It finally happened to me...

[Anonymous]

OP, find a bodyweight program online, there are loads and commit to 3x a week, say Tues/R/Sat. It will be more effective than dumbbells. Then in addition, do squats when cooking, on the phone, etc. Can you go for a brisk walk at lunch a few times a week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am 49 years old. I have been 132 lbs my entire adult life - 5'4". Even after kids, went back to 132. Well, here I am at 49 and have gained 5 pounds this year. Now 137. My eating has not changed. My current diet is mostly IF and low carb with indulgences like pizza once a week and dessert/cocktail on weekends. But the weight crept on this year. I have found unless I go (i) zero carbs, (ii) IF and (iii) no sugar, I cannot get back to 132. The thing is, I like to eat. I eat relatively healthy, but I like to have dessert and a cocktail or two on weekends. I am trying to come to terms with the fact that either I do no carb/no sugar to get back to 132 (which I was always trying to get below anyway) or I just enjoy my life and suck it up at being 137. Anyone relate?

Same with me. Only thing that is making me lose weight is because i had to change my diet due to reflux.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here: Yes, gain has been steady in 2023. And I am not sure I am "done" with the weight gain. As I mentioned, unless I really deprive myself (no carbs, no sugar), I cannot get back down to my usual weight of 132, which I was never happy about to begin with. I do daily yoga and weekend long walks - this is about all my current schedule allows. I may try to put some heavy weights in my kitchen and left when I can here and there. It's a bummer.

Take a good hard look at your lifestyle what has changed in the last year. Sure metabolism changes as we age, but it does not happen over night/in the course of a year. Everyone wants to blame losing muscle as we age on slower metabolism and fat gain as we age, but even this does no happen all at overnight. It is insanely gradual, happens more after the age of 60 largely and is largely impacted by changes in lifestyle, like becoming more sedentary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really much of a difference between 132 and 137? Seems like such a ridiculous thing to care about.

It becomes 5 lbs per year quickly at that age…. need to counter the muscle loss.

Np, and I was getting ready to type the same thing. Op is right to nip it in the bud now before she looks up and is 20 lbs. heavier.

[Anonymous]

OP here again checking back in. So the 5lbs seems here to say. It sucks. If I go a couple of weeks no carbs, no sugar, IF, I can lose a few pounds and maybe get back to 134. Otherwise, it is here to stay and maybe even creeping a bit. It is just so jarring because I have weighed the same for 30 years. I do yoga daily and walks 2-3 a week but have not yet done weight lifting. I am just not sure I can do deprivation diet at this point. I still have my busy life of work and kids so a drastic change to diet is just not happening right now. I retire in 5 years and maybe then I will have more time to do more focused dieting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am 49 years old. I have been 132 lbs my entire adult life - 5'4". Even after kids, went back to 132. Well, here I am at 49 and have gained 5 pounds this year. Now 137. My eating has not changed. My current diet is mostly IF and low carb with indulgences like pizza once a week and dessert/cocktail on weekends. But the weight crept on this year. I have found unless I go (i) zero carbs, (ii) IF and (iii) no sugar, I cannot get back to 132. The thing is, I like to eat. I eat relatively healthy, but I like to have dessert and a cocktail or two on weekends. I am trying to come to terms with the fact that either I do no carb/no sugar to get back to 132 (which I was always trying to get below anyway) or I just enjoy my life and suck it up at being 137. Anyone relate?

I gained way more weight ( lost it) but no 137 still sounds healthy to me so can't really relate. I would check with your doctor because you sound perfectly fine. Why wouldn't you want to have dessert or wine once in a while? We all are going to die sooner or later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really much of a difference between 132 and 137? Seems like such a ridiculous thing to care about.

I'm 5'7 and the difference between 140 and 145 is a pants size.

Exactly. It’s not nothing at these weight ranges. 5 lbs either way at my 125 is significant and at 130 I feel it in my clothing and endurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:132 is already too high, you need a lifestyle change

Gtfo! According to every semaglutide post we have to suffer through most of this forum wishes they were this weight range.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s hormonal changes causing your body to lose muscle mass. The only solution is lifting regularly.

This. Also, the drop in estrogen in peri causes insulin resistance to increase, insulin tells the body to store fat. I found longer fasting than just TRE was really helpful, also an earlier bedtime and trying to be more active during the day in addition to just exercise sessions. If you can't lift, start a bodyweight workout plan, very effective. Try a few alternate day fasts, 36-42 hours, it was very helpful to me and over time the weight gets easier to shift. If possible, walk for 15 minutes after you have indulgences, really helps the body regulate glucose and insulin.

I'd also think of it as health and quality of life aging, not just weight. Greater muscle mass in 50s lowers risk of Alzheimer's and diabetes. Abdominal fat is especially linked to disease. https://www.dietdoctor.com/simple-waist-height-ratio-powerful-health-measurement

[Anonymous]

OP, I found tightening up on days I did not plan to indulge made a difference, the midlife shift in hormones warrants a new approach. I eat 2 full protein heavy meals on days I don't fast, no snacking or sipping milky coffee all day. Completely spacing eating allows insulin time to fall and stay low.

On days I do indulge, eating & having wine EARLIER, then going for a walk helps. I used to graze and eat quite late and in midlife it just became untenable. If you can get a CGM to wear, even for 2 weeks, it's great data.

Consider swapping some of your weekend treats for a lower carb/sugar version r/ketodrunk, think strawberries and whipped cream, a few bites of something decadent rather than a full portion, berries and a square of very dark chocolate, etc. Maybe indulge once on weekend rather than all weekend?

When estrogen drops it is harder to manage weight and health risks change. I'd increase fasting and weight training to get weight down and then make sustainable swaps going forward. New stage of life = new strategies needed. The risks for heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's are real and are all linked to metabolic health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, find a bodyweight program online, there are loads and commit to 3x a week, say Tues/R/Sat. It will be more effective than dumbbells. Then in addition, do squats when cooking, on the phone, etc. Can you go for a brisk walk at lunch a few times a week?

What is the different between bodyweight and dumbells? Aren't you referring to lifting weights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here again checking back in. So the 5lbs seems here to say. It sucks. If I go a couple of weeks no carbs, no sugar, IF, I can lose a few pounds and maybe get back to 134. Otherwise, it is here to stay and maybe even creeping a bit. It is just so jarring because I have weighed the same for 30 years. I do yoga daily and walks 2-3 a week but have not yet done weight lifting. I am just not sure I can do deprivation diet at this point. I still have my busy life of work and kids so a drastic change to diet is just not happening right now. I retire in 5 years and maybe then I will have more time to do more focused dieting.

You are basically doing zero exercise. That doesn’t really count. You need to do some actual exercise if you want to keep the same eating habits.

53 and still the same weight as my 20s (slightly differs shape). I haven’t changed my diet at all and I run and lift weights. I’ve had tomramomupmth exercise a bit because I like to eat and I’m not giving that up.

[Anonymous]

Get 8k steps a day, even if broken up, and boost baseline activity. Get up and move for a few minutes every hour. Do squats while cooking, wall or pushups or pushups, other bodyweight moves, a few an hour. 10 min walks after meals helps a lot. Take a listen to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKzOr1sA-I8

[Anonymous]

Walk more, OP. For weight and health

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/number-steps-day-more-important-step-intensity#

Get a fit bit or old fashioned pedometer or use an app and aim for 8k steps daily. A few short walks a day and getting up and moving more should hit that target.

It's so important for health and quality of life as we age. Squats are key too, quads are the muscle of independence in the elderly and can be done throughout the day as exercise snacks. Quads are key to independence and not becoming frail as is muscle overall.

Be sure to get at least 30g of protein per meal, animal protein is more bioavailable. A protein rich diet and weight or bodyweight training helps fight the muscle and bone loss that comes with aging.

[Anonymous]

Super interesting new study

Physical inactivity causes exercise resistance of fat metabolism: harbinger or culprit of disease?

https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1113/JP284169

Abstract

Physical inactivity is the fourth leading cause of death in the world. It is associated with myriad diseases and premature death. Two possible contributing factors are postprandial lipidaemia (PPL), which accelerates atherosclerosis, and impaired whole-body fat oxidation, which contributes to obesity. Acute exercise in physically active people is effective for increasing whole body fat oxidation and lowering PPL the next morning. However, in people who have low physical activity (<8000 steps/day), an acute bout of exercise (1 h at 62% maximal oxygen consumption) has no effect on increasing fat oxidation or reducing PPL (‘exercise resistance’). The acute harms of inactivity are not due to the lack of exercise and are more powerful than the benefits of exercise, at least regarding fat metabolism. The increase in mortality with reduced daily steps is remarkably steep. Low background steps/day also impair the metabolic adaptations to short-term endurance training, suggesting that the ills of inactivity extend beyond fat metabolism. ‘Exercise resistance’ with inactivity could be a culprit, causing atherosclerosis, or maybe also a harbinger (impaired fat oxidation) of more widespread diseases. Recommendations regarding the amount of moderate to vigorous exercise needed for health should factor in the amount of background activity (i.e. ∼8000 steps/day) necessary to avoid ‘exercise resistance’.