Zachary Gillen, Mississippi State University

“Aren’t they a little young for that?”

This is a question I used to hear regularly from parents when I’d recommend strength training for the kids I worked with, whose ages ranged from 6 to 18 years old, in youth sports. During my four years as a strength and conditioning coach, I often received questions from parents about the pros and cons of strength training – that is, training that involves weight-bearing exercises – for children.

Some of the most common questions: Is strength training safe for children and adolescents? At what age is it appropriate for them to begin strength training? What are the benefits of strength training for this age group? Is strength training beneficial even for kids who are not involved in organized sports?

Simply put, it is safe and appropriate for kids of all ages to perform strength training.

I am an exercise physiologist, certified strength and conditioning specialist and certified performance and sport scientist. My research focuses on how muscle develops from childhood to adolescence, with the goal of understanding how young people can get the most benefit out of exercise training programs, particularly strength training programs.

My experience and research has shown that strength training can help to improve sports performance for youth, and that there are significant health benefits for youth participating in strength training beyond sports performance.

Safety first

The question I receive most often, for good reason, is whether strength training is safe for youth. In a study examining injury rates in numerous sports, researchers found that, when done correctly, strength training had a lower risk of injury than nearly all other sports. This is not only true for adults but also for children.

That being said, it is important to consider a young person’s emotional maturity before handing them a dumbbell. During my career, I have designed and implemented strength training programs for kids of all ages, even as young as 6 years old. But not every child in that age range is ready for strength training. For their own safety, participants need to be emotionally mature enough to listen to and follow instructions so that they don’t hurt themselves. For some kids, that’s as early as age 6, while others may not be ready until they are a few years older.

Because correct technique is key to doing these exercises safely, it is important that strength training programs for children be designed and implemented under the guidance of a qualified trainer or coach. This means someone with valid credentials and who has received higher education in exercise science.

It’s also important to seek out professionals who use scientific evidence to back up their training programs and philosophies.

The benefits of strength training

Research has shown that stronger muscles in kids reduce the likelihood of injuries during various types of activities.

One study we conducted found that lower muscle strength and size could lead to lower performance during different activities kids typically engage in, such as running and jumping. Not only this, but kids with lower strength tend to have worse neuromuscular efficiency, which means that they are not as proficient at activating their muscles. This translates to using more energy and feeling more worn out when they’re physically active.

While it’s easy to see how strength training is important for youth who play sports, there are also incredible health benefits for kids who may not be into organized sports. Studies have shown the positive effect that strength training can have on healthy bone development in kids, leading to a lower likelihood of fractures. Research has also shown that strength training in kids can have a positive influence on psychological well-being and academic performance.

Strength training can also affect overall health and well-being as it relates to childhood obesity.

Obesity rates in children and adolescents have been rising for decades. Previous research has suggested that youth who are categorized as obese tend to have lower muscle strength than those considered normal weight. Not only this, but other research has found that youth who are obese may have a greater likelihood of sarcopenic obesity, defined as obesity with low muscle mass and function, which can have significant, negative health ramifications.

Resistance training interventions in youth with obesity have shown to have positive impacts on metabolic health, body composition, psychological health and overall quality of life.

Creating an age-appropriate program

An effective strength training program starts with setting age-appropriate expectations.

Children and adolescents are not miniature adults, and not all young people will adapt to a strength training program the same way. For instance, research shows that during puberty, there are unique differences in how muscle develops in boys versus girls.

Specifically, girls may have more neuroplasticity, which is defined as the brain’s ability to recognize new movements and patterns. This means that they may adapt to more complex movements faster than boys, while boys will see more significant changes when their muscle mass starts increasing with puberty. This doesn’t necessarily mean that girls and boys need vastly different strength training programs. It simply means not all kids will have the same rate of progression for certain exercises.

Taking that into consideration, an age-appropriate program should focus on technique over results. How much weight a child can lift is far less important than teaching them good movement patterns. For example, if a child is having difficulty performing normal pushups, a qualified professional could modify the exercise so they start with wall pushups or incline pushups. This will help that child build good movement patterns and be better for their strength in the long run.

Building off this focus on technique, a good strength training program for youth should progress from simple movements to more complex movements and lighter weights to heavier weights, taking into consideration that not all youth will adapt at the same rate.

Focusing on the long term

Obviously, most kids won’t grow up to be professional athletes, but every child can develop athleticism. A good strength training program for kids will set them on a trajectory to a healthy lifestyle from childhood to adolescence to adulthood.

Research shows that beginning exercise in childhood tends to lead to continued exercise habits in adulthood. For this reason, the National Strength and Conditioning Association, a leading organization in the field of strength and conditioning and exercise science, has encouraged a focus on improving training habits in childhood that can then be maintained into adulthood for overall better health and well-being.

Starting young with an age-appropriate strength training program can help kids develop good movement patterns and incorporate exercise into their routine, which can have lasting benefits for their health into adulthood.

Zachary Gillen, Assistant Professor of Exercise Physiology, Mississippi State University

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

Nir Eisikovits, UMass Boston

Anyone following the rhetoric around artificial intelligence in recent years has heard one version or another of the claim that AI is inevitable. Common themes are that AI is already here, it is indispensable, and people who are bearish on it harm themselves.

In the business world, AI advocates tell companies and workers that they will fall behind if they fail to integrate generative AI into their operations. In the sciences, AI advocates promise that AI will aid in curing hitherto intractable diseases.

In higher education, AI promoters admonish teachers that students must learn how to use AI or risk becoming uncompetitive when the time comes to find a job.

And, in national security, AI’s champions say that either the nation invests heavily in AI weaponry, or it will be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the Chinese and the Russians, who are already doing so.

The argument across these different domains is essentially the same: The time for AI skepticism has come and gone. The technology will shape the future, whether you like it or not. You have the choice to learn how to use it or be left out of that future. Anyone trying to stand in the technology’s way is as hopeless as the manual weavers who resisted the mechanical looms in the early 19th century.

In the past few years, my colleagues and I at UMass Boston’s Applied Ethics Center have been studying the ethical questions raised by the widespread adoption of AI, and I believe the inevitability argument is misleading.

History and hindsight

In fact, this claim is the most recent version of a deterministic view of technological development. It’s the belief that innovations are unstoppable once people start working on them. In other words, some genies don’t go back in their bottles. The best you can do is harness them to your good purposes.

This deterministic approach to tech has a long history. It’s been applied to the influence of the printing press, as well as to the rise of automobiles and the infrastructure they require, among other developments.

But I believe that when it comes to AI, the technological determinism argument is both exaggerated and oversimplified.

AI in the field(s)

Consider the contention that businesses can’t afford to stay out of the AI game. In fact, the case has yet to be made that AI is delivering significant productivity gains to the firms that use it. A report in The Economist in July 2024 suggests that so far, the technology has had almost no economic impact.

AI’s role in higher education is also still very much an open question. Though universities have, in the past two years, invested heavily in AI-related initiatives, evidence suggests they may have jumped the gun.

The technology can serve as an interesting pedagogical tool. For example, creating a Plato chatbot that lets students have a text conversation with a bot posing as Plato is a cool gimmick.

But AI is already starting to displace some of the best tools teachers have for assessment and for developing critical thinking, such as writing assignments. The college essay is going the way of the dinosaurs as more teachers give up on the ability to tell whether their students are writing their papers themselves. What’s the cost-benefit argument for giving up on writing, an important and useful traditional skill?

In the sciences and in medicine, the use of AI seems promising. Its role in understanding the structure of proteins, for example, will likely be significant for curing diseases. The technology is also transforming medical imaging and has been helpful in accelerating the drug discovery process.

But the excitement can become exaggerated. AI-based predictions about which cases of COVID-19 would become severe have roundly failed, and doctors rely excessively on the technology’s diagnostic ability, often against their own better clinical judgment. And so, even in this area, where the potential is great, AI’s ultimate impact is unclear.

In national security, the argument for investing in AI development is compelling. Since the stakes can be high, the argument that if the Chinese and the Russians are developing AI-driven autonomous weapons, the United States can’t afford to fall behind, has real purchase.

But a complete surrender to this form of reasoning, though tempting, is likely to lead the U.S. to overlook the disproportionate impact of these systems on nations that are too poor to participate in the AI arms race. The major powers could deploy the technology in conflicts in these nations. And, just as significantly, this argument de-emphasizes the possibility of collaborating with adversaries on limiting military AI systems, favoring arms race over arms control.

One step at a time

Surveying the potential significance and risks of AI in these different domains merits some skepticism about the technology. I believe that AI should be adopted piecemeal and with a nuanced approach rather than subject to sweeping claims of inevitability. In developing this careful take, there are two things to keep in mind:

First, companies and entrepreneurs working on artificial intelligence have an obvious interest in the technology being perceived as inevitable and necessary, since they make a living from its adoption. It’s important to pay attention to who is making claims of inevitability, and why.

Second, it’s worth taking a lesson from recent history. Over the past 15 years, smartphones and the social media apps that run on them came to be seen as a fact of life – a technology as transformative as it is inevitable. Then data started emerging about the mental health harms they cause teens, especially young girls. School districts across the United States started to ban phones to protect the attention spans and mental health of their students. And some people have reverted to using flip phones as a quality of life change to avoid smartphones.

After a long experiment with the mental health of kids, facilitated by claims of technological determinism, Americans changed course. What seemed fixed turned out to be alterable. There is still time to avoid repeating the same mistake with artificial intelligence, which potentially could have larger consequences for society.

Nir Eisikovits, Professor of Philosophy and Director, Applied Ethics Center, UMass Boston

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

Allan Albig, Boise State University

Think back to that basic biology class you took in high school. You probably learned about organelles, those little “organs” inside cells that form compartments with individual functions. For example, mitochondria produce energy, lysosomes recycle waste and the nucleus stores DNA. Although each organelle has a different function, they are similar in that every one is wrapped up in a membrane.

Membrane-bound organelles were the textbook standard of how scientists thought cells were organized until they realized in the mid-2000s that some organelles don’t need to be wrapped in a membrane. Since then, researchers have discovered many additional membraneless organelles that have significantly changed how biologists think about the chemistry and origins of life.

I was introduced to membraneless organelles, formally called biomolecular condensates, a couple years ago when students in my lab observed some unusual blobs in a cell nucleus. Unbeknownst to me, we had actually been studying biomolecular condensates for years. What I finally saw in those blobs opened my eyes to a whole new world of cell biology.

Like a lava lamp

To get a sense of what a biomolecular condensate looks like, imagine a lava lamp as the blobs of wax inside fuse together, break apart and fuse again. Condensates form in much the same way, though they are not made of wax. Instead, a cluster of proteins and genetic material, specifically RNA molecules, in a cell condenses into gel-like droplets.

Some proteins and RNAs do this because they preferentially interact with each other instead of their surrounding environment, very much like how wax blobs in a lava lamp mix with each other but not the surrounding liquid. These condensates create a new microenvironment that attracts additional proteins and RNA molecules, thus forming a unique biochemical compartment within cells.

As of 2022, researchers have found about 30 kinds of these membraneless biomolecular condensates. In comparison, there are around a dozen known traditional membrane-bound organelles.

Although easy to identify once you know what you are looking for, it’s difficult to figure out what biomolecular condensates exactly do. Some have well-defined roles, such as forming reproductive cells, stress granules and protein-making ribosomes. However, many others don’t have clear functions.

Nonmembrane-bound organelles could have more numerous and diverse functions than their membrane-bound counterparts. Learning about these unknown functions is affecting scientists’ fundamental understanding of how cells work.

Protein structure and function

Biomolecular condensates are breaking some long-held beliefs about protein chemistry.

Ever since scientists first got a good look at the structure of the protein myoglobin in the 1950s, it was clear that its structure is important for its ability to shuttle oxygen in muscles. Since then, the mantra for biochemists has been that protein structure equals protein function. Basically, proteins have certain shapes that allow them to perform their jobs.

The proteins that form biomolecular condensates at least partially break this rule since they contain regions that are disordered, meaning they do not have defined shapes. When researchers discovered these so-called intrinsically disordered proteins, or IDPs, in the early 1980s, they were initially confounded by how these proteins could lack a strong structure but still perform specific functions.

Later, they found that IDPs tend to form condensates. As is so often the case in science, this finding solved one mystery about the roles these unstructured rogue proteins play in the cell only to open another deeper question about what biomolecular condensates really are.

Bacterial cells

Researchers have also detected biomolecular condensates in prokaryotic, or bacterial, cells, which traditionally were defined as not containing organelles. This finding could have profound effects on how scientists understand the biology of prokaryotic cells.

Only about 6% of bacterial proteins have disordered regions lacking structure, compared with 30% to 40% of eukaryotic, or nonbacterial, proteins. But scientists have found several biomolecular condensates in prokaryotic cells that are involved a variety of cellular functions, including making and breaking down RNAs.

The presence of biomolecular condensates in bacterial cells means that these microbes aren’t simple bags of proteins and nucleic acids but are actually more complex than previously recognized.

Origins of life

Biomolecular condensates are also changing how scientists think about the origins of life on Earth.

There is ample evidence that nucleotides, the building blocks of RNA and DNA, can very plausibly be made from common chemicals, like hydrogen cyanide and water, in the presence of common energy sources, like ultraviolet light or high temperatures, on universally common minerals, like silica and iron clay.

There is also evidence that individual nucleotides can spontaneously assemble into chains to make RNA. This is a crucial step in the RNA world hypothesis, which postulates that the first “lifeforms” on Earth were strands of RNAs.

A major question is how these RNA molecules might have evolved mechanisms to replicate themselves and organize into a protocell. Because all known life is enclosed in membranes, researchers studying the origin of life have mostly assumed that membranes would also need to encapsulate these RNAs. This would require synthesizing the lipids, or fats, that make up membranes. However, the materials needed to make lipids likely weren’t present on early Earth.

With the discovery that RNAs can spontaneously form biomolecular condensates, lipids wouldn’t be needed to form protocells. If RNAs were able to aggregate into biomolecular condensates on their own, it becomes even more plausible that living molecules arose from nonliving chemicals on Earth.

New treatments

For me and other scientists studying biomolecular condensates, it is exciting to dream of how these rule-breaking entities will change our perspective on how biology works. Condensates are already changing how we think about human diseases like Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s and Lou Gehrig’s.

To this end, researchers are developing several new approaches to manipulate condensates for medical purposes like new drugs that can promote or dissolve condensates. Whether this new approach to treating disease will bear fruit remains to be determined.

In the long term, I wouldn’t be surprised if each biomolecular condensate is eventually assigned a particular function. If this happens, you can bet that high school biology students will have even more to learn – or complain – about in their introductory biology classes.

Allan Albig, Associate Professor of Biological Sciences, Boise State University

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