you're making a huge leap here...convincing someone else to lose weight vs. managing your own weight. I am assuming that a decent triathlete can be honest with him/herself. Tho the amount of dad bods I see at races is insane.

The formula never lets a reasonable, resilient, and thoughtful person down.

As you begin to track calories, you begin to read labels...as you read labels, you get curious about ingredients, and over the years, you figure out your system.


yes its work. shocking.

I think this is correct as well, but the physics/thermodynamics of what triczyk saying are also still correct. I think that's the point he's trying to get across. The common advice of "don't skip breakfast, you'll actually gain weight!" is a good example of the difference here. The part that's unsaid is "don't skip breakfast, you'll overeat at lunch and dinner and oversnack and gain weight". Cutting out ~1/3rd of your daily calories while changing nothing else is a great way to lose weight (not necessarily a safe/healthy/sustainable way though).

A few bits to consider in this discussion:
(1) A pound of fat is ~3500 calories and this doesn't depend on age
(2) A Big Mac is 563 calories and this doesn't depend on age
(3) Older cyclists are generally less efficient than younger cyclists, both at matched work rates and at work rates relative to some fitness-related standard. Likely extends to running and swimming too (harder to match work rates there, so less data).

Some examples of point #3:

https://journals.physiology.org/...plphysiol.00361.2013
https://link.springer.com/...07/s00421-015-3264-z
https://europepmc.org/article/med/20386335

So I think both points are correct:
(1) If you eat at a calorie surplus/deficit you'll gain/lose weight and this doesn't depend on age.
(2) If you eat a given amount of calories, it will feel like you have to "work harder" to burn those calories because you're generally a less efficient exerciser as you age.

Basal metabolic rate, which accounts for a large chunk of daily energy-out, also generally decreases with age although I'm not sure how fitness / maintaining muscle mass with age affects that.

Why do you keep talking? You clearly don't know shit about what you are blathering on about. You're 34---not that that inherently means you're stupid. But, you have ZERO experience with what you are claiming to be true.

I'm 51. I've been an athlete since I was 4. I've tracked my body weight, calorie in/out in one way or another, bf% once the tech was available, with varying degrees of precision since you were 9. I've gained shittons of weight, and I've lost the same shit-tons of weight since I became an adult athlete. I've trained seasons at 20+ hours a week, and seasons at 8 hrs per week. I know what my daily non-exercise based consumption was at 25, what my s/b/r calories per mile at 25...and all that data at 51 and most ages in-between. I still have spreadsheets with all this shit in it from the 1990s for fucks sake.

I may not be a nutritionist, or a physiologist, or a doctor...but, I know my own body pretty damn well over 5 decades of living with it, and 3 decades of collecting data on it. There ABSOLUTELY is a significant slow down in both RMR, and active metabolic rates. Even when adjusted for activity level there is still a CLEAR age component in caloric expenditure. There are fundamental shifts in the way your body metabolizes subtrates, and utilizes stored fats as you age as well.

However, all of that is barely preceptible at age 34/35. So, yeah...these effects have negligible impacts on the mid-30s athlete. In that specific context, I agree its largely a crutch.

Its WAAAY beyond that at age 51....and it doesn't get better from there.

Yes, calories in / calories out still works. But, as calories OUT goes DOWN (for the reasons mentioned above)...the margin for error gets smaller---you're playing limbo with a lower bar. The ability for consumption to outpace expenditure goes up significantly with age, as expenditure goes down...and appetite remains largely unaffected.

It takes significantly more vigilance to maintain a deficit at 51 than it did at 27---because at 27 I burned 5000 calories a day. I was mostly unable to consume that much food without just eating a gallon of icecream. In the last three years I can count the number of times I've exceeded 3500 calories expended on two hands...and I don't recall breaking 4000 even once.

well I keep talking because you don't listen. You just re-iterated what I said. Thank you!

Age is not making you fat, its one's inability to evolve the intake that is making you fat. This is where folks in any age cohort will start bitching about how they can't eat what they used to, etc. etc.


I might be only 34 but my father is 70 and still boasts a visible 6 pack and can bench 225lbs...oh, and he's 5'7'' and weighs 140. Picked up lifting at age 60 and weighed 155 at the time.

Calories In - Calories Out = weight management at any age.

Yes you have to learn how your calories out changes over time.
Yes you have to understand the quality and content of your calories in.


but aside from that, it is the only formula that matters!

I agree 100% with you. I am 53, and at age 40 I weighed 158 lbs. I now weigh 175 lbs. I am eating the same. Now some of that is due to being a cyclist and not a runner. I used to run 50-60 mpw and could eat anything I wanted. Now I ride 7-8 hours per week, most of it at a high intensity, with zero running. And yet I cannot lose more than a few lbs. My metabolism has absolutely changed significantly since age 40.

lol sure you can. this is the classic example. You just don't want to lose weight.

The big mac has 1.3g of transfat, and artificial fat the body cannot metabolize so it fails the calories/in out principle (mostly in the bread and sauce from damaged soybean oil). So 12 of those 563 calories remain 'permanent' calories collecting in your arteries, colon, or breast tissue. So you can only 'burn' at most 551 calories. Unless you get arterial scraping surgery done.

Did I say I was "fat"? No, I belive I already noted on page 1, I'm 5'11" / 145 lbs, ~10% body fat. I weighed 142 at 19. I weighed 170 at age 27 after getting married and having three kids. I lost 25 lbs in 2 months, then. I weighed 210 at age 45 after a 10 year battle with an overuse injury. I lost 60 lbs in 9 months. I know how it works----I've done it...at both age ranges. I've done it at age 27. I've done it at age 45. and I know how to KEEP IT OFF at age 51.


ETA:

That's the REAL point. And THAT is what's hard as a Master Athlete. Yes, fine thermodynamics is true. But...weight-loss is a psychological problem, not a thermodynamics problem.

I still have the brain of that 19 year old. I still have the appetite and portion concept of that 19 year old (I can still easily devour a bag of doritos, or a gallon of ice cream, or a 6 pack of Coke...or god dammit... all three). I still have the athletic drive of that 19 year old, and I'm still pretty fucking fast (for a M50-54 year old). But, I cannot eat like he did. period. So, I don't---that is not easy, because I used to...and I sometimes WANT to.

It IS harder at one age versus another. Becuase it gets harder and harder to eat small enough amounts of food. I count my calories, daily. I probably border on having an eating disorder from the level of "rigor" I exert over my consumption.

Age is not an EXCUSE any more than any other obstacle. But, it IS AN OBSTACLE that must be overcome. You can't go around it, you can wish it away. Well you can, but that only works one way...weight managment is less of an issue then. To suggest that it is NOT an obstacle (as a 34 year old...Ha!) is ...well... the height of arrogance. You will learn....in 16 years. You may....like me (and your dad)...learn how to manage it and overcome it. Or you may give up and just get fat---because it is work. But either way....you will learn.

Ok. virtually ALL of that is WRONG---or, at best, wildly misleading.

That is nto to say that transfats aren't bad. They CLEARLY are. But, not for the reasons you are listing.

See above. It can be done. I did it in my late 40s....and I continue to manage it now. It does take some work, and learning to understand your "behaviors". I found that high intensity (zone4+) was counter-productive---it stimulated my desire to eat, too strongly. Also, excessively long workouts had a similar impact. I found that any workout that I couldn't complete without pre/during/post fueling simply increased my appetite to compensate...and, usually in excess of what was needed for balance.

I lost 60 lbs by walking and easy cycling...and, sometimes nothing except normal life...never more than about 6 hours a week back then. I also consumed 1200 calories a day with a 1000 cal/day deficit...sustained for 9 months. I averaged a loss rate of 1.7 lbs per week over that time period.

The hard part is that 400 calories is a small meal. It doesn't look like, or feel like enough food. I switched to using a salad plate instead of a normal plate...just so I wouldn't see all the open space on the plate. The psychology here is important...a point lost on our young-whipper-snapper.

I transitioned to a diet much higher in protein (2 g/kg lbm) and lower in carbs. I ended up with an almost even distribution between Pro/Cho/Fat 1/3rd / 1/3rd / 1/3rd. Not exactly on purpose.

Yes, its harder. But, harder is not a reason to not do the work.

That's both completely incorrect and irrelevant to anything I said.

if incorrect prove it. studies shown there is no liver enzyme that can burn artificial transfat. It causes heart disease, and cancer of breast/colon

We are in violent agreement with one another just using different terms to get to the same point

While I am claiming “age is not a factor” I’m simply stating that age is not an obstacle that cannot be overcome. I’m exaggerating to make the point.

Ultimately it’s willpower / discipline that is a factor.

I have a huge pet peeve with folks who say they’re getting fat because of age etc. I think it should be just said as it is “I am getting fat because I eat too much for my level of activity and daily calorie burn”

Obviously based on your stats, you know this already and have no issues (but not without a lot of work and daily discipline )

I think you may be too quick to discount genetics and as well, patting yourself on the back for all your self-proclaimed discipline.

There ARE many body types due to genetics. Some folks for sure will stay thin even into their 60s very easily without even trying, and some folks will never be considered 'thin' without having a real eating disorder.

It does get generally harder to stay thin for everyone as they age, but odds are good you were given the thinner genes if your family members who are old are thin. Thats just luck and genetics.

Triathlon and endurance sports tends to attract and keep people on the lighter side because the results reward it. Folks whose body types tend toward NFL, powerlifting, and sumo tend not to stick around as long or gravitate naturally toward the sports that reward that body type. I'd like to see triathletes crow about their awesome self-discipline about weight control when theyre asked to bulk up to 300 lbs with stacked muscle as expected of NFL linebackers. Suddenly not so realistic. It works both ways.

Willpower counts - but it's a lot smaller a factor than people think. And yes, I've got tons of willpower and I'm not fat (still got the 6-pack in my mid40s), and if there's anything I've learned by expending so much willpower in my life (national-class musician, top Ivy league honors scholar, dual medical degree, blah blah blah) its that one almost always overestimates one's willpower and underestimates the genetic contribution. In my case, my willpower is almost certainly genetically determined - as I've aged up I've seen how machinelike and remorseless my parents can be about accomplishing goals - to a pathologic degree. So I'm not so keen on crowing at how awesome my willpower is.

Your metabolic setpoint for your genetic body weight >>>>> willpower. Even if calories in < calories out continues to hold true - because of how powerful metabolic control of hunger is. Throw in modern bad food environments, and it amplifies the bad effects of weight gain. Willpower absolutely helps, but its role is smaller than you think when it comes to getting an obese or even overweight person to -7 or more BMI points.

The example of his father is a genetic exception and probably he falls into this category being his father has a very efficient metabolism for his age.

It's a fact that metabolism slows as we age. For a select few It's at a smaller rate due to great genetics. Another error he is making is saying it can be overcome with exercise. You can't out train a bad diet. Diet is key, but for most of us we will be fighting a much slower metabolism as we age even with good genetics. No amount of activity level alone can ocercome it.

The problem I have found is that biking simply does not jack up the metabolism to the same degree as running (my N=1 observation). I think part of it is that it is not a full body sport, does not use the core much, and is non weight bearing....the moment I get off the bike, my metabolism goes back to "watching NFL on the couch metabolism". When I finish a run, my body is revv'd up for several hours rebuilding from the run (thus jacking up the metabolism). The same mechanics that allows me to be able to do a 30 hrs week of biking (I have done several in my life on training camps), works against me from barely being able to do an 8-10 hrs week of running. Running just involves too much "repair" offline ffrom the actual run which limits volume while doing the sport, because there is more work after the sport is done. I can also get there with swimming because I can do a bit more volume than with running, but the intensity is waaaaaaaay higher, so it jacks up my metabolism outside the swim. I almost never do a swim session that is 100% easy. There is always intensity and its full body.

Cycling involves more low intensity than most of us think. There is a ton of coasting and recovering that you don't have in run and swim.

So while aging and lowering of metabolism outside sport is a problem, doing less running is a huge problem, and if you can't swim really hard all the time, doing more volume swimming than running, you probably cannot stay lean swimming either (25km week of swimming is barely 8 hrs....I need 40km swim week if swimming only to lean up.....25km week just keeps me at whatever body composition I am at....10km week makes me fat).

If I do single sport only

swimming 10-12 hrs, running 8-10 hrs or biking 16-20 hrs I can sustain the same body composition and with some eating management get lean

You bring up an interesting point about running and how it jumpstarts the metabolism. I have noticed that as well. When I was a runner, I would bang out 10 mile runs almost every day before work. I noticed that I was mentally alert all morning, fired up with a lot of energy, basically feeling like I could do anything. Maybe that is the runners high they talk about. I do not feel the same way after cycling.

On the other hand, my body feels so much better cycling and not running due to the non-weight bearing. My legs and hips would feel beat up after almost every run as I reached my late 40s, and finally it got to be too much to continue.

I clearly need to adjust my calorie intake though if I want to get back under 170 lbs. I wish I could swim like you do, but I suck at swimming. I only did it to be able to race tris.

For me part of the path to be able to do higher volume swimming was learning all 4 strokes and then also doing kick sets in all 4 strokes. That gives you 8 options without killing the shoulders and the intensity is way higher than what you can sustain running. But you also need pool access and organize life around that. Running is way easier. Out the front door, hammer for 50-80 minutes, finish and get on with life 5 min later.

It doesn't need to be running. I'm not sure that there's any science to backup Dev's claim regard Cycling vs. Running in terms of extending the metabolic activity post-exercise, either.

I lost 60 lbs walking (6-10 miles a day) and some (weekend) cycling. For me the key was frequent light activity throughout the day. I'd walk 2 miles in the morning, 1 mile morning break, 3 miles at lunch, 1 mile afternoon break, and another 3 miles after work.

Also what I learned was that any calorie burn above 1000 cal per day, just raised the consumption floor. A deficit greater than 1000 cal/day isn't sustainable for very long at all---so, expenditure above that just means you have to eat more. In some ways that makes getting under the "limbo bar" easier...to a point. But, there came a point of diminishing return...and, for me a point of reversal where it was counter-productive, because its like the appetite exceeds the need. As I mentioned above, intensity seems to exacerbate that problem---the brain says, "Must have Carbs....NOW!" Deny that for very long, and you find yourself asleep on the couch with an empty dorito bag over your head.

You don't create your deficit with exercise. You create the deficit with diet. Exercise just gives you some headroom to make the calorie restriction less sensitive to error.

Finally, the biggest takeaway (for me) to understand? You WILL be hungry. Period. For about a week---the first few days more than the last. After that, my brain seemed to adjust and accept the "new normal". I tried to think that every time I felt hungry that was more weight melting away. Understanding that, made it easier to work my way through. After that first week, it was simply about replicating every day just like the last.

I had short term goals that I focused on. First weigh-in below 190. Last weigh-in above 190. Repeat for each 10 lbs. I weighed myself eery day (still do). My weekly weight fluctuates by about 4 lbs. So, each one of those goals took about 2 weeks to process through. With 2-3 weeks in between. There was always an "almost there" level of anticipation (ie, a so-called "carrot" to chase) that kept my head in the game.

I ate lots of protein, similar calories from fat (the good ones), modest amounts of carbs...low glycemic index / high-fiber / whole grains. Very little sugar. Alcohol on Fri/Sat only. I didn't do cheat/free-for-all days---because it doesn't work for my brain. I just saw them as setbacks---I'd rather just stay on-plan.

Well said Tom. When you are going through 5000 calories a day all it takes to lose weight is to ease your foot off the food pedal. Drink 2 beers instead of 4. Not so hard. At 54 which is my age you have to almost not depress it at all.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Your posts show a major lack of understanding of the complex relationship between age, enzyme function, liver and pancreatic function, metabolic factors, tissue remodeling, hormonal changes, etc etc. I am currently on the research team of the one of the leaders in this field of research and while your elementary model of total calories plays a role, it ignores the myriad of other factors that play a very large role in body comp.

I love you how said you don't do cheat days after revealing your alcohol cheat days. :)

Good post, though. It takes that kind of introspection to find a set of habits that work well for you, in my experience. I stopped drinking alcohol altogether, except a beer when going out with buddies (which given the 'vid means I haven't had a beer in months). I don't miss it.

Alcohol calories were always accounted for and decremented from other calorie sources. So, notwithstanding the metabolic depression effects of alcohol, they were not "cheats". As such, I rarely consumed more than 2 drinks...because, beyond that it detracted from needed real nutrition.

A cheat day to me is/was a day were you do NOT maintain the deficit. Consume what you want, in whatever quantity you want---ideally without tracking. Its supposed to be a "mental break" from the process. I know some people find it helpful...I did not. I can't stop myself from adding the calories up in my head...so, I knew that I'd just blown three days of work, and its going to take another half-week to get back to where I was....yesterday. I found that disheartening. It wasn't worth the food-gasm.

I get it. Just giving you a hard time.

Nor was that fact lost on me. :-)

Nevertheless, someone else might misunderstand the difference---so, it seemed worth clarifying. Instead of just calling you an asshole. (the nicest thing I can call someone :-).