Tips for keeping weight off as you age

At your age, it's likely not metabolism related, that's more of a senior-citizen kind of thing. As Retroguy suggested, you may be moving less, from working a desk job or longer commute compared to before, or from less standing up, shuffling around, fidgeting, etc. Also possible you are eating every so slightly more than before. Researchers followed around professional chefs and determined in many cases they were adding 100 calories per day to their diet from taste-testing, without realizing it or accounting for it. More accurate food logging, combined with honest assessment of movement, and you'll still be able to control the weight at our age. Good luck!

As I aged, I started meeting friends for drinks and meals for fun instead of going hiking or kayaking. I grew less active and started eating and drinking more.

Sounds like you're consistently active. My question would be, how intense is your level of physical activity? Also, how many calories are you consuming in a day? You may want to start tracking your meals throughout the day to establish a baseline, and use the stats to identify what/where you may need to adjust (i.e. eat less/smaller portions, consume better quality foods with better quality ingredients, find ways to supplement, etc.). Consider trying a high-intensity workout. And, lastly, schedule at least an annual visit with your primary care doctor (which I'm sure you're already doing). (Emphasis on the doctors visit if you implement healthy changes and conditions get worse). I hope this helps.


[Edited by MFP mod]

I was 105-115 in high school, 120s in my 20s, 130s in my 30s, and now 140s 😅
Trying to avoid the 150s before I turn 50 in a few years, haha
I follow that that smart BMI that accounts for age when trying to access how much I should weigh and really pay more attention to my waist size.
Also, I think it's helpful to watch stress levels and make sure that I take time for myself. This is the age where a lot of people are both worrying over their kids AND aging relatives who need help.

Personally it's understanding the importance of quality protein in an amount that reflects closer to an optimal muscle protein synthesis scenario which makes exercise especially weight bearing the most important factor as we age and that result which helps maintain or increases our strength, which again I feel should be seen as mandatory as we age. Of course what we eat is important and I generally advocate for a whole food diet and one that focuses on satiety for the majority of my food choices and I basically follow the 80/20 rule, which works for me.

At 44, it's key to balance workouts with diet. Try focusing on whole foods, managing stress and ensuring adequate sleep. Sometimes, consulting a dietitian or personal trainer can help refine your approach.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

<snip> because of cumulative adaptive thermogenesis <snip>

I've never heard of this before...is this a personal theory or something you read in one of your many forays into the Knowledge of Research? I generally believe you but this one I've never seen! Not saying it's not true. I just don't find it to be the way the body works. For me.

Adaptive thermogenesis as I understand it is a temporary adjustment the body makes due to food restriction, but it reverses quite quickly with sufficient intake. It isn't something that is cumulative or permanent over time. I've lost significant amounts of weight twice, and my calorie needs today are on the high end of what would be considered normal, even without exercise.

cmriverside wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

<snip> because of cumulative adaptive thermogenesis <snip>

I've never heard of this before...is this a personal theory or something you read in one of your many forays into the Knowledge of Research? I generally believe you but this one I've never seen! Not saying it's not true. I just don't find it to be the way the body works. For me.

Adaptive thermogenesis as I understand it is a temporary adjustment the body makes due to food restriction, but it reverses quite quickly with sufficient intake. It isn't something that is cumulative or permanent over time. I've lost significant amounts of weight twice, and my calorie needs today are on the high end of what would be considered normal, even without exercise.

Adaptive thermogenesis has been studied for many decades and in the 1990's with the discovery of leptin it was considered a breakthrough in further understanding adaptive thermogenesis. It's basically a survival mechanism that goes back to the dawn of time where the body reduces it's metabolic rate in order to survive periods of food scarcity by conserving energy and helping to maintain vital bodily function, pretty basic really.

The main problem is adaptive thermogenesis slows down our metabolism more than predicted based solely on the loss of lean body mass for an individual. Scientifically it has much to do with hormonal regulation, the effect on our sympathetic nervous system, the activity in our brown fat tissue, which gets lower and it also effect mitochondrial efficiency which actually make them more efficient which means they produce the same amount of energy with fewer calories.

The extent of this reduction can vary based on several factors, including the severity of calorie restriction, the duration of the diet, and individual differences like sex, age and someones initial body composition. Suffice is to say that it's going to happen but it can be reduced greatly from what I've learned over the years and practice which was basically my comments in my previous post, anyway, if someone wants to minimize this effect then I would suggest they alternate between times of energy restriction and maintenance calories which are basically diet breaks and refeeds, this is paramount, so alternate calorie restriction almost equally, increasing their protein which helps preserve lean mass and a focusing on nutrient dense foods I would say is also very important and regular exercise with regular weight bearing exercises as well.

There a lot more to it scientifically but this is as I understand the literature I've come across over the years. I'm sure
Ann will have much to say as well.

cmriverside wrote: »

@neanderthin

I don't know if you were talking to me or just talking.

I know the mechanics and definition of AT.

She was claiming that it is cumulative and (from what I can gather from her post) permanent. That is to say, it causes people who yo-yo to have a disadvantage forever.

I don't think that has been proven to be a fact.

AT happens with restriction. Yes.
It reverses with sufficient intake. Calorie needs for a given body weight do not change permanently due to restriction other than the muscle factor - which can also be reversed or mitigated with resistance training and diet breaks - it's not permanent. The hormones will reset to the new weight.

What I think is underestimated is the amount of time it may take for that to happen. It definitely wasn't at the moment of total weight loss for me. It took months.

Right, I see what your saying. My instinct tells me based on what I know, it's definitely possible and more than likely quite common. I believe it's going to apply differently dependent on an individuals metabolic status in general, dietary protocol, and lifestyle of the individual as well as the other factors that effect metabolism other than lean mass which I specified in my previous post. Some people will be able to rebound but it will be based on the strategy that includes weight training, a higher protein diet and one that contains all the quality nutrients that support a health metabolism,

If you take the average overweight or obese individual in America for example that consumes mostly UPF's which accounts for about 70% of the population and they're sedentary, don't exercise and then go on a calorie restricted diet especially for extended periods of time and that's considering a slowdown of metabolic rate can happen within the first couple of weeks of calorie restriction, the decrease in metabolic rate is pretty much a given and it can be quite a lot as well. If that same person starts to put the lbs back on the ratio of muscle to fat will not rebound to where they were before dieting which basically means they will put weight back on with fewer calories and then this same person basically does a rinse and repeat of the same strategy they will continue to decrease their metabolic rate with additional attempts. One example might be the biggest loser study where after 6 years they still continue to burn significantly less calories after the initial weight loss and that's with just 1 attempt at their weight loss.

There will be people and I'm one of them that have dieted a few times and lost 60 lbs and have increased my metabolic rate and that happened as I've aged. I have more lean mass and less fat mass now at 71 than I had when I was 60 and it reflects my lifestyle which is again higher protein, lots of exercise which includes weight bearing exercise at least twice a week and proper sleeping habits, so both scenarios are considered imo.

neanderthin wrote: »

One example might be the biggest loser study where after 6 years they still continue to burn significantly less calories after the initial weight loss and that's with just 1 attempt at their weight loss.

Not to discount anything else you're saying, but just re The Biggest Loser, that was probably a greater shock to their systems than anything a normal person does. Presumably the extreme diet and exercise and resulting very high stress on their bodies is a factor there, which maybe doesn't affect the average person nearly as much, if at all.

Also, we don't know how many times they had previously tried to diet.

thanks, @AnnPT77 for the explanation.

I guess I don't like to give people ammunition...i.e., yes, life situations sometimes makes it harder than when you were young, working as a waitress and living on cigarettes, tequila, and caffeine and dancing the night away then riding your bike to the beach. At least, that was me in my 20s. Very easy to stay thin, I was too thin. Even in my thirties I was still active enough that losing ten pounds was easy. Forties and early fifties, whoa. For all the reasons I stated. Not to mention some added chronic medical issues and medications that weren't helping. Short of medical issues, though, I think everyone is capable of losing weight and keeping it off. Is it easy? Not really.

That Biggest Loser study article from the NIH has holes in it. I read the whole thing and I still think there are some big errors in the conclusion(s) but I'd guess this has been discussed before on the forums. I find it nearly impossible to believe it as it's laid out.

I have to look at human nature as the biggest culprit and the behaviors and denial that are so hard to overcome with major weight loss.

Track your food. Find your sweet spot. Prosper.

I see there was a follow-up re-interpretation of the Biggest Loser study in 2022. They note that the greatest long term metabolic adaptations happened with those who had the greatest increase in physical activity, and it was unrelated to weight gain afterwards. In other words, it wasn't the extreme diet that changed their systems, it was the extreme exercise.

This all ties in to the fallacy that 100% of exercise calories burned can be eaten back, when in reality our NEAT and maybe other forms of energy expenditure drops somewhat to compensate, and 50% is probably a more realistic eat-back goal (estimation made by a couple of experienced former pro bodybuilders on YT that I follow), with that ratio perhaps being a bit higher if you're starting from very lean, or the exercise was very intense.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.23308

cmriverside wrote: »

thanks, @AnnPT77 for the explanation.

I guess I don't like to give people ammunition...i.e., yes, life situations sometimes makes it harder than when you were young, working as a waitress and living on cigarettes, tequila, and caffeine and dancing the night away then riding your bike to the beach. At least, that was me in my 20s. Very easy to stay thin, I was too thin. Even in my thirties I was still active enough that losing ten pounds was easy. Forties and early fifties, whoa. For all the reasons I stated. Not to mention some added chronic medical issues and medications that weren't helping. Short of medical issues, though, I think everyone is capable of losing weight and keeping it off. Is it easy? Not really.

Sometimes there's a fine line between ammunition and useful information. The difference is mostly in how the audience acts on it, including what they're led to believe.

I think it's fairly certain that AT is real, and that there are ways to minimize or potentially even reverse it.

That Biggest Loser study article from the NIH has holes in it. I read the whole thing and I still think there are some big errors in the conclusion(s) but I'd guess this has been discussed before on the forums. I find it nearly impossible to believe it as it's laid out.

There have been some good critiques of it, too.

I have to look at human nature as the biggest culprit and the behaviors and denial that are so hard to overcome with major weight loss.

Yes. It's particularly distressing to me when "it's so hard because I'm aging (menopausal, hypothyroid, whatever)" becomes a bonding experience among people, and so much a bonding ritual that it can help some decide it's OK if they stop trying (because it's hopeless in this sad story), or inevitable that they don't make progress. I feel like that bonding style sometimes happens even in threads here.

I feel like the explosion of marketing around menopause as a limitation on weight loss or fitness can contribute to the "it's too hard" trap, too.

Don't get me wrong: I absolutely think some things do make weight loss (or fitness improvement) relatively harder. The core issue is whether it can still work with the right strategies. There may be exceptions, but I think it can, as I know you do.

Track your food. Find your sweet spot. Prosper.

Yes. Exactly, 100%.

P.S. I know you've read this thread (because you contributed to it, IIRC):

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1

I'd still recommend it to others who haven't read it, but want to understand some of these issues better. This is one case where I think the whole thread (though long) is beneficial: There were a lot of thought-provoking questions and answers scattered throughout. It's IMO a great example of the period when there were serious, calm discussions of controversial topics that actually brought some light to the subject. Some of the research links are dated, supplanted by more recent findings, but overall I think there's still value there.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Personally, I think you oversell that "fallacy" in some contexts, but this isn't the place to argue that. It's true that over-exercise can reduce NEAT, but there's a lot more to it.

Then we agree it's a fallacy. We just maybe disagree about the extent. As I said, I got the 50% estimate from two, actually I think it's more like three, bodybuilder/powerlifter people on YT.

I don't disagree with the majority of posters here, however, an underlying cause to some of the common issues women face in middle age is hormones. When all the things that "have always worked" suddenly stop working.
Hormones and perimenopause can seriously screw with your body, and OP, you're right in that age range. There are a lot of symptoms of peri that directly lead to weight gain - some of it bloating and the like, some of it fatigue and exhaustion that lowers willpower and energy levels, which cause you to move less, not workout quite as hard as you used to, eat a bit more than you used to, cravings, etc...ya, it's "just" water weight, and yes, it's still CICO, but overlooking the underlying problem is a problem IMO.
It is a topic that has, IMO, historically (and still is, even in the medical world) underplayed, misunderstood, and not studied very well, but can have major impacts on women at this age.
It doesn't impact everyone the same either - some sail through with hardly any issues, others get completely sidelined, and a bunch of us land somewhere in the middle.
Just another factor that may be worth exploring - I would say to join a peri or menopause group specifically for more information, it is a topic generally overlooked outside of those groups.