Weight Vests Against Osteoporosis: Do They Really Build Bone?

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

Dr. Doug Lucas is a dual board-certified physician specializing in optimizing healthspan and bone health for women experiencing osteoporosis, perimenopause, and menopause. Here, he talks weight vests:

Worth the weight?

Dr. Lucas cites “Wolf’s Law”—bones respond to stress. A weighted vest adds stress, to help build bone density. That said, they may not be suitable for everyone (for example, in cases of severe osteoporosis or a recent vertebral fracture).

He also cites some studies:

  • Erlanger Fitness Study (2004): participants with a weighted vest maintained or improved bone density compared to a control group, but there was no group with exercise alone, making it unclear if the vest itself had the biggest impact.
  • Newer studies (2016, 2017): showed improved outcomes for groups wearing a weighted vest, but again lacked an exercise-only group for comparison.
  • 2012 study: included three groups (control, weighted vest, exercise only). Results showed no significant bone density difference between vest and exercise-only groups, though the vest group showed better balance and motor control.

Dr. Lucas concludes that weighted vests are a useful tool while nevertheless not being a magic bullet for bone health. In other words, they can complement exercise but you will also be fine without. If you do choose to level-up your exercise by using a weight vest, then starting with 5–10% of body weight in a vest is often recommended, but it depends on individual circumstances. If in doubt, start low and build up. Wearing the vest for daily activities can be effective, but improper use (awkward positions or improper impact training) can increase injury risk, so do be careful with that.

For more on all of this, enjoy:

Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

Want to learn more?

You might also like to read:

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • 5 Steps To Quit Sugar Easily
  • Plant vs Animal Protein
    Plant vs Animal Protein: A comparison of health benefits. It’s important to choose less processed options and moderate meat consumption for optimal health. A varied diet is key.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Cancer is increasingly survivable – but it shouldn’t depend on your ability to ‘wrangle’ the health system

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    One in three of us will develop cancer at some point in our lives. But survival rates have improved to the point that two-thirds of those diagnosed live more than five years.

    This extraordinary shift over the past few decades introduces new challenges. A large and growing proportion of people diagnosed with cancer are living with it, rather than dying of it.

    In our recently published research we examined the cancer experiences of 81 New Zealanders (23 Māori and 58 non-Māori).

    We found survivorship not only entailed managing the disease, but also “wrangling” a complex health system.

    Surviving disease or surviving the system

    Our research focused on those who had lived longer than expected (four to 32 years since first diagnosis) with a life-limiting or terminal diagnosis of cancer.

    Common to many survivors’ stories was the effort it took to wrangle the system or find others to advocate on their behalf, even to get a formal diagnosis and treatment.

    By wrangling we refer to the practices required to traverse complex and sometimes unwelcoming systems. This is an often unnoticed but very real struggle that comes on top of managing the disease itself.

    The common focus of the healthcare system is on symptoms, side effects of treatment and other biological aspects of cancer. But formal and informal care often falls by the wayside, despite being key to people’s everyday experiences.

    A woman at a doctor's appointment
    Survival is often linked to someone’s social connections and capacity to access funds. Getty Images

    The inequities of cancer survivorship are well known. Analyses show postcodes and socioeconomic status play a strong role in the prevalence of cancer and survival.

    Less well known, but illustrated in our research, is that survival is also linked to people’s capacity to manage the entire healthcare system. That includes accessing a diagnosis or treatment, or identifying and accessing alternative treatments.

    Survivorship is strongly related to material resources, social connections, and understandings of how the health system works and what is available. For instance, one participant who was contemplating travelling overseas to get surgery not available in New Zealand said:

    We don’t trust the public system. So thankfully we had private health insurance […] But if we went overseas, health insurance only paid out to $30,000 and I think the surgery was going to be a couple of hundred thousand. I remember Dad saying and crying and just being like, I’ll sell my business […] we’ll all put in money. It was really amazing.

    Assets of survivorship

    In New Zealand, the government agency Pharmac determines which medications are subsidised. Yet many participants were advised by oncologists or others to “find ways” of taking costly, unsubsidised medicines.

    This often meant finding tens of thousands of dollars with no guarantees. Some had the means, but for others it meant drawing on family savings, retirement funds or extending mortgages. This disproportionately favours those with access to assets and influences who survives.

    But access to economic capital is only one advantage. People also have cultural resources – often described as cultural capital.

    In one case, a participant realised a drug company was likely to apply to have a medicine approved. They asked their private oncologist to lobby on their behalf to obtain the drug through a compassionate access scheme, without having to pay for it.

    Others gained community support through fundraising from clubs they belonged to. But some worried about where they would find the money, or did not want to burden their community.

    I had my doctor friend and some others that wanted to do some public fundraising. But at the time I said, “Look, most of the people that will be contributing are people from my community who are poor already, so I’m not going to do that option”.

    Accessing alternative therapies, almost exclusively self-funded, was another layer of inequity. Some felt forced to negotiate the black market to access substances such as marijuana to treat their cancer or alleviate the side effects of orthodox cancer treatment.

    Cultural capital is not a replacement for access to assets, however. Māori survivorship was greatly assisted by accessing cultural resources, but often limited by lack of material assets.

    Persistence pays

    The last thing we need when faced with the possibility of cancer is to have to push for formal diagnosis and care. Yet this was a common experience.

    One participant was told nothing could be found to explain their abdominal pain – only to find later they had pancreatic cancer. Another was told their concerns about breathing problems were a result of anxiety related to a prior mental health history, only to learn later their earlier breast cancer had spread to their lungs.

    Persistence is another layer of wrangling and it often causes distress.

    Once a diagnosis was given, for many people the public health system kicked in and delivered appropriate treatment. However, experiences were patchy and variable across New Zealand.

    Issues included proximity to hospitals, varying degrees of specialisation available, and the requirement of extensive periods away from home and whānau. This reflects an ongoing unevenness and lack of fairness in the current system.

    When facing a terminal or life-limiting diagnosis, the capacity to wrangle the system makes a difference. We shouldn’t have to wrangle, but facing this reality is an important first step.

    We must ensure it doesn’t become a continuing form of inequity, whereby people with access to material resources and social and cultural connections can survive longer.

    Kevin Dew, Professor of Sociology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington; Alex Broom, Professor of Sociology & Director, Sydney Centre for Healthy Societies, University of Sydney; Chris Cunningham, Professor of Maori & Public Health, Massey University; Elizabeth Dennett, Associate Professor in Surgery, University of Otago; Kerry Chamberlain, Professor of Social and Health Psychology, Massey University, and Richard Egan, Associate Professor in Health Promotion, University of Otago

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • Nine Pints – by Rose George

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Rose George is not a scientist, but an investigative journalist. As such, she’s a leave-no-stone-unturned researcher, and that shows here.

    The style throughout is, as one might expect, journalistic. But, she’s unafraid of diving into the science of it, interviewing many medical professionals as part of her work. She also looks to people living with various blood-related conditions, ranging from hemophilia to HIV.

    Speakling of highly-stigmatized yet very manageable conditions, there’s also a fair section devoted to menstruation, menstrual blood, and societies’ responses to such, from shunning to active support.

    We also learn about the industrialization of blood—from blood banks to plasma labs to leech farms. You probably knew leeches are still used as a medical tool in even the most high-tech of hospitals, but you’ll doubtlessly learn a fascinating thing or two from the “insider views” along the way.

    Bottom line: if you’d like to know more about the red stuff in all its marvelous aspects, with neither sensationalization nor sanitization (the topic needs neither!), this is the book for you.

    Click here to check out Nine Pints, and learn more about yours!

    Share This Post

  • Breadfruit vs Custard Apple – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing breadfruit to custard apple, we picked the breadfruit.

    Why?

    Today in “fruits pretending to be less healthy things than they are”, both are great, but one of these fruits just edges out the other in all categories. This is quite simple today:

    In terms of macros, being fruits they’re both fairly high in carbs and fiber, however the carbs are close to equal and breadfruit has nearly 2x the fiber.

    This also means that breadfruit has the lower glycemic index, but they’re both medium-low GI foods with a low insulin index.

    When it comes to vitamins, breadfruit has more of vitamins B1, B3, B5, and C, while custard apple has more of vitamins A, B2, and B6. So, a 4:3 win for breadfruit.

    In the category of minerals, breadfruit has more copper, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while custard apple has more calcium and iron.

    In short, enjoy both, but if you’re going just for one, breadfruit is the healthiest.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • 5 Steps To Quit Sugar Easily
  • Ice Baths: To Dip Or Not To Dip?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Many Are Cold, But Few Are Frozen

    We asked you for your (health-related) view of ice baths, and got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • About 31% said “ice baths are great for the health; we should take them”
    • About 29% said “ice baths’ risks outweigh their few benefits”
    • About 26% said “ice baths’ benefits outweigh their few risks”
    • About 14% said “ice baths are dangerous and can kill you; best avoided”

    So what does the science say?

    Freezing water is very dangerous: True or False?

    True! Water close to freezing point is indeed very dangerous, and can most certainly kill you.

    Fun fact, though: many such people are still saveable with timely medical intervention, in part because the same hypothermia that is killing them also slows down the process* of death

    Source (and science) for both parts of that:

    Cold water immersion: sudden death and prolonged survival

    *and biologically speaking, death is a process, not an event, by the way. But we don’t have room for that today!

    (unless you die in some sudden violent way, such as a powerful explosion that destroys your brain instantly; then it’s an event)

    Ice baths are thus also very dangerous: True or False?

    False! Assuming that they are undertaken responsibly and you have no chronic diseases that make it more dangerous for you.

    What does “undertaken responsibly” mean?

    Firstly, the temperature should not be near freezing. It should be 10–15℃, which for Americans is 50–59℉.

    You can get a bath thermometer to check this, by the way. Here’s an example product on Amazon.

    Secondly, your ice bath should last no more than 10–15 minutes. This is not a place to go to sleep.

    What chronic diseases would make it dangerous?

    Do check with your doctor if you have any doubts, as no list we make can be exhaustive and we don’t know your personal medical history, but the main culprits are:

    • Cardiovascular disease
    • Hypertension
    • Diabetes (any type)

    The first two are for heart attack risk; the latter is because diabetes can affect core temperature regulation.

    Ice baths are good for the heart: True or False?

    True or False depending on how they’re done, and your health before starting.

    For most people, undertaking ice baths responsibly, repeated ice bath use causes the cardiovascular system to adapt to better maintain homeostasis when subjected to thermal shock (i.e. sudden rapid changes in temperature).

    For example: Respiratory and cardiovascular responses to cold stress following repeated cold water immersion

    And because that was a small study, here’s a big research review with a lot of data; just scroll to where it has the heading“Specific thermoregulative adaptations to regular exposure to cold air and/or cold water exposure“ for many examples and much discussion:

    Health effects of voluntary exposure to cold water: a continuing subject of debate

    Ice baths are good against inflammation: True or False?

    True! Here’s one example:

    Winter-swimming as a building-up body resistance factor inducing adaptive changes in the oxidant/antioxidant status

    Uric acid and glutathione levels (important markers of chronic inflammation) are also significantly affected:

    Uric acid and glutathione levels during short-term whole body cold exposure

    Want to know more?

    That’s all we have room for today, but check out our previous “Expert Insights” main feature looking at Wim Hof’s work in cryotherapy:

    A Cold Shower A Day Keeps The Doctor Away?

    Enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Aging Backwards – by Miranda Esmonde-White

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    In this book, there’s an upside and a downside to the author’s professional background:

    • Upside: Miranda Esmonde-White is a ballet-dancer-turned-physical-trainer, and it shows
    • Downside: Miranda Esmonde-White is not a scientist, and it shows

    She cites a lot of science, but she either does not understand it or else intentionally misrepresents it. We will assume the former. But as one example, she claims:

    “for every minute you exercise, you lengthen your life by 7 minutes”

    …which cheat code to immortality is absolutely not backed-up by the paper she cites for it. The paper, like most papers, was much more measured in its proclamations; “there was an association” and “with these conditions”, etc.

    Nevertheless, while she misunderstands lots of science along the way, her actual advice is good and sound. Her workout programs really will help people to become younger by various (important, life-changing!) metrics of biological age, mostly pertaining to mobility.

    And yes, this is a workout-based approach; we won’t read much about diet and other lifestyle factors here.

    Bottom line: it has its flaws, but nevertheless delivers on its premise of helping the reader to become biologically younger through exercises, mostly mobility drills.

    Click here to check out Aging Backwards, and age backwards!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Soap vs Sanitizer – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing soap to sanitizer, we picked the soap.

    Why?

    Both are good at killing bacteria / inactivating viruses, but there are several things that set them apart:

    • Soap doesn’t just kill them; it slides them off and away down the drain. That means that any it failed to kill are also off and down the drain, not still on your hands. This is assuming good handwashing technique, of course!
    • Sanitizer gel kills them, but can take up to 4 minutes of contact to do so. Given that people find 20 seconds of handwashing laborious, 240 seconds of sanitizer gel use seems too much to hope for.

    Both can be dehydrating for the hands; both can have ingredients added to try to mitigate that.

    We recommend a good (separate) moisturizer in either case, but the point is, the dehydration factor doesn’t swing it far either way.

    So, we’ll go with the one that gets rid of the germs the most quickly: the soap

    10almonds tip: splash out on the extra-nice hand-soaps for your home—this will make you and others more likely to wash your hands more often! Sometimes, making something a more pleasant experience makes all the difference.

    Want to know more?

    Check out:

    Mythbusting Handwashing

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: