“ 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?

@TheHoundsofLove, yes, I was thinking along the same lines.

The thing about exercise for me is the link with mental health. It probably lowers cortisol and improves sleep which are good for overall health. I also think when you are exercising you are not eating.

I think it's important to do the exercise you enjoy.

@jewel1968, yes, helps circulation, lowers cholesterol, prevents heart disease, prevents dementia, prevents insulin resistance and diabetes, lowers cortisol and inflammation, regulates oestrogen and testosterone, are all things I've heard about exercise.

I listened to the Herman Pontzer podcast (and have now downloaded the audiobook).
In terms of energy, he said you spend the same amount of calories regardless of how fast you run. And as we are so evolved to walk it burns off hardly any calories. Swimming does, because it isn't normal for our bodies to do that. But of course swimming 10 miles would take a long time for most people!
I was running 110km a week (running every day) for a couple of years and didn't lose weight, presumably because my body was compensating in other areas.

Swimming for me is therapy. It forces me to breathe in a regulated way so similar to mindfulness. I also can't eat before I swim as it makes me feel queasy.

Good to know all the other benefits of exercise. I knew it didn't burn off as many calories as I would like but overall benefits are big.

An extra thought. If exercise means the body diverts some of it's energy consumption away from digesting food that would mean what is eaten would take longer to digest. As a result someone would feel fuller for longer, if a significant amount exercise is undertaken, compared to someone who is sedentary eating the same amount of food.

@grasstreeleaf

@jewel1968, yes, helps circulation, lowers cholesterol, prevents heart disease, prevents dementia, prevents insulin resistance and diabetes, lowers cortisol and inflammation, regulates oestrogen and testosterone, are all things I've heard about exercise.

Yes and maybe that's how it affects weight, rather than through calories burnt?

Yes, that's what I'm thinking @TheHoundsofLove.

I am mid 40’s just over 8 stone - 24 inch waist and I for that by walking - seriously fast 50 mins twice a day. I do fast but I eat what I want pretty much and drink wine. Fast walking I think is the best exercise for losing weight. Nothing happened with one hour in the evening but when I added the morning walk the weight dropped off. I was pretty slim anyway

That's interesting @workshy44, I've just been reading this that found exercise earlier in the day is more effective in terms of weight loss.

www.nature.com/articles/s41366-019-0409-x

How fast do you walk @workshy44 and do you have a particular technique?

@grasstreeleaf After doing my long run in the sun this afternoon I think I’ve lost at least 20kg

@catinthewindow

 good going! Kudos! I melted just going for a pretty leisurely walk this aft. Did my run this morning when it was still cool. I'm a right wimp with heat despite watching lots of stuff about heat adaptation. There I am getting up at the crack of dawn, leaving curtains shut and wearing a neck fan!

I'm not really following all this about stable metabolic rate in adulthood because...

when DH & I were young we ate A LOT. As in we were famous for it. I had a reputation for being huge eater 5 yrs before that.

Anyway, 25 yrs later, we get a lot more exercise than we did then. DH especially. And yet we eat a lot less. I have tended to assume this must be due to aging. If not due to aging, then why do we eat so much less now?

Our weights have barely changed in all this time. Maybe 1-2 kg heavier each now than 25 yrs ago.

As far as I understand it, so far, not read the whole book yet, @lljkk, though you eat less than a younger person you are more likely to gain body fat because an older body expends the calories differently. However, you still expend the same amount of calories overall.

Still reading the book though.

That means I need less calorie intake because I'm 25 yrs older, right?

Think so, @lljkk. Not got to that bit yet, though. It's an entertaining read but I've still not got my head completely round the assertion that exercise doesn't really affect calorie burns that radically over a day or that we burn the same amount of calories in middle age as young adults relative to our size. However, I've not got to the bit where the book fully deals with this yet so will see.

On days when I do a lot I eat a lot more. Ditto DH.
If I stop exercise for a few days, I almost stop eating. Can't eat if not hungry & no exercise = no appetite.
So there is some relationship between my activity levels & what I eat.

When friend was very upset about her husband leaving, she ate little for 2 months & dropped 3 stone.

I mean, it looks like how much we eat or how much we exercise relates to body size and calorie needs.

@lljkk
One thing he's mentioned, so far, that I already know, is that muscles tissue burns more energy than adipose tissue pound for pound. So that could account for some differences. He relates higher fat percentage rather than age to slower metabolism.

My personal (but not unique) theory is that some bodies manage over time to stop burning their fat. There is always enough glycogen store for their activity. Then when a situation occurs where burning fat might be useful instead the overriding response is hunger and tiredness so food and rest is sought (&is easily available) and the fat is never burned off. Over the years fat builds up.

So a person could develop less calorie needs but greater hunger. Purposeful exercise activity counteracts as it is difficult to eat on the go and your body becomes more used to and efficient at burning fat.

I'm convinced waning estrogen around menopause has an effect and nothing can convince me otherwise

I've looked at tables on typical muscle body% differences by sex/age, and the range from least to most muscle-gifted, and how much "more" calories muscle burns than flab -- honestly, the difference is tiny!! Much exaggerated. I'm betting Maybe a slice of bread/day potential between a 20yr old & a 55yr old. It's not that. Will work thru numbers here if anyone wants.

@RestingStitchFace, I know that oestrogen and adipose tissue are highly inter related.

"Before menopause, most estrogens are produced in the ovaries. After menopause, the ovaries no longer produce much estrogen and estrogens mainly come from fat tissue. After menopause, higher amounts of estrogen in the blood are linked to an increased risk of breast cancer in women [19]."

https://www.komen.org › risk-factor

But no real mention of this so far. (Just over halfway through the book).

Thanks GrassTreeLeaf for your willingness to read & summarise the book. Is it as boring and technical as it sounds?

@lljkk

Does make some difference though and one which I view significant. I'm 23% bodyfat now but used to be 40%+. At my current weight that would make a difference of about 300 Calories burn per day. Which, I view as significant. It could be a small extra meal such as a couple of eggs on a slice of toast!

I used this to calculate:

tdeecalculator.net/