The older I get, the less I understand the notion that getting fat is a natural part of aging

38 and you're talking about being old? lol. you idiot. leave this board and never come back

This kind of guilting and obsessive calorie counting is not effective. We all have different levels of secretion of ghrelin and leptin, hormones that control trigger hunger and satiety. If their balance is off causing you to eat just 10 extra calories a day over maintenance after buffering for NEAT — a cheat card that allows you to eat over what is strictly needed for maintenance by involuntarily making you spend it aggressively— that’s a pound a year, and it is going to be that much more difficult for such people to control their weight compared to someone whose hormones keep them eating within the NEAT-cushioned maintenance range.

For controlling weight, eating a cake is hardly bad if your hormonal calorie counters are working as expected; else it is about as bad as eating the same calories in salmon and avocado (or whatever you think is healthy).

Or 60, it's a lot harder to keep weight off than at 40.

Not to beat the OP over the head with logic or anything, but here are three case studies that prove the point that as the hormonal budget of the body changes, the ability to "burn" calories changes. And as such, eating the same number of calories will result in two different outcomes:

1. A 110 lb 9th grade boy and a 110 lb 9th grade girl both eat the exact same diet and run the same mileage. After two years with this training and diet, would you expect them to still have the same body fat percentage? No. The hormones (estrogen and testosterone) will cause the body to use the calories differently. It isn't about the number of calories. It is about what the body does with them. This is regulated by the endocrine system as well as by the mileage they are running. If the boy started taking estrogen (but kept everything else the same), he would still start to gain weight.

2. My 18 year old self ate 3000 calories a day and ran about 35 miles a week (in the 1990s). My 50 year old self eats closer to 2000 calories a day and runs over 50 miles a week. Back then, I was fighting to keep weight on. Now I am slowly gaining weight. What changed in my body since I was 18?

3. I am eating 2000 calories a day and running over 50 miles a week (and slowly gaining weight) while my cross-fit buddy is "fueling up" on all kinds of insane high calorie foods. He eats much more than me and doesn't really run at all. But he also takes testosterone. Since going on the T he has lost weight and become shredded.

In all three of those scenarios, it is not the "calories in vs. calories out" that is causing the weight gain (or loss). And while I agree that none of this applies to sedentary people eating 4000 calories a day of alcohol and junk food, that is not who we were originally talking about. We are talking about the impact of metabolism (and hormones) on runners as they age.

comeon everybody, sing after me!

"Ohhh ohhh ohhh O Zam pic!"

Right, but why wouldn’t you “eat the same number of calories”? I ate like a horse when I was 16. I’d go to Five Guys and eat 2 double cheeseburgers with fries. I literally couldn’t do that today if I wanted to. Sure, metabolism slows, but appetite also declines. You need less food as you age, so just eat less food.

It works in the other direction as well. For every day someone brings in cake, there are 5 days when I’m busy all day and only manage to throw down a Cliff Bar the whole work day. Eating cake once a month isn’t going to make you fat unless you never do anything to compensate for those excess calories.

That is good thinking. I don't disagree with that. The problem here is that the declining appetite doesn't remain in sync with the metabolism. So while I now only "need" about 1/3 of a hamburger, I would rarely eat 1/3 and then save the rest for later. You can call me a pig, but that isn't really so piggish, is it? And the fact that I am running more (a lot more) than when I was younger doesn't seem to matter at all. People just need to accept that you can run more and eat less AND gain weight. It doesn't happen to everyone but it does happen to a large majority of runners when they are middle-aged. It is no different than "training better/harder/more but still getting slower" which also happens to every single runner at some point.

p.s. I ran well over 2,200 miles last year and gained weight (and I don't drink alcohol). I am in my 50s.

I have family members who have never exercised in their life and not just not fat, they are skinny for old age now, they just never felt the need to eat a lot though. I however "grew old in the ring" so to speak in my late 30's and could no longer do workouts and lost interest after I couldn't PR running for years and got the visceral fat around the belly. My appetite was increasing too as I aged into the late 30's and 40's and that's with already a large appetite through my youth. I cut back on my eating and got back into running slowly but surely years later as just recreation and lost the weight. Its an inescapable conclusion in my mind its all just how much you stuff in your mouth/day, I honestly don't even think the exercise I do makes that much difference a few pounds either way. And with all these ozempic stories where these morbidly obese people lost all their weight because the drug made them not crave food anymore. I'm firmly onboard that its the food stupid.

Just depends how you look at it. Those same people that you call whales could look at you and question why you're so skinny.

It's normal. They aren't over weight. Just a matter of perspective. Also bone structure and leverage plays a huge part. For them to become skinny might be unhealthy for them. It's healthier for them to be "over-weight".

Food plays a huge part in it. Have someone change their diet from highly processed junk to more natural whole foods, even if it is just 3-4 days of the week, and I bet their body as a whole shows signs of improvement. Add a little strength/mobility exercise and you are on the road to recovery.

Genetics does play a huge part in it and we can't ignore that. However, the habits and inputs of food in our body also greatly impact our health.

As a reminder, cigarette companies purchased food companies decades ago and intentionally made their highly processed food more addictive (RJR buying Nabisco).

Old guy here also (62).

What's your height & weight? I take it you have really good genetics if you're still able to still run at your age - and been running for 52 yrs nonetheless.

I was runner for about 25 yrs + before chronic injuries & post-traumatic OA put a screeching halt on running about 3 yrs ago (I can manage one run per week but pay the price the next day).

I do a 50/50 cardio-weight training split (spin bike/free weights & machines).

I'm 175 lbs (5'6") with a little too high BF% (~20%) but I have decent muscularity, size & strength for someone my age not on TRT.

However, I weigh more like 20 lbs heavier than my high school football weight (155 lbs) - the good old days when I could eat anything & not gain fat. 😆

The original poster isn't even 40. I'm only 43 so feel I should probably wait at least 10-15 years to make any judgements on the topic. It wasn't until I was 41-42 when I felt like diet had any impact on my weight, but at 43 I definitely eat fewer calories that I used to in order to maintain the same weight. Prior to a couple years ago I'd have to eat more than my hunger would tell me to in order to get over 155 lbs. Now I have to eat less than my hunger would tell me to in order to stay under 155 lbs.

I was saying the same thing. 30's and 40's and talking about being old and weight is laughable. Old age is coming and it's not your 30's and 40's. Stay humble future fat axxes.

Your weight is a simple (however hard people try to make it complicated) balance between calories in and calories out. As most people age they tend to move less. There is also the obvious factor of time, a small calorie excess every day will have a cumulative effect, let's say over a year it causes a weight gain of 2 pounds, over a decade that is 20 pounds.

If you eat as much as you did when you ran, but don't run anymore, you are going to get fat, that is just a fact. You've reduced your caloric intake to match your lack of exercise, as many do. It may be easy for some but for others, for whatever psychological, genetic or social reasons this is harder. If self-control was easy there just wouldn't be as much fat people as there are. To just brush everyone off as gluttons is silly.

40 is still manageable. Basically the bottom line is that the older you get the more your metabolism slows down so you can’t eat the same amount of food and expect to maintain your weight. If you do, you need to do more to burn it off. For some it’s more difficult. But for many they don’t care. They eat poor diets, too many calories and stop or minimize exercise. So yeah they’ll get fat.

I actually have people ask to see my ID because they don't believe I'm 64. Most of my friends are younger and the few that I have who are my age are runners who have been fit for decades like me.

When they say I don't look like someone in my 60's I say maybe THIS is what being in your 60's should be.

I didn't spend all the previous years destroying my body.

10 years ago I had hernia surgery. The doctor said the surgery was simple because I have minimal body fat in that part of my body.

It takes more for me to keep a 6 pack. I used to eat a pound of pasta and feel fine, now I eat less than half that feel bloated and full. You adjust but I will never be malnourished.