“ if you are experiencing mid-life spread you can no longer blame it on a declining metabolic rate.”

[ChocAuVin]

Article here explaining in groundbreaking terms that: “Middle-aged spread cannot be blamed on a waning metabolism, according to an unprecedented analysis of the body's energy use.

The study, of 6,400 people, from eight days old up to age 95, in 29 countries, suggests the metabolism remains "rock solid" throughout mid-life.

It peaks at the age of one, is stable from 20 to 60 and then inexorably declines.

Researchers said the findings gave surprising new insights about the body.”

I’m surprised but also cheered by this! I’m 42 BTW. How do others feel to know that ‘middle-aged spread’ is not a metabolic probability?

I'm also interested in what inactivity actually does to the body. If exercise doesn't cause more calories to be burnt over the day what happens to those calories the body would have extra if completely inactive? What does the body do with them?

I have ordered the book! And another about exercise! I am a real sucker for the marketing! The curiosity is just too much, though!

Am intrigued by all this - what book grasstreeleaf? May buy it too!

I thought weight gain in menopause was because the lack of oestrogen causes the body to store more fat cells (or something?)

I think we gain weight as we lose muscle. As we age, our other responsibilities increase and we become less active, even losing a kg of muscle and it turning to fat makes a big difference despite your weight remaining the same.

@twolittleboysonetiredmum
I ordered the book that I this thread refers to, here

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Burn-Misunderstood-Metabolism-Herman-Pontzer/dp/0241388422

Plus this one:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Exercised-Science-Physical-Activity-Health/dp/0141986360

I suspect there might be more after these if I'm still left with burning questions!

I think we gain weight as we lose muscle. As we age, our other responsibilities increase and we become less active, even losing a kg of muscle and it turning to fat makes a big difference despite your weight remaining the same.

@LizziesTwin

But how does muscle turn to fat? A person can be fat and highly muscled at the same time. I thought fat storage and muscle gain or loss were 2 different processes. I know muscles tissue burns more calories in activity than fat tissues. I also know the fat tissues are involved in immune response activities.

Gets curiouser, just started reading this:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5556592/

I recently read Why we eat too much and have listened to a few podcasts. What is clear to me is that the medical profession scientists don't really fully understand weight, metabolism, the brain etc ...

And I suspect we are a long way from fully understanding it.

Different books by different professionals contradict each other and we are clueless really on who is right.

And never forget there is a lot of ££££ in fat both in making us fat and in helping us reduce our fat.

Ooh they look great thank you! Am very curious as I head into my 40s!

Different books by different professionals contradict each other and we are clueless really on who is right.

And never forget there is a lot of ££££ in fat both in making us fat and in helping us reduce our fat.

@jewel1968

That, I'm afraid is too true! And I'm a sucker for it. Just too curious over what they've found and what they say about it!

Thankfully I've lost my excess weight and am maintaining. But I want to know the how and why of what I did to achieve this (exercise and calorie deficit). I enjoy running and walking and do feel the benefit so want to continue but I'd like to know what benefits have actually been found in scientific studies.

First 2 sentences quoting jewel1968.

Ooh they look great thank you! Am very curious as I head into my 40s!

@twolittleboysonetiredmum

You're welcome! Although, apologies in advance if I'm just a bad influence in getting you to succumb to this type of book industry along with me!

[quote catinthewindow]@grasstreeleaf I do indeed do a lot of long slow runs which suit my build and stamina. Weight drops steadily once I’m over 30 miles per week.[/quote]
Can you both define what you class as a "long slow run"?

I need to loose weight and get fitter. And finally I will have some time to work on my own body.

😅grasstreeleaf I’m already there with bells on!
Much like you I’m happy with my weight and generally maintain it with running and walking. However I have started putting it on recently despite not changing anything and am curious to why. I’d like to know about how exercise changes your metabolism too as I run long and slow and that seems to be more effective than short quick runs for weight loss

Can you both define what you class as a "long slow run"?

@Lockdownbear, I think it depends on what activity you're used to. Currently I run about 10k in about an hour and a quarter. When I first started running 30 then 45 minutes was long enough for me. I run at an intensity whereby I'm not breathless and can sing along to music. If you've a heart rate monitor MAF training gives the readings to aim for. Good technique makes a difference. This got me started:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9L2b2khySLE

Long slow run for me is over an hour and anything up to 2.5 hours (I’m marathon training but before that would still do a 10-14 mile run on a weekend). I don’t get out of breath and would term it as easy running. I do shorter runs in the week but focus more on being out for longer at a lower intensity. Not out of a training purpose but I hate running fast and put off going if I have a fast run planned 😂 I go faster than my long weekend run but only a bit more and occasionally out of breath within that

Thanks for your reply. At the moment not very much activity in my life at all.
Once upon a time I could jog for an hour. The focus was on time rather than speed.
Life got in the way, works, kids, my fitness went got pushed to the side. I tried Couch to 5k last year but failed miserably and work ramped put so couldn't sneek off during lunch any more.

However LO starts school and its my mission to use some of my new found time to get fit.

[quote grasstreeleaf]Gets curiouser, just started reading this:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5556592/[/quote]
I fell down a similar rabbit hole last night @grasstreeleaf with trials that show no impact on weight loss. But then realised many of the trials allocate people who are overweight to different exercise groups. Often the high intensity group was only between 3 - 4 hours per week split into 3 - 4 sessions. It would make sense that 3 hours of exercise wouldn’t have that greater impact compared to the 1.5 hour group… especially if not at a duration where fat was being burned.

So a better conclusion is that at a more common level exercise has little impact on weight loss but if you’re very active (especially for longer durations) it probably does.

Here … “ In what has become a defining experiment at the University of Louisiana, led by Dr Timothy Church, hundreds of overweight women were put on exercise regimes for a six-month period. Some worked out for 72 minutes each week, some for 136 minutes, and some for 194. A fourth group kept to their normal daily routine with no additional exercise.

Against all the laws of natural justice, at the end of the study, there was no significant difference in weight loss between those who had exercised – some of them for several days a week – and those who hadn't. (Church doesn't record whether he told the women who he'd had training for three and half hours a week, or whether he was wearing protective clothing when he did.) Some of the women even gained weight.”

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/sep/19/exercise-dieting-public-health

@Lockdownbear - for me it’s something over 10 miles, often up to 15 run at a pace where I can chat to a friend or easily listen to a podcast. Running at a speed where I’m not out of breath most of the time.

Some people run by their heart rate, keeping it in a certain zone but I struggle with that as takes concentration and it’s quite hilly here. The idea is to keep your heart rate at approximately 180 minus your age

www.runandbecome.com/running-training-advice/low-heart-rate-training

@catinthewindow

So a better conclusion is that at a more common level exercise has little impact on weight loss but if you’re very active (especially for longer durations) it probably does.

Yes, I agree and in fact on reading through that study I linked to they did say this:

"Donnelly et al. (7) demonstrated weight loss with exercise alone in a group of 141 overweight or obese (BMI 31 kg/m2) men and women in the Midwest Exercise Trial 2. Exercise was supervised for 10 months with an exercise calorie-equivalent reduction of either 400 or 600 calories 5 days per week and a completion rate of 65%. In the completion group, weight losses were 3.9 ± 4.9 and 5.2 ± 5.6 kg, respectively. This demonstrated a clinically significant weight loss for both men and women. However, the amount of activity to achieve this weight loss was again greater than the general exercise recommendations for health." (Page 3 of the study linked previously)

@grasstreeleaf that paper is really interesting thank you. 6 + hours per week appears to be the impact point. Thought you might also like this book if you haven’t read it

www.amazon.co.uk/Roar-Stacy-Sims/dp/1623366860?tag=mumsnetforu03-21

I listened to the first half of the podcast last night and he does acknowledge that exercise burns calories (the example he gives is going for an hour long run) but, as I understand it, says that your body therefore uses less calories in other areas. It's explained in the podcast as everyone having the same calorie budget. Examples he gives are that if you 'spend' more calories on exercise, then your body has to spend less calories on dealing with inflammation and stress responses. Which is a positive thing. It's really interesting. I was thinking about it more this morning and there must be a point at which exercise does increase your overall calorie burn though, or athletes wouldn't need any calorie increase. But, maybe the average person doing reasonable amounts of exercise is never likely to reach that level? If this is the case, then it'd be fascinating to know what the optimal amount of exercise is? I think he said in the podcast that the tribe he studied were getting between about 13000 and 19000 steps per day. I'm going to listen to the second half of it this afternoon...

@catinthewindow, thanks for the recommendation, that looks very interesting. I'm building up a nice juicy reading list!