Photo credit: Dr. John Jaquish
We've seen the videos of astronauts being who spend longer periods in space being carried out of their capsules when they return to Earth. Even with two hours of exercise per day during their time in space, microgravity takes a toll on the human body. We're still learning about the variety of challenges microgravity and space present for humans. If humans are going to live for longer periods of time and in larger numbers off planet Earth, we will need to learn to develop ways to thrive there.
Please enjoy this interview with Dr. John Jaquish, PhD. an inventor, scientist, and author who shared with me about some of his thoughts regarding humans microgravity.
Why bone density matters and why it is going to be important consideration for human spaceflight and future space settlement?
Bone density is important to protect against fractures and for normal nervous system function. All nervous system functions rely on calcium for interaction and bone is largely the battery, designed to manage its supply. The loss of bone density is more relevant to those in space because low gravity environments accelerate its loss. Astronauts in space lose bone density at a rate more than 12X greater than the typical elderly person on Earth. Which is particularly disturbing given that even on Earth, the risk of losing enough bone density to suffer a fracture in one's lifetime is about 33% for women and 20% for men. Given that low gravity environments have the potential to 12X the rate of onset for osteoporosis, the risks would seem grim for those engaged in prolonged space flight.
Most osteoporosis related fractures are hip fractures, and even on earth the mortality rate for those is around 1 in 8 within just six months. Medical care in space is likely compromised compared to the care one would receive on Earth. Add to this the fact that a person injured thus would not be able to perform any crew duties in space for some time, and the fact that one such fracture depletes bone mineral density throughout the skeleton, potentially leading to more fractures, and a general acceleration of loss even beyond the 12x that has been documented.
How does space flight osteopenia related to humans in 1 Gravity?
Because gravitational forces are lower in space, bone loss happens much faster for any given person than it would on earth, and even people who might still be building bone on Earth will typically lose bone in space. As mentioned above, the bone loss seen in young and healthy astronauts occurred more than 12X faster than is typically seen in the elderly on Earth.
Could you share how most NASA studies are related to bringing astronauts back to average health and not addressing high-performance?
As an example, NASA developed the ARED system[1] for use by Astronauts trying to maintain the conditioning of their musculoskeletal system in space . This is a complex machine weighing over 1000lbs, which was no doubt incredibly costly to develop.
When we look at how NASA tested the ARED, the following goals and conclusions stand out:
-The testing population was composed of untrained (non-athlete) humans.
-The "control" group performed a free weight training routine consisting of alternating "heavy", "light", and "medium" days (no serious athlete would train with a protocol like that, no exercise physiology research suggests the protocol is optimal for human performance"[2].
-When the ARED system was shown to be merely equal (or, in two cases, inferior to) the control group's sub-optimal free weight program, that was sufficient for the ARED project to be labelled a success.[1]
More recently, NASA has developed a new machine, the MED-2 (https:// www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/862.html) which may be used for exercise on longer trips. This device offers roughly half of the capacity of the ARED, which was already inferior to a mediocre free weight training program.
So while NASA would likely never admit to aiming for merely average results, their recent research in the field began by bench-marking a conventional exercise routine that would never, ever be used by a high performing athlete, and finished with the development of a machine that was slightly less effective than that routine. And their new research into MED-2 suggests that the next exercise device they research will be yet less capable.
By contrast, if NASA were to aim for peak performance, they would have targeted the results for strength improvement seen from variable resistance training, which are three times greater than those shown from free weight routines, even when performed by trained athletes as part of a rigorous program at Cornell University[3].
And this doesn't even touch on the issue of Bone Density. While it is a stated purpose of the ARED to help astronauts maintain bone density, the goal of the ARED's testing in this field was merely to show non-inferiority to weight lifting. In other words, when the study revealed that the ARED had no effect at all on 3 out of 4 bone density metrics, even in normal gravity, it was still considered a success, because the regular weight lifting protocol also had no effect on those metrics.
Unfortunately, the 3 metrics where ARED did not help bone density are the most important: those pertaining to the hip joint and femur. That is where most osteoporotic fractures, and the most fatal fractures, occur. And yet NASA considered moving ahead with the ARED as though it could be expected to prevent bone density loss in space.
By contrast, there is research suggesting that an optimal exercise protocol could lead to significant increases in bone mineral density measured at the hip.[4][5] NASA simply chose not to pursue a maximal outcome, and settled for a non-effective option.
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1001.html
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18550975
[4] https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/2431de_aafc9e6c80804db4805a0f37317df32f.pdf [5] https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/2431de_ebf4c2797e0a4e679a13c9648631ec80.pdf Please share about of your inventions.
I invented a device for treating osteoporosis here on Earth, which was shown in the osteogenic loading research above to be more effective than any other current treatment. I also developed an exercise device to leverage the findings of the above Cornell Athlete research, and give people a way of building strength and exercising that is far more effective and time efficient than the current gold standard in resistance training.
Wow some of your work potentially be useful for human spaceflight and beyond?
We didn't design either of those devices with an eye on selling to the Space market. That said, having read the specs on the NASA ARED and MED-2 devices, it seems like X3 is a cheaper, lighter, and more effective solution to muscle maintenance. It weighs 1% as much as the ARED and 20% as much as the MED-2, and based on the existing research on variable resistance, the data suggests it outperforms both systems as well as the Free Weight protocol NASA used for its baseline. And an X3 costs about $400 USD, so I'd imagine that's several orders of magnitude more economical than the ARED or MED-2/
X3 would probably be ineffective against bone density loss, but that is true for basically all weight lifting/strength training interventions.
Osteogenic loading is the only method that's been shown in research to significantly increase hip bone density for both the healthy and the osteoporotic. The easiest implementation would be to use the devices on the ground to prepare astronauts for space by increasing their bone density to super-normal levels. As a result of using this technology, my personal bone mineral density is two standard deviations above what's normal for people my age and gender. If I were to go to space, even with no other technology being used up there, this would give me a buffer period before my bone strength became compromised.
Of course, that's only half a solution. NASA could certainly leverage the principles involved to build a device capable of providing osteogenic loading in space to actively build bone. I had offered NASA scientists in the past to assist in the creation of an osteogenic loading device, but have not been able to initiate the project from outside of NASA. I would be delighted to work on such a project, and it certainly wouldn't be any heavier than the ARED.
About:
Dr. John Jaquish began his experience in life sciences after being told by his Mother that she had been diagnosed with osteoporosis. John, in an effort to help his mother, created a device to place axial loading through bone to safely cause osteogenic loading events. The device was to trigger the effects of high-impact loading, but without the risk of injury.
After successfully reversing his Mother's osteoporosis, as part of his doctoral dissertation in biomedical engineering research at Rushmore University, he conducted four years of testing with human subjects focused on user comfort, biomechanics, and optimal musculoskeletal stimulation. Next, the device he designed was put into production, and has since been placed in over 300 clinics worldwide. Osteogenic loading has now helped over 30,000 individuals with their bone health. Published data has shown, treatment with this osteogenic loading device has resulted in over 14% gains in bone density in both the spine and hip over one year of once-weekly treatment.
Dr. Jaquish is currently advancing osteogenic loading research and speaking worldwide about its implications, as well as developing other biotechnology devices and products that will aid in the advanced health and wellbeing of people all around the world. He formerly a member of the Board of Directors of American Bone Health, and the editorial board of the Journal of Steroids and Hormonal Science.
Websites for Dr. John Jaquish:
-
Acknowledgements:
Thank you to Tony Molina of The Rewire Project for introducing me to Dr. Jaquish's work.
Subscribe to Robert Jacobon's newsletter.
©2021 Robert C. Jacobson. All rights reserved SpaceIsOpenforBusiness.com