“You might be relieved to hear that the creeping weight gain of middle age – a pound or two (0.5 to 1 kilogram) a year starting in your 20s, on average – eventually grinds to a halt. By the time you’re in your 50s, you’ll typically start slowly shedding weight. Don’t celebrate yet, though. There’s a good chance that the weight you’re losing is muscle – precisely what you need to hang onto to stay metabolically healthy and independent into old age. “
Why does this happen? Partly because we exercise less but that’s not the whole story. The article talks about ‘anabolic resistance.’ Our bodies no longer, as we age, respond the same way to strength training and protein. Like insulin resistance in diabetics our bodies no longer respond as effectively to protein and to exercise. We need more of both, not less, as we age.
There’s also a concern about the kinds of protein and when we eat them.
Writes Hutchinson: “It’s not just how much you eat. There’s some evidence that spreading your protein across three meals triggers more muscle growth than just downing a massive steak at dinner. And protein quality matters too, with certain amino acids such as leucine playing an outsized role in muscle growth. That means animal proteins such as meat, fish, eggs and dairy tend to pack a bigger punch than plant proteins, although Oliveira emphasizes that variety is also important.”
It’s a challenge to eat the 1.0 to 1.5 g of protein per kg of body weight per day that’s recommended.
What about exercise? What should we do to stave off muscle loss?
“The overall picture from existing research is that full-body resistance training with loads that get progressively harder over time, two to three times a week, is optimal for older adults. One study published last year found that two harder workouts plus one easier one produced the best results, perhaps because older strength-trainers simply couldn’t recover quickly enough to do three hard workouts each week.”
See you at the gym! Maybe we can go for a protein shake after?
Hey everyone! Exciting times. I’m going to be one of the speakers at the New Jersey VegFest at Meadowlands Expo Centre this weekend. My talk, “Feminist Fitness Is for Everyone, including Vegans,” is at 1 p.m. on Saturday, October 6th. I’ll talk about what feminist fitness is, how Sam and I took that approach for our Fittest by 50 Challenge, the blog, the book, and being a vegan athlete at mid-life. They’ll be selling copies of Fit at Mid-Life: A Feminist Fitness Journey (Greystone Books, 2018) and I’ll be sticking around after my talk to chat, sign books (whether you buy it there or bring it with you), and of course eat! [I might also talk a little bit about my next book project, which is about ethical veganism and the expectation of moral perfection that vegans and non-vegans alike seem to adopt]
Marisa Sweeney and Kendra Arnold are the two main organizers and ever since they asked me to do this I’ve been following the NJ VegFest scene with envy. It’s not limited to this event — there was an Atlantic City VegFest in the summer (with a 10K run) where Scott Jurek spoke. Marisa and Kendra do an outstanding job and I can’t wait to experience one of their events first hand and to meet them.
It looks as if it’s going to be an amazing time, quite apart from my talk. There are going to be chef demos, other speakers, and loads of vendors serving up delicious vegan food. If you want to get a preview, I suggest following @njvegfest on Instagram.
One of the things Sam and I love most about the blog is the community that has sprung up around us. If you do decide to come, please please please say “hi.” I would love that.
I also have a favour to ask of people who live in the Manhattan area. Anita and I will be looking for a good running route on Sunday morning to do about 15K. If you have any recommendations for where we might do that distance without encountering too many traffic lights we’d love to hear from you.
I don’t usually share tweets and Twitter threads but sometimes they are so good you need to make an exception.
This thread from the Fat Nutritionist came to my attention via David. Thks David!
“I suspect that like 95% of the food choices people make (when they have the luxury of choice) are purely symbolic. I suspect this because “How does this food affect your body’s functioning?” is a completely new idea to nearly everyone I ask it of.”
I’ve been seeking out nutrition advice again, trying to manage what I can in a messy, unhappy situation with my left knee.
One of the interesting bits of research to come out in recent years is that as we age our need for protein goes up even as our need for calories goes down, if we intend to maintain muscle mass.
It’s as if, as with diabetics and insulin resistance, with age we’re protein resistant. We need to eat a lot more to get the same effect. When you add to that the need to eat fewer calories, that makes for a protein heavy diet.
Here’s an excerpt from a summary of the research published by MacMaster University:
“People who would like to become physically stronger should start with weight training and add protein to their diets, according to a comprehensive scientific review of research at McMaster University. The review finds that eating more protein, well past the amounts currently recommended, can significantly augment the effects of lifting weights, especially for people past the age of 40,”
A summary of the research from MacMaster University is here. The study itself is here.
I’ve blogged about this research before here, It’s striking both for the results and how they were obtained. The research doesn’t just look at young people, in particular it doesn’t just look at young men. It’s interesting that the research actually included middle aged men and women.
What the study shows is that there’s a sweet spot for protein consumption and it’s higher than many of us thought, 1.6 g of protein per day per kg of body weight. For me that’s a lot more protein than I currently eat. Eating more as a vegetarian is challenging. I’m working on it.
You can read the New York Times account of this study here.
Is this something you worry about? Think about? Track? How much protein do you aim to eat each day?
Prominent among the Questions Of Our Time is this one: just how many/much carbs should I have in my diet? Is it best to eat low-carb, like the Atkins Diet? Or stick to kinder/gentler/higher-fiber carbs like the South Beach Diet? Or close-to-no carbs like the Whole 30 Diet? What about higher carb diets? Don’t people use those during high-intensity athletic activity? Or is there some happy medium, some just-right amount of carbs that will optimize on my health, longevity, weight, complexion, etc.? Just where is Goldilocks when we need her?
A new study in the Lancet is now taking sides with Goldilocks, publishing a study saying that a moderate carb diet is in fact the “just right” amount for optimum longevity. Here’s a summary from the Live Science news website:
The study, which involved more than 15,000 Americans who were tracked for a quarter of a century, found that those who ate a low-carb diet (with less than 40 percent of daily calories coming from carbs) or a high-carb diet (with more than 70 percent of daily calories coming from carbs) were more likely to die during the study period, compared with those who ate a moderate-carb diet, with about 50 to 55 percent of their calories coming from carbs.
For example, based on the findings, the researchers estimated that from age 50, people who consumed a moderate-carb diet would have a life expectancy that was about four years longer than those who consumed a very low-carb diet (with an average life expectancy of 83 years for moderate-carb eaters versus 79 years for very low-carb eaters).
Another of their key findings was when they investigated different types of low-carb diets: ones with a lot of animal-sourced foods, versus plant-sourced foods. Here’s what the Live Science article has to say about the study:
…the analysis also found that, with low-carb diets, what mattered was the source of proteins and fats. Diets that involved replacing carbs with proteins and fats from animal sources, including beef, lamb, pork, chicken and cheese, were linked with a greater risk of death. In contrast, diets that involved replacing carbs with proteins and fats from plant sources, such as vegetables, legumes and nuts, were tied to a lower risk of death.
So is the take-away message that we should all aim for moderate (50ish%) of carb intake in our diets to maximize lifespan?
Not exactly. As I say all the time in blog posts, science is complicated. Just ask these women– they can explain it to us.
You might be wondering– what about higher-carb diets? They aren’t prominent these days in the popular diet industry, but they are an option and serve a number of nutritional purposes. Also, lots of cultures outside of North America and Europe eat high-carb diets Does the study show that those lead to earlier death, too?
Well, it depends partly on where you live and what you eat. The primary study participants used in the Lancet article were from the US. For them, the results were a U-shaped curve, which means that the highest risk was at either end— low carb or high carb. Here it is:
But take a look at the right side of the U– it doesn’t rise as high as the left side does. That means that the riskiness of high-carb diets in this study is not as big as the riskiness of the low-carb diets. (By riskiness, I mean all-cause mortality risk, but you get the idea here). So, their results suggest that higher-carb diets aren’t as risky (I know, that word again, but humor me) as the low-carb diets.
Later in the Lancet article there is another set of U-shaped curves, with the second one being an amalgamation of many other studies that these researchers analyzed. These other studies were done in many parts of the world, including places where people eat lots of higher-carb diets with foods like white rice or other simple (vs. complex) carbs. There we see a greater rise in mortality risk as carb intake increases. Complexity enters again, this time at the level of the carbs themselves. People who eat higher-carb diets but with more complex carbs may (this is still a bit tentative) may mitigate their mortality risk of a higher-carb diet.
Finally, there’s been a good bit of critique and response, of which you readers might be interested in two points:
Point one: There are SO MANY features of our dietary intake that interact with each other, our environment, our genetics and microbiome, etc., that it’s very hard to separate out and identify the effects of one variable on health and mortality. One commentary (in the Lancet) said this:
…this approach should be complemented by large and long-term clinical trials investigating the effects of different dietary patterns (constructed from information about the effects of individual nutrients and foods), because the effect of individual nutrients is likely to be modest.
So we aren’t going to get solid clinical recommendations for people based on the effects of shifting carbs alone.
Point two: The researchers’ findings only tracked mortality risk shifts. They didn’t track them to any biomarkers or clinically observable features that we could identify that would help in offering medical advice to people. Of course, they weren’t trying to do the latter, but without the latter, the information isn’t so helpful for real-life medicine.
The commentary concluded with this:
When coherent information emerges from different approaches and is replicated, this will form a sound basis for robust public health recommendations.
Or, in other words, “yeah yeah. Get back to me when you have something that will be useful for clinicians moving forward in trying to identify health issues connected to dietary carb intake, or a more complex but robust view on these interactions with health.”
Here’s the final-final point. Let’s suppose that Goldilocks is right– moderation in carbs is the just-right path. What do we mean by “moderate intake”? 40–70% is a very big range, and loads of other factors can make a big difference in effects on health, mortality, etc.
If we’re supposed to take nutritional advice really seriously, need more than “just-right” to go on. Luckily, other studies are working on exactly that. Stay tuned for the latest…
There’s been a lot of vitamin supplement research in the news in the past year. In mid-December, a pretty pointed editorial came out in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Here’s what it said:
I find this a refreshing change from more carefully couched medical speak like “blah blah new medicine blah blah no statistically significant effect on blah blah under blah blah conditions blah.” Basically, they are saying this: do not buy vitamins. They don’t reduce your risk of dying from heart attack, your risk of cognitive decline, and some of them increase your risk of various bad health outcomes.
Now fast-forward to today: a new study has come out, and researchers found that some vitamins do in fact increase risk of death. That sounds bad (because it is). Here’s an excerpt from an article on the study:
Researchers at the University of Toronto conducted a meta-analysis of all published randomised controlled trials that looked at the effects of vitamin and antioxidant supplements on the risk of heart disease and stroke.
They found the most commonly used supplements – multivitamins, vitamin D, calcium and vitamin C – provided “no consistent benefit” for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or stroke. Folic acid alone and B-complex vitamins, which contained folic acid, did show a reduction in stroke.
However, niacin (vitamin B3) and antioxidants (vitamins A, C and E) were associated with an increased risk of all causes of death, according to the findings published in the Journal of The American College of Cardiology.
One researcher was quoted in the article saying that, while it’s great that we no longer have problems like scurvy in the population, that doesn’t mean that people in general should take a multivitamin. What should we do, then?
Eat food. That’s it.
For more cool info on vitamins, how people keep taking them even though they don’t need them, and some speculation about why food is better than vitamins (short answer: we don’t really know), look at this interesting NY Times article.
And if we follow this advice, we’ll have more disposable income, too, (in addition to not increasing our chances of dying).
Just to be clear, this post is not on news about fake eggs. There’s a whole internet discussion about them (which is not well-substantiated). I don’t mean the standard brightly colored Easter eggs that look like this:
I mean manufactured ersatz eggs, being sold as actual eggs. The internet discussion suggests they’re being made in China from many artificial ingredients, one of which is called “magic water” (which may just be salt water– not clear). Read all about it here.
But I digress. What’s been in the real news recently is a Chinese study investigating associations between egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease. Their published conclusion was this:
Among Chinese adults, a moderate level of egg consumption (up to <1 egg/day) was significantly associated with lower risk of CVD, largely independent of other risk factors.
Of course, mainstream news roared into gear, cranking out the following headlines:
Even the medical newsletter BMJ (British Medical Journal) Heart swallowed the story whole, reporting on the eggs-good turn of events here.
There’s a lot to criticize here, both about the new eggs-good study and the uncritical reportage, including those (like BMJ Heart) who ought to know better. In brief:
the study is observational, so it can’t establish cause-and-effect;
it relies on food frequency questionnaires, which are notoriously unreliable (who remembers what they had for breakfast last Wednesday? Anyone? Anyone?)
there were loads of confounders in the study– that is, other features of groups of participants which could account for some/most/all of the effects they say they observed. Read more about all of these here.
But: what about the eggs? Are they good for us or bad for us?
I have three answers to this question:
For more on the eggs-good/eggs-bad affair, you can read my 2016 blog post on it here. We have also posted a lot about the notions of “good” and “bad foods. Here a, but just google it and you’ll find we have a lot to say. However, the TL:DR version is this: there aren’t any “good” or “bad” foods. There may not even be any “good for you” or “bad for you” foods. There’s food, and then there are all of our views and concerns, and needs and constraints, and preferences, etc. about the food.
What do you think when you read headlines like “[insert food x here] is now shown to [insert prevent or cause] [insert bad health thing]? Are you inclined to change your eating habits based on the new news that food X is now “good for you” or now “bad for you”? We’d love to hear from you.