Originally Posted by
Hermes
The ncbi is rife with articles about women and bone density problems. Here is an interesting article that looks at VO2, max power, strength training and bone density in men.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7104585/
It supports my world view so I think it is correct.
IMO, bone density and bone loss for various reasons is complex. I am not so sure that impact and more severe bone loading is required to maintain bone density.
I workout in the gym and focus on increasing strength. I think strength is crucial to maintain ones health as well as ride a bike. And I think that high intensity on the bike effects epigenetics in a positive way preserving quality of life. YMMV.
Well, I like your worldview, but not that paper!
On a technical level, they computed way too many correlations with no attempt account for the number of statistical tests, greatly increasing the likelihood of finding spurious relationships. Bottom line, those p values are worthless. The other problem is that, as one might expect, many of those dimensions are “autocorrelated,” meaning that they are not independent of each other and they should not have been treated as such. The data set was begging for a principle component analysis, which reduces the dimensionality and finds the underlying, meaningful, trends. Sadly, however, the sample size of 50 is far too small for a valid study with this many dimensions. As a scientific journal editor, I would not have sent this out for review.
Even if we accept the analysis and conclusions, I don’t find it surprising or informative that parameters associated with physical robustness show correlations. Finally, I can’t believe there was no mention of smoking in a sample of middle aged Lebanese men!
Give me an interventional study in anyone, any day!
Sorry to dump like this, but, hey, it’s what the taxpayers pay me for.