Calorie intake as you are getting older?

[bell1986]

Hey guys.

I've noticed that every calorie tracking app seems to drop your calories a fair amount as you age. I watched a layne norton video and he mentioned that the metabolism decrease with aging is a myth. He says something along the lines of. As you age you naturally begin to slow up. NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis). He says your actual metabolism barely changes. I'm not sure how accurate this is but I would say for me personally. I eat more now than in my 20's. This is because of a job change. I walk 20-30k steps everyday in my job. It's very physical.

I went into a bulk phase around 3 weeks ago. I started straight away on 3500 calories and waited a week to see what this would do. I lost weight. I have now bumped it to 4000 calories. Waited a week and my weight has stayed steady. I'm gonna stay here and wait it out and see if my weight slowly climbs. I'm not doing a hard bulk. I've done that before and it's just not worth the cutting phase.

What's everyone's. Bulking calories. Maintenance calories. Cutting calories.

Mines are

Cutting = 2800
Maintenence = 3500
Bulking = 4000-4200

Have you noticed changes as you have aged? Any drop in NEAT? Has your metabolism changed?

I'm certain that at 21 your body will manage your nutrition better but I don't believe the slowed metabolism.

My work friend is 68 years old and he easily is knocking back 3500+ calories and is very slim. We're all very physical though.

Be interesting to find out how your body's have changed with age?

 

[sns8778]

I think this is something that is very individualized.

I think most people at least feel like their metabolism slows down. It may be a combination of metabolism slowing down &/or us slowing down haha.

 

[Smont]

I think this is something that is very individualized.

I think most people at least feel like their metabolism slows down. It may be a combination of metabolism slowing down &/or us slowing down haha.

Definately us slowing down. I actually had a long conversation with someone about this the other day. When we're kids we ride bikes and we went outside and played in the yard and we played basketball and did a million things all the time. As adults we drive cars and sit on our ass lol. Lots of my weight loss ppl (i dont have a large sample pool, only 10 at a time) but still, all of them notice as i increase there activity levels There metabolism picks up. In bodybuilding you hear guys Talk about building up your metabolism on a bulk so they can eat more on a cut. My guys that run almost daily love To tell me how they screwed up and ate a bag of oreos or something and didn't get any weight. I'm obviously not recommending that but I've noticed similar things.I can get away with myself. I also notice people who Eat frequently several times a day.Seem to be better at burning calories Then the person who does one meal a day or only eats when they're hungry.

But as a whole, id bet my children that Our metabolism slowing down mostly comes from us slowing down.

 

[Smont]

Right now at 195lbs im cutting and eating over 3000cal a day, Metabolism is cranking and i've yet to see a reason to reduce calories below three thousand. Although it's coming soon.

Actually this thread makes me want to start a thread about the importance of building up your metabolism!

 

[bell1986]

I think this is something that is very individualized.

I think most people at least feel like their metabolism slows down. It may be a combination of metabolism slowing down &/or us slowing down haha.

Yeh Layne Norton said this. He says we think our metabolisms actually slow down but most times it's age causing us to slow up and we do far less NEAT.

I do think I could have ate slightly more in my late teens early 20's. Especially if I was doing my same output as just now.

 

[sns8778]

Yeh Layne Norton said this. He says we think our metabolisms actually slow down but most times it's age causing us to slow up and we do far less NEAT.

I do think I could have ate slightly more in my late teens early 20's. Especially if I was doing my same output as just now.

I think its a combination of both. I do think that we slow down, but I do think that our metabolisms slow down.

I understand where he is coming from, but not everyone has lived a life with his level of dedication to diet and training. For those that haven't, which is 99% of the population, things we do to our own bodies over the years I think have an impact on slowing our metabolisms to various degrees; and I think it also can vary by the person.

 

[Resolve10]

I want to preface this with first saying I haven't seen whatever video of Layne this is referencing so I don't want to address what he may or may not have actually been implying.

Second, I am trying not to get too far off the specific topic addressed in the original post because I feel this is an issue a lot of people don't really understand because they don't fully even understand or define what they mean when they say "metabolism" and because (as already is starting based on this thread) people begin to mix up what they mean by interactions with metabolism with things like age versus confusing how it relates with issues like metabolic adaptation.

While NEAT falling during "aging" might be a contributing factor to why it may seem to decrease with age changes in fat free mass are going to do a strong job of explaining changes (or lack of change) in metabolism as we age.

Energy expenditure is proportionally related to fat free mass, meaning changes in fat free mass describe most of the changes here. Metabolism will be highest (in relation to fat free mass) after birth, decline til near 20s, then is actually pretty constant (again in relation for fat free mass) until 60: Invalid Link Removed

Not going to get into how, why, and what are going to effect fat free mass and why that may decline with age (or if it even does), but that will relate to probably what Layne was talking about with NEAT.

It probably doesn't make sense to have "bulking", "cutting", or "maintenance" calorie levels that never change, these are going to be dynamic and are going to shift based on a ton of factors. Sure maybe they'll be "similar" for an individual if most factors don't change, but them changing shouldn't be seen as odd.

Yeh Layne Norton said this. He says we think our metabolisms actually slow down but most times it's age causing us to slow up and we do far less NEAT.

I do think I could have ate slightly more in my late teens early 20's. Especially if I was doing my same output as just now.

It is probably a cyclical effect of doing less NEAT and actual physical activity leads to lower levels of fat free mass which then leads to even more compensation for this loss of mass and doing less, etc etc.

There is also always the strong possibility you just are misremembering how much output you were doing or what you could have gotten away with compared to when you were younger and that many other factors have probably changed as well, but it could also be true do to potential issues with constrained versus additive energy models and increased exercise efficiency over time.

 

[bell1986]

I want to preface this with first saying I haven't seen whatever video of Layne this is referencing so I don't want to address what he may or may not have actually been implying.

Second, I am trying not to get too far off the specific topic addressed in the original post because I feel this is an issue a lot of people don't really understand because they don't fully even understand or define what they mean when they say "metabolism" and because (as already is starting based on this thread) people begin to mix up what they mean by interactions with metabolism with things like age versus confusing how it relates with issues like metabolic adaptation.

While NEAT falling during "aging" might be a contributing factor to why it may seem to decrease with age changes in fat free mass are going to do a strong job of explaining changes (or lack of change) in metabolism as we age.

Energy expenditure is proportionally related to fat free mass, meaning changes in fat free mass describe most of the changes here. Metabolism will be highest (in relation to fat free mass) after birth, decline til near 20s, then is actually pretty constant (again in relation for fat free mass) until 60: Invalid Link Removed

Not going to get into how, why, and what are going to effect fat free mass and why that may decline with age (or if it even does), but that will relate to probably what Layne was talking about with NEAT.

It probably doesn't make sense to have "bulking", "cutting", or "maintenance" calorie levels that never change, these are going to be dynamic and are going to shift based on a ton of factors. Sure maybe they'll be "similar" for an individual if most factors don't change, but them changing shouldn't be seen as odd.



It is probably a cyclical effect of doing less NEAT and actual physical activity leads to lower levels of fat free mass which then leads to even more compensation for this loss of mass and doing less, etc etc.

There is also always the strong possibility you just are misremembering how much output you were doing or what you could have gotten away with compared to when you were younger and that many other factors have probably changed as well, but it could also be true do to potential issues with constrained versus additive energy models and increased exercise efficiency over time.

Hey

Thanks for your input.

Do you think the fat free mass issue with age is hormonally driven?

I've noticed as I've aged that my stomach/love handles are a b*tch to keep leaner. I'm on TRT aswell and I backfill a few other hormones. DHEA/Pregnenolone. It still hasn't helped with these areas. I am lean but would happily take some more off those areas lol

I know one thing. I'm more stressed now in my late 30's than my early 20's. Stress = higher cortisol which I'm assuming will lead to more fat stored around these areas?

I do have a couple bottles of Evomuse Ammo their which I will have a run with when my cut comes. Ammo is to drop cortisol levels. Be interesting to see if my mid section drops more than usual? I have old calliper readings that I can compare with.

I can still get away with alot of food. One thing that I feel is very important as we age is. Food quality. If I ate my 4000+ calories of processed food my weight would definitely go up quicker. I would store way more fat in these problem areas. I know everyone says its calories in vs calories out but the actually quality of those calories have a massive impact on my body composition.

I don't eat perfect 365 days a year. I do have the odd junk food. I don't always track aswell as I find it becomes an obsession. I do try and eat good quality though. I personally feel this is important. Especially as I've got older. I'm certain I could have got away with junk food in my late teens/early 20's. I couldn't eat like that now so Yeh their must be changes within us.

 

[Resolve10]

Sure hormonal changes can effect fat free mass, but I think in general they are overstated and that a lot of these declines can be mitigated by proper training, diet, and consistency.

I really doubt if you met your proper protein requirements, still ate adequate fiber, and got plenty of other nutritious foods that if you filled in the rest of a diet above 4000 calories with quite a few options that aren't super "clean" you'd see much detriment to body composition or performance gains. It is hard to eat 4000 calories of only non-processed foods (and probably a pain in the ass), no need to try and attach false assumptions to more processed options when everything else is taken care of. Obviously a completely unreasonable comparison between only highly processed and non-processed foods would lead to highly processed foods being inferior, but anyone serious wouldn't put them in such a all or nothing situation (I'd hope).

If you don't always track I'd question how reliable your recollection would be for how much you are actually consuming via quality foods now versus in the past. I find a lot of times when people think more processed foods are more inherently fattening for them they are just doing a poor job of accurately tracking how much of these foods they actually consume, which means they are eating more than they think, hence the weight gain (which the ease of eating more of it and it not being satiating is probably the main "problem').

If you are gaining more fat than you like it is because you are eating more than you should, you aren't training properly to promote proper stimulus for growth, or gains are just slower because you have been going at it for longer and are closer to your ceiling. People feel things were faster or made better gains in the past because they literally were, each year you train your gains are going to be less and less and less so you get less return for your investment.

 

[Dustin07]

I watched a layne norton video and he mentioned that the metabolism decrease with aging is a myth. He says something along the lines of. As you age you naturally begin to slow up. NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis).

I haven't seen the video but I have many times pondered things along these lines. like @Smont pointed out, back in the day we had that hour of mandatory PE with some running, weights, whatever, but all the free time was racing BMX, and then there were school sports on top of that. Wrestling, football, etc. Running 5 miles after thanksgiving dinner to make sure I made weight etc.

It's one of the reasons I honestly look for hobbies/activities (like walking a round of golf instead of carting) that are active because I know nothing compares to the countless hours every single day that I spent on my bike as a kid.

 

[GreenMachineX]

I haven't seen the video but I have many times pondered things along these lines. like @Smont pointed out, back in the day we had that hour of mandatory PE with some running, weights, whatever, but all the free time was racing BMX, and then there were school sports on top of that. Wrestling, football, etc. Running 5 miles after thanksgiving dinner to make sure I made weight etc.

It's one of the reasons I honestly look for hobbies/activities (like walking a round of golf instead of carting) that are active because I know nothing compares to the countless hours every single day that I spent on my bike as a kid.

Totally off topic but saw something funny on X the other day about golf…they said it was created because men were too scared to ask other men to go on walks together

 

[Nitrox]

Second, I am trying not to get too far off the specific topic addressed in the original post because I feel this is an issue a lot of people don't really understand because they don't fully even understand or define what they mean when they say "metabolism" and because (as already is starting based on this thread) people begin to mix up what they mean by interactions with metabolism with things like age versus confusing how it relates with issues like metabolic adaptation.

Good call.

'Metabolism' is often used to describe maintenance energy requirements. While it is a component of it, it is not the sole factor.

Maintenance energy requirement = metabolic rate + activity level. Test drops as we age, this reduces max muscle potential, which reduces max potential metabolic rate. If activity level remains the same then maintenance calories will drop.

Then there is also the tendency that we do less physical activity as we age. Of course we can put in the effort to ensure that does not happen but many folks simply do not...

 

[Julianbee]

I’ll be 41 in a few months and my calorie ranges (bulks,cuts,maintenance) have been relatively the same since I started keeping track of calories about 14 years ago.

I bulk on at least 3500 calories per day.
I can get shredded eating 2000 calories per day.
If I eat around 3000 calories, I maintain my current look.

What I’ve noticed with my clients and myself is the amount of calories a person needs for cut/bulks is very individualistic.

I had a male client that had to cut on less than 1600 calories per day and another that literally was cutting on twice that amount.