I spoke with a PhD physical therapist about this (his undergrad work was in exercise physiology), and at about 40, all other things being equal, you’re going to start losing muscle mass. By “all other things being equal”, I mean that even if your diet is identical, you exercise at the same intensity, and through some previously unknown magic (e.g., drugs) you have identical hormonal levels to your 18yo self, you’re still going to end up losing muscle mass and strength when you get somewhere in your 40s. He explained the basic outlines of the mechanism, but I simply don’t have the science background to understand it, or to explain it.
That loss of muscle mass means that you’re simply not going to be burning through calories. Muscle burns more calories per kilogram than fat does.
So, that’s part of it; there’s just a certain level of decline that’s going to happen with age, and there’s nothing you can do to prevent it.
But the other part is that activity levels do tend to sharply decrease for men (and women) outside of their 20s, while what they consume does not. Once you start having kids and/or other responsibilities, it’s hard to find time to maintain the same level of physical activity that you might have previously had.
I read an interview about a year ago about the topic of starting healthy until old age. The main points were:
You start to lose muscle mass at 30 years and for the average person you lose about 1% per year. In the article, they said that this would mean 50% of muscle lost when you hit 80 so it must’ve been on average (otherwise you’d lose about 40% total).
If you need to make a choice between endurance and strength exercise because of whatever constraints, you should go with strength. Ideally, you do both. But strength is ultimately more important as it keeps your metabolism working long term and also prevents accidents. After all, it’s what keeps you skeleton in place.
I know that people above 30 are still able to gain muscle mass–all other things being equal–but my speculation is that it slows down. That is, that rate of improvement compared to someone in their 20s will be slower, and it will be even slower in your 40s, etc., until you reach a point where you can no longer gain enough strength to offset your losses from age.
I also suspect that the use of illegal anabolic/androgenic steroids could counteract that, but at the cost of other, significant health risks (heart disease, stroke, liver damage, etc.).
Oh for sure. My comment was rather to add than to correct.
It’s not a big problem to have less muscle with age. But having 90% of a once trained body is way better than 50% of a body that just sustained an unhealthy lifestyle.
This is called “Sarcopenia”, or, the age-related loss of muscle mass.
The good news is that it can be nearly entirely mitigated by strength training. To be clear, you can’t be an 80 year old with the same strength as a 30 year old powerlifter, but you can as an 80 year old maintain the strength of an average 30 year old. It’s been demonstrated very consistently, even if you only start training in your 70s
It’s actually complicated.
I spoke with a PhD physical therapist about this (his undergrad work was in exercise physiology), and at about 40, all other things being equal, you’re going to start losing muscle mass. By “all other things being equal”, I mean that even if your diet is identical, you exercise at the same intensity, and through some previously unknown magic (e.g., drugs) you have identical hormonal levels to your 18yo self, you’re still going to end up losing muscle mass and strength when you get somewhere in your 40s. He explained the basic outlines of the mechanism, but I simply don’t have the science background to understand it, or to explain it.
That loss of muscle mass means that you’re simply not going to be burning through calories. Muscle burns more calories per kilogram than fat does.
So, that’s part of it; there’s just a certain level of decline that’s going to happen with age, and there’s nothing you can do to prevent it.
But the other part is that activity levels do tend to sharply decrease for men (and women) outside of their 20s, while what they consume does not. Once you start having kids and/or other responsibilities, it’s hard to find time to maintain the same level of physical activity that you might have previously had.
I read an interview about a year ago about the topic of starting healthy until old age. The main points were:
I know that people above 30 are still able to gain muscle mass–all other things being equal–but my speculation is that it slows down. That is, that rate of improvement compared to someone in their 20s will be slower, and it will be even slower in your 40s, etc., until you reach a point where you can no longer gain enough strength to offset your losses from age.
I also suspect that the use of illegal anabolic/androgenic steroids could counteract that, but at the cost of other, significant health risks (heart disease, stroke, liver damage, etc.).
Oh for sure. My comment was rather to add than to correct.
It’s not a big problem to have less muscle with age. But having 90% of a once trained body is way better than 50% of a body that just sustained an unhealthy lifestyle.
Thanks for the depressing info.
Thank you for your insight
Hi, sorry for responding to a week old post,
This is called “Sarcopenia”, or, the age-related loss of muscle mass.
The good news is that it can be nearly entirely mitigated by strength training. To be clear, you can’t be an 80 year old with the same strength as a 30 year old powerlifter, but you can as an 80 year old maintain the strength of an average 30 year old. It’s been demonstrated very consistently, even if you only start training in your 70s