Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why the aches and pains right around 40?
Replies
-
I was plagued by aches and pains from knackered joints in my 20s.
Those joints hurt much less now I'm in my 40s - because I am WAY, WAY fitter than I was in my 20s, and thus my muscles and tendons are able to take a lot of the strain off the joints themselves.2 -
This was a discussion I had with a client just a few days ago. He wasn't overweight, he walked daily and did some minimal bodyweight exercise occasionally. He asked if I knew why aches and pains in joints, etc. start to really pick up around age 40 or so.
So just going back to my learning of physiology, the human body really hasn't changed for thousands of years. If we're looking at it objectively, like any other animal we instinctively look to procreate to carry our genes down line. In the early human years on Earth, all we did was what other animals did. Females start to have periods about 10-13 years old. Obviously at that time, they can get pregnant. Males are also high in testosterone around the same age. IF the goal was to just rear children and feed them, then this would be a good age because there's less complications with birth and one is still young enough and fleet enough to gather/kill for food and feed the family. Ev en today, most people's peak physical performance was in their teens and into their mid 20's or so. Without medical intervention, what is the average human life expectancy barring being killed by accident or murder back then? Probably right around 40-45 years old (a guess). So by the time you hit 40, the body is getting worn out. You don't run as fast and you likely don't see as well either. If you're the male leader of the group and can't lead as well, normally a younger male will challenge and likely beat you out. And so on and so on.
Of course now with medical intervention and technology, along with understanding how cells work, better option for food for complete nutrition (not just berries and freshly killed meat), and physical exercise, we've obviously been able to extend human life expectancy to much much higher years. But also look at how much less physical one becomes and how much more fragile we are in those later years.
So why 40? IMO (and based on evidence) it's because the human body likely wasn't made to last too much longer than that naturally.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You're forgetting (or just not realizing) that there's a higher risk of cephalopelvic disproportion (in short, the infants head being larger than their mother's pelvis) with people of small stature. Most 10-13 year olds fit that bill as they haven't stopped growings. This can, quite logically, lead to major complications and death to both the mother and the infant.
In short, 10-13 years old is not an optimal time for a girl to give birth.6 -
Oh I know the majority of my aches and pains are just from wear and tear. I tennis elbow and golfers elbow, patellar tendinitis in my left knee, a little biceps tendinitis and just the old "getting out of bed" creaks and cracks. So they're not unexplained.lynn_glenmont wrote: »This was a discussion I had with a client just a few days ago. He wasn't overweight, he walked daily and did some minimal bodyweight exercise occasionally. He asked if I knew why aches and pains in joints, etc. start to really pick up around age 40 or so.
So just going back to my learning of physiology, the human body really hasn't changed for thousands of years. If we're looking at it objectively, like any other animal we instinctively look to procreate to carry our genes down line. In the early human years on Earth, all we did was what other animals did. Females start to have periods about 10-13 years old. Obviously at that time, they can get pregnant. Males are also high in testosterone around the same age. IF the goal was to just rear children and feed them, then this would be a good age because there's less complications with birth and one is still young enough and fleet enough to gather/kill for food and feed the family. Ev en today, most people's peak physical performance was in their teens and into their mid 20's or so. Without medical intervention, what is the average human life expectancy barring being killed by accident or murder back then? Probably right around 40-45 years old (a guess). So by the time you hit 40, the body is getting worn out. You don't run as fast and you likely don't see as well either. If you're the male leader of the group and can't lead as well, normally a younger male will challenge and likely beat you out. And so on and so on.
Of course now with medical intervention and technology, along with understanding how cells work, better option for food for complete nutrition (not just berries and freshly killed meat), and physical exercise, we've obviously been able to extend human life expectancy to much much higher years. But also look at how much less physical one becomes and how much more fragile we are in those later years.
So why 40? IMO (and based on evidence) it's because the human body likely wasn't made to last too much longer than that naturally.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Did you by any chance suggest he see a doctor to rule out a medical cause for this onset of unexplained aches and pains? Autoimmune diseases spring to mind, but I'm sure there are lots of other potential medical issues this could be a symptom of.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
This was a discussion I had with a client just a few days ago. He wasn't overweight, he walked daily and did some minimal bodyweight exercise occasionally. He asked if I knew why aches and pains in joints, etc. start to really pick up around age 40 or so.
So just going back to my learning of physiology, the human body really hasn't changed for thousands of years. If we're looking at it objectively, like any other animal we instinctively look to procreate to carry our genes down line. In the early human years on Earth, all we did was what other animals did. Females start to have periods about 10-13 years old. Obviously at that time, they can get pregnant. Males are also high in testosterone around the same age. IF the goal was to just rear children and feed them, then this would be a good age because there's less complications with birth and one is still young enough and fleet enough to gather/kill for food and feed the family. Ev en today, most people's peak physical performance was in their teens and into their mid 20's or so. Without medical intervention, what is the average human life expectancy barring being killed by accident or murder back then? Probably right around 40-45 years old (a guess). So by the time you hit 40, the body is getting worn out. You don't run as fast and you likely don't see as well either. If you're the male leader of the group and can't lead as well, normally a younger male will challenge and likely beat you out. And so on and so on.
Of course now with medical intervention and technology, along with understanding how cells work, better option for food for complete nutrition (not just berries and freshly killed meat), and physical exercise, we've obviously been able to extend human life expectancy to much much higher years. But also look at how much less physical one becomes and how much more fragile we are in those later years.
So why 40? IMO (and based on evidence) it's because the human body likely wasn't made to last too much longer than that naturally.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
You're forgetting (or just not realizing) that there's a higher risk of cephalopelvic disproportion (in short, the infants head being larger than their mother's pelvis) with people of small stature. Most 10-13 year olds fit that bill as they haven't stopped growings. This can, quite logically, lead to major complications and death to both the mother and the infant.
In short, 10-13 years old is not an optimal time for a girl to give birth.
Also seems an age based on modern nutrition. I'm not sure about time of first menses in traditional cultures, but I believe records for the USA in the 1800s put the age more at 16.6 -
I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)7 -
two words. tom brady6
-
I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
The birth canal issue? New research is questioning if natural selection explains birth canal issues or if it is genetic drift. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/birth-canals-are-different-all-over-world-countering-long-held-evolutionary-theory1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
The birth canal issue? New research is questioning if natural selection explains birth canal issues or if it is genetic drift. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/birth-canals-are-different-all-over-world-countering-long-held-evolutionary-theory
Not specifically birth canal. Intending more to speak to the point that early motherhood is dangerous to mother and child (which it possibly is). History suggests that while we humans think maternal/child mortality a sad outcome to be avoided, history cheerfully rolls on despite pretty terrible results in that arena for centuries, possibly millennia.
If we breed early, and some of us survive, and someone survives long enough to raise those children who survive, until they can reach breeding age, we have a sustainable species, and sustainability in the stronger genetic lines as well.
The "wearing out" hypothesis for 40+ aches and pains has some credibility, in that scheme. Perhaps we moderns are living longer than needful (from an evolutionary standpoint), I dunno. As an individual (who is not a longevity/geriatric-health researcher), I think it's suboptimal to shift focus, more than fleetingly, from "what can I do to stay strong and healthy as long as possible" to "why am I having more aches and pains at 40". It's amusing to discuss, though.
I believe you're correct about earlier menses in the modern era, though. I haven't followed it closely, but had the impression that there's a lot of debate about why.
Edited: typo2 -
There's also the, if we breed often enough, there will be enough children who survive to help support the family. That implies that a. a bunch of infants and children were dying and b. if children started having children in their teens/preteens then they would have likely been having them into their adulthood as well.
That said, I'm not an anthropologist.1 -
Oh I know the majority of my aches and pains are just from wear and tear. I tennis elbow and golfers elbow, patellar tendinitis in my left knee, a little biceps tendinitis and just the old "getting out of bed" creaks and cracks. So they're not unexplained.lynn_glenmont wrote: »This was a discussion I had with a client just a few days ago. He wasn't overweight, he walked daily and did some minimal bodyweight exercise occasionally. He asked if I knew why aches and pains in joints, etc. start to really pick up around age 40 or so.
So just going back to my learning of physiology, the human body really hasn't changed for thousands of years. If we're looking at it objectively, like any other animal we instinctively look to procreate to carry our genes down line. In the early human years on Earth, all we did was what other animals did. Females start to have periods about 10-13 years old. Obviously at that time, they can get pregnant. Males are also high in testosterone around the same age. IF the goal was to just rear children and feed them, then this would be a good age because there's less complications with birth and one is still young enough and fleet enough to gather/kill for food and feed the family. Ev en today, most people's peak physical performance was in their teens and into their mid 20's or so. Without medical intervention, what is the average human life expectancy barring being killed by accident or murder back then? Probably right around 40-45 years old (a guess). So by the time you hit 40, the body is getting worn out. You don't run as fast and you likely don't see as well either. If you're the male leader of the group and can't lead as well, normally a younger male will challenge and likely beat you out. And so on and so on.
Of course now with medical intervention and technology, along with understanding how cells work, better option for food for complete nutrition (not just berries and freshly killed meat), and physical exercise, we've obviously been able to extend human life expectancy to much much higher years. But also look at how much less physical one becomes and how much more fragile we are in those later years.
So why 40? IMO (and based on evidence) it's because the human body likely wasn't made to last too much longer than that naturally.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Did you by any chance suggest he see a doctor to rule out a medical cause for this onset of unexplained aches and pains? Autoimmune diseases spring to mind, but I'm sure there are lots of other potential medical issues this could be a symptom of.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
??? But you weren't talking about your aches and pains, you were talking about a client's aches and pains. Unless "asking for a client" is the new "asking for a friend"?4 -
I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
I don't know. From the standpoint of the genes carried by a given mother, a tendency to die in first childbirth seems like a really bad survival strategy. And anthropomorphizing aside, I'm not aware of any argument for evolution as some general force promoting species survival outside of the self-enforcing law of natural selection for genes.1 -
There's also the, if we breed often enough, there will be enough children who survive to help support the family. That implies that a. a bunch of infants and children were dying and b. if children started having children in their teens/preteens then they would have likely been having them into their adulthood as well.
That said, I'm not an anthropologist.
Not if we're talking about 10 to 13 year olds dying in child birth. If you die at 11, you won't be having any children as an adult. And for most of human "history" (not in the sense of a time when there were written records), if the mother died in childbirth, the baby died too.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
I don't know. From the standpoint of the genes carried by a given mother, a tendency to die in first childbirth seems like a really bad survival strategy. And anthropomorphizing aside, I'm not aware of any argument for evolution as some general force promoting species survival outside of the self-enforcing law of natural selection for genes.
Evolution wants the strongest ones to live, and the weaker ones to die. This may not accord with our human wishes. An individual's genes may be trying to survive (I'm anthropomorphizing again), but it won't happen as reliably for those less well-adapted to whatever the conditions happen to be.
Speaking at a cartoon level of simplification, of course.
I'm not proposing evolution as a general force promoting species survival, but natural selection can produce an effect that looks statistically similar to what would happen if it did, among the currently-surviving species. Part of the downside of anthropomorphizing it is that that implies that I think evolution is purposeful. I don't.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
I don't know. From the standpoint of the genes carried by a given mother, a tendency to die in first childbirth seems like a really bad survival strategy. And anthropomorphizing aside, I'm not aware of any argument for evolution as some general force promoting species survival outside of the self-enforcing law of natural selection for genes.
At what levels selection occurs is actually a fairly open debate in evolution. Obviously all selection ends up recorded via genes and epigenes, but that selection for genes is not a universal opinion. Individual and kin selection both have places in research. For eusocial species there's a fair amount of equivalency between a gene selection explanation and a kin selection model. Both can explain things like an individual dying for a relative or better relatives.
I also believe the death in childbirth is something that became worse with agriculture. Hunter-gatherer lifestyles tends to involve spacing births further apart, reduced risk of disease, and oddly seem to involve more calories for labor than early agriculture.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »There's also the, if we breed often enough, there will be enough children who survive to help support the family. That implies that a. a bunch of infants and children were dying and b. if children started having children in their teens/preteens then they would have likely been having them into their adulthood as well.
That said, I'm not an anthropologist.
Not if we're talking about 10 to 13 year olds dying in child birth. If you die at 11, you won't be having any children as an adult. And for most of human "history" (not in the sense of a time when there were written records), if the mother died in childbirth, the baby died too.
You're right - my logic made zero sense there. If it was say, people in their late teens, early 20s whose growth plates had closed that would have made significantly more sense.
I would imagine that there has been plenty of research done on this. It is totally not in my field and I have no real desire to research it, but I'm more than willing to bet anthropologists of various subspecialties have researched this extensively.0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
I don't know. From the standpoint of the genes carried by a given mother, a tendency to die in first childbirth seems like a really bad survival strategy. And anthropomorphizing aside, I'm not aware of any argument for evolution as some general force promoting species survival outside of the self-enforcing law of natural selection for genes.
At what levels selection occurs is actually a fairly open debate in evolution. Obviously all selection ends up recorded via genes and epigenes, but that selection for genes is not a universal opinion. Individual and kin selection both have places in research. For eusocial species there's a fair amount of equivalency between a gene selection explanation and a kin selection model. Both can explain things like an individual dying for a relative or better relatives.
I also believe the death in childbirth is something that became worse with agriculture. Hunter-gatherer lifestyles tends to involve spacing births further apart, reduced risk of disease, and oddly seem to involve more calories for labor than early agriculture.
Settled agricultural lifestyles were adopted because they increased food security, thus decreasing periods of food scarcity that can induce temporary infertility. Increased fertility would naturally tend to increase death in childbirth, absent medical advances to counteract the increased opportunity for death in childbirth.
I wasn't denying kin selection. I was questioning the idea that evolution is a force that favors early death (prior to reproduction) as a way to promote the survival of the (ever-evolving, and hence on its way to becoming a different) species as a whole.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
I don't know. From the standpoint of the genes carried by a given mother, a tendency to die in first childbirth seems like a really bad survival strategy. And anthropomorphizing aside, I'm not aware of any argument for evolution as some general force promoting species survival outside of the self-enforcing law of natural selection for genes.
Evolution wants the strongest ones to live, and the weaker ones to die. This may not accord with our human wishes. An individual's genes may be trying to survive (I'm anthropomorphizing again), but it won't happen as reliably for those less well-adapted to whatever the conditions happen to be.
Speaking at a cartoon level of simplification, of course.
I'm not proposing evolution as a general force promoting species survival, but natural selection can produce an effect that looks statistically similar to what would happen if it did, among the currently-surviving species. Part of the downside of anthropomorphizing it is that that implies that I think evolution is purposeful. I don't.
The other downside of anthropomorphizing is that it can lead to confusing the cause and the result. By speaking about the result "wanting" something, it's easy to be drawn into thinking that the result was actually the cause.
I think it makes more sense, and is clearer, to talk about natural selection as the force ("cause" -- although a more complete picture would include mutation and environmental change as causes) and evolution as the result. Natural selection leads to survival of the genes that produce the individuals best fitted to survive and reproduce in a specific environment or environments (allowing for migration or times or relatively rapid environmental change). If the surviving pool of genes differs from the earlier pool sufficiently, evolution occurs.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'd also add that, based on looking back at historical statistics, evolution doesn't much care if it loses a bunch of mothers and children. It just makes sure to create plenty of extras along the way, so it can waste a few . . . quite a few, historically, in fact.
(Yes, I'm aware I'm anthropomorphizing evolution. It's metaphorical, folks.)
I don't know. From the standpoint of the genes carried by a given mother, a tendency to die in first childbirth seems like a really bad survival strategy. And anthropomorphizing aside, I'm not aware of any argument for evolution as some general force promoting species survival outside of the self-enforcing law of natural selection for genes.
Evolution wants the strongest ones to live, and the weaker ones to die. This may not accord with our human wishes. An individual's genes may be trying to survive (I'm anthropomorphizing again), but it won't happen as reliably for those less well-adapted to whatever the conditions happen to be.
Speaking at a cartoon level of simplification, of course.
I'm not proposing evolution as a general force promoting species survival, but natural selection can produce an effect that looks statistically similar to what would happen if it did, among the currently-surviving species. Part of the downside of anthropomorphizing it is that that implies that I think evolution is purposeful. I don't.
The other downside of anthropomorphizing is that it can lead to confusing the cause and the result. By speaking about the result "wanting" something, it's easy to be drawn into thinking that the result was actually the cause.
I think it makes more sense, and is clearer, to talk about natural selection as the force ("cause" -- although a more complete picture would include mutation and environmental change as causes) and evolution as the result. Natural selection leads to survival of the genes that produce the individuals best fitted to survive and reproduce in a specific environment or environments (allowing for migration or times or relatively rapid environmental change). If the surviving pool of genes differs from the earlier pool sufficiently, evolution occurs.
Whichever way we speak of it, die-off - potentially a substantial die-off - is an integral part of the process.
My point was that the mechanisms at work are neutral to how many die (or live) along the way. If women sexually mature "too young", and breed, and die because their bodies aren't ready for childbirth . . . that's just how things work. As long as some individuals live, the species survives. Substantial die-off is not a counter-argument to the idea that we can potentially get our breeding out of the way when younger, and that (after a certain point) there isn't much survival advantage to hanging on to elders, so maybe that's why the elders' bodies start breaking down.
This being - I thought - a casual conversation about "aches and pains at 40", and whether/why they happen, rather than a deeply technical discussion of natural selection, I'd imagined that a more casual, metaphorical phrasing would be acceptable, particularly if I pointed out that I was knowingly anthropomorphizing something that doesn't actually take conscious, purposeful actions.
Evidently, I was wrong. Apologies! :flowerforyou:
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »
Thanks for that cheerful and uplifting message.
~signed, 65 is the new 40
Co-signed as 75 is the new 50 4 -
The OP has a point - throughout most of human evolution lifespan was briefer. @lynn_glenmont is accurate about pre-industrial humans living almost as long as modern humans IF they manage to survive certain chokepoints. But humans didn’t evolve in the Middle Ages; we evolved over millions of years, and those people did not live anything like the length of time modern people do.
However, there’s a bit of evidence which weighs on the other side of the argument. Humans have menopause, unlike other mammals. And the only evolutionary reason for women to stop being able to have children yet keep living is that the wisdom of older women is more likely to keep babies alive than the same women continuing to have more babies, despite the risks inherent in childbirth. Other female mammals continue to be fertile when they are old and fragile, because the chance of popping out one more baby is more likely to result in those genes surviving, even if the risk to the mother is high. For people, it’s more effective if an old and wise female contributes to society in other ways. So we actually evolved to STOP having babies past a certain age. Think how valuable old people must be to the survival of the species for that to happen.
In other words, the elderly, in the human species, did not just live past the age when evolutionary forces acted on the emergence of humans - they were part of that evolution. Human old people have evolved to have specific functions within human society, unlike the elderly of other species.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions