Metabolism not affected by middle age!
claireychn074
Posts: 1,656 Member
Interesting research into metabolism https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6556/808
In summary, metabolism does start to decline from c60 years old, but is stable from 20-60. Authors say that middle-age spread cannot be attributed to slowing metabolism. The study followed more than 6,600 people from 29 countries - worth a read of the summary!
In summary, metabolism does start to decline from c60 years old, but is stable from 20-60. Authors say that middle-age spread cannot be attributed to slowing metabolism. The study followed more than 6,600 people from 29 countries - worth a read of the summary!
20
Replies
-
I'm sure that is fairly accurate, I haven't read it but have seen other studies. Keep in mind that it can happen earlier or later depending on an individuals health and lifestyle. But yeah, it happens later than most people assume.2
-
I believe it. The commonality for most people who start gaining from their younger years is usually reduction in physical movement and increase in calorie consumption.
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
14 -
Yes, when I interviewed Dr. Pontzer on 40+ Fitness Podcast, he was on to a few myths about metabolism. Our metabolism stays relatively steady even when we are significantly more active. More fuel to the fire, you can't out-exercise a bad diet.
Host of the 40+ Fitness Podcast
NASM Certified Personal Trainer (Corrective Exercise, Behavior Change, Fitness Nutrition)
FAI Certified Functional Aging Specialist
OTA Level 2 Online Coach8 -
Saw this article today in my news feed, quite interesting.1
-
Totally agree with this. People just need to realize habits can change if they aren't careful.6
-
I’m not entirely sure why someone disagreed with me posting a link to a scientific study - I didn’t write it! 🤣16
-
claireychn074 wrote: »I’m not entirely sure why someone disagreed with me posting a link to a scientific study - I didn’t write it! 🤣
Probably someone who isn't ready to let go of their excuses.29 -
claireychn074 wrote: »I’m not entirely sure why someone disagreed with me posting a link to a scientific study - I didn’t write it!
I'm not really sure why there even exists a 'Disagree' option here. Shy of someone posting 'Hey, I've found a great way to lose weight is to do a lot of meth and upchuck any food you eat,' I don't know why people click Disagree - especially on a suggestion or opinion query.
4 -
claireychn074 wrote: »I’m not entirely sure why someone disagreed with me posting a link to a scientific study - I didn’t write it!
I'm not really sure why there even exists a 'Disagree' option here. Shy of someone posting 'Hey, I've found a great way to lose weight is to do a lot of meth and upchuck any food you eat,' I don't know why people click Disagree - especially on a suggestion or opinion query.
Well one reason is that some of us enjoy an incredibly petty laugh 😂 or maybe that's just me 😉3 -
Ignore the "disagrees." Thanks for posting!8
-
That's a really interesting article. There is actually a soft peak in the population mean daily energy expenditure for males at age 57. Maybe that's about when the kids take off, and we think to ourselves "ack, I'm getting old and frail" and start exercising. Sort of true for me!5
-
I agree. As an anecdote: four years ago, when I was 54 and not yet menopausal, I lost 71 lbs. Although this required effort, it was just as easy to lose this weight as it had been for me back in my 20s and 30s (when I was thinner and fitter to begin with.) I managed to keep it off for about three years. Lately I have gained some of it back, but this is due to poor diet and lifestyle choices, not menopause, (which I have reached in the meantime.)8
-
NYT has an article on the same study, will have to look at this one. The NYT piece didn't indicate any analysis of the subject age cohorts by routine activity levels or exercise modalities. I'm inclined to think that makes a difference, probably including that over time consistent cardio/endurance training lowers the resting metabolic rate and resistance / muscle building increases it.0
-
Love it!
And, at the same time, who cares: We have an individual potential for (whatever). IMO, if we really want (whatever) we should pursue it, and not worry too much about surmountable obstacles. Actual metabolism is - in large part - a surmountable obstacle to calorie counting or to higher TDEE - via NEAT, exercise, other strategies.
(Insurmountable obstacle example: At current technology, not going to run a marathon if paraplegic, unassisted. Might be able to finish one someway - wheelchair, electronic exoskeleton, don't know.) Statistics are about averages, not individuals. Few people are average, though most people are close. (Why? Varies. Irremediable for the close-to-average individual? Often not.)
Especially, those of us who were late starters (like I was) can have a surprising amount of upside potential for (whatever) on the fitness and body weight front, and we don't really know where our personal wall (or declining slope) is, until we explore the territory thoroughly.
Assuming obstacles, then being beaten by the assumption, is a terrible strategy. Easy, though. And can be comforting. "I can't because old/menopausal/hypothyroid/whatever". Okey dokey.
I've long found it interesting and provocative - though I know it's a statistical artifact - that the population-research-based formulas will estimate a different BMR depending on age . . . except for the ones that explicitly include BF%, which yield the same BMR, for me, at 25 or 65.claireychn074 wrote: »I’m not entirely sure why someone disagreed with me posting a link to a scientific study - I didn’t write it!
I'm not really sure why there even exists a 'Disagree' option here. Shy of someone posting 'Hey, I've found a great way to lose weight is to do a lot of meth and upchuck any food you eat,' I don't know why people click Disagree - especially on a suggestion or opinion query.
Having been here on MFP long before "disagree", you have no idea what level of nonsense and thread shut-down "disagree" is now saving. So, so many threads in the olden days:
"Something worth discussing"
"A few reasonable replies, then a little silly stuff"
"Is so"
"Is not"
"Is so you %*%*"
"Yo mamma"
(the above 4 notions repeated X times, more or less, possible with slightly different words, but with misspellings, bad grammar, non sequiturs, insults, straw men, and generally any element of ignorance or bad argumentation you can think of, and then some).
Cat gifs
Cat gifs
Cat gifs
Merciful euthanasia of thread by mods.
Now, the outraged but unable-to-use-words folks just click "disagree" to relieve their emotional pique, and go on with life; and so do some who know how to have a sane disagreement, but recognize that they now have a good alternative to arguing with the incapable.
"Disagree" is a blessing, I promise.
Usually, a single "disagree" should be interpreted as a scrolling mistake. Multiple disagrees are worth re-evaluating one's post. If clarification or correction or apology is merited, human up and do it. If none needed IYO, then assume the disagrees were the can't-handle-words/"yo mamma" folks, and go on with life serenely. JMO.13 -
It might not have anything to do with metabolism, but people do slow down with age. Some of it is just being busy with your life and not making time to work out regularly. Some people get arthritis and other things that make working out painful. Back injuries, asthma...whatever. While these are not all good excuses, it is reality. It is up to us to maintain our health: eat properly, exercise regularly. We can do it!4
-
claireychn074 wrote: »I’m not entirely sure why someone disagreed with me posting a link to a scientific study - I didn’t write it! 🤣
Confirmation bias in action
1 -
I think that was highlighted in the study. It basically said there was no evidence at a cellular level for slowing metabolism in the general public up until c60, and the authors were surprised there was no real fluctuation with hormonal changes (again until 60). But they said people can slow down as they age and that leads to a loss of NEAT which is different to a cellular metabolism slow down.ljashley1952 wrote: »It might not have anything to do with metabolism, but people do slow down with age. Some of it is just being busy with your life and not making time to work out regularly. Some people get arthritis and other things that make working out painful. Back injuries, asthma...whatever. While these are not all good excuses, it is reality. It is up to us to maintain our health: eat properly, exercise regularly. We can do it!
Picking up on @AnnPT77 ’s point above, you can still increase daily energy expenditure as you age through activity and building more muscle (previous studies have shown sarcopenia can be reversed through weight bearing exercise). So even if one’s metabolism is slowing down, you can increase NEAT and muscle mass and therefore expend more calories.
7 -
claireychn074 wrote: »I’m not entirely sure why someone disagreed with me posting a link to a scientific study - I didn’t write it!
I'm not really sure why there even exists a 'Disagree' option here. Shy of someone posting 'Hey, I've found a great way to lose weight is to do a lot of meth and upchuck any food you eat,' I don't know why people click Disagree - especially on a suggestion or opinion query.
you know, sometimes i dont get it, either. i truly dont care when people disagree with me, but in some cases it boggles my mind as to WHY? especially if they don't respond with a comment as to... WHY they may disagree or think I'm 'wrong'. 189 pounds lost kind of says I know what I'm doing, so please educate me when I say something incorrect
and opinions are just that- opinions. I think kale is disgusting but plenty of people like the horrible weed so, whatever, they can eat the vile thing LOL 4 -
I think in popular culture (and often on here) metabolism is confused with TDEE.
Personal example:
In my 30's my metabolism went up as I got heavier (fat!), my TDEE went down (injury, career, children....).
In my 40's my metabolism stayed the same level (maintained weight, too heavy though). TDEE pretty static.
In my 50's my metabolism went down (lost weight) but my TDEE went up (took up cycling, more "me time").
In my 60's my metabolism seems to be the same, TDEE has gone up even more as I'm more active (retired allows me to be more active, higher exercise volume).3 -
ljashley1952 wrote: »It might not have anything to do with metabolism, but people do slow down with age. Some of it is just being busy with your life and not making time to work out regularly. Some people get arthritis and other things that make working out painful. Back injuries, asthma...whatever. While these are not all good excuses, it is reality. It is up to us to maintain our health: eat properly, exercise regularly. We can do it!
I think that's true, in a statistical sense, but none of us is a statistic.
Of course, there are individuals who, for genetic or personal history reasons, experience disabilities that are severe enough to be true obstacles to movement. For that, there's no rational reaction (from others) but sympathy and understanding, plus efforts to help them with practical things if we're more fortunate.
I believe there are a fair number of people, though, whose pain profile would benefit from sensibly-planned (and perhaps carefully, gradually increased) movement. (I've absolutely been one of those people, now at age 65.)
There is good evidence of things like yoga improving functioning in people with osteoarthritis; of strengthening exercises improving back pain, knee pain, or other musculoskeletal pain, etc.
I'm not making a "work through the pain no matter what" argument here, but rather suggesting that mild, gradual challenge, at manageable levels of discomfort, with attention to avoiding injury, can potentially yield quite significant improvements in functioning, and even reduction of pain, in the longer term. (That's also been true for me.) There are professionals who can help, if that's available & affordable (physical therapists, specialized trainers, massage therapists, osteopaths, etc.); there are even some very qualified physical therapists who've put up libraries of YouTube videos for free.
At this point, I'd say I'm "in good shape", more or less, for my age, having started being active in my mid 40s. I was not in any kind of shape back then, long-term sedentary and having just completed cancer treatment (surgery-chemo-radiation-drugs), already had OA and significant knee pain (torn meniscus was later formally diagnosed, probably present earlier). I have more extensive OA now, osteoporosis, very early-stage COPD (they tell me), and I don't know what-all. As you say, things can happen as we age. Nonetheless, I have better physical functioning and less pain than I did at age 45.
I'm not suggesting that's universally available to everyone and anyone, I'm sure it's not . . . but I suspect it's available to some people whose disbelief in the possibility, or unwillingness/inability to invest slow patient effort, are leaving them with lower functioning and more pain than the minimally unavoidable. Sometimes our own beliefs can create our own roadblocks.
Sure, at some point, we all are going to experience age-related physical decline, because (so far) no one lives forever. It's seductively easy to bring that on earlier than necessary, by inattention or low self-expectations. (That's almost the default, in some subcultures, I fear.)
I'm *not* saying improvement via activity is achievable for everyone, as a practical thing - some have more challenging lives than others, less time, fewer resources, other insurmountable problems. I'm simply saying I think many people could achieve more benefits, and bigger benefits, than they realize.4 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »claireychn074 wrote: »I’m not entirely sure why someone disagreed with me posting a link to a scientific study - I didn’t write it!
I'm not really sure why there even exists a 'Disagree' option here. Shy of someone posting 'Hey, I've found a great way to lose weight is to do a lot of meth and upchuck any food you eat,' I don't know why people click Disagree - especially on a suggestion or opinion query.
you know, sometimes i dont get it, either. i truly dont care when people disagree with me, but in some cases it boggles my mind as to WHY? especially if they don't respond with a comment as to... WHY they may disagree or think I'm 'wrong'. 189 pounds lost kind of says I know what I'm doing, so please educate me when I say something incorrect and opinions are just that- opinions. I think kale is disgusting but plenty of people like the horrible weed so, whatever, they can eat the vile thing LOL
9 -
Bad news it is downhill after 60, but great that metabolism does not slow earlier.1
-
I think a lot of people over-estimate how much it takes to change the CO portion of things, when spread out over a long time (years, even) how that can influence weight gain -- or loss, depending. The same thing with calories IN, even.
A lot of this stuff is not the big dramatic changes people even recognize as important, multiplied over a long time. So when people do add taking the stairs - or start taking the elevator because their sleep is off or whatever - they sort of dismiss it as being anything.
but multiply that over 10 years of even a couple of trips up/down the stairs a day being there or not and. It's a thing. ESPECIALLY if that sleep deprivation (or knee pain, or a longer commute leaving you stuck in a car instead of that morning walk around the block, or whatever it may be) leads to a cascade of tiny changes. Also built up over 10 years and yeah, you're gonna see the reflection in your waistline.3 -
Bad news it is downhill after 60, but great that metabolism does not slow earlier.
The good news again though is your sense of taste and smell decline so it's less rewarding to eat food. ...is that good news? Unsure, but it's certainly something that might make you more likely to eat less with age.2 -
wunderkindking wrote: »Bad news it is downhill after 60, but great that metabolism does not slow earlier.
The good news again though is your sense of taste and smell decline so it's less rewarding to eat food. ...is that good news? Unsure, but it's certainly something that might make you more likely to eat less with age.
So what I hear you saying is that covid, with its smell-destroying proclivities, is nature's way of putting us all on a diet? 2 -
I've read this (or something similar) before. Metabolism just doesn't vary that much in most people. There are obviously a few outliers, but most of us are pretty much the same.1
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »Bad news it is downhill after 60, but great that metabolism does not slow earlier.
The good news again though is your sense of taste and smell decline so it's less rewarding to eat food. ...is that good news? Unsure, but it's certainly something that might make you more likely to eat less with age.
So what I hear you saying is that covid, with its smell-destroying proclivities, is nature's way of putting us all on a diet?
Honestly, as someone who has no sense of smell (born like that) and is in contact with a lot of people who have lost their sense of smell: it can go both ways. Either lack of interest in food from not enjoying food anymore, or gaining weight because they just keep on eating in search of that satisfaction that eludes them.2 -
ljashley1952 wrote: »It might not have anything to do with metabolism, but people do slow down with age. Some of it is just being busy with your life and not making time to work out regularly. Some people get arthritis and other things that make working out painful. Back injuries, asthma...whatever. While these are not all good excuses, it is reality. It is up to us to maintain our health: eat properly, exercise regularly. We can do it!
I had the same thought when I read the article.
Disability - even moderate disability - makes it harder to exercise. And too often easier to entertain yourself with a second helping instead of a jog or an hour weeding.
We think of exercise as being outside running or mountain biking. And if that becomes impossible too often people kind of give up. We close the coffin on ourselves long before our actual demise.
5 -
claireychn074 wrote: »I’m not entirely sure why someone disagreed with me posting a link to a scientific study - I didn’t write it! 🤣
Because they are an idiot...... the study is right on. Dr. Pontzer's book "Burn" went into this a while ago.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »Bad news it is downhill after 60, but great that metabolism does not slow earlier.
The good news again though is your sense of taste and smell decline so it's less rewarding to eat food. ...is that good news? Unsure, but it's certainly something that might make you more likely to eat less with age.
So what I hear you saying is that covid, with its smell-destroying proclivities, is nature's way of putting us all on a diet?
No, covid should have been a wake up call to how sick our country is. I am waiting for the new data on obesity and the percentage of population. Bet its no longer 30-40%, probably closer to 50+ now....2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions