappears. (Example calculator: https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/) Now, these are only statistical estimates, but I still think that's suggestive.

It's also clear that this muscle mass depletion can be countered to a significant extent, and even reversed. (Strength training works: People into their 80s have been demonstrated, in research, to increase strength and even mass, IMU. At 50, it's for sure possible, for a generally healthy person.) So, we have control over that variable - even though it's a slow thing - and one can play that card to one's benefit. As a bonus, there are a bunch of other reasons why it's good to be strong, beyond calorie burn.

As far as activity level, people obviously differ across the population for reasons other than age. But I think there are factors that differ on average, resulting in younger people tending to have higher activity because:

* Jobs with physical aspects are more common (cartoon example: Wait staff in restaurant vs. office worker)
* Organized sports are more common and available for younger people (IME even adult mixed-age sports leagues have more younger folks (like pre-marriage/kids age) than older ones, especially in very active sports (like softball or basketball vs. bowling).
* Transportation: Younger folks are more likely to rely on walking, biking, or public transport (to which they walk), older folks more likely to have a car parked right at their home.
* Leisure activities differ: Younger folks might be more likely to go clubbing/dancing or play frisbee in the park, older folks might be more likely to go out for dinner and to see a play, for example.
* Finances: Younger folks are more likely to have limited budgets, so rely on DIY work, vs. hiring people to do things for them (cleaning, lawn service, etc.) On the financially more well-off end, the young folks tend to be in a phase where they're doing very active home-making (landscaping, remodeling, decorating), where older folks are more likely to be enjoying what they've created over the years, maybe even down-sizing.
* Family life: Younger people are more likely to have young children, which tends to involve activity for the grown-ups.

Also, when older, any habits we have may be more likely to be pretty wired in. If we watch TV in the evening, we've been doing it for years, and maybe don't have lots of active alternatives in our working vocabulary. If our social life revolves around dinner parties or church potlucks, we may not know much about ultimate frisbee leagues. And so forth. If we've gradually reduced our daily activities, we've gotten used to the current state. On top of this, there tend to be lower expectations societally, IME, about what older folks can or should do . . . things that are mostly myth-based nonsense. (I've had people 30 years younger than me (!) tell me they're "too old" to do some things I routinely do.)

I could go on, but I won't. You get what I'm saying, about *averages*.

Now, none of those are absolutes. There are 50+ folks with very active jobs, with small kids, building their own homes, running marathons, biking to work, etc., etc. But I think that's less common. And even where these things do apply, details vary about what does/doesn't. I'm talking averages.

The good thing is that daily life activity level, exercise, and muscle mass are all things over which most people have nearly complete control via personal choices. Working to improve those, while getting the right calorie level to fuel those things but still lose weight, will result in weight loss . . . at possibly a higher calorie level than would happen if not actively working to optimize those variables.

Just my opinions, as always.

Not really. This March, I was at my highest weight ever 218lbs. My mom passing last year had a lot to do with it. As of now, and because COVID has kept me out of work, I refocused on getting back into total shape and as of this morning I'm 177.4 lbs. Just watched my calories and kept consistent with my walking and workouts. And I'm 56.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition