Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Aug-12-21, 14:56
doreen T's Avatar
doreen T doreen T is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 37,224
 
Plan: LC paleo
Stats: 241/188/140 Female 165 cm
BF:
Progress: 52%
Location: Eastern ON, Canada
Default Metabolism Changes With Age, Just Not When You Might Think - Duke study

METABOLISM CHANGES WITH AGE, JUST NOT WHEN YOU MIGHT THINK

Researchers have precisely measured life’s metabolic highs and lows, from birth to old age, and the findings might surprise you.

Published Aug. 12, 2021
Robin A. Smith, DUKE RESEARCH

link to article

Quote:
DURHAM, N.C. -- Most of us remember a time when we could eat anything we wanted and not gain weight. But a new study suggests your metabolism -- the rate at which you burn calories -- actually peaks much earlier in life, and starts its inevitable decline later than you might guess.

The findings were published Aug. 12 in the journal Science.

“There are lots of physiological changes that come with growing up and getting older,” said study co-author Herman Pontzer, associate professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke University. “Think puberty, menopause, other phases of life. What's weird is that the timing of our ‘metabolic life stages’ doesn't seem to match those typical milestones.”

Pontzer and an international team of scientists analyzed the average calories burned by more than 6,600 people ranging from one week old to age 95 as they went about their daily lives in 29 countries worldwide.

Previously, most large-scale studies measured how much energy the body uses to perform basic vital functions such as breathing, digesting, pumping blood -- in other words, the calories you need just to stay alive. But that amounts to only 50% to 70% of the calories we burn each day. It doesn’t take into account the energy we spend doing everything else: washing the dishes, walking the dog, breaking a sweat at the gym, even just thinking or fidgeting.

To come up with a number for total daily energy expenditure, the researchers relied on the “doubly labeled water” method. It’s a urine test that involves having a person drink water in which the hydrogen and oxygen in the water molecules have been replaced with naturally occurring “heavy” forms, and then measuring how quickly they’re flushed out.

Scientists have used the technique -- considered the gold standard for measuring daily energy expenditure during normal daily life, outside of the lab -- to measure energy expenditure in humans since the 1980s, but studies have been limited in size and scope due to cost. So multiple labs decided to share their data and gather their measurements in a single database, to see if they could tease out truths that weren’t revealed or were only hinted at in previous work.

Pooling and analyzing energy expenditures across the entire lifespan revealed some surprises. Some people think of their teens and 20s as the age when their calorie-burning potential hits its peak. But the researchers found that, pound for pound, infants had the highest metabolic rates of all.

Energy needs shoot up during the first 12 months of life, such that by their first birthday, a one-year-old burns calories 50% faster for their body size than an adult.

And that’s not just because, in their first year, infants are busy tripling their birth weight. “Of course they're growing, but even once you control for that, their energy expenditures are rocketing up higher than you'd expect for their body size and composition,” said Pontzer, author of the book, “Burn,” on the science of metabolism.

An infant’s gas-guzzling metabolism may partly explain why children who don’t get enough to eat during this developmental window are less likely to survive and grow up to be healthy adults.

“Something is happening inside a baby’s cells to make them more active, and we don't know what those processes are yet,” Pontzer said.

After this initial surge in infancy, the data show that metabolism slows by about 3% each year until we reach our 20s, when it levels off into a new normal.

Despite the teen years being a time of growth spurts, the researchers didn’t see any uptick in daily calorie needs in adolescence after they took body size into account. “We really thought puberty would be different and it’s not,” Pontzer said.

Midlife was another surprise. Perhaps you’ve been told that it’s all downhill after 30 when it comes to your weight. But while several factors could explain the thickening waistlines that often emerge during our prime working years, the findings suggest that a changing metabolism isn’t one of them.

In fact, the researchers discovered that energy expenditures during these middle decades – our 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s -- were the most stable. Even during pregnancy, a woman’s calorie needs were no more or less than expected given her added bulk as the baby grows.

The data suggest that our metabolisms don’t really start to decline again until after age 60. The slowdown is gradual, only 0.7% a year. But a person in their 90s needs 26% fewer calories each day than someone in midlife.

Lost muscle mass as we get older may be partly to blame, the researchers say, since muscle burns more calories than fat. But it’s not the whole picture. “We controlled for muscle mass,” Pontzer said. “It’s because their cells are slowing down.”

The patterns held even when differing activity levels were taken into account.

For a long time, what drives shifts in energy expenditure has been difficult to parse because aging goes hand in hand with so many other changes, Pontzer said. But the research lends support to the idea that it’s more than age-related changes in lifestyle or body composition.

“All of this points to the conclusion that tissue metabolism, the work that the cells are doing, is changing over the course of the lifespan in ways we haven’t fully appreciated before,” Pontzer said. “You really need a big data set like this to get at those questions.”


This research was supported by the United States National Science Foundation (BCS-1824466), the International Atomic Energy Agency, Taiyo Nippon Sanso and SERCON.

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Aug-12-21, 14:57
doreen T's Avatar
doreen T doreen T is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 37,224
 
Plan: LC paleo
Stats: 241/188/140 Female 165 cm
BF:
Progress: 52%
Location: Eastern ON, Canada
Default

Daily energy expenditure through the human life course

link to abstract
Quote:
A lifetime of change
Measurements of total and basal energy in a large cohort of subjects at ages spanning from before birth to old age document distinct changes that occur during a human lifetime. Pontzer et al. report that energy expenditure (adjusted for weight) in neonates was like that of adults but increased substantially in the first year of life (see the Perspective by Rhoads and Anderson). It then gradually declined until young individuals reached adult characteristics, which were maintained from age 20 to 60 years. Older individuals showed reduced energy expenditure. Tissue metabolism thus appears not to be constant but rather to undergo transitions at critical junctures.

Abstract
Total daily energy expenditure (“total expenditure”) reflects daily energy needs and is a critical variable in human health and physiology, but its trajectory over the life course is poorly studied. We analyzed a large, diverse database of total expenditure measured by the doubly labeled water method for males and females aged 8 days to 95 years. Total expenditure increased with fat-free mass in a power-law manner, with four distinct life stages. Fat-free mass–adjusted expenditure accelerates rapidly in neonates to ~50% above adult values at ~1 year; declines slowly to adult levels by ~20 years; remains stable in adulthood (20 to 60 years), even during pregnancy; then declines in older adults. These changes shed light on human development and aging and should help shape nutrition and health strategies across the life span.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Aug-13-21, 04:06
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,675
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

I also think the whole "energy in/energy out" mindset has some key gaps that are highly misleading.

From the moment we are born, to age 25, we are growing in some body part or other. The calorie mindset that sees "everything as fuel" distorts major macros and ignores nutrients.

I've lived through:
  1. the FOUR food groups
  2. Pritikin demonizing fat
  3. vegan craze

Now, I've painfully learned:
  1. way to many carbs for me
  2. above, plus my body loves fat
  3. both above, plus very low protein

They all acted like none of the foods' nutritive qualities needed to be acknowledged, or recognize its action on the body; especially different bodies.

I probably have a higher than average need for fat: I do great with coconut oil in my coffee, though tea with butter, which I love: makes me hungry But then, the first isn't digested. That's probably why.

I think as long as researchers are stuck in these competing theories; all of which have huge and unacknowledged deficiencies, they will nibble at the problem instead of taking bites from it.

And while aged people probably don't need to eat as MUCH as they did in their teens, certainly, there's another angle. They also slow down their digestion, their taste buds change, and their capabilities might be challenged by constantly cooking things.

If anything, I think seniors shouldn't focus on eating LESS. They should focus on MORE vital nutrients.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Aug-13-21, 05:36
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 876
 
Plan: Protein Power/Atkins
Stats: 250/167/175 Female 5 feet 6 inches
BF:
Progress: 111%
Location: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Default

Thanks for posting this study Demi and thanks for all the comments.

Just adding a personal note here

As a teenager I could eat a loaded hamburger and a chocolate malted (3 scoops of ice cream) and a slice of cherry pie. I felt satisfied.

Today in my late eighties, three chicken wings fills me up. 1 hamburger is too much. It seems my stomach has shrunk!

I am impressed with the data on failure to thrive in babies who don't get enough to eat. I have often wondered about that but it explains why childhood death rates are highest between birth and five years especially among the poor who can't give their children enough to eat.

Fascinating study. Thanks for posting.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Aug-13-21, 10:53
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

The talk about midlife energy levels--but what do we do with it? Put on just a ten pound backpack, I'd bet your energy expenditure wouldn't change much, but you move around slightly less. Just ten pounds makes a big difference for me between whether I'm breathing heavy when moving fast, or breaking into the odd sprint. I'm somewhat asthmatic, my limit in even some fairly anaerobic exercises is breathing rather than muscle failure.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Aug-13-21, 11:16
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,042
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Good find, doreen. It's important to know that one might conclude that nutrition and healthy eating over the course of one's life is even more important when considered based on the findings of this research. If energy consumption is consistent up through one's 60s, maintaining a healthy metabolism is critical and likely helps when the metabolism gradually slows at this time. Wonder if doggedly maintaining fitness and muscle mass into the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s slows this decline? I believe it's plausible. Think of Jack Lalanne's obsessive fitness routines well into his latter years.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:24.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.