How difficult is it to lose weight at 40 and older?

[jhwhite]

Back in 2011 I lost 60lbs and was in great shape. 2012 was a hell of a year and I couldn't even maintain. Since then I've gained 30lbs and I want to lose it by the end of this year. But I turn 40 in June and EVERYONE keeps telling me it's impossible to lose weight at 40 and older.

So should I just be in maintanence mode and strive not to gain? Or can I get back into shape?

[nkotblove]

And I wanted to say thanks for reading my post happy stepping everyone
love Melissa

[Xyrus]

---

@Raviv wrote:

---

I have to disagree.  Aging does change things. whether you can attribute your gains to lifestyle changes or not.  I ate enormous amounts of really awful food when I was in my 20s, never exercised in any way at all, and I was so thin I looked like I had medical issues.  Eating reasonably has me overweight at the age of 50.

About eight years ago, I had a job where I walked 10-15 miles each and every day - more if we had overtime - and it was at a fast pace.  The times we weren't walking around outside were spent throwing ourselves over block walls and doing pullups to look over them or unlatch the gate.  It was incredibly physical.  In the first three months I lost 30 pounds and was down to a good weight.

But two things happened - I got older (hormones changed) and my body learned to economize.  Whatever you do for any period of time, your body will learn to do better and better until it takes nowhere near the effort (calories) that it did when you started out.  It's how our bodies work and how they stay alive, and they're really good at it.  I regained those 30 pounds and another 20 on top of that.  And I was still walking 15-20 miles a day and still throwing myself over block walls.  How is that possible?  I was eating the same as I was when I started the job.  Seriously, it wasn't just a tracking error.  It was science.

This is one reason why running may be enjoyable and healthy, but it's not a great way to lose weight over the long haul.  Your body gets better and better at it, more and more economical as far as work goes, and you have to keep running farther and faster to maintain the same calorie burn.

---

Anecdotal evidence doesn't overrule basic science. As I mentioned before, humans are terrible judges, especially when it comes to non-linear dynamics such as those involved when it comes to weight loss.

Basic math and physics. Let's say it takes X amount of energy to perform an activity. You eat Y amount of energy. Your body already has Z amount of energy stored.

If X > Y, then your body will start burning Z and you lose weight. If X = Y, you're at equilibrium. If X < Y, then your body stores Y-X energy and you gain weight.

For example, to lift a 100kg weight 1 meter requires 980 joules of energy (about .25 "food" calories). It doesn't matter if you're 5 or 105, that is the absolute minimum amount of energy that can be expended to perform that task.

Now a human body is not perfectly efficient and it has other things to do, so no matter what it will always take more than the minimum amount of energy for your body to do something. But the basic physics gives a baseline. If it takes X amount of energy to do something, it is physically impossible for your body to do it in less than X amount of energy. Again, the human body does not run on magic. It follows the same physical laws as everything else in the universe.

The reason why you have to run farther and faster is simple. Let's say you start running and you weigh 100 kg and you run at 2 meters per second. The power it takes to do that (using a basic physics model):

P=mgv/4 =(100kg*9.8m/s*2m/s)/4 = 490 watts

Thus, the minimum amount of energy it would take to run 30 minutes is: E = P*t = 490*1800s = 882000J = 211 "food" calories.

Now let's say you keep this up for a while, and you've lost about 10 kg.

E = (90kg*9.8m/s*2m/s)/4*1800s = 793800J = 190 "food" calories

The more mass you lose, the less energy it takes. If you still want to burn the same number of calories you now have to either run faster or run longer (or some cobination of the two).

That's why logging sites like FitBit's are much better than manually trying to track things yourself. The relationship between calories and activity is non-linear. The FitBit site automatically adjusts caloric consumption and activity burn rates based on your weight, height, etc. This helps avoid the "plateau" effect that often discourages people.

As for your story, I suspect that there are a number of details you're leaving out. Not on purpose of course, it's just something we do. I'm in the over 40 block myself, and have had no problems losing weight and keeping it off. My problem was that, like most people, I was juding my caloric intake and activity level subjectively. When I actually started using the Fitbit and it's tracking site, it showed me just how far off I was in my judgement. Once I could objectively track what I was doing, the wieght basically melted off.

[Raviv]

---

@Xyrus wrote:

---

@Raviv wrote:

---

I have to disagree.  Aging does change things. whether you can attribute your gains to lifestyle changes or not.  I ate enormous amounts of really awful food when I was in my 20s, never exercised in any way at all, and I was so thin I looked like I had medical issues.  Eating reasonably has me overweight at the age of 50.

About eight years ago, I had a job where I walked 10-15 miles each and every day - more if we had overtime - and it was at a fast pace.  The times we weren't walking around outside were spent throwing ourselves over block walls and doing pullups to look over them or unlatch the gate.  It was incredibly physical.  In the first three months I lost 30 pounds and was down to a good weight.

But two things happened - I got older (hormones changed) and my body learned to economize.  Whatever you do for any period of time, your body will learn to do better and better until it takes nowhere near the effort (calories) that it did when you started out.  It's how our bodies work and how they stay alive, and they're really good at it.  I regained those 30 pounds and another 20 on top of that.  And I was still walking 15-20 miles a day and still throwing myself over block walls.  How is that possible?  I was eating the same as I was when I started the job.  Seriously, it wasn't just a tracking error.  It was science.

This is one reason why running may be enjoyable and healthy, but it's not a great way to lose weight over the long haul.  Your body gets better and better at it, more and more economical as far as work goes, and you have to keep running farther and faster to maintain the same calorie burn.

---

Anecdotal evidence doesn't overrule basic science. As I mentioned before, humans are terrible judges, especially when it comes to non-linear dynamics such as those involved when it comes to weight loss.

Basic math and physics. Let's say it takes X amount of energy to perform an activity. You eat Y amount of energy. Your body already has Z amount of energy stored.

If X > Y, then your body will start burning Z and you lose weight. If X = Y, you're at equilibrium. If X < Y, then your body stores Y-X energy and you gain weight.

For example, to lift a 100kg weight 1 meter requires 980 joules of energy (about .25 "food" calories). It doesn't matter if you're 5 or 105, that is the absolute minimum amount of energy that can be expended to perform that task.

Now a human body is not perfectly efficient and it has other things to do, so no matter what it will always take more than the minimum amount of energy for your body to do something. But the basic physics gives a baseline. If it takes X amount of energy to do something, it is physically impossible for your body to do it in less than X amount of energy. Again, the human body does not run on magic. It follows the same physical laws as everything else in the universe.

The reason why you have to run farther and faster is simple. Let's say you start running and you weigh 100 kg and you run at 2 meters per second. The power it takes to do that (using a basic physics model):

P=mgv/4 =(100kg*9.8m/s*2m/s)/4 = 490 watts

Thus, the minimum amount of energy it would take to run 30 minutes is: E = P*t = 490*1800s = 882000J = 211 "food" calories.

Now let's say you keep this up for a while, and you've lost about 10 kg.

E = (90kg*9.8m/s*2m/s)/4*1800s = 793800J = 190 "food" calories

The more mass you lose, the less energy it takes. If you still want to burn the same number of calories you now have to either run faster or run longer (or some cobination of the two).

That's why logging sites like FitBit's are much better than manually trying to track things yourself. The relationship between calories and activity is non-linear. The FitBit site automatically adjusts caloric consumption and activity burn rates based on your weight, height, etc. This helps avoid the "plateau" effect that often discourages people.

As for your story, I suspect that there are a number of details you're leaving out. Not on purpose of course, it's just something we do. I'm in the over 40 block myself, and have had no problems losing weight and keeping it off. My problem was that, like most people, I was juding my caloric intake and activity level subjectively. When I actually started using the Fitbit and it's tracking site, it showed me just how far off I was in my judgement. Once I could objectively track what I was doing, the wieght basically melted off.

---

You're still missing the point.  Our bodies are not machines.  Things are constantly changing, so unless you're in a lab 24/7 and measuring your output, you have no idea how many calories you are actually burning ar any given time.  If I run the exact same mile at the exact same weight every day for a year, I'm burning a different amount of calories during that year due to efficiency (which is a real thing and not tied to weight), whether I'm sick or feeling well, injuries (recent and chronic), unrelated stress, weather, hormones, hydration and a ton of other things that mean I'm not burning X calories doing the exact same thing I did before.  We are not machines, and quite frankly, even machines work differently and burn fuel differently over time.

I'm very glad that you realized incorrect food tracking was your issue and were able to fix it.  But that doesn't mean it's the issue everyone else might be having.  I will agree that it's one of the more common factors in weight gain or failure to lose weight, but it's far from the only reason.  It's very frustrating to read that something worked for an individual, and since it worked for them, they extrapolate that the exact same thing must work for everyone.  And if it doesn't work for everyone else, then they must be either lying (to themselves or to everyone) or completely delusional.  

That's not always the case.  If it were, I would be quite lean with abs of steel because I eat exponentially better than I did in my 20s and exercise at least three times a week, something I never did back then.  I also never would have gained while walking 15-20 miles a day, five days a week if it were a simple matter of "calories in, calories out" that never changed as I aged, had hormonal changes, injured various parts of my body, or involuntarily became more efficient at daily tasks.

[Xyrus]

---

@Raviv wrote:

---

You're still missing the point.  Our bodies are not machines.  Things are constantly changing, so unless you're in a lab 24/7 and measuring your output, you have no idea how many calories you are actually burning ar any given time.  If I run the exact same mile at the exact same weight every day for a year, I'm burning a different amount of calories during that year due to efficiency (which is a real thing and not tied to weight), whether I'm sick or feeling well, injuries (recent and chronic), unrelated stress, weather, hormones, hydration and a ton of other things that mean I'm not burning X calories doing the exact same thing I did before.  We are not machines, and quite frankly, even machines work differently and burn fuel differently over time.

I'm very glad that you realized incorrect food tracking was your issue and were able to fix it.  But that doesn't mean it's the issue everyone else might be having.  I will agree that it's one of the more common factors in weight gain or failure to lose weight, but it's far from the only reason.  It's very frustrating to read that something worked for an individual, and since it worked for them, they extrapolate that the exact same thing must work for everyone.  And if it doesn't work for everyone else, then they must be either lying (to themselves or to everyone) or completely delusional.  

That's not always the case.  If it were, I would be quite lean with abs of steel because I eat exponentially better than I did in my 20s and exercise at least three times a week, something I never did back then.  I also never would have gained while walking 15-20 miles a day, five days a week if it were a simple matter of "calories in, calories out" that never changed as I aged, had hormonal changes, injured various parts of my body, or involuntarily became more efficient at daily tasks.

---

 Our bodies are machines. The take in energy, do work, and produce waste products.

But aside from the philisophical argument, you missed MY point. You can't do X amount work in less than X amount of energy. Actually, due to thermodynamics it's even impossible to do X amount of work with only X amount of energy because there is no such thing as a 100% perfect efficency.

Calculating the minimum amount of energy you actually need to perform a task is relatively simple. Calculating how much you actually burn is much harder to determine. But that doesn't change the fact that you can't burn less than the minimum and still accomplish said task.

As you lose weight, every aspect of your caloric burn changes. You burn less running. You burn less walking. You burn less breathing. The changes may not be much independently (10 calories here, 20 calories there), but all of them together added up over weeks or months can add up to pounds worth of calories that you aren't burning when you think you are. 

Regardless, you don't put on 50 lbs by magic and no one has a base metabolism high enough that they suddenly put on 50 lbs just because they crossed some arbitrary age barrier. If you truly have sudden unexplainable weight gain, that's indicative of a medical condition and you should get checked out by a doctor.

For normal healthy individuals, "slow metabolism" is an excuse, not a reason. I'm over 40 and have lost a total of 75 lbs. I'm actually slim now, something I've never accomplished even when I was playing football in high school. I even have a six pack. And I've done all this when supposedly my "slow metabolism" should be giving me a dad bod/beer gut/spare tire.

There's nothing special about me either. I'm just a regular guy. I've never had a "high metabolism". I'm not a physical trainer. I've never run marathons. I don't have a special diet or exercise program. I just track my calories and what I burn, and make sure I'm always at or below the break even point. The only thing I had to admit was that I was wrong, look honestly at my habits, and change them. That by itself can be very hard for people to do.

[Raviv]

---

@Xyrus wrote:

---

---

 Our bodies are machines. The take in energy, do work, and produce waste products.

But aside from the philisophical argument, you missed MY point. You can't do X amount work in less than X amount of energy. Actually, due to thermodynamics it's even impossible to do X amount of work with only X amount of energy because there is no such thing as a 100% perfect efficency.

Calculating the minimum amount of energy you actually need to perform a task is relatively simple. Calculating how much you actually burn is much harder to determine. But that doesn't change the fact that you can't burn less than the minimum and still accomplish said task.

As you lose weight, every aspect of your caloric burn changes. You burn less running. You burn less walking. You burn less breathing. The changes may not be much independently (10 calories here, 20 calories there), but all of them together added up over weeks or months can add up to pounds worth of calories that you aren't burning when you think you are. gardless, you don't put on 50 lbs by magic and no one has a base metabolism high enough that they suddenly put on 50 lbs just because they crossed some arbitrary age barrier. If you truly have sudden unexplainable weight gain, that's indicative of a medical condition and you should get checked out by a doctor.

For normal healthy individuals, "slow metabolism" is an excuse, not a reason. I'm over 40 and have lost a total of 75 lbs. I'm actually slim now, something I've never accomplished even when I was playing football in high school. I even have a six pack. And I've done all this when supposedly my "slow metabolism" should be giving me a dad bod/beer gut/spare tire.

There's nothing special about me either. I'm just a regular guy. I've never had a "high metabolism". I'm not a physical trainer. I've never run marathons. I don't have a special diet or exercise program. I just track my calories and what I burn, and make sure I'm always at or below the break even point. The only thing I had to admit was that I was wrong, look honestly at my habits, and change them. That by itself can be very hard for people to do.

---

So what you're saying is that our bodies do act like machines and predictably burn calories, pretty much the same for two people of the same weight, and the only thing that would make that change would be medical conditions - kind of like what I was saying about hormone changes, chronic injuries and similar conditions that cause your body to act differently than it did before those changes.  Kind of what I was saying, because if you can get through your 50s and into your 60s without any hormone changes and absolutely no injuries or medical conditions, that's a pretty amazing trick right there.

No, it's not generally sudden, but it's very much real.  You're still 40, which is maybe the start of aging.  It's totally different the farther down that road you go.  You have plenty of time to see the reality and I he you cut yourself a little slack when you hit the aging speedbumps.  Hormone production slows down considerably (you're going to love it when your testosterone decides to just peter out and almost disappear), and then those little injuries you blew off from when you were 20 comes back as a bum knee that can't be trusted or arthritis that means you can't grip a barbell when there's a storm brewing.  Your body doesn't build muscle, or repair any tissue for that matter, as fast as it used to.  That means you have less muscle doing the work of the same task you used to do.  That's simple biology.  Look up the science of aging.  Yes, you absolutely can still build muscle, but it just takes longer and more effort and better nutrition than it did before.  That's also science.

Saying an individual's body works the same way when it's 20 as it does when it's 50 is ludicrous.  Aging is normal, and the science of aging is very well documented.   And it's not only misleading but also disrespectful to attribute any and all difficulties middle-aged people have in losing bodyfat to simply overestimating their exercise and underestimating their food intake.

[ChrisG1974]

I think the mindset at 40 is you start to slow down and don't recover as fast as you used to. For years I lived an unhealthy lifestyle. My weight has always been up and down since I was a kid, but I ballooned up after my wife had our two boys. I finally had enough and started walking one day back in October. Since then I've gone from 189lbs to 156lbs and feel really good. I still have around 10 more pounds that I want to lose, but I can look at myself in the mirror and be a happy. It can be done at 40, it's not easy, but it can be done.

[joygh]

Age and your health as it is, makes us gain weight. Medications we have to take, may cause us to gain weight. Not all of us who have/had breast cancer are skinny little people. Medications we take can cause us to gain anywhere from 12 to 20 lbs. easy, if we don't stay ahead of it. It's why we go organic, watch caloric intake, exercise and stay away from high fat foods and soys. I practice wheat free and eat good food. Portion control is another way of controlling weight gain at any age. We think a buffet owes us until we can't breath, when all we are really doing is an injustice to our health. So, get out there and move. Eat what is healthy, read medication side effects and enjoy life 🙂

[clymer]

I'm 64 and in one year have lost apprx 38 lbs. It's not easy at our age and the slow progress is better than no progress. 

What I have learned is you have to keep moving and despite the fact then when I come home from work the usual plan is to have dinner and sit down for the night. Now, I manage to get out even to walk 1/2 hr every night, not a power walk,but just a good steady walk. Naturally, you have to watch what you are eating. I have increased my protein levels and reduced my sugar intakes. I don't take any medication and want to keep it that way.

Our age is a handicap, but not an excuse. 

[Corney]

No, Although it is harder to lose weight as we age because we lose about 4% our muscle mass every 10 years after we reach 20.  Just follow healthy eating habits try to work up to 30-45 minutes of combined aerobic and strengthening exericise at least 4 days per week, although 5 days would be better,  Remember it takes 14 days to establish the exercise habit but just 3-4 days to lose it.  Nothing is impossible if you just set you mind to it and stay the course.  If you need a friend to help motivate you, just invite me to be your friend.

[GuinnessLover]

Everything physical is harder after 40.  But it all doesn't go to pot overnight, like you're walking on flat ground when you're 39 and you then you have to walk a 30 degree incline at 40.  

Definitely don't settle for just trying to maintain.  "Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss you'll land among the stars."

It won't be as easy as it would have been when you were 20, but that doesn't matter--you're not 20 anymore.  You can accomplish anything you set you mind to--even at 40+.  I did the splits for the first time at the age of 42.  I really didn't know if I could do that, but I set my mind to it and what do you know!

[nkotblove]

Look at you wow!!! You did the splits that's awsome job. I never do the splits I did 125 floors that was the Rollercoaster new Badge last night.

now I am resting and later I will be walking again just my legs hurting me. Have a great day

[Corney]

After the age of 40 we lose 4% of our muscle mass every decade, on the average.  If a person ate the smae amount of calories every day and didn't change their activity level, they would ,on the average, gain 1 pound a year or 10 pounds every decade.  There are also seasonal weight gains, in the winter our BMR generally slow down because our body wants to maintain homeostasis, keeping our core body temperature within a very narrow range, like wise in the summer when we sweat more the bodies BMR usually speeds up to rid the body of excess fat, or insulation, because of homeostasis.  Animals in the winter grow a heavier coat and their hide thickens, the opposite occurs in the summer, all because of homeostasis. The amout of sunlight also plays a small role in determining BMR.

[I-train-hard]

That’s why lifting weights makes a lot of sense by anyone at any age.

Consistent training + better eating = results.

[Corney]

Great comment!

[Melissa356]

I lost 40 lbs right before my 50th birthday, I started at about 48 so it was a slow process but it certainly can be done.  I kept it off for about 5 years and recently put back on about 16 lbs which I am working to get off again.  Admittedly its not as easy to lose weight as it was in my 20's but it is empowering to complete a workout and know that I am doing something good for myself.  My advice is for you to do whatever you need to do to be healthy and feel good about yourself and don't be discouraged by what others say, this is your journey.   Remember the way you leave your 40's will be the way you enter your 50's and so on and so on.  You can do it, I did!!

[Corney]

I agree, once your fitness level increases, you must increase your workout to achieve the same amount of calories burned.  I'm one that would advise working out longer, running, walking farther, adding strength training rather than increasing your pace, but that's just me.

[EdsonFitbit]

It is so great when you start noticing changes in your body. This has motivated me a lot since I have been always very thin and have had an absence of tonified muscles. Now I have made changes to my diet so I can get more results and more motivation.

[win2017]

That is a huge myth. I have lost 60 pounds since November 2015. I am 59 and achieved my weight loss goal. Now my goals are to become physically fit and to keep the weight off. Don't listen to those who unknowingly try to discourage you. Just continue on your path to weight loss no matter how old you are.

[shipo]

---

@win2017 wrote:
That is a huge myth. I have lost 60 pounds since November 2015. I am 59 and achieved my weight loss goal. Now my goals are to become physically fit and to keep the weight off. Don't listen to those who unknowingly try to discourage you. Just continue on your path to weight loss no matter how old you are.

---

To whom are you responding?

[Raviv]

---

@win2017 wrote:
That is a huge myth. I have lost 60 pounds since November 2015. I am 59 and achieved my weight loss goal. Now my goals are to become physically fit and to keep the weight off. Don't listen to those who unknowingly try to discourage you. Just continue on your path to weight loss no matter how old you are.

---

I'm glad it has been that way for you.

That scenario is far from universal, though.

And assuming it IS that way for everyone else just makes them feel bad becasue the corollary to that is that you must just not be trying hard enough if it IS much more difficult to lose weight as you age.

By the way, it's actually science, even if it is a rather inconvenient bit of it.  We don't build muscle as quickly as we age (our cells don't replicate as quickly overall) and our hormones change.  So it's not like people are being lazy as they age.  Their bodies actually change.