Little kids burn so much energy, they’re like a different species, study finds
sciencemag.org
sciencemag.org
This is well known in emergency medicine. Not only do kids burn out quick, they also burn out completely because they, unlike adults, don't keep a reserve. This applies to homeostasis, too.
Consequently: young trauma victims that "look OK" need to be very closely attended to, because what you might be seeing is a kid burning the very last of their energy reserves just to maintain homeostasis, and they will NOT degrade gracefully once they're out of energy -- they'll just go right into the deep end of shock. Happy and talking to unconscious in 90 seconds is nothing you want to see.
Another thing to keep in mind with infants/very young children is that if they get diarrhea, they can lose 30% of their weight (mostly water) in 2-3 days and die without hospitalization. So that means waiting a reasonable time for improvement at home can actually kill them. (I don't know how that kind of illness affects their future development.)
Not as far into the end as shock but I've learned to watch for the signs that my daughter is tired and crashing. Sometimes it's as small as being a little distant (harder, many possible reasons) to full on tantrum (much easier).
If you've raised a baby, you'll know the concept of "overtired", but it was absolutely baffling to me as a first time parent.
You're tired kid, just go to sleep!! But they won't unless the conditions are right. Miss the window and they'll go into overtired which causes them to scream/tantrum for way longer than anyone wants, again baffling.
As soon as my wife realised it wasn't just simple vomitting she called a doctor and they told us to go to hospital, so we were there within 3 hours of the first episode. My wife stayed with them in hospital, but because of corona I wasn't allowed to see them - which wasn't particularly nice for me and I'm sure was very traumatic for our kid.
We have all recovered now, but yes it's somewhat surprising how quickly young kids can go downhill.
e.g. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/norovirus/
That's what isolation wards are for, I suppose.
The first evening was brutal though. 6 hours of drink, vomit, eat, vomit, drink, vomit, etc. My kid easily threw up 20+ times.
First time, maybe a fluke. Check for other signs of illness, heat sickness, what did they eat recently, fever etc.
Second time they get no food or water for two hours. Then small sips of water/Pedialyte
If they don't vomit after the liquid they can eat a few bites of BRAT (banana rice applesauce or toast) if they do, wait another hour or two and repeat.
If they're still vomitting after 6+ hours, depending on the child's age, we'll call the pediatrician and ask for advice.
If they're still not keeping even liquids down after 8+ hours (again depending on age) we take them to the ER after consulting with the pediatrician again. We've only had to do that once.
If at any time the child shows signs of dehydration we skip to the last step.
Source - have 5 kids.
many kids drowned because of this. Jumping, screaming and laughing in the water - the next moment gone. You have to pay attention. I do not mean, being overprotective, just pay really attention to them and you should notice, when they are about to reach their limits.
Edit: I distinctly remember one time being at a party surrounded by adults but the only one noticing the emergency. It’s like when a kid gets in trouble with water they become almost invisible… it’s very strange.
https://www.watersafetymagazine.com/drowning-doesnt-look-lik...
Well, it can be hard distingishing kids playing in water loudly and just ordinary play screaming - and kids panicking in water. It looks and sounds the same on first glance in many instances. Or rather not. When they are loud, they still have energy and their head well above the water. (you cannot shout so well, with water in your mouth)
The scary part is, when they reached their limits and do not have the energy to panic anymore and just fade and drown.
If that happens, it is very important to not panic yourself, go in quickly (but not headless) and maybe know some CPR basics if necessary.
There are cases, where the drowned child got rescued, but the paniqued parent drowned dead. Or the other sibling.
(not in pool, but in river/sea type scenarios)
But better avoid that alltogether by paying attention before and choose the site accordingly. I mean I am also very often with my toddler at a river, where he can play at a shallow spot. I know it is dangerous if I stop paying attention to him, because the river has a strong current and rocks in it. And he already knows the dangers, but he overestimates himself quickly. He is the kid. I have the responsibility.
I would let them play, run around, go out in the deep water and even get that terrified "I'm over my head!!" look on their face while they flailed their arms around. It's get to let them stop panicking on their own. They learn their limits and I've only had to actually wade out and rescue them a handful of times.
But I was basically scanning the water and counting my kids (I have five) every minute the whole time they were in the water.
I'm glad they are all strong swimmers now.
It's quite interesting how much we still don't know, especially about ourselves.
> Children’s metabolic rates stay high until age 5, but the rate slowly begins to glide down until it plateaus around age 20. Interestingly, adult rates are stable until age 60, when they begin to decline. After age 90, humans use about 26% less energy daily, Pontzer says.
> The study also found that pregnant women don’t have higher metabolic rates than other adults; their energy use and calorie consumption scales up with body size
> The metabolic rate didn’t zoom up in hungry teenagers either
There’s something different about our environment.
[0] not literally
(I don't know if people lost weight in their 40-50's.)
Weight gain is long term, and a bad diet and/or feeding period take a long time to do their damage. Think one pound a year.
Anyway, I disclaim any particular medical or nutritional expertise.
Has anyone actually ever been sued on a forum for bad medical advice? That seems impossible when there are literal quack colleges in the US.
Making all your meals 5% bigger would cause a weight gain of nearly 10lbs/yr, and the kind of switch in diet that can happen naturally with age (especially including eating out more with friends) can make it hard to spot incremental changes.
Moreover, a lot of exercise doesn't actually do much for weight loss (it's still immensely beneficial for your health; please don't stop). To counteract the aforementioned 10lbs/yr you'd have to walk an extra ~20 minutes per day. It isn't all that much per se, but if your exercise were 20 minutes of something high intensity and an hour of something low intensity every single day (a lot more than most people get) it'd still be a noticeable demand on your time -- enough that I don't think you'd call the extra exercise level "nearly identical."
It's also possible less visible culprits exist if you're used to average weight gains/losses of under a pound per month as a function of your diet/activity. E.g., iirc fidgiting and tapping your feet consumes nearly a pound per month in calories, and that doesn't seem like the kind of thing you'd recognize stopping/starting over a timespan of decades.
Now if you combine aerobic and anaerobic training strategically, while you have your eating habits checked, you can lose that quarantine weight in no time. This is what i am doing now.
I eat out less now and generally pay attention to what I eat vs just eating whatever is in front of me. Nearly identical meaning proportions are the same but I eat less junk food now.
I was a college athlete, but there’s no way I carried the fitness forward ~6 years without maintaining my college level of workouts.
I realize it’s all anecdotal, but based on my personal experience, the study is really tough to take at face value.
I lift too, and for many years I wrote down everything I wrote, and weighed myself every morning. I could tell very precisely how much I burnt, and it tended to shock people on lifting forums who were certain they needed to down lots protein shakes to get enough calories.
At my peak lifting I wasn't huge, but I was around qualification levels for competitive powerlifting for my weight class at the time (I squatted about 200kg, benched 150kg), and exercised 5 days a week.
I burned about 2000kcal/day on average. I tested that many times when bulking or slimming down by seeing how much I needed to increase it or drop it down. And it changed a little as I added muscle, but much less than you might think.
I'd have people arguing with me on fitness forums that there was no way I was burning that little, and that I really needed 3000kcal/day or more, and then complain about why they were adding weight.
People in a more active job would burn more than that, and people with a more active life outside of work and the gym as well, but people are notoriously bad at estimating their activity levels and apply calorie level assumptions that are often many decades out of date and based on far more labour intensive daily lives. Basically the only way you'll know is to track and measure.
Also worth mentioning that outside of lifting my life absolutely was/is very sedentary, so I did burn less than a lot of people.
EDIT: One thing that will confuse people here is that style of exercise will matter a lot. To reach a 1RM of 150kg on bench meant most of the time I did bench 1-2 times a week for 5 sets of 5 reps of ca 120kg or so. My bench routine took 10-15 minutes. My whole lifting program took about 40m x 3 days/week. I added some cardio to that, but that is not a lot of physical activity. Someone who does bodybuilding on the other hand will typically do a lot more volume.
Why? I mean, why do people find the idea of older people needing different diet due to body changes related to age so unbelievable? There are many changes related to age - how quickly injuries heal, how quickly you recover from something physical or tiring, how much or well you sleep. Your heartrate is slowly changing with age too.
Why would it be shocking that these has also impact on how food affects your look?
> To counteract the aforementioned 10lbs/yr you'd have to walk an extra ~20 minutes per day.
That is not how this works tho. The effect of exercise is not just in how many calories you theoretically spent running/walking exactly same distance. Your body adjusts to exercising way more - including on metabolism and body temperature. It has impact on how body works overall including on hunger - depending on exercise it can go both toward eating less or eating more. It has impact on how many muscles you have, how much energy you burn while building those muscles etc.
Experience of "I stopped exercising and keep eating the same, I gained a lot of weight" is not rare.
It's not rare because calories add up immensely quickly. Say that you were burning 200 kcal per day exercising - and that is a low estimate. If you keep eating the same, you end up keeping 6000 kcal per month more - that translates to 1.7 lbs of body weight - per month. So, 20 lbs in the first year!
Yes, if you also don't downsize your meals at the same time. Which a lot of people don't.
>2.) If you start exercising, it does nothing for weight loss.
Yes, if you increase your food intake because you feel more hungry, which a lot of people do. If you keep eating the same -- then it of course has a noticeable effect.
For exercise to matter in your weight loss, you have to always keep in mind your food intake. It is still very beneficial and should not be ignored!
Because it's much more likely that they're one of the <nearly everyone> who can't estimate calories in/out well than that they're an outlier with a significant metabolic drop in some small number of years, especially given that small misestimations are large enough to yield the observed behavior. Maybe there's something else going on, but "without more details" it wouldn't be the first place I'd look.
> older people needing different diet
Absolutely! I hope nobody took away opposing statements to that from what I said. The double whammy of needing fewer calories and being less equipped to absorb vitamins and whatnot necessitates a significant change in diet with age. I was only commenting on this one person's experience aging just a few years in the middle of their life.
> walking
> That is not how this works tho.
Especially for walking, that's exactly how it works. Walking builds negligible muscle mass, and everything else you've mentioned (aside from perhaps impacts on hunger), adds up to well under a 5% error in calorie estimates -- well under the noise floor from applying a general purpose calorie estimate to any one specific person.
I recommend that everyone get an occasional resting metabolic rate test. It's an easy non-invasive test which uses your exhaled gasses to calculate your daily calorie burn. Most people who claim they can't lose weight due to a "slow metabolism" actually have a totally normal metabolism.
I have no doubt this also means I eat slightly worse food or larger portion sizes. Luckily I've noticed it and started to make lifestyle changes to prevent it further.
At least in myself, I can clearly see that in my 20s I had a much more sedentary lifestyle, sitting in front of a computer a heck of a lot more, having less social life and eating _much_ worse (processes food, sweets, coke) and still being able to maintain a normal BMI.
If its not metabolism it must be some other mechanisms that allows people to do it, but metabolism seems the simplest one.
I track calories/food quality, weight, plicometry, and exercise (although not all of them all the time). With precise and systematic measuments, I find easily that it's a matter of food quality, quantity, and exercise.
I'm convinced that there are several external factors that make people over 30 gain weight, more than metabolism: work, children, stable relationships and independence.
I also used to think that teenagers are fit without any effort, but if I look at them, this is generally not true. I will start believe people who claim that it's a matter of metabolism when they'll start to track food, weight and plicometry, and will go on a sports (not walking) regime. But not before.
I went from a rather care-free person in my twenties, who took all vacation days he could, worked part-time for stints in junior functions, to becoming a manager and working 55 hour workweeks and less vacation. That tripled my disposable income and reduced my free time by a third.
My caloric intake before this had been somewhat restricted by these two factors: not enough money to have 'eating out multiple meals daily' be an affordable habit. And not limited enough in time to make that habit-of-convenience a necessary one.
Now I can both afford it and time-wise it helps not to have to prepare every single meal anymore. But for my caloric intake this new habit doesn't help.
We're not talking about massive changes here, but even a 5% increased daily intake stacked over the course of years adds up.
Not to mention changes in non-base metabolism caloric expense. Spending so much time on an office chair definitely leaves less time to move the body. Lots has changed about my behaviour. e.g. in my twenties I often spent two nights a month dancing from 1am till 5am, nowadays I'd still go out but it'd be more of a pub-setting, sitting & drinking.
So I do see changes, but I wouldn't necessarily relate them to base metabolism rates. In your case diet and exercise are almost identical but it definitely wasn't for me.
Also to compound this your metabolism tends to adapt to whatever you are doing. Even if you are doing lots of exercise, your body does tends to become more efficient at doing that exercise, using less calories to do the same thing over time. The same is true of running on lower and lower calories, your body adapts to run on less calories so it actually helps to do something of a 'bulking' period every so often to keep your metabolism running at a higher rate and not letting it drop down to 'economy mode'.
If you change nothing from your 20s to 30s, keeping exactly the same calories in your diet and same amount of exercise then you will most likely start to gradually gain a calorie surplus from this loss of muscle and thus start gain some more fat from the excess calories. You'll basically need to reduce calories or increase exercise to compensate.
Also look into what you can do to help maintain/improve your natural testosterone production (better sleep, nutrients like zinc and magnesium etc) as this will help offset it to some degree (poor sleep alone will absolutely destroy your natural testosterone levels). Alternatively you can look into Testosterone replacement therapy, which seems to be quite common these days.
I have realized that the only physical "exercise" that gets easier by the day is eating.
What about everyday motions? At 50, I push myself gently up from my chair, while 25 year old coworkers leap up. They walk faster, they simply move with more energy through the day. Such things add up over the course of a day/week/month/year/decade.
Your core strength will decline quickly, and soon you will have to help yourself up all the time. Don't let the slide happen.
Last year during the short lockdown break I went to a birthday party followed by a rave followed by sleeping on a friend's couch followed by a walk of shame home... Like in the good old days. My Garmin said I did 30k steps that night, probably double my previous record. I also couldn't really eat much for two days after that, so there's that too...
Children are very small and light, so even with a higher metabolic rate they need less calories overall than an adult. However a teenager is usually reaching adult size, but still with the same higher metabolic rate as the child, meaning they will need more calories than a typical adult who is on a lower metabolic rate even at similar size, that is why teenager seem to eat so much.
Pregnant women likewise may not have a higher metabolic rate, but they still need to eat more calories overall then before they were pregnant as they are growing in size and weight. It's not much different to a bodybuilder eating more calories to build then maintain a greater muscle mass.
The song is Oh, you pretty things.
All in jest of course. My son is my world.
Play like nothing matters for half an hour, run, jump, sprint, crawl, scratch, everything like your life depends on it. And then just fall down on the spot for like an hour or two, followed up by a repeat of the same cycle.
It's cute to watch, but also kind of scary. They just look _empty_ after that intense a playtime.
Were we really particularly scientifically blind to the basic energy usage as a function of age, or is this a somewhat more precise measure than was available before?
Of course there is a lot of half-accurate folk wisdom about how much you eat when you're growing or old or whatever else, and it's useful to dispel and correct that a bit (but I'm assuming that data already existed)
It would be nice to have the actual advance this study made over previous information be the center of the show instead of an offhand remark which is basically just a joke (both in the title and at the head of the article). It just seems like the important part of the story is absent.
I remember an article a while back on HN or Reddit about drinking heavy water. Interesting it’s a way to measure energy consumption.
The disproportionate energy expenditure in children is almost certainly explained by cell division and growth.
They are literally fashioning body mass from consumed food.
-------
‡ We would do well not to ignore assholes if they are stating something of consequence.
All I remember as a kid is being unusually warm in almost any cold conditions. Even now the cold doesn't bother me much, certainly less than my peers.
I'm sure metabolism isn't everything there, but it probably helps.
It reminds me of the quote from Rimmer in Red Dwarf - which was also used in a popular student uk song "Surfin’ USM" by the band "Carter USM" - https://youtu.be/_BGlAWeNFOE?t=11
Rimmer/ Red Dwarf: "When you're younger, you can eat what you like, drink what you like, and still climb in to your 26-inch-waist trousers and zip them closed. Then you reach that age- 24, 25- your muscles give up, they wave a little white flag, and without any warning at all, you're suddenly a fat bastard"
This song stuck with me because it happend to me around 22-23, I gained crap loads of weight (around 3 stone/ 42 pounds/ 19kg)
This part of the article shows the effect over time, which is much less as time goes on:
"Children’s metabolic rates stay high until age 5, but the rate slowly begins to glide down until it plateaus around age 20. Interestingly, adult rates are stable until age 60, when they begin to decline."
As a skipper I have also went through a lot of training for emergencies and children are practically treated as their own category on every step. In particular increased metabolic requirements, decreased ability to survive without oxygen, inability to survive in cold water for any length of time, and so on.
Consequently, when I train my crews before I go for a cruise with them we have separate scenarios for emergencies with kids (assuming there are children on board).
("amphetamine" loosely meaning energy level, not meaning the actual drug family)
There’s infancy, up until age 1, when calorie burning is at its peak, accelerating until it is 50 percent above the adult rate.
Then, from age 1 to about age 20, metabolism gradually slows by about 3 percent a year.
From age 20 to 60, it holds steady.
And, after age 60, it declines by about 0.7 percent a year.
*View in pocket to get rid of paywall https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/health/metabolism-weight-...
> Infants between the ages of 9 and 15 months expend a stunning 50% more energy in 1 day than adults do, adjusted for body size. These wee dynamos consume and use up energy even faster than pregnant women and teenage boys, most likely to fuel their energetically expensive brains and organs.
> “Little people are not burning energy like small adults,” says Duke University evolutionary biologist Herman Pontzer, who led the new analysis of data from around the world. “They are burning energy superfast … like a different species.”