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.”

…

  • Jezebelley@fedia.io
    0·
    3 months ago

    I only have a couple years left before the old officially sets in it that’s the case. Save me…

    • merari42@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • SoJB@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      3 months 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

        • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          0·
          3 months 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
            0·
            3 months 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
              0·
              3 months 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
                0·
                3 months 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.

    • fpslem@lemmy.worldOP
      0·
      3 months 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
        0·
        3 months 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.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      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)

      • MNByChoice@midwest.social
        0·
        3 months ago

        Article focuses on behavior, not on fixing our bodies.

        (Humanity has a huge issue blaming the experiencer. A large “you smelt it, you delt it” attitude.)