US findings suggesting ageing is not a slow and steady process could explain spikes in health issues at certain ages
If you have noticed a sudden accumulation of wrinkles, aches and pains or a general sensation of having grown older almost overnight, there may be a scientific explanation. Research suggests that rather than being a slow and steady process, aging occurs in at least two accelerated bursts.
The study, which tracked thousands of different molecules in people aged 25 to 75, detected two major waves of age-related changes at around ages 44 and again at 60. The findings could explain why spikes in certain health issues including musculoskeletal problems and cardiovascular disease occur at certain ages.
“We’re not just changing gradually over time. There are some really dramatic changes,” said Prof Michael Snyder, a geneticist and director of the Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine at Stanford University and senior author of the study.
“It turns out the mid-40s is a time of dramatic change, as is the early 60s – and that’s true no matter what class of molecules you look at.”
Researchers assessed 135,000 different molecules (RNA, proteins and metabolites) and microbes (the bacteria, viruses and fungi living in the guts and on the skin of the participants).
Also, see the previous article in Naturelinked in the article. That study looked at fewer proteins, but had over 4,000 participants.
I mean, that makes me even more skeptical. 108 volunteers tracked for that many sparesely populated vectors is 100% going to have hundreds of false positives just due to statistical noise.
My favorite part of science discourse will always be people self-reporting how little they understand science the math behind statistics by complaining about sample sizes that have nothing wrong with them
My anecdotal confirmation is that I started having a lot more health issues in my mid 40s. My eyesight got a lot worse. I started having issues with high blood pressure and cholesterol. I'm about to turn 50 and things have mostly stabilized. Medication and more regular exercise helps. My eyes are still bad but they aren't getting worse as fast as they were.
I started playing Ultimate Frisbee again at 44 and quickly regained most of my youthful speed and jumping ability (and my tendency to huck). So for me it was like the opposite of this article's contention. Age 52/53 was a lot worse as that's when I started getting arthritis.
Heart attack got my Dad at 48 ten years ago. If anyone has a preexisting heart condition like my father had, then you need to get checked up often or you might die sooner.
It's okay, my mom's in her 80s and my dad made it to his 80s and their parents all made it to their 90s, so I have a good 5-15 years to degrade once I turn 60.
I'm 57 and I bike 25 to 50 miles a day, four out of every five days. A lot of age-related problems can be forestalled just by exercising and not eating too much food - and it helps to not majorly injure yourself in the process. In my opinion, the primary problem with aging is that it gives you more time to become sedentary and overweight.
I just got progressive bifocals. It was nice to be able to read my watch properly again, but not so nice to have to look down whenever I'm going up or down stairs and to have to move my head around all the time to see all the real estate on my monitor since it's 27".
I've worn contacts for almost 40 years, but got tired of using readers these last several years to be able to, you know, read. After unsuccessfully trying multivocal contacts, I got progressive glasses. My vision? GREAT? The 3 weeks it took to get my brain used to moving my head more and my eyes just right (especially while driving) so that seeing the right part of my prescription wasn't swinging all over the place and making me nauseous? Fucking hell. That was absolute torture. It's worth it on the other side at least.
I do kinda miss contacts. I may get a second opinion for my prescription and try again.
My eyes started losing strength when I was 15. 10 years later, I still got my near sight vision, but I know that will be gone in about 20 years from now…
Yeah West in his seminal "Scale" kind of corroborates the whole story.
It seems, though, that the molecular changes you are undergoing do not immediately translate into increased mortality, so you're going to have several more years of - presumably - feeling well until the big drop-off starts for all of us at about 60.
BTW, because of its wide range of topics, its solid scientific underpinnings and its excellent intellectual accessibility, this is one of two books I positively think should be taught at any school, the other one being Solé's "Phase Transitions."
One morning you'll wake up and every bone in your body will pop simultaneously. Then while you lay there aching you'll let out a 6 mimutes and 20 second fart that doesn't have a happy ending.
Interestingly enough, a random couple things happened when I was between 43-44 that lead to me start distance running and run my first full marathon about 4 months before I turned 44.
I was decently fit before, but didn't run any distance above a maybe 5 miles. I do not remember anything negative happening around that time or shortly after. I was actually increasing my cardio endurance dramatically over the next 5 years or so.
Good on you, I've read elsewhere that the better shape you can be in prior to years of decline, the better you handle the natural aging process. I don't need to do anymore marathons, they're too hard on my knees, but running/biking and body-weight exercises are part of my attempt to stave off the inevitable.
Oh ya... Marathons have come and gone for me :) Initially because they were just expensive but COVID had me WFH full time and the group I ran with was near my work office. So I sort of morphed into running alone and just as maintenance vs. Training for something.
I'm about to hit 53 and try to run between 15-20/miles a week still but I did fall behind on my fitness the end of last year when I had some crazy back spasms after sneezing (of all things) that really set me back. Takes forever to get back. Luckily I do not have any physical issues (knees etc) most if my issues now are not eating healthy enough and general motivation to improve. Sounds like I've got about 7 years to get on top of it so I can cruise through that age too :)
This article is reminding me of a study a few years back that suggested that (provided you're otherwise healthy and able bodied) you can get into any level or shape you want (if you put in the work of course) up until 60-something. Then you hit an age wall where about the best you can do is maintain what you've got. Suggesting that countering that 40-something aging event by pre-gaming for the 60-something aging is a smart plan.
Shor, ive been saying “I need to get into shape” for over a half century, but now i have only a couple years to actually do it? Now that I can’t sleep, ache everywhere, and have bad knees?
Even more hopeful: a sudden change implies a common trigger and maybe something can be done about that trigger (sorry if the article answered it, I didn’t read)
There are tons of statistical methods to get reasonable conclusions without an RCT. Some things can not be detected with an RCT, because the experiment is just impossible to run, so sometimes you need methods to do causal identification with observable data. Here you do not even need causal identification methods for observational data. You just need to do some descriptive statistics for a large group of people well to find interesting patterns. Whether this aging pattern in the mid-40s is causal it coincidental is not important at first. The pattern itself is interesting.