Prostate cancer hasn’t been cured yet… steve jobs died early… it’s not that simple.
Pretty disingenuous to compare cancer, one of the most heavily studied medical conditions on the planet, to this. Just because there’s no cure to being made of cells? It’s not that simple.
steve jobs died early
Not a good example. He had an extremely curable form of cancer and chose to try a fruitarian diet instead of going to doctors, until it was too late.
The fruitarian diet might have even been worse than ignoring it entirely, with the sugars basically “feeding” the cancer.
? There are treatments for osteoporosis. They’re called bisphosphonates. And bone density screenings are routine in older women. Am I missing something?
the existence of treatments doesn’t mean they are readily available to people who need them.
But that’s because your healthcare system doesn’t really exist, and that’s true for just about everything
Don’t know why you’re being downvoted. Many male doctors are sexist as hell. So unless you know there are treatments and bring it up and/or force the issue, the doctor isn’t going to tell you.
You’re just not hating on men the right way.
To be fair this is more industry specific than just motivated by some sense of misandry.
It’s specifically doctors. And medicine is still biased as fuck.
Rich men would invest in their own bones, the rest of us would die even earlier than women do.
On the other hand, men on average live shorter, and we just go “well it’s just risky behavior and physical labor I guess 🤷♂️” and they’re aren’t any task forces for that either, truth is we as a society don’t care enough about these issues regardless of sex
I’m on the fence with your comment. Society viewing men as disposable is definitely a thing, and we do end up doing more hazardous and physically demanding work on the whole. The risks are real. Some of our mortality is hardwired, with men more prone to taking risks, which also drags the average.
You are also right about society not caring, though I would argue it’s the system we subscribe to.
I’m hesitant to fully jump on board with your comment because it’s close to bringing the whole ‘men too’ crowd which often has a note of toxicity to it.
The argument shouldnt be men vs. women, but people vs. those who exploit us, or people vs. the problem
You are also right about society not caring, though I would argue it’s the system we subscribe to.
I subscribed to this? Could I see my signature on this contract?
The argument shouldnt be men vs. women, but people vs. those who exploit us, or people vs. the problem
But aren’t you doing the first, rather than the second with your post?
You’re expecting too much thought from us.
The argument shouldnt be men vs. women, but people vs. those who exploit us, or people vs. the problem
This is what I tried to hint at.
No it’s exactly what you said. Not sure why OP is on the fence.
It’s the phrasing- it is very easy for those who don’t look deeper to think this a men vs. women thing, and the commenter is stating that while he agrees with the idea, the phrasing is very easy to misunderstand.
You are also right about society not caring, though I would argue it’s the system we subscribe to.
How is this different in the context of healthcare for women?
I’m hesitant to fully jump on board with your comment because it’s close to bringing the whole ‘men too’ crowd which often has a note of toxicity to it.
This is irrelevant. The point is either valid or it isn’t. Neither you nor the person you’re talking to are responsible for the reactions of third parties. Judge the point being made on its own merits.
The argument shouldnt be men vs. women, but people vs. those who exploit us, or people vs. the problem
In an ideal world, maybe. But the health issues in question are relevant to a person’s sexual development (male vs. female) therefore it is functionally impossible to remove sex from the discussion.
It’s not really different in the contex of womens’ experiences in healthcare. What I’m alluding to here is that we all buy into this system (regardless of if we want to or not) rather than challenge it.
Irrelevant
Then their point is valid, I’m just disinclined to champion it because of shitty third party actors. I will acknowledge it’s validity though.
Ideal world
I’m not trying to remove sex from this particular issue but highlight that this issue is a smaller part of a systemic problem
This is irrelevant. The point is either valid or it isn’t.
The world isn’t a logic table.
This is kind of incorrect. The leading cause of death (in the US) is heart disease, followed by cancer:

https://www.voronoiapp.com/healthcare/What-are-the-leading-causes-of-death-for-men-and-women-4775
Obviously those affect both men and women, but men are represented higher in both causes. Heart disease and cancer absolutely have large research groups focused on them, they aren’t being ignored by society at large.
They are a lot of risky behaviors that cause heart disease or cancer, like drug abuse (legal drugs included) or eating too much, and AFAIK drug abuse is definitely more common in men.
Cancer is a really broad cause of death. The cancer that has arguably the best funded research is breast cancer, which mostly affects women.
Fwiw, more research into any kind of treatment for breast cancer besides “slash and burn and poison” will continue to lead to improving treatments for other cancers, to the benefit of children and men as well.
Here’s a pretty good summary of how we got from “unspeakable and incurable,” past “initial biopsy and radical mastectomy in one operation,” to a place where breast cancer research is finally well-funded :
Although general cancer research received roughly 3x more funding. Blood cancers aren’t far behind breast cancer in funding ($2.7b breast and $2.3b blood).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(23)00182-1/fulltext
A lot of it is self-inflicted. Largely do to machismo culture, men tend to avoid the doctor. Women are less likely to be pig-headed about going to the doc.
Personally I don’t go to the doctor because I am broke
Women: goes to doctor, doesn’t get good help because doctors suck, bad outcome.
Men: doesn’t go to doctor in the first place because doctors suck, bad outcome.
#healthcare
“Self-inflicted” but when women suffer from e.g. ridiculous beauty standards, then it is a societal issue.
Machismo culture is not “self-inflicted” because
- Men are not a “self”. Even if my father would have raised me like that, I am not my father, so consequently it wouldn’t be self-inflicted.
- Society is promoting and pushing machismo culture to men. Men are not the only one promoting it. Women promote machismo culture too. I can tell you that from my own personal experience and frankly, personally, I felt greater pressure from women in my life than from men to be “toxic-masucline”.
And obviously, it is wrong that women suffer from societal pressure too and they have my full support. This is not about demonising women, it is about calling out the narrative that societal pressure on men is “self-inflicted” and societal pressure on women is “caused by men”. We all do it and we all need to stop. Support each other. Raise your children to be supportive of self expression. Sexism is bad.
Aging should be studied a lot more. I believe once the AI bubble pops, the computing power and models should be applied to biology. How do ageless atoms become old meat? I want to know, as an old meat myself, and if we can treat, stop, or even reverse the process.
AI/ML has already been used to study protein folding and I’m sure it’ll be used to study other facets of biology too. There’s great use cases for the tech once you look past the tell-mentally-ill-people-to-kill-their-families-bots.
I may be wrong but I think one hard part is identifying the places where ML makes sense to use. Need people who understand biology AND ML for that.
Most of the stuff known as AI in the current environment is really, really powerful inference engines. And understanding the limits of inference (see for example Hume’s Problem of Induction) is an important part of understanding the appropriate scope of where these tools are actually useful and where they’re actively misleading or dangerous.
So, take the example of filling in unknown details in a low resolution image. We might be able to double the number of pixels and try to fill in our best guesses of what belongs in the in-between pixels that weren’t in the original image. That’s probably a pretty good use of inference.
But guessing what’s off the edge of the picture is built on a less stable and predictable process, less grounded in what is probably true.
When we use these technologies, we need domain-specific expertise to be able to define which problems are the interstitial type where inferential engines are good at filling things in, and which are trying to venture beyond the frontier of what is known/proven and susceptible to “hallucination.”
That’s why there’s likely going to be a combination of things that are improved and worsened by the explosion of AI capabilities, and it’ll be up to us to know which is which.
Exactly. AI/ML absolutely has useful use cases, it’s just not a complete solution for literally anything.
There’s a number of different reasons but the hardest to overcome is the fact that we evolved to grow old and die. Having an upper limit on our reproductive age positively benefits our ability to keep evolving and having an upper limit on total age balances the benefits of age (wisdom and experience) with the need to not deny the younger generations of resources.
How do ageless atoms become old meat? I want to know, as an old meat myself, and if we can treat, stop, or even reverse the process.
Atoms must arrange themselves in a particular way to become a cell. A cell knows how to make copies of itself, but sometimes mistakes can happen. Like a game of telephone, the cell at the end of the line only knows how to make a copy of itself, not how to make a copy of the original cell it came from. The mistakes gradually accumulate over time, which causes improperly formed cells to accumulate over time and give the appearance of “aging”.
In theory, aging is a condition that is surmountable. There are jellyfish that are swimming in the ocean right now that are functionally immortal. They create perfect copies of their DNA every single time, and can repair damage to cells without leaving a trace of the original injury. If we could figure out the processes that allow them to do this, it could be applied to the human genome as well.
Part of the problem is telomerase being lost. The downside is that it’s a cancer prevention mechanism, so messing with it (by adding more) is bad news.
And yet everyone seems to age the same. Funny how those “mistakes” never turn me into a whale or a plant, I surmise it’s a bit more complex than that.
Of course it’s more complex than my overly simplistic explanation, but I don’t want to bore you with details when you could achieve the same result by cracking open a biology textbook. I wouldn’t really wish that on anybody right now, honestly. Not how I would want to kick off twenty-twenty-six.
To circle around back to the main point, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Aging should be studied more. There are breakthroughs in medicine just waiting to be discovered that could not just extend our lives, but also extend the portions of our lives where we are healthy and fit enough to enjoy doing things, rather than wasting away in nursing homes and hospice beds.
That’s…not how it works. If I kept copying a car, using the previous one as a stencil, I’d eventually end up with something that mostly resembles a car but ultimately doesn’t work properly. Eventually, it would fail to function at all but at a glance it would look more or less the same. At no point would it ever resemble a motorcycle and by the time such a mistake would happen I would have stopped even trying long before that or, to go back to cells, the body would have died because too many things weren’t working correctly to live long enough to turn into a different animal entirely.
I think that’s accounted for under mutations and cancer and such. You theoretically could mutate into a whale but the probability of your cells making specific enough mistakes for that to happen is so astronomically small that it’s essentially zero.
AI is going to be applied to biology.
They’ll develop all sorts of bioweapons. They’ve all ready made huge strides in parasymoethetic nerve agents.
This is such gender war dog shit.
The elite and society at large doesn’t care about anyone in the lower classes, man or women, young or old.
Ok to your second sentence, but it is proven over and over again that health care for women is at a much lower standard than for men. Less funding, less research, less care. Those are objective facts. Calling that out is not creating a gender war its identifying a drastic gap that has been written about in countless medical journals for decades.
are we really calling awareness of gender issues gender war? how do you expect gender issues to be resolved if no one’s allowed to talk about them?
turns out there’s some pretty major issues with the gender binary, but I’m not sure how you expect to fix that without talking about it. it’s fair to say capatilism is part of the root cause but reducing it to solely that is a little disingenuous.
Pointing out gender-related issues is not a “gender war”. Discussing someone else’s issues is not an attack on you.
I’ll remember that the next time women take men talking about men’s issues as an attack on women.
How often do you see women come on to a Lemmy thread about men’s issues and try to make about women’s issues?
I’m new to lemmy, but at least on reddit it happened pretty much any time people tried talking about men’s issues
Putting the gender-related issues into a meme with a “if this affected men then there would be more funding” doesn’t feel like discussing issues and more like “gender war”.
Taking “this issue involving women is not taken as seriously” as an attack on men or a “gender war” is a you problem.
Mindlessly criticising something and making it about your own pet “war”
There is only the class war. Concern silos have failed their intended purpose, (assuming their purpose was not dividing the working class of course) and we should move on towards solidarity amongst the working class.
I have zero Healthcare by the way. No insurance, no doctor. I want better outcomes for everyone. We all should be pissed about the state of the world together.
The wealthy and powerful see the bodies of the working class the same way they see the natural resources of the planet. When all your value has been extracted, your husk will be cast aside or used as a means to extract wealth or value from someone else.
Leftists who view everything as a class issue get their asses handed to them at the polls every time. Yes, you can come up with some complicated strained logic for why things like homophobia or racism are a class issue, but that just doesn’t jive with what people experience in their actual lives. And you can stamp your feet and say that class issues are the most important issue, and everything else is secondary. Meanwhile, targeted minority groups will ignore you and focus on their actual real most important issues.
Most issues of race and gender are about wealth disparity, i.e. social class.
If someone from a “targeted minority group,” say, a woman of color, is in a high-paying administrative position with a comprehensive benefits package and good healthcare, and has a 7+ figure net worth, and all the things that come with wealth and social position, then you can’t reasonably say she’s oppressed.
Dividing men versus women in this fake gender war is socially engineered by the oligarchy to reduce social cohesion and make it impossible for people to band together. Likewise, exacerbating racial tensions is used to divide the working class into easily manageable chunks or silos.
The only way anybody will ever overcome oppression, regardless of gender or race, is for people of all genders and races to work together towards the common goal of reducing wealth inequality. That doesn’t seem possible at the moment because everyone is so upset about their personal oppression or their group’s marginalization or whatever pet grievances they have, that they’ll never consider to work together with someone who seems to be outside their in-group.
If people buy into the belief that it’s about men versus women or about black versus white, then people won’t be able to see past their differences and work together, because they’ll believe the “other” has interests that compete with their own.
That’s why the above commenter said the only true conflict is class conflict. Everything else is socially engineered by the people at the top to keep everyone else broken and divided and easy to control.
you can come up with some complicated strained logic for why things like homophobia or racism are a class issue
Divide and conquer. Simple enough for you?
How convenient, blaming things like homophobia and racism on the rich absolves you of any personal responsibility.
I mean, let’s be honest, it would have to be rich white men losing 20%, then we would find a cure, and price it so that anyone else couldn’t afford it, even if it cost like $12 to make
They do. Men lose bone density as well, just at a slower rate. It’s at about 20% when men are 60 instead of 50.
They won’t cure something that they can profit from by making something a subscription.
~Baldness. Erectile Dysfunction. Incontinence.~
Same principal that IT works off of now. Hey, get rid of the email client you’ve been comfortably using for years, and instead buy this jankier version that you need to pay a subscription for…
The anti vaxx movement was a conspiracy by big pharma to get people to stop taking the cheapest way to prevent disease, so that they can profit on the expensive ways to treat those easily preventable diseases.
Ah. The insulin racket
* US insulin racket. Be specific.
It’s actually even worse than it sounds.
This is a solved problem. Resistance training is incredibly effective at not just preventing but totally reversing bone loss in women. That is on top of about a hundred thousand other proven benefits of training. Literally 30 minutes a week at planet fitness with a halfway decent plan can gift you 30+ quality adjusted life years.
But how do we treat this proven, accessible, miraculous cure to this life threatening problem that every woman faces? Well, we endure extreme societal pressure to avoid lifting weights at all costs of course! Wouldn’t want to accidentally become too manly!
Literally everyone should be sickened by this state of affairs
your enthusiasm in this thread is apparent, and it’s great that many women are benefitting from weight training.
BUT i just really want to point out that access to this kind of stuff is a privilege not available to everyone who might benefit.
So, to this I would say, yes and no. The actual privilege is the knowledge on the different forms of resistance training.
If the knowledge is in place, actual physical inaccessibility to the practice is incredibly fringe. Even people with pretty extreme pathologies have access (more often than not, it is explicitly medically recommended for them to train).
The key to understanding the accessibility is identifying the movement patterns and how to load them. Right so, you may be thinking things at this point like, “well plenty of people don’t have a car, or can’t afford a gym membership, or don’t even have a gym nearby, or don’t have any time in the day to train.” This is all very valid and will change how your training looks.
But resistance training is available everywhere. For some specific examples,
I had an 80 year old woman who had all but lost the ability to raise her arms above her head. She can’t drive and doesn’t really have access to the gym. But she does have a pantry full of cans of soup! So I progressed her through some isometrics, then eventually got her doing lat raises with the small cans. Then some bicep curls, also with the soup. Triceps ended up being (sorry if this is tough to visualize) laying down in bed with her elbow propped up on a pillow, doing a type of single arm skullcrusher with the soup.
Well it turns out after a few months of training these muscles and adding some reps, with a little work coordinating it all together, she eventually could pick up a soup, curl it to her shoulder, then push it above her head! Then after a while she could do it for reps! In practical terms, at this point she had restored her ability to dress herself independently and take food out of her freezer.
It turns out you can do most things with soup! Started her on seated good mornings (a type of deadlift) with the soup to hit her hinge. Put a can of soup in a grocery bag and hooked it around her foot so she could do seated quad extensions from her dining room chair. Hopefully this is getting the idea across
On the other hand, the biggest barrier in my experience is depression. It doesn’t really matter what is theoretically accessible to you if you simply can’t be mustered to do it. I have one client where I agreed their workouts would basically be optional and I wouldn’t charge them for last minute cancellations. So I basically just set them a time where I have something else I could be doing, and if they show up, great, if not, no big deal.
I set this arrangement up in direct contradiction to my mentor’s advice, who is a great trainer but is very business oriented. And to be fair there’s no way I could take a second client like this.
But you know what, I’ll be darned, even showing up only 30% of the time they have actually totally transformed their body in about 6 months. Huge strength increases and about 20lbs of bodyweight loss as the same time. It’s actually kind of challenged some of the ideas I have about the importance of “consistency”, at least for beginners.
Anyway, sorry for such a lengthy reply. You put me in an awkward position, I can’t exactly just say, “No way bro, just figure out a setup for grandma to start doing deadlifts and skullcrushers bro” even though that really pretty much is the gist of it lmao. A big part of the problem is that people have very deeply rooted preconceptions of training to the point where they end up deeming themselves ineligible before ever really considering they have a ton of options
This is a solved problem.
That’s a really goddamn bold claim that you don’t bother to back up. Here’s a 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis exploring our current understanding of how resistance training improves bone mineral density in postmenopausal women.
Here’s their conclusion:
Resistance training can beneficially influence BMD [bone mineral density] in postmenopausal women, particularly at the LS [lumbar spine], FN [femoral neck], and TH [total hip]. A high-intensity training regimen (≥ 70% 1RM [1-rep max]) performed three times per week with a longer training duration may be optimal. However, significant heterogeneity among the included studies for LS and FN bone density may affect the accuracy of the pooled results, thereby limiting the generalizability of these findings. More high-quality clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
So it’s good. Nobody would deny that it’s good. The problem is when you start throwing around terms like “solved” and “miraculous cure” to complex medical problems without anything to back it up – especially in an era of rampant medical disinformation.
I think the previous comment was rather hyperbolic, but to a degree it’s true. I wouldn’t call it solved, obviously, since removing all other factors, women experience more osteoporosis and overall bone loss than men in general. Though when we consider activity, it’s more common for men to be physically active in general, and higher overall muscle mass means greater bone density in the longer term, to my understanding.
But also, most of western society is extremely sedentary, and there is a certain inertia when it comes to encouraging physical fitness as a solution. People do tend to want a magic pill for things. Just look at all the fervor over Ozempic.
Thank you for actually engaging with the post instead of devolving into a holier-than-thou wanna-be-lawyer analysis that is selectively deaf to existence of hyperbole!
I would say that we can’t ignore the historical or biological context of why women experience more osteoporosis. Menopause obviously, but also the pressure to avoid training.
Given the biological context, and the proven effectiveness of training, the only honest conclusion is that training is more important for women than men. Yet it’s still far more common for women to be pushed away from the gym, due to it widely being considered masculine. Hopefully we can all work together to rectify this serious issue
I wonder how it looks for women who started before menopause though rather than after.
One data point only. My mom and grandma had osteoporosis, and I had restrictive eating as a teen so didn’t build enough bones. I do work out heavier than my mom did (lift occasionally but also yoga with pushups & arm balancing, etc. More focus on muscle) because of starting at a disadvantage and also, importantly, do MHT. At mid-50s I did manage to immaterially INCREASE my bone mass, so a little better than maintaining, rather than the steep loss that would be expected at menopause.
There is more than one factor, right? I encouraged my daughters to eat more and do more exercise when they were teenagers so they will start out with heavier bones than I did, if you start with more you can lose some and still be ok.
But plenty of people have osteoporosis as an endocrine issue, the chemistry of their blood is taking more bone than it’s building. I don’t think that’s something that you can necessarily lift your way out of.
Incredibly disingenuous of you to phrase it as “unable to deny that it’s good” while posting irrelevant snippets from studies. Yes, research is still ongoing on how much resistance training is needed to reap the full benefits. Research of this type will always be ongoing.
Meanwhile, the consensus of all medical experts is that women should be training because it has the power to reverse the course of this debilitating illness, among about a hundred thousand other significant benefits. We’re not at the “looking into it” stage, we’re at “the mayo clinic officially recommends training” stage.
Everyone with an idea of how debilitating illnesses usually play out will have correctly identified this as a being a miracle. You, like me, should be rejoicing in this fact and going out into the streets to yell this news at everyone who will listen.
It is such a sadness that women have for so long been robbed of their opportunity to partake in training due to stigma
Instead of just critiquing, how about you actually try to back up your claim that resistance training significantly improves bone density or prevents bone loss in women? As you haven’t provided any sources, it sounds like you’re just repeating gym bro anecdotal knowledge. You’re the one making that claim.
There’s plenty of studies on the effects of resistance training on Osteosarcopenia and Osteoporosis. You’re being a little ridiculous here. It’s a simple google search away.
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6279907/
- https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/strength-training-builds-more-than-muscles
- https://www.orthopt.org/blog/the-role-of-strength-training-in-preventing-osteoporosis-functional-exercises-and-evidence-based-benefits
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25772806/
- https://theros.org.uk/information-and-support/bone-health/exercise-for-bones/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9927006/
You want a source for the consensus of all credible medical experts? Sure, you can start with the link the other user posted which 100% confirms the claim and also has its own enormous list of sources.
You could then type “resistance training osteoporosis mayo clinic” into your favorite search bar to see why they so strongly advise resistance training for women with the condition.
You could then try doing the same with literally any and every institution.
There’s a reason it devolved into “unable to say that it’s not good”. It is simply an established fact that training increases your bone density. This is obviously a godsend for those of us predisposed to reduced bone density as we age.
And for the record, I 100% stand with whatever gym bros you are referring to who are begging older ladies to come train with them so they can maintain their quality of life and independence as they age. Did you intend that as an insult? You make them sound like the chillest, nicest people on earth lol
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’ve never heard of a guy not wanting their girl to do strength training, that just makes the girl hotter…
Maybe that’s like an old person thing? Like gen x and older?
Not sure it’s a generation thing. For example, Gen X grew up with ladies workout videos, thigh master, the little white guy with the Afro, etc. Could this be a reaction to the body positivity movement?
Maybe it’s not a “this is what men desire” thing but rather a “this is what society as a whole expects of women” thing
I gotta say though, there are a ton of women lifting at the gyms I’ve gone to
Same with mine! There’s been a lot of outreach and acceptance and many women have discovered that training can be a joy. I think much credit can also be granted to the sport of women’s powerlifting, which is growing rapidly
Well, we endure extreme societal pressure to avoid lifting weights
Is this actually true? Like half the women I know lift and gymfluencers is a huge thing
It sounds like you’ve cultivated a very gym positive space, and that’s great! But yes it far more common still for women to be repulsed by the idea of lifting weights, often because of fears of “becoming too big” or “looking like a man”
Acceptance of lifting is absolutely growing among women, as it should be, but there’s a lot of work left to do!
Will be even more fun when the ozempic / wegovy / semaglutude users start falling apart.
I hate to tell you, but this sort of anti-science medical fearmongering is half the reason why millennials and older had to suffer through their entire formative years and young adult lives dealing with untreated ADHD by treating help as if it’s makes people lesser than others.
They’re just kids! They don’t need no ritalin, that’s just how boys are! He just needs to focus, and that’s on the school to figure out! Besides, what happens when they stop taking it, all the good work you’ve done for 10 years including the capability of getting a good job will just fall apart when the apocalypse hits!
Okay, Bill. Now don’t forget to take your omeprazole and losartan heart meds before you have to visit the ER again from thinking you’re having a heart attack, or actually having one again.
Do we have any actual evidence of this, or is this just Faustian speculation?
Whenever there is as new, truly revolutionary medical treatment, there is always a mountain of fear mongering around it. People just don’t want to accept that we actually can make real progress. Hell, any time there is any new treatment discusses, the top posts are always people saying that only the rich will ever be able to afford it. Of course, every treatment starts that way, and countless treatments that were once only for the rich can now be enjoyed by everyone.
I think it’s a logical error that people make, simply because they are wary of scams. It’s generally healthy to be skeptical of miraculous promises. But that goes too far when people replace “we should treat this skeptically” with “there simply must be some horrible cost to this revolutionary good thing. I will assume there is one, even if there is no evidence for it. Anything that good has to be a deal with the Devil carrying some horrible cost.”
It’s a serious concern. To properly lose weight with the support of these drugs you need resistance training and to eat right
Funny enough, Cory Doctorow covered something similar in his book Makers. There was a therapy (I forget, either injection or gene therapy) that led to obese people being able to eat whatever they want and still get thin. They ended up essentially skeletal and brittle in the end over years, turned out it’s very bad for you and they ended up needed to eat like 10k calories a day to survive.
deleted by creator
Post needs accessibility.
Isn’t this a case for hormone replacement therapy? I thought physicians recommend it nowadays.
Isn’t this a case for hormone replacement therapy? I thought physicians recommend it nowadays.
The risk of cancer and clotting with hormone therapy outweighs the benefit of preventing osteoporosis, so it’s generally not used
outdated information. elevated risks are taken into consideration in tailoring specific therapy, but it’s looking like mht is a lot safer / more beneficial than previously thought.
i would add, there are more benefits to mht than preventing osteoporosis, namely - heart health, preventing dementia, and generally improving quality of life.
Possibly, I’m not up to date on the latest research, but if so it hasn’t made its way into the guidelines. The risks are significant based on my understanding so I would be surprised. There are selective estrogen modulators with lower risks but they aren’t that effective for osteoporosis.
alt-text
A tweet from Davey Maher Fitness (@David_Maher) reads:
“If men lost 20% of their skeleton by 50, there’d be billion-dollar task forces overnight.
But when women’s bones crumble after menopause?
It’s just called ‘aging.’ No scans. No BHRT. No urgency.
Just Mickey Mouse bloodwork & ‘take your calcium, honey’ — & pray you don’t snap a hip.
This is medical neglect.
Demand better.”
———
A comment below by @drmaryclaire says:
“This post about osteoporosis and bone loss — and the differences between females and males — triggered me in my tracks.
Agree or disagree with the methodology, what struck me most was this:
A non-physician male recognizing and calling out the massive discrepancy in how we talk about, study, and treat bone loss in women.
This is the kind of awareness and conversation we need more of.
Because women deserve better.”
While that’s a nice effort, the post remains inaccessible, and the only remedy is for OP to fix their post (easiest remedy: link to source). To explain, opening every inaccessible post to maybe find a detached, buried comment of unclear reliability demands inequitably more of the disabled user than everyone else, so it isn’t a remedy.
You are a cigarette op
U mad bro?
Maybe that’s why women are not predominantly used as cannon fodder in the frontlines of war?
Found the incel, blindly parroting incel memes in a completely inappropriate context. Not a whole lot of men or women being recruited for the military in their 40s and 50s. But can’t miss a chance to drop those sweet ancient incel memes, eh?
Yes, ad hominem rather than engaging with notion men are disposable in western society. Trully the mark of a civilized, rather than dogmatic individual.
We know why osteoporosis happens, we know why it mostly hits women and we know how to manage the disease besides the wealth of screening and counseling programs. It also happens to affect men. So this entire post is a misinformed piece designed to resurrect the old war of sexes trope. Anything and any war to distract the people from the only war that matters, class war.
Not that I expected a usanian to understand nuanced discussion anyway.
???
The post is BS, society sees both women and men as disposable as long as they are lower class. Osteoporosis also hits men although at a lower incidence. At best the poster is misinformed, at worst, it’s a modern propagation of the old “divide to conquer” strategy.
Maybe they just aren’t as easily tricked













