As I write this article, my 12 year old son is finishing off a 15 minute kettlebell workout. He came to me a few months ago asking if I could put a training program together for him. His goals were to work his entire body while improving his performance in sports (he plays soccer and runs cross country). I now realize that an additional motive may be for him to put on some muscle to attract some attention from the ladies. I get it...attention from girls was important to me in 7th grade as well!

While I’ve tried to do my best to just live by example and not force my children to make exercise or resistance training (i.e. lifting weights) a priority, I was definitely encouraged when he asked me for my help. His 7 year old little brother is already jumping in once in a while now to see if he can lift heavy things too!

But should children resistance train? If so, what are the benefits? Turns out, the answer is yes...and there is a big benefit other than just improved fitness and strength.

Back in July of this year, the results of a meta-analysis were published. The goal of this review was to investigate the effect of resistance training on academic outcomes in school-aged youth (ages 5-18).

The nine researchers conducted a systematic search of six electronic databases (CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Ovid MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus and EMBASE) with no date restrictions. They only reviewed studies that, (a) included school-aged youth (5-18 years), and (b) examined the effect of resistance training on academic outcomes (i.e., cognitive function, academic achievement, and/or on-task behavior in the classroom).

Fifty-three studies made the cut.

The following definitions were used in the analysis:

Cognition: The set of mental processes that contribute to perception, memory, intellect and action.

Academic achievement: The extent to which a student has achieved their educational goals, commonly measured by examinations or continuous assessment (i.e., standardized tests, school grades).

On-task behavior: On-task behavior (follows the class rules and is appropriate to the learning situation).

Off-task behavior: (any behavior that was not on-task and could be categorized as either motor off-task, noise off-task or passive off-task).

The meta-analysis concluded that preliminary evidence shows resistance training may improve cognitive function, academic performance, and on-task behaviors in school-aged youth. Higher levels of muscular fitness were associated with greater performance in tests of cognition and academic achievement! This is a huge development. 

As a parent, if you want your child to perform at their best academically with less behavioral issues, strength training should be part of their regular routine. Even if they do not play sports.

According to the Mayo Clinic, light resistance and controlled movements are best for kids — with a special emphasis on proper technique and safety. Kids can do many strength training exercises with his or her own body weight or inexpensive resistance tubing. Free weights and machine weights are other options.

Done properly, strength training can:

• Increase your child's muscle strength and endurance
• Help protect your child's muscles and joints from sports-related injuries
• Help improve your child's performance in nearly any sport, from dancing and figure skating to football and soccer
• Develop proper techniques that your child can continue to use as he or she grows older

Keep in mind that strength training isn't only for athletes. Even if your child isn't interested in sports, strength training can:

• Strengthen your child's bones
• Help promote healthy blood pressure and cholesterol levels
• Help your child maintain a healthy weight
• Improve your child's confidence and self-esteem

International guidelines recommend children and adolescents participate in an average of 60 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity each day. Further, it is advised that young people engage in muscle-strengthening activities, such as resistance training at least 3 days per week. Resistance training is a specialized form of muscle strengthening activity designed to enhance muscular strength, local muscular endurance, and muscular power. It involves the use of different modes of training with a variety of resistance loads, including but not limited to body weight, free weights, elastic bands, medicine balls, and kettlebells.

I found it interesting that most of the studies were done where the resistance training took place in schools, during the day. Further solidifying the fact that we should be promoting more physical activity in schools. Students are required to spend most of the day in a classroom, where sedentary behaviors are prevalent. In this context, the inclusion of resistance training into active learning should be considered by school districts. For the school district my children are in, daily recess ends after 5^th grade and PE Class is just once a week in middle and high school.

Leading up to my trip to Greece where I will race in the Spartan Trifecta World Championships, I had to get a medical release form signed. While I was having this physical done, I asked that I have a blood panel done as well. It has been a few years since I had this done and even all of my efforts to be healthy are no guarantee that something might be going on that I’m unaware of.

The normal panel measures several things. For each one, I'll give my results as compared to the "normal" or "recommended" ranges. This range is a set of values that includes upper and lower limits of a lab test based on a group of otherwise healthy people. When comparing my (or your) results to these ranges, there are a few important things to consider:

• A "normal" result in one lab may be abnormal in another: You must use the range supplied by the laboratory that performed your test to evaluate whether your results are "within normal limits." While accuracy of laboratory testing has significantly evolved over the past few decades, some lab-to-lab variability can occur due to differences in testing equipment, chemical reagents used, and analysis techniques. Consequently, for most lab tests, there is no universally applicable reference value.
• A normal result does not promise health: While having all test results within normal limits is certainly a good sign, it's not a guarantee. For many tests, there is a lot of overlap among results from healthy people and those with diseases, so there is still a chance that there could be an undetected problem. Lab test results in some people with disease fall within the reference range, especially in the early stages of a disease.
• An abnormal result does not mean you are sick: A test result outside the reference range may or may not indicate a problem. Since many reference values are based on statistical ranges in healthy people, you may be one of the healthy people outside the statistical range, especially if your value is close to the expected reference range. However, the abnormal value does alert your healthcare provider to a possible problem, especially if your test result is far outside the expected values.

Blood test results generally use the metric system of measurement and various abbreviations, including:

• cmm: cells per cubic millimeter
• arb'U: arbitrary unit
• g/dL: grams per deciliter
• U/L: international units per liter
• mEq/L: milliequivalent per liter
• mg/dL: milligrams per deciliter
• mL: milliliter
• mmol/L: millimoles per liter
• ng/mL: nanograms per milliliter
• pg (picograms): one-trillionth of a gram

Now that we’ve covered all of that, let’s jump in to my results:

Total Cholesterol - 179 mg/dL

The "recommended" range is under 200. Cholesterol is a waxy, fat-like substance produced primarily in the liver. It is used to repair cells, maintain proper hormone levels, vitamin D absorption from the sun, salt and water balance, digestion of fats. It is essential to joint health, hormone regulation, healthy cell membranes, fighting infections, etc. People tend to think of Cholesterol as something bad, but it's essential to a healthy body. Cholesterol is in the body to help, not harm you. Most recent evidence suggests that dietary cholesterol alone (what comes from the food you eat), in the presence of a healthy diet, does not negatively affect blood lipids.

The other part of the lipid panel that gets a lot of attention is the LDL-C.

LDL-Calculated - 94 mg/dL

According to the range listed on my results, anything under 100 is good. But if you notice, the "C" at the end of LDL-C stands for calculated. So your LDL cholesterol is determined using an equation. If you have a higher HDL and lower triglycerides, the calculation will be significantly skewed higher. There is a way to actually measure the number of LDL particles and to distinguish the size of LDL. This requires what is called a NMR Lipoprofile test. You want to see more of the large particles than the small particles. However, if your triglycerides are under 70 and your LDL is over 70, you can assume that most of your LDL is the good kind.

My Lipid Panel measured VLDL, which are the small, dense particles.

VLDV - 9 mg/dL

This is a very small amount of those little guys as anything below 40 is considered good.

So that leads me right into my Triglycerides number.

Triglycerides - 44 mg/dL

Anything under 150 is considered in the good range. I think that lower triglycerides are a much more key marker than total cholesterol and LDL-C. Even though my results said that anything under 150 mg/dL is good, I've heard that under 70 is the optimal number to shoot for. The more unhealthy carbohydrates that you eat, the higher your triglycerides will typically be.

I've skipped over HDL earlier because I wanted to talk about it in conjunction with Triglycerides.

HDL - 76 mg/dL

HDL is what people like to call the "good" kind of cholesterol. Anything at or above 60 mg/dL is considered good. I eat a pretty good amount of saturated fat, but adding even more of these healthy fats will also boost my HDL. When you reduce your triglycerides by cutting the processed carbohydrates in your diet, while consuming more fat to increase your HDL, it’s a fantastic one-two punch. I firmly believe that higher HDL and lower triglycerides are much more indicative of good heart health than the total and LDL cholesterol numbers that most people focus on.

Another number that appeared on my results was CHOL/HDL ratio. This is just the total cholesterol number divided by the HDL number.

CHOL/HDL ratio - 2.3

I don't feel like that total cholesterol number is very important, so this ratio doesn't mean much to me. Even if it was over 3.0, I still wouldn't be worried as long as my HDL was in the 75-100 range.

Triglycerides/HDL Ratio - 0.57

Anything under 1.0 is great!

_______________________________________________________________________

Now let's move on to minerals.

Sodium - 139 mmol/L

The recommended range is between 136 and 145 mmol/L, so I'm within range. Sodium is both an electrolyte and mineral. It helps keep the water (the amount of fluid inside and outside the body's cells) and electrolyte balance of the body. Sodium is also important in how nerves and muscles work. It is possible to have low sodium levels following physical activity, but for blood taken under non-extreme conditions, a low level of blond sodium is usually due to a condition such as Addison's disease, diarrhea, diuretic administration, or kidney disease. A high blood sodium level is almost always due to dehydration.

Potassium – 5.1 mmol/L

Normal range is between 3.4 and 5.4 mmol/L. Potassium helps keep the water and electrolyte balance of the body and is important in how nerves and muscles work. Potassium levels can be affected by how the kidneys are working, the blood pH, the amount of potassium you eat and hormone levels in the body. A common cause of high levels of Potassium is kidney disease. Low levels can be attributed to diarrhea or dehydration.

Chloride - 104 mmol/L

Normal range is between 98 and 107 mmol/L. Most of the Chloride in the body comes from the salt that you eat. It is absorbed by your intestines when you digest food. Excess chloride leaves the body through urine. Low levels of blood chloride can be caused by low blood sodium, congestive heart failure, chronic lung diseases and loss of acid from the body. High levels usually indicate dehydration, but can also be caused by Cushing syndrome or kidney disease.

Carbon Dioxide - 26 mmol/L

Normal range is between 22 and 29 mmol/L. In the body, most of the CO2 is in the form of a substance called bicarbonate (HCO3-). Therefore, the CO2 blood test is really a measure of your blood bicarbonate level. When bicarbonate levels are higher or lower than normal, it suggests that the body is having trouble maintaining its acid-base balance or that you have upset your electrolyte balance, perhaps by losing or retaining fluid. Both of these imbalances may be due to a wide range of dysfunctions. Low levels can be a warning sign for Addison's disease, diabetic ketoacidosis or Kidney disease. High levels can be cuased by Cushing syndrome, Conn syndrome or lung diseases.

Calcium - 9.0 mg/dL 

Normal range is 8.4 to 10.2 mg/dL. Calcium is the most common mineral in the body and one of the most important. The body needs it to build and fix bones and teeth, help nerves work, make muscles squeeze together, help blood clot, and help the heart to work. Almost all of the calcium in the body is stored in bone. Blood calcium levels do not indicate levels of bone calcium but rather how much calcium is circulating in the blood. Normally the level of calcium in the blood is carefully controlled. When blood calcium levels get low (hypocalcemia), the bones release calcium to bring it back to a good blood level. When blood calcium levels get high (hypercalcemia), the extra calcium is stored in the bones or passed out of the body in urine and stool. It is important to get the right amount of calcium in your food because the body loses calcium every day. Foods rich in calcium include dairy products (milk, cheese), eggs, fish, green vegetables, and fruit. Most people who have low or high levels of calcium do not have any symptoms. Calcium levels need to be very high or low to cause symptoms. Some causes of high levels of calcium are hyperthyroidism, sarcoidosis, excess Vitamin D, HIV/AIDS and cancer. Low levels can be caused by liver disease, renal failure or malnutrition.

Anion Gap – 9 (arb'U)

Normal range is between 5 and 13 arb/U. The anion gap measures the difference—or gap—between the negatively charged and positively charged electrolytes in your blood. If the anion gap is too high, your blood is more acidic than normal. If the anion gap is too low, your blood isn't acidic enough.

Total Proteins – 6.9 g/dL

Normal range is 6.3 to 8.2 g/dL. Total protein measurements can reflect nutritional status and may be used to screen for and help diagnose kidney disease or liver disease. A low total protein level can suggest a liver disorder, a kidney disorder, or a disorder in which protein is not digested or absorbed properly. I talked about blood proteins quite a bit in my posts on gluten. A high total protein level may be seen with chronic inflammation or infections such as viral hepatitis or HIV. It also may be associated with bone marrow disorders such as multiple myeloma. It's worth mentioning that a high-protein diet doesn't cause high blood protein. High blood protein is not a specific disease or condition in itself.

My report shows total protein, albumin, globulins, and the calculated ratio of albumin to globulins, termed the A/G ratio. Normally, there is a little more albumin than globulins, giving a normal A/G ratio of slightly over 1. Because disease states affect the relative amounts of albumin and globulin, the A/G ratio may provide a clue as to the cause of the change in protein levels.

Albumin - 4.7 g/dL

Globulin - 2.2 g/dL

A/G Ratio - 2.1

A low A/G ratio (under 1.1) may reflect overproduction of globulins, such as seen in autoimmune diseases, or underproduction of albumin, such as may occur with cirrhosis, or selective loss of albumin from the circulation, as may occur with kidney disease. A high A/G ratio (over 2.5) suggests underproduction of immunoglobulins as may be seen in some genetic deficiencies and in some leukemias.

_______________________________________________________________________

The Liver Panel is used to screen for, detect, evaluate, and monitor acute and chronic liver inflammation (hepatitis), liver disease and/or damage. The liver serves several important functions in the body, including changing nutrients into energy for the body and breaking down toxic substances. The liver panel consists of four tests.

Total Bilirubin - 0.4 mg/dL

Normal Range is between 0.2 and 1.3 mg/dL. Bilirubin is a brownish yellow substance found in bile (helps digest food). It is produced when the liver breaks down old red blood cells. When bilirubin levels are high, the skin and whites of the eyes may appear yellow (jaundice). Jaundice may be caused by liver disease (hepatitis), blood disorders (hemolytic anemia), or blockage of the tubes (bile ducts) that allow bile to pass from the liver to the small intestine. Low levels of bilirubin are not generally a concern and are not monitored.

AST (aspartate aminotransferase) / SGOT - 100 U/L

Normal range is between 15 and 46 U/L. An AST test measures the amount of this enzyme in the blood. AST is normally found in red blood cells, liver, heart, muscle tissue, pancreas, and kidneys. When body tissue or an organ such as the heart or liver is diseased or damaged, additional AST is released into the bloodstream. Very high levels of AST (more than 10 times normal) are usually due to acute hepatitis, sometimes due to a viral infection. Low levels of AST are not a concern. The AST test is usually done at the same time as a test for alanine aminotransferase, or ALT.

ALT (alanine aminotransferase) / SGPT - 104 U/L

Normal range is between 13 and 69 U/L. As with the AST test, ALT is used to identify liver disease, especially cirrhosis and hepatitis caused by alcohol, drugs, or viruses. AST and ALT are considered to be two of the most important tests to detect liver injury, although ALT is more specific to the liver than is AST. In most types of liver diseases, the ALT level is higher than AST, and the AST/ALT ratio will be low (less than 1).

While both my AST and ALT are outside the normal range, levels need to be closer to 1000 U/L before there is concern around serious liver damage. I do not drink alcohol very often and when I do it’s usually just one drink. I am not on any medications either, which can cause long-term liver damage. I did have a beer the night before the bloodwork, so that might have causes the minor elevation. I will likely ask my doctor if another rest is recommend.

ALP (alkaline phosphatase) - 59 U/L

Normal range is between 38 and 126 U/L. The liver makes more ALP than the other organs or the bones. ALP helps break down proteins in the body and exists in different forms, depending on where it originates. Some conditions cause large amounts of ALP in the blood. These conditions include rapid bone growth (during puberty), bone disease (such as Paget's disease or cancer that has spread to the bones), a disease that affects how much calcium is in the blood (hyperparathyroidism), vitamin D deficiency, or damaged liver cells. A deficiency in zinc may cause low ALP levels. Malnutrition or protein deficiency as well as Wilson disease could also be possible causes for lowered ALP. It may also be caused by celiac disease or a deficiency in vitamins and minerals.

_______________________________________________________________________

Next I'll move on to the Kidney tests. Kidney's not only remove waste products and excess fluid from the body, they regulate of the body's salt, potassium and acid content. The kidneys also produce hormones that affect the function of other organs. So needless to say, these little bean-shaped dudes are very important. The blood tests will show how well your kidneys are doing their job and how quickly the waste is being removed.

BUN (Blood Urea Nitrogen) - 10 mg/dL

Normal range is between 7 and 20 mg/dL. The BUN test is primarily used, along with the creatinine test, to evaluate kidney function in a wide range of circumstances, to help diagnose kidney disease, and to monitor people with acute or chronic kidney dysfunction or failure. If your kidneys are not able to remove urea from the blood normally, your BUN level rises. Heart failure, dehydration, or a diet high in protein can also make your BUN level higher. Liver disease or damage can lower your BUN level. BUN levels can increase with the amount of protein in the diet. High-protein diets may cause abnormally high BUN levels while very low-protein diets can cause an abnormally low BUN.

Creatinine – 0.95 mg/dL

Normal range is 0.7 to 1.5 mg/dL. Creatinine is a waste product formed by the breakdown of a substance (creatine) important for converting food into energy (metabolism). The creatinine is filtered out of the blood by the kidneys and then passed out of the body in urine. If the kidneys are damaged and can't function normally, the amount of creatinine in the urine decreases while the amount of creatinine in the blood increases. Low blood levels of creatinine are not common, but they are also not usually a cause for concern. They can be seen with conditions that result in decreased muscle mass. Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine tests can be used together to find the BUN-to-creatinine ratio (BUN:creatinine). A BUN-to-creatinine ratio can be used to check for problems, such as dehydration, that may cause abnormal BUN and creatinine levels. My ratio was 10.7 - the normal range is between 10 and 20.

_______________________________________________________________________

Glucose - 90 mg/dL

Normal range is 74-106 mg/dL. A blood glucose test measures the amount of a type of sugar, called glucose, in your blood. Insulin is a hormone that helps your body's cells use the glucose. Insulin is produced in the pancreas and released into the blood when the amount of glucose in the blood rises. Normally, your blood glucose levels increase slightly after you eat. This increase causes your pancreas to release insulin so that your blood glucose levels do not get too high. Blood glucose levels that remain high over time can damage your eyes, kidneys, nerves, and blood vessels. There are several different types of blood glucose tests, but the one I had done was a Fasting Blood Glucose (FBG). It measures blood glucose after you have not eaten for at least 8 hours. It is often the first test done to check for prediabetes and diabetes. Anything over 126 mg/dL on this FBG test would indicate diabetes. With a family history if diabetes, this is a number that I will always keep a close eye on.

A1C - 5.60%

Normal range is 4.0-6.0%. The A1C test is a blood test that provides information about a person’s average levels of blood glucose, also called blood sugar, over the past 3 months. The A1C test is based on the attachment of glucose to hemoglobin, the protein in red blood cells that carries oxygen. In the body, red blood cells are constantly forming and dying, but typically they live for about 3 months. Thus, the A1C test reflects the average of a person’s blood glucose levels over the past 3 months. The A1C test result is reported as a percentage. The higher the percentage, the higher a person’s blood glucose levels have been.

Now that I’m over 40 years old, I will strive to stay as healthy as possible and will continue to have a blood panel done once every year or two to try and catch anything that might be of concern.

If you haven't had a Basic Metabolic Panel (BMP) in the last few years, I would suggest you talk to your healthcare provider about having it done. The results can give your health practitioner important information about the current status of your overall health, including health of the kidneys, blood glucose level, and electrolyte and acid/base balance. Abnormal results, and especially combinations of abnormal results, can indicate a problem that needs to be addressed. The earlier you catch somethings, they better off you are!

A recent study found that the more runners distract themselves from what their bodies are doing, the more effortless their run may feel, and the better their performance. The new study was published on October 1^st of this year in the Journal of Motor Learning and Development. Researchers at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville and Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran, Iran, used the study to determine whether runners would perform more effectively if they were distracted, compared to if they tuned in to what was happening with their bodies.

After a baseline test of a treadmill, the subjects ran on four separate days, for six minutes at a time, running at about 70% of their top speed, while the scientists monitored their oxygen consumption, the amount of lactate in their bloodstreams and their feelings about the difficulty of each run.

Participants experienced a different experimental condition (i.e., four focus of attention conditions) during each of their 4 days of participation in the study. The four attention strategies were as follows:

    (a) An associative-external attention was prompted by repeatedly instructing the participant to “count your steps” while running.

    (b) To create an associative-internal focus of attention, the examiner repeated the phrase “Focus on the muscles in your feet” during the running action.

    (c) Participants viewed a video clip of a basketball game on a monitor placed at eye level while in the dissociative-external condition.

    (d) An dissociative-internal attention was prompted by asking each participant to perform mental calculations during the trial. This was done by providing each volunteer with a unique number and then instructing them to continuously subtract by three while running. The researcher asked the participant to verbally report the currently calculated number every 30 seconds.

A lot of us have been told by a coach or read an article telling you to focus on your running form, listen to your breathing, count your steps to track cadence, or think about the process of lifting your knee with each stride or kicking your heel back. But does doing any of this make us faster or make running seem easier?

To my surprise, the study found that that video watching easily bested body listening. The runners consumed the least oxygen and produced the least lactate when they viewed basketball and were the most distracted. Their running, physiologically, was least taxing then. They also told the researchers that when they watched the videos, they felt the least strained. Their running felt hardest, on the other hand, when they paid attention to their muscles, with the other strategies falling in between.

Jared Porter, a professor of human movement at the University of Tennessee, who oversaw the new study suggested that those of us that run should wear headphones and stream music or podcasts while running or watch television as you jog on a treadmill.

“We were surprised by how significant the effects were” when people’s minds drifted away from their bodies, he said.

In conclusion, according to the results of this study, recreational runners who wish to optimize their running in terms of movement economy should be encouraged to implement an external-dissociative focus of attention while running. So will I start running with headphones? Not likely. But what I will do is try and just be in the moment and enjoy the sights and sounds of nature as I’m out running. Maybe get real crazy and even try not running with a watch now and then!

You can find the full text of the study here: The Effects of an Associative, Dissociative, Internal, and External Focus of Attention on Running Economy

Be sure and visit all of my sponsor’s websites. I sought out these companies because they provide great products and services.

The results of a new study that was published in August confirms what I’ve been telling people for years – exercise is a horrible way to try and lose weight!

Turns out those “calories burned” calculators on fitness apps or exercise equipment at the gym are not even close to being accurate. Think you just burned 500 calories with a 30 minute session on the elliptical? Turns out it was more like 300 or 350.

If you have tried to lose weight through a new exercise program, you know that most people lose less weight than would be expected based on the number of calories they think they are burning during their workouts, even if they strictly monitor their diets.

The researchers in this study wanted to see why that is, so they set out to see what happens to our metabolisms when we move. They pulled data for 1,754 adults (692 men and 1,062 women aged 18 to 96 years) that included their water consumption, measures of their body compositions and basal energy expenditure, which is how many calories they burn simply by being alive, even if they otherwise are inactive. Subtracting basal numbers from total energy expenditure gave the researchers an approximation of people’s energy expenditure from exercise and other movement, such as standing, walking and general fidgeting.

The study found that we tend to automatically compensate for at least a quarter of the calories we expend during exercise. They also found that this calorie compensation varies from person to person, based on how your unique metabolism responds to workouts.

What they found was that most people seemed to be burning only about 72 percent as many additional calories through movement, on average, as would be expected.

The results also show that carrying extra pounds unfortunately compounds calorie compensation, making weight loss through exercise even more elusive for those who are already overweight. They tended to compensate for 50 percent or more of the calories they burned by being active.

It appears that our bodies compensate by dialing back overall calorie burning the longer or more frequently we exercise or move…to avoid starvation. This is likely part of our ancestral make-up to keep us alive while burning calories to find food.

With this knowledge, in the future it might be possible to screen individuals to ascertain whether exercise would be a valuable fat loss intervention because they are “weak compensators” or a fruitless fat loss intervention because they are strong compensators. The researches also think that there may be other factors that play into your level of compensation, such as a compromised immune system or recovery from injury.

The few national guidelines that have been published converge on the recommendation of a 500–600 kcal/day deficit through exercising to instigate fat loss. These guidelines are general for the population and do not factor in the variation in energy compensation exhibited by people with different levels of fat mass, as demonstrated in the study. Public health strategies for fat loss should be revised to recognize energy compensation as our understanding progresses about which individuals compensate and by how much.

Don’t let this study discourage you from exercising. Even if your body compensates for 50 percent or more of the calories you burn during physical activity – this is still more than if you stayed on the couch! Not to mention that exercise can combat health conditions and diseases, improves mood, boosts energy and promote better sleep among other benefits. Bottom line is that you should not use exercise for weight loss. To drop pounds, you just must eat better…there’s no way around it.

You can read the full study here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221011209

A new study came out last week in Science magazine. These researchers have precisely measured life’s metabolic highs and lows, from birth to old age, and the findings will surprise you.

The findings suggests that your metabolism (the rate at which you burn calories) actually peaks much earlier in life, and starts its inevitable decline later than we thought.

According to the abstract, the 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.

Most previous studies on metabolism only accounted for the calories we burn for things that are critical to life (breathing, digesting, pumping blood).  Requirements of the heart, liver, kidney and brain account for 65% of the resting metabolic rate although they constitute only 5% of body weight. Previous studies did not take into account the energy we spend doing literally anything else. Even sitting burns calories.

Pooling and analyzing energy expenditures from data gathered over the last 40 years from multiple labs 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.

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.

I remember being told that “once I turned 30, my metabolism slowed dramatically”.  Turns out that it’s not a changing metabolic rate that causes weight gain in our 30’s and 40’s. So why do most people put on the extra pounds at this stage in life? Aside from people just eating more calories than they are burning, other lifestyle changes including stress, a busier schedule and less exercise are also contributing factors.

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 findings show that our metabolisms don’t really start to decline again until after age 60, and then at a rate of only 0.7% a year. But a person in their 90s needs 26% fewer calories each day than someone in midlife.

As might be expected, while the metabolic rate patterns hold for the population, individuals vary. Some have metabolic rates 25 percent below the average for their age and others have rates 25 percent higher than expected. But these outliers do not change the general pattern, said the researchers. So don’t assume they you are different. You likely are not

This research is going to reshape the science of human physiology and may even have doctors and pharmacists rethinking appropriate drug doses for children and older people.

You can find the details on the study here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34385400/