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.”

    • fpslem@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      Read further in that paragraph:

      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 Nature linked in the article. That study looked at fewer proteins, but had over 4,000 participants.

      • Webster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        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.

    • SoJB@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      27 days ago

      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

      • NineMileTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        27 days ago

        Statistics? Statistically speaking they studied 0.00000135% of the population all located in California.

        • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          27 days ago

          Again, proving the point

          I don’t have the time or energy to do a full statistic course, but there’s the whole thing of sampling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

          For a very basic example, say you have 1 million people, 200 000 prefers burgers, and 800 000 prefers pizza, then say out you pick people out randomly from the group of 1 million people

          How many do you need to pick out to have a 95% certainty that the ratio falls within 95% of the general distribution in the population? The answer is: 246. 246 is a big enough sample size for a 95% confidence that you are within 95% of the range of the general population distribution in this specific example

          There’s a lot more to this, of course, but hopefully this is sufficient to showcase that you do not need large amounts of data to derive conclusive results

          Usually in a scientific context you go more the route of calculating the confidence percentage that the data you got is random, also known as null-hypothesis testing, where the confidence percentage is the p-value. So the inverse of that is the confidence that it’s not random

          But, again, there’s so much more to statistics than this, this is just the very basics.

          • NineMileTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            27 days ago

            I understand sampling, but the sample doesn’t represent the human population. Do the same test to 108 in Okinawa or any other blue zone and watch the results be different.

            That’s like only sampling the burger people and then concluding that most people like burgers.

            • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              27 days ago

              Assuming that people are biologically different enough between these two areas that is, or some other localized cause of aging at these years. Which I don’t find particularly likely, but yes, it is an assumption

              As always, bigger studies are desirable, but idk if it’s much of a criticism of studies. These are for a scientific audience, after all

              • Lightor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                26 days ago

                You’re ignoring so many factors though. Lifestyle, diets, different genetic background, etc.
                Would those make a difference, I don’t know. But science doesn’t operate by saying “we’ll just ignore all these possible variables and make an assumption.” Having a sample of people all from one US State then applying that to the entire world’s population is not good science.

  • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    27 days ago

    44 is probably the average age at which people start paying for their kids’ college tuitions. That shit will age anybody.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        27 days ago

        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.

  • IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    27 days ago

    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.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      27 days ago

      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.

      • IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        27 days ago

        Yeah, well, that’s why it’s anecdote and not data, right? Everyone is going to be a little different, but the trend is there 😆

      • PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        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.

  • DefiantBidet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    27 days ago

    48 here… i used to be able to read the freaking copyright date on those eye charts … once i hit mid 40s i need glasses.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      27 days ago

      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".

      • Duranie@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        27 days ago

        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.

      • PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        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…

  • ben_dover@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    27 days ago

    i thought becoming 30 fucked me up enough already… so i have to go through this two more times, only it will be worse? ugh…

    • girthero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      27 days ago

      Felt the same when i turned 30 years ago, but i improved my fitness from that point forward and improved things drastically for myself.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        27 days ago

        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.

  • dmtalon@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    27 days ago

    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.

    • fpslem@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      27 days ago

      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.

      • dmtalon@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        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 :)

        • fpslem@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          27 days ago

          back spasms after sneezing (of all things)

          This is the true humiliation of getting older. In my 20s I climbed mountains and had plenty of scrapes and mishaps, but I just shook them off and my body just healed up quickly. Now I can tweak my back with a sneeze or be sore for days just by raking leaves. Life comes at you fast.

          • dmtalon@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            27 days ago

            I literally could not get off the floor for around 2h and was panicking quite a bit. Never ever felt so vulnerable before. Do not recommend whatever happened to me :). Good thing is it was just muscle and once healed I was back to 100% It just prevented me from running for over a month.

    • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      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.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        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?

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            27 days ago

            I mean, it’s just like a car though. When you first get one, you can rev it as much as you like, fly over speed bumps and potholes, miss an oil change, and no big deal. However that abuse all comes due at once, when suddenly so many parts are obviously degraded. At that point you may decide to replace your car …. I’m ready to replace my meat mech

          • dmtalon@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            26 days ago

            I need to drop weight I picked up last Christmas when I was injured. Just don’t want to diet :)

  • nilaus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    27 days ago

    Turned 44 6 months ago. Haven’t felt it yet. Guess it’s going to get rough soon…

    • GluWu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      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.

    • PrimeMinisterKeyes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      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.”

    • dezmd@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      27 days ago

      Wait til you sleep wrong and wake up wondering how you threw your back our.