Don’t know much of what this entails, but heard some qualified professionals saying this. Apparently your cells start dying once you are 25, and the cell renewal can’t keep up with cell degeneration anymore or something like that. So all your bodily functions and performance starts declining past 25.
1)Is there evidence to suggest this is true? Is it also the case for low velocity maximal strength?
2)Some suggest if you have some of the cosmetic signs of getting older (white hair, balding, wrinkles, fine lines) it also means your physiological performance is also declining. Is that true? Any connection between getting wrinkles and losing muscle, or do they follow separate trajectories with age?
Moreover in the same vain, are all functional declines with age interconnected, or do they happen separately? Ie, your lungs may be losing function and can’t utilize oxygen as well anymore, thus your VO2max lowers, but does this mean your low velocity strength is also declining at the same rate with a similar onset? Even in the case of just performance, do all forms of it, power, explosiveness, endurance, agility, strength, decline from the same point with similar onset? Or are the trajectories of every single one different from each other? Do different forms of performance either peak later/earlier in life or maintain the peak longer/shorter before experiencing declines, or do all peak and decline around the same time, be it 25, since apparently your body is just wasting away?
In essence, if you look at a 60 year old and a 25 year old side by side you can easily tell the 60 year old is the older person due to many signs of aging manifesting on them, but just because you can tell one has aged and may need reading glasses now, does that automatically mean the 60 yr old has less strength than the 25?
Do you have a link to some of the “professionals” saying this? It’s hard to know if something is being lost in translation or if it’s just straight up misinformation.
To your questions:
No. This is made up.
No. This is also made up.
There are about 6 separate questions in here that I’m going to sum up with a general response. People who remain active generally don’t lose fitness as they age until much later on, if at all. Not all aspects of performance trend at the same time. It has nothing to do with being age 25 or old, obviously.
There are 60 year olds stronger than anyone who has ever posted on this forum.
Yes I do, I purposefully did not post them because I wasn’t sure if you’d appreciate me posting random links to other people’s accounts or websites, but if you want me to, here are a few from the top of my head:
https://youtu.be/Y5mbU_tgpko?si=YKDaMegHzHZg3dCp - From what I understand, this doctor is saying that evolution made it so our bodies start breaking down past our early to mid 20’s, he uses swimmers peaking early as a supporting argument for this notion. Aging is unavoidable (for now). When I just joined the gym as a… | by Yuri Deigin | Medium - Yuri is some bigshot in the “longevity” field, and while the title of the article is correct (of course it is unavoidable), in the actual article he seems to take it a step further and suggests that decline from the age of 20 is also unavoidable, he uses a heart rate chart to show that, he also uses the swimmer peaking early as an argument like the last guy, and then shows graphs from a few other sports with trends showing declines overtime. “Almost immediately after puberty, different systems in our body begin to slowly but surely deteriorate”, so he seems to be suggesting it starts even way before 25. Dear Cheryl,. Thank you for offering your… | by Yuri Deigin | Medium - he also mentions in a reply to a comment on the article that disuse does not matter, and that no amount of training or use can delay or prevent these changes. It’s all downhill from here | The Week - author David shields who has written a few books on this topic, seems to suggest it’s all doomed past 25-30 as well. https://youtu.be/m1PP23OX6Sw?si=eCsASPDLmFszvEZm - Israetel also alludes to the same downhill after 25-30 thing in this video. Also says humans were not built to live past 30. How Does Senescence Relate to Aging Well? - this article mentions senescence, which the dictionary describes as “the condition or process of deterioration with age”, begins in your 20s
I don’t have an exact link for this one but Peter Attia is also known for saying similar things, he has made several instagram posts suggesting that the body is beginning to slowly die past 25 or so. In one interview with a 34 year old Thomas DeLauer, he tells Thomas he is already very much past his peak at 34 and wouldn’t be able to physically compare against a 20 year old version of himself. Attia also mentions often how at 50 he is a shadow of his 20 year old self despite continuous training.
These last two aren’t experts or professionals, but these random people also claim to have heard the 20-25 thing from some expert or some textbook at school, so I am assuming there are more professionals who go around saying the 25 thing.
I see, so with the much later on, would it be correct to assume it is possible to maintain high levels of performance until about early 70s or so and after that experiencing unavoidable declines?
I ask this specifically because WebMD mentions muscle loss begins at 30, but speeds up around 75: Sarcopenia (Muscle Loss With Aging): Causes, and Treatments
So I’ve wondered if this means that the declines that begins at 30 is likely due to lifestyle and inactivity, whereas the acceleration that seems to occur in your 70s is likely the actual unavoidable decline, even with lifelong training. Is that correct?
So essentially, even though the body as a whole is aging, you would be getting wrinkles, worsened vision, white hair, perhaps many of your internal organs may start to decline in function such as the heart or kidneys, metabolism may decline, despite all of that as long as you keep training a certain part of your fitness, for example strength, it is possible to maintain that form of fitness for a very long time until well into old age, despite declining function overall?
Dr. Walker is a chiropractor, not a physician. He has no training in evolutionary biology or sport. Swimmers peak performance depends on the event and the talent pool being measured.
Aging is unavoidable (for now). When I just joined the gym as a… | by Yuri Deigin | Medium - Yuri is some bigshot in the “longevity” field, and while the title of the article is correct (of course it is unavoidable), in the actual article he seems to take it a step further and suggests that decline from the age of 20 is also unavoidable, he uses a heart rate chart to show that, he also uses the swimmer peaking early as an argument like the last guy, and then shows graphs from a few other sports with trends showing declines overtime. “Almost immediately after puberty, different systems in our body begin to slowly but surely deteriorate”, so he seems to be suggesting it starts even way before 25.
Yuri has no medical or science training at all. Yes, people will do worse at some sports as they age due to a myriad of reasons. Not because “the body starts dying at 25”. Strength, vo2max, and power improvements in response to training are the same in older and younger individuals, for example. Sports performance is multi-faceted.
You’ll note that none of these people are able to make cogent, evidence-based claims. Rather, the have to use anecdote. I think that’s telling.
I don’t have an exact link for this one but Peter Attia is also known for saying similar things, he has made several instagram posts suggesting that the body is beginning to slowly die past 25 or so.
We’re all dying at some rate every day. Not sure what the point is.
In one interview with a 34 year old Thomas DeLauer, he tells Thomas he is already very much past his peak at 34 and wouldn’t be able to physically compare against a 20 year old version of himself. Attia also mentions often how at 50 he is a shadow of his 20 year old self despite continuous training.
Weird, I’m in much better shape than I was in my 20’s despite training hard then too. I guess my anecdote negates his, right?
[quoote]
These last two aren’t experts or professionals, but these random people also claim to have heard the 20-25 thing from some expert or some textbook at school, so I am assuming there are more professionals who go around saying the 25 thing. [/quote]
None of the people linked here are experts. People who are experts don’t say this type of nonsense.
I see, so with the much later on, would it be correct to assume it is possible to maintain high levels of performance until about early 70s or so and after that experiencing unavoidable declines?
For some, yes. For others, no…
I ask this specifically because WebMD mentions muscle loss begins at 30, but speeds up around 75: Sarcopenia (Muscle Loss With Aging): Causes, and Treatments
So I’ve wondered if this means that the declines that begins at 30 is likely due to lifestyle and inactivity, whereas the acceleration that seems to occur in your 70s is likely the actual unavoidable decline, even with lifelong training. Is that correct?
WebMD is also not a trusted source on this. Muscle loss can begin earlier than 30 with disuse, but otherwise doesn’t really happen if people are training.
So essentially, even though the body as a whole is aging, you would be getting wrinkles, worsened vision, white hair, perhaps many of your internal organs may start to decline in function such as the heart or kidneys, metabolism may decline, despite all of that as long as you keep training a certain part of your fitness, for example strength, it is possible to maintain that form of fitness for a very long time until well into old age, despite declining function overall?
The aging process and results vary significantly from individual to individual, but yes, lots of muscle function can be maintained (or improved) well into old age.
My advice? Stop listening to idiots on the internet. The longevity field is trash, in general.
A thought that occurs to me as I read this thread is that even if all of those patently absurd comments about the body starting to die or degrade or whatever at a specific (very, very young) age were true, what would it matter? How would it change your approach to training, or life in general?
If something is literally out of your control in that context, then IMO there’s no point in worrying about it.
So declines in sports performance can occur despite maintained fitness? For example, Lebron is evidently declining, but it would be reasonable to say he is still as strong as he’s ever been?
Sad that they are one of the first results that pop up when you search about this then. Are other results that pop up such as Cleveland Clinic: Sarcopenia (Muscle Loss): Symptoms & Causes also unreliable? By extension, are just a lot of results on google when it comes to these things unreliable?
Understood, will be more careful about who I listen to, thank you for the answers.
Yes but my question is based on when does it become “out of your control”. Some say it’s at 25, others at 30, others at 40, others at 50, and others say it’s not uncontrollable until much later in life like Jordan. Of course, I would prefer to have the last one be true. I know that some point it will be out of control, I’m sure everyone knows you can’t be a specimen at 80 or 90, so I don’t care about what happens at ages that old. But it does matter earlier on, because if it is possible to be strong at 50, but I don’t believe it is, then it is safe to assume (at least in my case) I won’t be doing the work to ever accomplish it.
Why would it matter if the decline begins at 25? Because it would affect my training. I’m 24 right now, so if the 25 thing is correct then I have very little time until I am already on the downhill slide, believing that itself will screw up my training. Some of you are probably very stoic and don’t let your thoughts control your actions or simply just don’t care, but not all of us are like that, my thoughts and feelings routinely seep into my actions. Also a bad deal at face value is a bad deal even if I don’t care. Average human in first world countries lives to be in their 70s, if you are already degrading at 25 that would mean you will remain alive for five decades of decline, that’s a bad deal.
All I’m saying is the not caring advice is not as simple as you think it is, nor is it as easy for others as it might be for you. All I’d like to know is if it is true or not. If it is then I will just continue to live on a little bit more jaded, perhaps be less enthusiastic about training. And if it is not true then good for me. What I can gather from Jordan’s answers is that it’s not true, so good for me.
I think it is likely various metrics we can measure are likely similar to or perhaps even better than when he entered the league. However, sports performance is a more complex beast in most cases than maximum strength, vo2max, and so on. This is especially true of team sports.
Sad that they are one of the first results that pop up when you search about this then. Are other results that pop up such as Cleveland Clinic: Sarcopenia (Muscle Loss): Symptoms & Causes also unreliable? By extension, are just a lot of results on google when it comes to these things unreliable?
I didn’t read that entire article, but I can tell you that the definition they use for sarcopenia is incorrect right off the bat. The current definition of sarcopenia by the 2019 European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People is:
“Sarcopenia is a progressive and generalised skeletal muscle disorder that is associated with increased likelihood of adverse outcomes including falls, fractures, physical disability and mortality.”
Many of the pages that range highly on Google in the fitness and medical sectors are hot garbage. I’ve learned this over the years and although we’re trying to play the game to rank higher/better, it’s still annoying to me.
In some sense, it’s always outside of your control because one of the major inputs to fitness, health, and performance alike is genetics. Additionally, performance and fitness are not the same things and can vary in how they change over time by the characteristic itself, the test, and so on.
I fully expect to be stronger at 50 than I will be at 70, but I’m not sure I’ll be stronger at 40 than 50. To your point about being 24, you should know that at your age I had not yet competed in my first powerlifting meet, I hadn’t deadlifted more than 545 (current PR 733), or hit anywhere near my best on any of the lifts. You quite literally have your entire training career ahead of you.
What would you say is declining that would cause loss of performance in a team sport like basketball despite maintained fitness?
[quote=“Jordan Feigenbaum, post:8, topic:14204, username:Jordan_Feigenbaum”]
Many of the pages that range highly on Google in the fitness and medical sectors are hot garbage. I’ve learned this over the years and although we’re trying to play the game to rank higher/better, it’s still annoying to me,
[/quote] I guess googling isn’t a reliable source when it comes to most of these questions.
3 questions. How much do you expect to decline from 50 to 70? Do you expect the decline to start soon after entering your 50s? Does actual unavoidable age related muscle loss begin somewhere between 50 to 70?
Competitive sports ebb and flow with respect to talent pools along with evolving strategies for success. I think that and motivation are the biggest things that change rather than particular aspects of fitness.
Correct, google is not a reliable source for trustworthy information.
I don’t have an expectation from 50 to 70 and I don’t know when it will happen either. We don’t know much about stuff that’s actually unavoidable in this time frame. I wouldn’t worry about it.
You did say you fully expect to be weaker at 70 than 50, which gives the impression that for someone who has been training most of their lives it isn’t possible to maintain majority of their fitness strength wise until 70.
Sad that there is no direct research on this, gives people ammo to claim that declines begin at whatever arbitrary age they wish and spread it around, like that webmd article. Getting data on this may not provide much practical value but at least it will make less people claim it’s all downhill from 30 no matter what, which can get annoying.
Thank you for taking the time to answer all questions.
I’m surprised people think there would be data on this. Most people do not exercise at all, much less do so in a systematic manner for a lifetime. Then, there’s the wide range of inter-individual variation that would make this data very messy. In any case, it does not influence what I do at all.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. All of these sources are vying for your attention. You can choose what you want to spend your time viewing.