“ 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?

Is it as boring and technical as it sounds?

@lljkk
No, there's lots of anthropological bits which are entertaining but also a bit annoying if you just want to reconcile in your mind some of the more controversial aspects which have been reported!

It's sort of constructed like a novel which ends a chapter with a cliff hanger and then changes to another, albeit interesting, scene with different characters.

I imagine you're very close to 17% less mass now, grasstree, I mean, that 17% didn't all turn into muscle, did it. Unless you were previously almost entirely long-term bed-bound & now an elite athlete and your total mass hasn't changed at all. Fairly true fact for at least one paralympic athlete, I suppose.

This is the chart I use ... maybe it's wrong. it seems to show the limits of how much of our bodies can be muscle.

But has your overall weight decreased grasstreeleaf as wouldn't that negate some of the extra calorie burn through increased muscle mass?
It's really baffling. My initial response was that there's no way that exercise can have no impact on weight whatsoever, as it's not what I've observed in myself or anyone else I know. But, I don't think that's what he's saying - just that exercise doesn't burn the extra calories we think it does. I could accept that the difference is something other than calories burnt.

Similar numbers here and here, and here (Source?)

most of our lean mass is not modifiable muscle, a lot of it is water or relatively fixed size organs like the heart and intestines. The amount of muscle-body-composition that we can change is relatively small.

This seems to say that the max. men can get over biological minimum is about 45 lbs, women about 25 lbs.

If the most muscle a woman can gain (without gaining fat mass) is about 11 kg, and 1 kg muscle metabolically burns about 15 kcal/day more than 1 kg/fat, then converting 11kg fat to 11kg muscle means a metabolic resting gain of 11*15 = 165 kcal. Which is a large piece of bread. It's the huge daily effort required to maintain 11kg of muscle that burns a lot of calories, not the fact of having 11 kg of extra muscle.

@lljkk & @TheHoundsofLove

Erm..I think my last point was just illustrative of what a difference having a high fat percentage versus a low fat percentage is said to make upon Calorie burn according to that TDEE calculator.

I hadn't thought of it in terms of muscle mass specifically. Probably because I find it hard to get a measure of it other than looking in the mirror. I know before I lost the fat my body analyser scales stated my muscle mass was 'moderate' with my fat percentage high whilst last time I measured it said both were healthy. So I'll have to think more on that.

But back to the book now to try and get to grips of what he actually is saying.

@grasstreeleaf I’ve now bought it. He owes you decent commission 😂

😂 @catinthewindow
I've been reading most of the afternoon! He's covered the body compensating for strict starvation diets by lowering BMI, compensating for lots of exercise by reducing other activity (found when studying a hunting gathering tribe and confirmed with other research in a Western societies) and Western foods being too palatable and not satiating enough to encourage us to overeat.

As discussed earlier the exercise referred to from the studies of Western societies did not seem that overly substantial to me but he described as an 'incredible amount' (p168). It was the equivalent of 2000-3000 worth of Calorie burn per week. And he only hinted at the amount of exercise the tribes people got. So this doesn't refer specifically to studies where people undertake a greater amount of exercise.

I still have questions regarding the type of exercise that is referred to. I believe if the exercise encouraged good fat adaptation it could have weight loss benefits as fat could be burnt without triggering an unmanageable hunger response. This is mentioned in this article:

http://www.championseverywhere.com/niko-niko-pace-gentle-path-success/

I'm just getting onto a section about why he says exercise is good for us.

Oh and he claims exercise has the result of making us hungrier which I don't believe is always the case.

It isn't with me. I do admittedly log everything I eat and drink and weigh myself regularly so this does keep unconscious responses somewhat in check though. But I don't feel the shaky weak type of hunger. Habit dictates when I think about food mostly and it's typical at regular mealtimes.

He did say (if I recall correctly) that the men of the tribe walked about 10 miles for hunting and the women about 6 at one point I think. They burnt about same amount of calories as in Western societies where people get less exercise. Which suggests their bodies are adapted to their daily activities. Yet they're not obese and don't have any metabolic diseases unlike their Western counterparts.

Oh and he claims exercise has the result of making us hungrier which I don't believe is always the case.

I've heard this a few times before, doesn't Gary Taubes cite this as well?

I find there's a level of exercise that suppresses hunger (probably anything up to about a 10km run for me), but anything beyond that definitely does make me hungrier. I'm always absolutely ravenous if I've been out cycling or for a long run.

@grasstreeleaf notably when I run/ hill walk 30 miles plus per week I don’t get a compensatory appetite effect. In fact I struggle to eat enough. I’m thinking now this must be because when I run that far much of it is longer and slower and therefore I’m burning fat and not getting that need to eat.

The 2000- 3000 calorie burn also fits with that. For me, in my hilly area, at my slightly over weight BMI that’s the equivalent of about 15 - 20 miles a week depending on how many hills! I wouldn’t notice a major impact of that on my weight. When I go over 30 miles (around 4000 calories) that makes a difference.

Compensation of course makes a difference too but when you do a 16 mile run there’s only so much compensation of energy that can occur surely.

Does give me a fabulous arse though 😂🙌

Hmm, I don't know. I run 10k (circa 6 miles) everyday and walk 5k (circa 3 miles) or more. No compensatory appetite particularly. I recently did a 9 mile walk and 5k run in a day but it didn't make me ravenously hungry. I don't push myself though with the walking or running.

My appetite tends to be very much formed out of habit in recent years and what people are doing around me. Deciding what I'm going to eat ahead of time works for me.

I went from a BMI of 27 three years ago to a BMI of 18.5 now and a body fat percentage of 40% three years ago to 23% now. Dress size 14 to dress size 8.

Running, walking, some resistance exercises and calorie deficit logged through FitBit.

And the motivator? I was recovering from breast cancer treatment and I wanted to look and feel better about my body.

I find running only impacts my weight and shape if I’m over about 25/30 miles a week - anything under and I must eat or drink it. I’m pretty careful though and do 16:8 - but pretty much eat what I like the rest of the time. I could do with shifting half a stone but enjoy wine and cake on the weekends so don’t ever quite lose it. I could tho if I didn’t eat them so definitely calorie deficit works for me to a point.

Just had another thought. If the Hazda tribe that Pontzer studied compensated for their activity by having a lower BMR than a typical sedentary person from an industrialised society then may be it is the BMR rate of the sedentary person that is too high in terms of health rather than the lower BMR being too low?

People from the Hazda tribe do not typically suffer from metabolic disease or being overweight. Maybe excess weight is more indicative of poor health rather than the balance of simply calories in and out and a higher BMR is not something that we should necessarily aim for.

And also there is suggestion between from other studies that this compensation of lowering BMR is variable. It may not kick in until someone is well used to the extra activity. By that time extra weight might be lost and the individual would still continue to benefit from the exercise in other ways, such as better fitness, retaining of muscle strength, better cardiovascular system and less inflammation.

I think there probably an optimal level for BMR as the phenomenon of overtraining has been well observed. I just think a BMR which is too high is often an indicator of ill health, BMR is raised in fever for example. Maybe the relatively higher BMR of the sedentary person from an industrialised society is indicative of this and their body is having to do extra work to look after their body due to their body fat being higher than what is optimal.

@grasstreeleaf - an amazing motivator. You remind me of one of the ultra runners who did the same. I want to say Nicky Spinks but need to check

I’m half way through the audio book - listening somewhat ironically whilst running my long runs! It’s really interesting. He is annoying me somewhat though as he has a male default tendency in his language and the sound bites from the book seem weighted to that - the 3000 calories a day for example turns out to be for men but he only makes that clear later on.

I think that makes sense re BMR from his examples. I feel like I need to listen again with a pen and paper.

I’m not convinced that the Hazda are as active as he makes out. If the women walk an average of 5 miles every day is that on top of their day to day walking about or is that everything thrown in? I mean there clearly more active than the typical Westerner. But he seems to use the typical Westerner as the default without considering that many people are more active?

You remind me of one of the ultra runners who did the same. I want to say Nicky Spinks but need to check

That's extremely kind of you although what my pootling about is way easier than I imagine ultra runningto be.

I have just read the Exercised book I linked to upthread. He doesn't seem to think the Hazda have an almost unattainable level of activity either. I fact he mentions how easy it would be for a lot of people to add some more walking into their lives to receive some of the health benefits as the Hazda get from their lifestyle.

Gets curiouser. Just read this:

www.cbass.com/fasttwitchmuscle.htm

Bodies are definitely complex that's for sure!

I’m 52, through the menopause for several years now and physically in the best shape I’ve ever been. I eat plenty though don’t calorie count but definitely had to change what I ate during peri menopause as my previous favourite foods and slight sugar addiction were causing weight gain and increased bulk around my middle.

I are pretty low carb for a few years but recently found this was no longer working for me so have reintroduced some carbs like lots of fruit, potatoes and the occasional ice cream etc. What I haven’t done is started eating bread and biscuits again and so far it’s working brilliantly. I eat what I want and am able to exercise more as I have more energy. I wish I’d looked this good in my twenties.

@Okbutnotgreat

I’m 52, through the menopause for several years now and physically in the best shape I’ve ever been. I eat plenty though don’t calorie count but definitely had to change what I ate during peri menopause as my previous favourite foods and slight sugar addiction were causing weight gain and increased bulk around my middle.

I are pretty low carb for a few years but recently found this was no longer working for me so have reintroduced some carbs like lots of fruit, potatoes and the occasional ice cream etc. What I haven’t done is started eating bread and biscuits again and so far it’s working brilliantly. I eat what I want and am able to exercise more as I have more energy. I wish I’d looked this good in my twenties.

Yes, it is possible to be fit and fifty! I started running aged 48 with the goal of doing a marathon before I hit the big 50 and I did age 49 and since then have gone on to do lots of races including ultras and sprint triathlons. I was never this fit and slim when I was younger, but I have to be careful about what I eat as even running 80 miles a week can result in weight gain if not. Burn explains all this very well.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23515448/

This is interesting too. It found a link between insulin resistance and having less slow twitch muscle fibres. Insulin resistance tends to cause weight (body fat) gain around the trunk area.