> many women do minimal to no strength training because they're worried that muscle tone will make them look masculine.

I've observed this as being a very widespread belief too, and it seems like we need to be giving women a better biology education or something, because holy shit is it wrong.

I guess it's more a misconception among the general non weight training public that this stuff is so easy you can basically develop a muscular, masculine body on accident.

For all but the youngest and most genetically blessed males it takes years of very specific diet and exercise regimes. Or steroids.

Whereas just adding some weighted squats into her routine will have immense health benefits for most women as well as making their body look more feminine and attractive.

Read of a study years ago that had postmenopausal wpmen do weight training - giving a dramatic 40% increase in bone density in 6 weeks IIRC the details.

It's not that frail people need to be inactive, but that inactivity causes frailty.

    > they're worried that muscle tone will make them look masculine

Yes, this is a common concern. It would be good to show women what it looks like to workout hard six days a week for more than one year. (My point: That is an unrealistic weight lifting schedule for 99% of women.) They still won't look very masculine. Very well toned, but not very masculine. My advice when women raise this concern: "If you get too big, just ease off. Maintaining is way easier than growing."

> Women are also more likely to regularly perform cardio/aerobic exercises, which can reduce bone density when done in excess and without adequate nutrition.

What is the biological mechanism behind this statement?

This may be true, but it's not really relevant. Most people don't do training at all, especially past 50 yo, where bone density declines in women.

(And that's a significant issue in itself)

Estrogen replacement increases the risk of cancer in women.

Although I knew a woman who had breast cancer and a consequence was taking her off HRT. Which she was dreading.

"Use it till you die" seems like less and less of a penalty the older you get.

Is their natural estrogen production not already suppressed from menopause?

If this sub is the state of modern science, we are in a lot of trouble.

For more on this "we don't really have the data for anything" problem, a humorously approachable read is "A City On Mars" [0]. Also the "nobody knows how laws would work" and other interesting complications.

[0] https://www.acityonmars.com/

In many ways it doesn't cancel out. On Mars, things weigh less but their mass is the same. So, for example, if you are walking on Mars at a normal Earth walking speed, and you bump your shin on something, the inertia of your leg as it hits the obstacle is just as great as the inertia of your leg on Earth. In general, a lot of the little physical interactions that you rely on bone strength to get through scale according to mass / inertia (and muscle strength), not weight.

No, because if you break a hip, you lose a ton of mobility, which will cause an avalanche of problems.

Not entirely, for a pretty obvious reason: breaking a bone at an advanced age is not infrequently the beginning of the end. Not enough to make it primary (in other words, your point about bone density as a correlate rather than a determinate is basically correct), but enough that improving just bone health on a widespread basis should help with life expectancy as well.

Try googling this it is kind of interesting. Link between bone density and skin elasticity. You will find that the denser the bones the healthier the skin. We may find people who are 70 looking like they are 50.

What is so special about grip strength? I never heard anything about this before your post.

> That's the primary reason medicine is so expensive.

My aim isn't to make a long thread out of the topic but: while I'd agree it's one reason, I'd dispute it's primary. Demand for medicine is pretty inelastic, meaning there is generally a lot of power on the supply side to set high prices. Then you have the dynamics between health insurers and providers, the burdens of regulation and liability for adverse effects, the tendency to focus research and marketing on novel [patentable] remedies over potentially cheaper ones, and the tendency to focus on remedy over prevention. It's fairly difficult to pick a primary reason.

Yes, the trick will be to prevent too much growth and therefore the appearance of rogue mutants that may lead to e.g. osteosarcoma.

Lots of organs in the body lack regeneration capabilities once you age as an evolutionary mechanism to avoid tumors.

Uri Alon's book Systems Medicine has lots of models to explain those differences depending on e.g. organ size.

I just want to buy it once by bones start to get retarded.

> taking them even if you don't need to isn't going to be harmful

I think, the transporter for calcium is the same used for some other minerals. So, if you're not mindful (about timing), you may be competitively blocking the absorption of e.g. zinc, which is much more precious nutritionally - zinc is very important for immune function and healing, while deficiency is common.

Calcium supplements can cause constipation, which may be not very fun after giving birth... Not to mention the implications of (lack of) quality control in the supplement market, by proxy, for a rapidly developing human being. Which substances are part of the formulation, other than calcium salts? Does the adult portion of copper or X accumulate in a mother's milk?

Not saying, you shouldn't take calcium supplements. But really, any supplement can be harmful, if consumed without need or consideration. (Fun fact: Vitamin A supplementation increases lung cancer risk!)

Meat is a great source of bioavailable calcium.

Tip: vinegar does wonders (for shower heads, not absorption).

My amnesia is somewhat intentional. Like some of the commenters here, I'm doubtful if I should really take it everyday. Just seems excessive? Did it during pregnancy ofc, and it's not like the early days of breastfeeding when you're making almost a liter a day (kiddo is 2.5 so while still BFing, it's not an important source of food), so idk. My grandmother had like 10 kids, breastfed them all and never had bone issues. My mother breastfed us v little (<6 months all together) and got osteoporosis. I'm not at all sure how well-supported this recommendation is.

I try to eat more yogurt/kefir instead.

If this works and becomes a common dental procedure I will be soooo happy. Every time I go to the dentist I ask them if anything like this is coming down the pipeline and they laugh...