Sometimes it’s frustrating to be part of a rank of people so few who are working on to height increase methods.

It’s by all means possible to discover the Lorenzo’s Oil that increases height but increasing height is a lot more complicated than affecting fatty acid buildup.  Unless there’s a study that shows that a chemical directly increases height like maybe IGF2 or CNP is that chemical.  But there have been tons of cases where a chemical you think may increase height by delaying maturating or increasing chondrocyte proliferation actually decrease height growth.  With chemicals it’s a case of that a chemical doesn’t increase height until it actually shows that it increases height.  So with chemicals you have to settle for a lot of duds and just hope that you stumble upon something that works.  And there’s also things like the digestive system blocking chemicals from taking their desired action.

For mechanical methods, there’s far more that you can do.  Axial(top to bottom) loading, tensile(stretching), and impact loading are probably not going to produce height increase as they have all been performed at very high levels physiologically.  Axial loading has been done at over 1000lbs in squats and leg press with no reported height gain.  Tensile(stretching) has been performed at very high levels with the rack with no height gain the issue with tensile loading is that cartilage, tendons, ligaments, and muscles will fail far more easily than bone will.  Impact loading has been done in running with no reported height gain.

Lateral and twisting loading have happened far less physiologically.  In the case of twisting, it has in times produced height increase as a result of fracture.  The twisting strength of the bone is less than that of the soft tissues so it’s more likely to fail before the soft tissues.  And twisting is also highly stimulatory to the bone marrow which is what could create a new growth plate like wringing out a sponge moves the water.  Twisting also could cause damage to the bone architecture.  Lateral loading also moves and stimulates the bone marrow and could cause torsional(twisting forces).  You could also perform lateral loading on a twisted bone.

So there’s several ways you can help.  Head on over to the LSJL forum or post in the comments a good height increase forum and suggest better ways to induce lateral or twisting loading.  You can post a stretching routine but make sure it includes a lot of twisting forces.  Or suggest a new novel form of loading.  A ton of mechanical stimuli has been shown to pro-chondrogenic it probably just isn’t strong enough and there are blocks from it getting strength for example muscle/tendon failure.

No major scientific background is needed to help just a basic understanding of the body and lets start building a community to find a way to grow taller.

Here’s the last update.

Here’s the feet length progress pic:

Here’s the pic from about 6 months ago:

Yeah the distance is wrong so here’s one from about 2 months ago:

I can’t really tell how much growth I’ve had but it seems like some.  So not really proof right now.  Anyways, growth is disappointing considering that I got some significant growth initially in that the shoe started being tighter.  Already I’ve started clamping other areas of the feet in the hopes of spillover growth as clamping the big toe has seemed to induce growth in the other toes.

I’m going to clamp for longer and more intensely.  We’ll see if that gets me some good solid growth

Here’s the link to the last LSJL update.

It seems like my feet have continued to grow from clamping.

Actually there seems to be rather remarkable growth of the 2nd phalanx/phalange bone.  Right foot is loaded with LSJL and left foot is unloaded.  It’s hard to tell if my big toe has grown anymore.  I’ve changed my clamping strategy rather than trying to specifically clamp the epiphysis of the bone.  I’m clamping a part of the bone close to the epiphysis where I can avoid slippage.  This change in clamping strategy may be the cause of the second phalanx growth too. By focusing more on the force rather than location I notice a rush of blood/fluid flow to regions when I release the clamp this may be a beneficial stimulus towards longitudinal bone growth.

My hands look like they’re growing too but there’s no need for pics all I need to is get an xray of one hand and compare them to the existing ones I have.  I may be growing in height again too but until it’s more definitive it’s better to focus on things that are easier to measure.

LSJL does upregulate MATN3.  A rosette is a hexameric disc shaped aggregate.
Here’s what a rosette Nanotube looks like.  The novel aspect of this is that it can be injected as a liquid.

GROWTH PLATE CARTILAGE REPAIR VIA NOVEL MATRILIN3/ROSETTE NANOTUBE HYBRID MATRIX

“Approximately 15% to 30% of all childhood fractures are growth plate fractures. Because the growth plate determines the length and shape of a mature bone, this type of fracture may result in severe growth abnormalities in children. Pathologically, the growth abnormality is caused by the formation of a bony bridge in the injured growth plate cartilage. Currently, the clinical treatment of growth plate fractures includes the surgical removal of the bony bridge and insertion of autologous fat or cartilage tissue into the empty space to discourage bony bridge reformation. Such surgical procedures are invasive and result in unsatisfactory outcomes. In addition, this treatment is only useful after the bony bridge has formed. Our long-term goal is to understand how to prevent bony bridge formation and improve growth plate cartilage regeneration at cellular and molecular levels and develop the first preventive and therapeutic approach for growth plate fracture. Specifically, the primary objective of this proposal is to evaluate the therapeutic effects of a nano-matrix assembled from matrilin-3 (MATN3) and rosette nanotube (RNT) in a preclinical growth plate fracture model. Our central hypothesis is that the MATN3/RNT nano-matrix specifically promotes chondrocyte growth and enhances chondrogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), while it also inhibits vascularization and osteogenesis at the fracture site{these two things may increase growth plate generation especially since this is supposed to be used for growth plate fracture}. This is the cellular basis for such nano-matrix to improve growth plate cartilage regeneration and prevent bony bridge formation. We will test our central hypothesis and achieve the objective of the proposal by pursuing two specific aims: 1) to determine the ability of MATN3/RNT to prevent bony bridge formation; and 2) to determine the ability of MATN3/RNT to deliver growth factors for further improvement of chondrogenesis and growth plate cartilage regeneration. To achieve the two aims, our overall research strategy includes: 1) optimization of the ratio and dose of MATN3/RNT and its ability and bioactivity for loading growth factors in vitro; and 2) determination of the therapeutic efficay of the nano-matrix in our established growth plate fracture model in rats in long term. The proposed research is innovative: 1) biologically, it simultaneously promotes cartilage regeneration and inhibits bony bridge formation; 2) therapeutically, MATN3 and RNT can be injected as a liquid in a minimally invasive manner, and form a nano- matrix at the fracture site; 3) structurally, the nano-matrix concentrates bioactive MATN3 locally at the fracture site as well as binds TGF-β1 and IGF-1 to achieve multi-functional delivery. With the results of the two specific aims, we expect to 1) realize a synergistic strategy to specifically promote chondrogenesis while inhibiting osteogenesis and vascularization; and 2) develop an injectable approach for the localized delivery of cartilage growth factors. These outcomes have an important positive impact in developing novel, perhaps the first, preventive and therapeutic approach for growth plate cartilage repair. ”

Here’s more info about nanotubes:

Helical rosette nanotubes: a more effective orthopaedic implant material

“Due to the nanometric properties of some physiological components of bone, nanomaterials have been proposed as the next generation of improved orthopaedic implant materials. Yet current efforts in the design of orthopaedic materials such as titanium (Ti) are not aimed at tailoring their nanoscale features, which is now believed to be one reason why Ti sometimes fails clinically as a bone implant material. Much effort is thus being dedicated to developing improved bioactive nanometric surfaces and nanomaterials for biospecificity. Helical rosette nanotubes (HRN) are a new class of self-assembled organic nanotubes possessing biologically-inspired nanoscale dimensions. Because of their chemical and structural similarity with naturally-occurring nanostructured constituent components in bone such as collagen and hydroxyapatite, we anticipated that an HRN-coated surface may simulate an environment that bone cells are accustomed to interacting with. The objective of the present in vitro study is therefore to determine the efficacy of HRN as a bone prosthetic material. Results of this study clearly show that both HRN-K1 and HRN-Arg coated Ti displayed enhanced cell adhesion when compared to uncoated Ti. Enhanced cell adhesion was observed even at concentrations as low as 0.005 mg ml⁻¹. These results point towards new possibilities in bone tissue engineering as they serve as a starting point for further mechanistic studies as well as future manipulation of the outer chemistries of HRN to improve the results beyond those presented here. One such effort is the incorporation of peptide sequences on the outer surface of HRN and/or growth factors known to enhance bone functions. “

Light weight lifting during development may enhance growth.  Metatarsals are feet bones.

Influence of loading on bone growth at the growth plates in immature rat metatarsals

“Growth of different bones in children is facilitated by different mechanisms according to the anatomical site and function of the bone. Longitudinal bone formation in long and short bones occurs in the cartilaginous growth plates located at each end of the growing bone through a process known as endochondral ossification. This growth continues until a child becomes full-grown at which point the growth plate calcifies to solid bone. It is still unclear how mechanical and biological factors affect bone growth. For the purpose of this study, immature rat metatarsals have been subjected to varying number of cycles (1, 5, 10 and 50 cycles) in order to better understand the effect that mechanical loading has on bone growth. This has been done using two consecutive trials. The trends in these trials were analyzed and compared. Specimens subjected to 5 cycles exhibited the most prominent effect of loading over the course of 16 days. The results of the trials reveal that immature bones are sensitive to cyclic compressive loading. The results revealed a potential threshold below which the loading resulted in an increased growth. Furthermore, simulations of longitudinal bone growth using a thermal-structural coupled analysis, with the findings from the experiment, has been performed. The model results in a stress free structure that is comparable to the growth of the experiments to a certain extent. The model also allowed incorporation of the bent growth that is observed in the experiments.”

“The piston was displacement controlled at 0.01 mm/s up to a predefined maximum load of 0.05 N. After reaching the maximum load, the bones were immediately unloaded. The loading sequence was carried out with varied amount of cycles”

“Compressive loading (static and dynamic) initially reduced the growth rate and growth plate height significantly compared to nonloaded specimens. However, continuing the experiment over a longer time period the results between the groups started to level out. Additionally, growth resumption was observed after loading removal for both statically and dynamically loaded specimen “<-so loading reduced growth rate but not “final” bone length

“At the end of the trial, specimens subjected to 5 cycles exhibited an average percentage growth of 190.9% while the specimens subjected to 50 cycles had an average percentage growth of 166.6%. The control bones grew 166.3% on average. ”

“. Their results showed that both static and dynamic compressive loading initially reduced the growth rate significantly compared to nonloaded specimens. However, continuing the experiment over a longer time period the results between the groups started to level out “<-So you need to change the stimulus to keep getting benefits.

So according to this study, compressive loading exercise should at least alter growth rate.

Here’s the last LSJL update.  Here’s the feet images from the this time which have had the best results out of what I’ve been clamping:

The size increase is not due to flattening of the arches as the arch on the right foot actually looks bigger.  You’ll note that the second and third toe look bigger as well.  My wingpsan has increased from 74.5″ to 74.75″ up from the 72.5″ it was before I started LSJL.  It is very difficult however to take a good wingspan picture.

Part of the trouble with LSJL has been slipping when clamping and a possible solution is that rather than clamping the epiphysis of the bone is to clamp the neck of the bone.

Considering the spillover of the second and third toe growth, I’d say it’s probably more important to generate clamping force than it is to be at the optimal location.  Clamping at the neck of the bone also clamps the muscle as well which result in more fluid flowing into the bone.  Also clamping at the neck of the bone gets closer to the bone marrow and one key conclusion I’ve come to my LSJL research so far is that the cortical bone and the outer periosteum(growth in width is difficult as well as growth in length) inhibit bone growth and inner periosteum and bone marrow stimulate bone growth.  Distraction osteogenesis both gets rid of cortical bone via fracture and stimulates the bone marrow via blood clot.

By continuing to clamp the epiphysis of the bone is likely the reason why my length gains plateaued as whenever I tried to increase the clamping force the clamp would slip off.  By clamping the neck of the bone I can continue to increase the clamping force without having to worry about slippage.  Hopefully, this will allow me to get some leg length increases that I’ll be able to report otherwise I’ll see if I can continue to gain in the feet and that’ll be proof of concept that I can use to gain more resources to establish better clamping technology to gain in the legs.

I bought a new clamp for my fingers as the standard six inch clamp was just too big.

The problem with this is all the holes in the clamp that make clamping uncomfortable.  If neck clamping with the Irwin Quick Grip clamp doesn’t work

I can doing the C-class clamp again but I worry even with clamping the neck of the bone rather than the epiphysis there’ll be too much slipping.

We’ll see what happens in one to two weeks.  And if it doesn’t seem to be working I’ll switch it up.  Considering my foot growth if I don’t observe results in a reasonable time frame then it’s time to switch things up