gobicycling

https://www.roadbikerider.com/streng...heart-attacks/

terrymorse 

Title:

Strength Training May Be More Effective than Aerobic Exercise to Help Prevent Heart Attacks

That title looks like an overstatement:

The study that actually compared strength and aerobic training was for diabetic patients only, where strength training successfully lowered blood sugar. Heart disease wasn’t even studied.

wolfchild

Best thing to do is to do both....Zone 2 aerobic training is probably the most beneficial thing anybody can do for health and fitness..,....Personally I prioritize Zone 2 training and supplement it with strength and explosive training.

spclark 

"Men over 60 who did 12 weeks of resistance training involving bending and straightening the knees against resistance, three sets of 10 repetitions a day, two days a week, increased their ability to move heavy weights by 16 percent."

Pedaling a bike is 'resistance' training right? You're moving yourself + bike's mass along against gravity (sometimes) at the same time displacing air as you progress, and there are no monthly fees for membership (unless you bought your bike on credit of course) whether you take advantage of the facility or not.

I like that. Why I bothered to get back on a bike when I started having right knee issues this past spring.

Carbonfiberboy 

Full paper:

Strength training is more effective than aerobic exercise for improving glycaemic control and body composition in people with normal-weight type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial

https://link.springer.com/article/10...25-023-05958-9

The finding is that strength training worked better than anything else for reducing A1C. My guess is that it's an effect of body recomposition, which only happened for the strength training group. The study was started just before Covid and continued during with changes in method, which could be an issue. It is true that aerobic exercise doesn't build muscle like strength training in the gym will. So there's that.

rowerek

I have access to Bard which is Google's experimental, conversational, AI chat service. In a few seconds it did spit out the ANSWER.

Both strength exercise and aerobic training can help to prevent and protect from heart attack. However, aerobic training is generally considered to be more effective for heart health.Aerobic exercise (also known as cardio) is any type of exercise that gets your heart rate up and your blood pumping faster. Examples of aerobic exercise include walking, running, swimming, biking, and dancing.

Aerobic exercise has a number of benefits for heart health, including:

• Strengthening the heart muscle
• Improving blood circulation
• Lowering blood pressure
• Reducing cholesterol levels
• Improving insulin sensitivity
• Reducing inflammation

Strength exercise, on the other hand, is any type of exercise that works against resistance to build muscle strength and endurance. Examples of strength exercise include lifting weights, using resistance bands, and doing bodyweight exercises such as push-ups and squats.

Strength exercise also has a number of benefits for heart health, including:

• Lowering blood pressure
• Improving cholesterol levels
• Reducing inflammation
• Improving insulin sensitivity
• Reducing the risk of obesity

However, strength exercise does not have as significant an impact on improving cardiovascular fitness as aerobic exercise does.

Carbonfiberboy 

No, it's not resistance training. The quote's talking about like barbell squats, where you use the most weight you can for 10 reps, but maybe can't do 11. That said, getting back on the bike is a good thing. IME knee issues are better resolved in the gym, doing full range-of-motion work beginning with light weights. Starting over from zero, in a year I'll improve my ability to move heavy weights by about 300%. Makes cycling even more fun. My wife and I joined our first gym in '79. True, no monthly fees to cycle, just maintenance and parts costs. Sorta that way with our bodies, except it's a bit of a surprise.

Carbonfiberboy 

Who needs science - we have AI!

rowerek

AI is a part of science, more specifically computer science. AI allows to sweep through thousands of scientific papers in seconds, without any prejudice and including citation index. The old way is to read one or two scientific of pseudo scientific papers or articles that fit preconceived ideas and claim that this is the gospel.

================
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a field of computer science that deals with the creation of intelligent agents, which are systems that can reason, learn, and act autonomously. AI research has been highly successful in developing effective techniques for solving a wide range of problems, from game playing to medical diagnosis.Here are some examples of science and AI:

• Science: Studying the climate to understand how it is changing and what can be done to mitigate its effects.
• AI: Developing a machine learning model to predict the risk of heart disease in patients.
• Science: Conducting experiments to develop new drugs and treatments for diseases.
• AI: Developing a deep learning model to diagnose cancer from medical images.

terrymorse 

The new way is to rely on AI, which has a tendency of telling lies or simply making stuff up.

PeteHski

How discerning was the AI bot in choosing its source information? How effective is it at making valid conclusions?

ofajen

Now that is progress! It took Deep Thought about 7.5 million years to come up with 42 as the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything.

Otto

DiabloScott

One in five people with T2 are normal weight, and they tend to have bigger problems with the disease. Enough that the study is worth while, but not to be extrapolated to the 80% who are overweight or obese.

rowerek

This is valid question, and I forwarded this question to the AI bot.

The final judgement about "conclusions validity" is still human responsibility. In this case I agree with the bot answer, if I would not I would state so.

==================================
Here are some of the ways that AI bots can be discerning in choosing source information:

• Identifying the author's expertise: AI bots can use various methods to identify the author's expertise, such as their educational background, work experience, and publication history.
• Evaluating the source's credibility: AI bots can evaluate the source's credibility by considering factors such as its reputation, the quality of its content, and its transparency.
• Detecting bias: AI bots can use various methods to detect bias in sources, such as identifying language that is biased or inflammatory.

Overall, AI bots are becoming increasingly discerning in choosing source information. However, it is important to note that no bot is perfect, and it is always a good idea to evaluate the sources that are cited in a bot's response.

Here are some tips for evaluating the reliability of AI bot responses:

• Consider the bot's source: Look at the sources that the bot cites in its response. Are they reputable sources? Are they from a variety of different sources?
• Be aware of the bot's limitations: Bots are not perfect, and they can sometimes make mistakes. Be critical of the information that you receive from bots, and do your own research to verify it.
• Use multiple sources: Don't rely on just one bot for information. Use multiple sources to get a more complete and accurate picture of a topic.

If you are unsure about the reliability of an AI bot's response, it is always best to consult with a human expert

pdlamb

42 is an answer I can believe in.

Amazon had Hitchhiker's Guide on Kindle for $2 earlier this week, but its price has gone back up.

PeteHski

AI bot responses tend to be pretty generic and lacking in any real insights. A bit like the one you posted earlier for the benefits of aerobic vs strength exercise.

Carbonfiberboy 

Interesting. Why not, physiologically? "So much to know, so little time."

rowerek

Yes, the answers are generic, but that is because the questions, here, are generic as well. If one wants more insight, one has to ask more specific questions.

I was following my recent interest in CRISPR-Cas9 technology using AI-Bard bot. Pretty soon, with more specific questions the answers became more and more specific to the point that I had to slow down and take a break to understand and digest the answers.

PeteHski

Okay, but do you assume all the answers it provides are factually correct?

MoAlpha

I agree. Skeletal muscle is the main buffer of circulating glucose and more of it provides more effective uptake. No vascular outcomes in this study, however, making it poor support for the "heart attack" claim.

wolfchild

It's really sad when humans loose their ability to discern and think for themselves and have to rely on some AI to guide them through life and tell them how to exercise and how to eat.

rowerek

I think you might be misinterpreting how these AI internet bots work. These bots certainly do NOT, will NOT make humans to lose ability to think.

These bots are just TOOLS of research. The internet search was a new tool 30y ago, then the search engines got better and better, and eventually evolved into AI bots. If one has a question regarding: sport, finances, science, politics or ESG, one can try to locate books and journals in the library, or use google/yahoo/bing search, or use an AI bot. Each of this option differs in time required and quality of the answer. AI bots are still shaky but offer the fastest way to get the required information in somewhat organized form. The humans are definitely and 100% in charge, and have the privilege to grade the answer, accept or reject. These bots are just sophisticated computer programs, tools, and are supposed to make life easier, specially in areas where human senses are inadequate, for example, sifting through x-rays, MRI's to detect, diagnose cancer.

rowerek

Absolutely NOT, this is testing phase as stated by google. I have fun using this and saving a lot of time as compared with old, good internet search engines.
Sometimes the bot is factually wrong, for example, provides answers as Draft 1, Draft 2 and Draft 3, and is obvious that the all the answer cannot be right. It is the same as with the internet search, many websites have wrong information, data, interpretations, conclusions.

Carbonfiberboy 

Which claim in not in the paper, IIRC. Googling around, I can't find a study comparing cardiovascular event frequency among those who strength train and those who aerobic train. Might not exist..

PeteHski

I totally agree about website info, the internet is a minefield of misinformation. If I want to learn about a subject I just go straight to published books written by leading, credible experts in the field. I’m not really convinced about AI bots ability to formulate a credible answer directly. I’d rather just read the books myself.