2 ms·

>>Long-lasting exposure to low gravity, such as in lunar settlements planned by the ongoing Artemis Program, elicits muscle hypotrophy, bone demineralization, c

>>Long-lasting exposure to low gravity, such as in lunar settlements planned by the ongoing Artemis Program, elicits muscle hypotrophy, bone demineralization, cardio-respiratory and neuro-control deconditioning, against which optimal countermeasures are still to be designed. Rather than training selected muscle groups only, ‘whole-body’ activities such as locomotion seem better candidates, I don't get why whole body locomotion would be the best way to combat muscle hypotrophy and bone demineralisation when that is not the best method on earth. A better approach would be using bands or even moon rocks to lift weights etc. Just set new lunar records for the deadlift, squat etc.

eru 3y ago
> I don't get why whole body locomotion would be the best way to combat muscle hypotrophy and bone demineralisation when that is not the best method on earth. Whole body locomotion is approximately the only way we have ever tried on earth to combat muscle hypotrophy. So we don't know whether that's the best method or not: we just haven't tried anything else. To be more precise, any method we have tried on earth, be that bands or weight lifting etc _also_ included a hefty dose of whole body locomotion inside a strong gravity field. (You can get great results from hitting the gym for squats and deadlifts three times a week for an hour. But that regime also includes 24/7 exposure to 1g of gravity.)
- gadders 3y ago
  Got you. So we would need to do the experiment to try resistance training in low/no gravity to see whether it would work or not. It would seem like the obvious thing to try though as it is the best method in regular gravity.
  - eru 3y ago
    Oh, it's definitely something we should try. We need a lot more experiments. The only thing we know for sure is that moving around in 1g is generally enough for our bodies. Especially once you throw in a bit of deliberate exercise. We also already know from our space stations that 0g is bad for you, and even exercise can only mitigate some of the damage. But that's already the limit of our definite knowledge. But we don't know where the boundaries are, and whether the transition is smooth. Eg I would suspect 0.01g to be still pretty bad, and 0.99g to be indistinguishable from earth for our bodies. But would 0.9g be enough? Probably yes, but who knows? What about 0.5g? Is it bad? Is it 50% as bad as 0g? Would 0.2g give you 80% of the benefits of 1g? We don't know.
    - cnity 3y ago
      Possibly dumb question, but if you wore weighted vests (for example) to match the same force due to gravity on earth for that individual, would that be equivalent to existing on earth without the vest? Ignoring e.g. the difference in exact distribution of the weight.
      - eru 3y ago
        There are some differences, eg how your organs sit inside your body. Perhaps your liver works best in 1g? We can make some educated guesses, but honestly we don't know! No one has run experiments.

eru 3y ago

> I don't get why whole body locomotion would be the best way to combat muscle hypotrophy and bone demineralisation when that is not the best method on earth. Whole body locomotion is approximately the only way we have ever tried on earth to combat muscle hypotrophy. So we don't know whether that's the best method or not: we just haven't tried anything else. To be more precise, any method we have tried on earth, be that bands or weight lifting etc _also_ included a hefty dose of whole body locomotion inside a strong gravity field. (You can get great results from hitting the gym for squats and deadlifts three times a week for an hour. But that regime also includes 24/7 exposure to 1g of gravity.)

gadders 3y ago
Got you. So we would need to do the experiment to try resistance training in low/no gravity to see whether it would work or not. It would seem like the obvious thing to try though as it is the best method in regular gravity.
- eru 3y ago
  Oh, it's definitely something we should try. We need a lot more experiments. The only thing we know for sure is that moving around in 1g is generally enough for our bodies. Especially once you throw in a bit of deliberate exercise. We also already know from our space stations that 0g is bad for you, and even exercise can only mitigate some of the damage. But that's already the limit of our definite knowledge. But we don't know where the boundaries are, and whether the transition is smooth. Eg I would suspect 0.01g to be still pretty bad, and 0.99g to be indistinguishable from earth for our bodies. But would 0.9g be enough? Probably yes, but who knows? What about 0.5g? Is it bad? Is it 50% as bad as 0g? Would 0.2g give you 80% of the benefits of 1g? We don't know.
  - cnity 3y ago
    Possibly dumb question, but if you wore weighted vests (for example) to match the same force due to gravity on earth for that individual, would that be equivalent to existing on earth without the vest? Ignoring e.g. the difference in exact distribution of the weight.
    - eru 3y ago
      There are some differences, eg how your organs sit inside your body. Perhaps your liver works best in 1g? We can make some educated guesses, but honestly we don't know! No one has run experiments.