I found a study that shows that lateral synovial joint loading in mice can increase height! It sounds counter intuitive but the results showed a height increase. There's more here:

http://thequestforheight.blogspot.com

I couldn't understand this method. Where do you put weights and how can your bones get taller?

look mate, STOP ADVERTISING YOUR BLOG.

Please explain how to do this "joint loading". I have no idea how to do it even after reading that blog.

"I hold a dumbell on both lateral sides of my elbow, wrist, ankles, and knees." What da hell is that suppose to mean??


But if this works, that would be amaaaaazinnnnng!!!!

(03-13-2010 05:35 PM)MasterJan Wrote:  Please explain how to do this "joint loading". I have no idea how to do it even after reading that blog.

"I hold a dumbell on both lateral sides of my elbow, wrist, ankles, and knees." What da hell is that suppose to mean??


But if this works, that would be amaaaaazinnnnng!!!!

I added another post adding easier to understand and easier to do methods of performing the lateral loading of synovial joints method. Let me know if you're still confused. And remember this is still in the experimental phase as I posted the study as soon as I found out about it.

I think I might know what you mean in the 'pec deck' exercise. So I do the pec deck with my arm straightened, and my elbow placed in the middle of the padding?

I don't have machines to load my knees on. I'll try to find alternatives...

I posted some pictures that will hopefully clarify how to perform the routine. If you still don't understand, let me know.

I saw your post today, and it said that compression of the bones will slow down growth, while the distraction of bones will expedite growth is that right? What does it mean exactly by 'distraction'?

"Weight loading young chicks inhibits bone elongation and promotes growth plate ossification and vascularization." This headline is an eye opener, and really got me worried. It says 'weight loading' will stunt your bone growth, and cause your growth plates to close earlier... Does that mean weight lifting will stunt my growth??? I've been weight lifting for 1 full year, because I thought it will help me grow taller, but apparently it would actually stunt my growth... Bummer... I am not sure if the 'weight loading' means only the exercises that presses your bones vertically, like bench press, and weighted squats. What do you think?

"Response of the growth plate to distraction close to skeletal maturity. Is fracture necessary?" Fracture of the growth plate is necessary for growth in near-maturity stage... How exactly do you create fractures in your growth plate???

Masterjan, if that study says loading will stunt your growth - then it's bullshit. Heare the many contradicting studies done on HUMANS.

(02-13-2008 03:48 AM)HeightFX Wrote:  Novel loci regulating bone anabolic response to loading: expression QTL analysis in C57BL/6JXC3H/HeJ mice cross.

Kesavan C, Baylink DJ, Kapoor S, Mohan S.

Musculoskeletal Disease Center, Jerry L. Pettis VA Medical Center, 11201 Benton Street, Loma Linda, CA 92357, USA.

Variations in the expression levels of bone marker genes among the inbred strains of mice in response to mechanical loading (ML) are largely determined by genetic factors. To explore this, we performed four-point bending on tibiae of 10-week female F2 mice of B6XC3H cross using 9N at 2 Hz, 36 cycles, once per day for 12 days. We collected tibiae from these mice for RNA extraction. We then measured the expression changes of bone marker genes, bone sialoprotein (BSP), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and housekeeping genes, beta-actin and peptidylprolyl isomerase A (PPIA), by using real-time PCR in both the loaded and the non-loaded tibiae of F2 mice (n=241). A genome-wide scan was performed using 111 micro satellite markers in DNA sample collected from these mice. Mean increase in gene expression, expressed as fold change, ranges from 2.8 to 3.0 for BSP and 2.7 to 2.8 for ALP. Both showed a skewed distribution with a heritability response of 87 to 91%. Absence of significant correlation between the increased gene expression vs. body weight (BW) and bone size (BS) suggests that bone response to loading is independent of BS or BW. Non-parametric mapping (MapQTL program 5) revealed that BSP and ALP expression in response to bending was regulated by several significant and suggestive QTL: Loci regulating both BSP and ALP were located on Chr 8 (60.1 cM), 16 (45.9 cM), 17 (14.2 cM), 18 (38.0 cM) and Chr 19 (3.3 cM); Loci specific to BSP were found on Chrs 1 (LOD score 10.4 at 91.8 cM), 5 (5.2 at 73.2 cM) and 9 (7.0 at 13.1 cM); Loci regulating only ALP were found on Chrs 1 (7.6 at 46 and 75.4 cM), 3 (8.3 at 47 cM) and 4 (5.6 at 54.6 cM). QTLs on Chrs 1, 3, 8, 9, 17 and 18 correspond to QTLs we previously reported by pQCT measurements, thus validating these findings. In addition, we found that the QTL associated with non-loaded tibiae for BSP and ALP on Chrs 4, 16 and 18 was identical to the QTLs associated with ML. This finding suggests that regions on these chromosomes are responsible for natural variation in expression of BSP and ALP as well as for ML. This is the first expression study to provide evidence for the presence of multiple genetic loci regulating bone anabolic response to loading in the B6XC3H intercross and will lead to a better understanding of how exercise improves the skeletal mass.


Evidence for an interaction between exercise and nutrition for improved bone health during growth.

Specker B, Vukovich M.

E.A. Martin Program in Human Nutrition, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA. Bonny.Specker@sdstate.edu

Exercise and nutrition are independently recognized as important modifiable lifestyle factors essential for optimal bone health during growth. In this review, we discuss the effect of dietary calcium, vitamin D and protein alone and in combination with exercise on bone mass and strength in children and adolescents. Recent intervention studies in children now provide evidence that exercise and calcium may interact with each other to enhance bone health, but the mechanism underlying this effect is not well understood. Vitamin D is also important for bone health through its action on calcium absorption, and both dietary protein and total energy intake can also alter bone metabolism through their influence on growth factors such as insulin-like growth factor I. However, whether these factors act synergistically with exercise to enhance bone accrual has not been examined. Therefore, while exercise and nutrition are both independently important for skeletal development, there remain many unanswered questions as to whether combinations of these factors interact to enhance skeletal health during growth. Current evidence suggests that regular weight-bearing exercise and adequate dietary calcium intakes (around 1,000 mg per day) may be required to optimize bone health; however, exercise would appear to be more important for optimizing bone strength because it has a direct effect (e.g. via loading) on bone mass and structural properties, whereas nutritional factors appear to have an indirect effect (e.g. via hormonal factors) on bone mass.


The effect of exercise on bone mass and structural geometry during growth.

Daly RM.

Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. robin.daly@deakin.edu.au

Regular weight-bearing exercise is widely reported to have beneficial effects on bone mineral content and areal bone mineral density during growth, but the structural basis underlying these changes remains uncertain. In young athletic children, participation in high-impact sports has been shown to enhance bone formation on the periosteal and/or endosteal surfaces of long bones at loaded skeletal sites. Participation in moderate physical activity, recreational play or school-based exercise interventions designed to specifically load bone have also been shown to enhance bone mineral accrual. However, few data are available on the surface-specific effects of exercise training or general physical activity on bone. Based on the limited data available, it would appear that the structural response of bone to exercise during growth is maturity dependent and sex specific; prior to puberty exercise appears to increase periosteal apposition in both sexes, whereas during or late in puberty exercise appears to result in periosteal expansion in boys but endocortical contraction in girls. In most cases, these geometric changes lead to an increase in bone bending strength. However, there are contrasting results as to whether the pre- or peripubertal years are an optimal time to intervene for the greatest osteogenic response; it is likely that both periods represent an important time for incorporating physical activity to optimize bone health. There are also many unresolved questions as to the optimal dose of exercise (intensity, frequency, duration and rate of progression) needed to enhance bone strength in children and adolescents. We know that weight-bearing exercise is important, and that activities should be dynamic, variable in nature, applied rapidly and intermittently, and that relatively few loading cycles are required. Although several effective interventions have been designed for improving bone mass, further research is needed to define the specific exercise programs or activities that will optimize bone structure and strength during growth. Perhaps most importantly, further work is also needed to determine whether any exercise-induced alterations in bone mass and structure during growth are maintained into old age when fractures occur.


Bone mass and structure are enhanced following a 2-year randomized controlled trial of exercise in prepubertal boys.

MacKelvie KJ, Petit MA, Khan KM, Beck TJ, McKay HA.

BC Children's Hospital and Food, Nutrition and Health, University of British Columbia, Canada.

Exercise during growth has a positive influence on bone mineral accrual, yet little is known about how bone geometry and strength adapt to loading during growth. Our primary objective was to compare changes in proximal femur bone geometry and strength between 31 prepubertal (Tanner Stage 1) boys who participated in a school-based, high-impact circuit intervention (12 min, three times a week) for 20 months and 33 maturity-matched controls. Our secondary objective was to compare changes in total body (TB), proximal femur (PF), and lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral content (BMC) and bone area (BA) in these groups. We assessed geometric variables and bone strength at the narrow neck (NN), intertrochanteric (TR) region, and femoral shaft regions by applying the Hip Structure Analysis program to proximal femur dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans (DXA, Hologic QDR 4500). Further, we assessed total body, lumbar spine, and proximal femur BMC and BA by DXA and derived total body lean mass and fat mass from total body scans. Intervention (10.2 +/- 0.5 years) and control boys (10.1 +/- 0.5 years) had similar baseline height (140.8 vs. 141.3 cm) and weight (36.9 vs. 35.4 kg), and average 20-month physical activity scores (Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children, PAQ-C) and calcium intakes (861 vs. 852 mg/day, food frequency questionnaire). Twenty-month height and weight changes were not significantly different between groups; lean mass changed more (P < 0.05) in intervention boys (22.8%) than control boys (18.6%). At the NN region, intervention boys had greater bone expansion on both the periosteal (+2.6%, P = 0.1) and endosteal (+2.7%, P = 0.2) surfaces, resulting in significantly greater changes in section modulus (bone bending strength) (+7.5%, P = 0.02, ANCOVA, adjusting for height change, final Tanner Stage, and baseline bone values). Changes at the intertrochanteric and femoral shaft regions were not significantly different between groups. Femoral neck (FN) BMC changes were significantly greater in intervention boys (+4.3%, P < 0.01); changes in BA and BMC for other regions were not significantly different between groups. In summary, a school-based, high-impact exercise intervention implemented three times a week for 12 min is an effective strategy for site-specific gains in bone strength at the narrow neck region of the proximal femur.


LOL and heres an interesting thing; vibrations of the bone may even enhance the formation, of course it wouldnt be anywhere near as effective as weight lifting, still, something to consider... go grab your cellphone and duck-tape it to your leg bone on vibration mode (dont actually do this...)

Low-level accelerations applied in the absence of weight bearing can enhance trabecular bone formation.

Garman R, Gaudette G, Donahue LR, Rubin C, Judex S.

Department of Biomedical Engineering, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-2580, USA.

High-frequency whole body vibrations can be osteogenic, but their efficacy appears limited to skeletal segments that are weight bearing and thus subject to the induced load. To determine the anabolic component of this signal, we investigated whether low-level oscillatory displacements, in the absence of weight bearing, are anabolic to skeletal tissue. A loading apparatus, developed to shake specific segments of the murine skeleton without the direct application of deformations to the tissue, was used to subject the left tibia of eight anesthesized adult female C57BL/6J mice to small (0.3 g or 0.6 g) 45 Hz sinusoidal accelerations for 10 min/day, while the right tibia served as an internal control. Video and strain analysis revealed that motions of the apparatus and tibia were well coupled, inducing dynamic cortical deformations of less than three microstrain. After 3 weeks, trabecular metaphyseal bone formation rates and the percentage of mineralizing surfaces (MS/BS) were 88% and 64% greater (p < 0.05) in tibiae accelerated at 0.3 g than in their contralateral controls. At 0.6 g, bone formation rates and mineral apposition rates were 66% and 22% greater (p < 0.05) in accelerated tibiae. Changes in bone morphology were evident only in the epiphysis, where stimulated tibiae displayed significantly greater cortical area (+8%) and thickness (+8%). These results suggest that tiny acceleratory motions--independent of direct loading of the matrix--can influence bone formation and bone morphology. If confirmed by clinical studies, the unique nature of the signal may ultimately facilitate the stimulation of skeletal regions that are prone to osteoporosis even in patients that are suffering from confinement to wheelchairs, bed rest, or space travel. © 2007 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.



Increasing fluid milk favorably affects bone mineral density responses to resistance training in adolescent boys.
Volek JS, Gómez AL, Scheett TP, Sharman MJ, French DN, Rubin MR, Ratamess NA, McGuigan MM, Kraemer WJ.

Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA. jvolek@uconnvm.uconn.edu

This study examined the effects of increasing milk on bone and body composition responses to resistance training in adolescents. Twenty-eight boys (13 to 17 years of age) were randomly assigned to consume, in addition to their habitual diet, 3 servings/day of 1% fluid milk (n=14) or juice not fortified with calcium (n=14) while engaged in a 12-week resistance-training program. For all subjects combined, there were significant (P<or=.05) changes in height (+0.5%), sigmaseven skin folds (-7.7%), body mass (+2.6%), lean body mass (+5.1%), fat mass (-9.3%), whole-body bone mineral content (+3.6%), bone mineral density (+1.8%), and maximal strength in the squat (+43%) and bench press (+23%). Compared with juice, the milk group had a significantly greater increase in bone mineral density (0.014 vs 0.028 g/cm(2)). Increasing intake of milk in physically active adolescent boys may enhance bone health.


Indicators of bone formation in weight lifters.
Karlsson MK, Vergnaud P, Delmas PD, Obrant KJ.

Department of Orthopedics, Malmö General Hospital, Lund University, Sweden.

Physical activity has been suggested to be one of the determinants of bone turnover and to prevent age-related bone loss. To examine this we measured the serum levels of osteocalcin (bone Gla-protein, BGP), C-terminal procollagen peptide (PICP), serum alkaline phosphatase, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, and S-calcium as indices of bone formation in 19 actively performing and 15 ex-lifters. All were nationally or internationally ranked male athletes. Their values were compared with those from 38 age- and gender-matched controls. Actively performing weight lifters had 35% higher (P < 0.05) serum concentration of osteocalcin than the controls. The ex-lifters did not differ from the age-matched controls. Also serum calcium was elevated in active lifters (6%) (P < 0.01) but not in ex-lifters. No difference was found for serum-ALP, B-ALP, or PICP in either of the groups. Our study indicates that in addition to an already documented and well-known higher bone mineral density in heavily exercising athletes, they have an indication of higher bone formation as measured by biochemical markers. In athletes who have retired from competitional training, however, the bone formation does not differ from that of more sedentary controls.


Why do marathon runners have less bone than weight lifters? A vital-biomechanical view and explanation.
Frost HM.

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Southern Colorado Clinic, Pueblo 81001, USA.

(UNFORTUNATELY I CANNOT ACCESS THE STUDY FOR THIS ONE, BUT THE TITLE SAYS IT ALL)


Strength training and the immature athlete: an overview.
Metcalf JA, Roberts SO.

The developing musculoskeletal structures of the immature athlete are uniquely susceptible to injury, particularly at the physes. These growth plates are present in arm and leg bones, and some may not close until the late teen years. Early literature suggested that weight training might be inappropriate for these athletes. However, recent evidence suggests that, properly done, strength/resistance training may not only be safe, it may also help reduce the risk of injury for the young athletes. Nurses are often called upon to advise coaches of formal and community athletic programs, and need to know the underlying physiology of developing bone and muscle as well as the current recommendations related to training.



The effect of physical activity and its interaction with nutrition on bone health.

Murphy NM, Carroll P.

Centre for Health Behaviour Research, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Republic of Ireland. nmurphy@wit.ie

Physical activity (PA) is a popular therapy for the prevention and treatment of bone loss and osteoporosis because it has no adverse side effects, it is low cost, and it confers additional benefits such as postural stability and fall prevention. Bone mass is regulated by mechanical loading, and is limited but not controlled by diet. The mechanism by which strain thresholds turn bone remodelling 'on' and 'off' is known as the mechanostat theory. Research in animals has shown that optimal strains are dynamic, with a high change rate, an unusual distribution and a high magnitude of strain, but the results of randomized controlled trials in human subjects have been somewhat equivocal. In the absence of weight-bearing activity nutritional or endocrine interventions cannot maintain bone mass. Biochemical markers of bone turnover predict bone mass changes, and findings from our research group and others have shown that both acute and chronic exercise can reduce bone resorption. Similarly, Ca intervention studies have shown that supplementation can reduce bone resorption. Several recent meta-analytical reviews concur that changes in bone mass with exercise are typically 2-3%. Some of these studies suggest that Ca intake may influence the impact of PA on bone, with greater effects in Ca-replete subjects. Comparative studies between Asian (high PA, low Ca intake) and US populations (low PA, high Ca intake) suggest that PA may permit an adaptation to low Ca intakes. Whether Ca and PA interact synergistically is one of the most important questions unanswered in the area of lifestyle-related bone health research.


A comparison of resistance and aerobic training for mass, strength and turnover of bone in growing rats.

Notomi T, Okazaki Y, Okimoto N, Saitoh S, Nakamura T, Suzuki M.

Laboratory of Exercise and Nutrition, Institute of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Japan.

To determine the effects of resistance versus aerobic exercise on the mass, strength and turnover of bone. thirty Sprague Dawley rats (4 weeks of age) were assigned to one of three experimental groups: sedentary, running or jumping. In the jumping group, the trunk was kept upright during electrically stimulated jumping exercise for 1 h every other day. The running rats ran at speeds of 24 m/min for 1 h every other day. After 4 weeks, the jumping rats exhibited increases in the mass and strength of the lumbar vertebrae and of the mid-diaphysis of the femur (mid-femur), and increases in the cross-sectional morphology of these bones: the trabecular bone volume per bone surface, the trabecular thickness, the trabecular bone formation rate per bone surface (BFR/BS). In addition, they exhibited reduced trabecular separation and the area of osteoclast surface per bone surface. The running and sedentary rats showed no such changes. With regard to the mid-femur, in both the jumping and running rats the periosteal BFR/BS was increased. However, only the jumping rats showed a reduction in the BFR/BS at the endocortical surface. These results suggest that resistance exercise accelerates cortical drift and increases the bone mass and strength by stimulating bone formation more efficiently than does aerobic exercise.

Minigolfer do you have Yahoo or MSN messenger? I am interested in talking to you.