Author Archives: Senior Researcher

A Study Of Temperature Variation On Sea Slugs Can Explain Why People Are Taller In Colder Environments

While I was doing research for something else, I stumbled upon a nice study abstract which seems to make the connection between the effect of temperature on the growth rate and ultimate size of an organism to Bergmann’s Rule and why it seems that people from the Nordic Countries are taller than people from countries closer to the equator. The study is below…

Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2005 May;44(3):31-5.
Temperature effects on growth, maturation, and lifespan of the california sea hare (Aplysia californica).
Stommes D, Fieber LA, Beno C, Gerdes R, Capo TR.
Source

Division of Marine Biology and Fisheries, National Resource for Aplysia, University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Miami, Florida 33149, USA.

Abstract

We conducted a hatchery growth study to describe the variability in growth rates, spawning, and mortality of Aplysia californica in regard to rearing temperature. Animals were housed at a standard hatchery density of five animals per cage, at temperatures of 13, 15, 18, and 21 degrees Celsius. Animals reared at 13 or 15 degrees C grew as much as four times as large, lived twice as long, matured later, and spawned longer than did animals reared at 18 or 21 degrees C. At age 170 to 205 days the fastest growth rates occurred at 18 and 21 degrees C, and the slowest at 13 degrees C. As animals at 18 and 21 degrees C reached sexual maturity at ages 190 to 197 days, or approximately 60% through their lifespans, their growth rates slowed such that by age 260 days, the fastest growth rate was at 13 degrees C, and the slowest was at 21 degrees C. Animals reared at 13 and 15 degrees C reached sexual maturity at 242 and 208 days, respectively, or at approximately 40% of their life spans. Lifespan and maximum average animal weight were significantly inversely correlated with temperature (P </= 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences at any temperature in the age at which maximum animal weight was reached when this age was expressed as a percentage of the life span: animals reached their maximum weight at approximately 80% of their life span. Aging rate was highest for animals reared at 21 degrees C, while the mortality rate doubling time was lowest at this temperature. This would be expected for the accelerated lifecycle observed at higher temperatures.

PMID: 15934721

Analysis & Interpretation:

From a very quick glance at the abstract, it shows that when the sea slug is placed in an environment that is colder, their maximum size ends up being much bigger, and that they mature slower, and age slower, and might even live longer.

Many anecdotal evidence suggest that this type of phenomena which is called Bergmann’s Rule can be said about humans as well. People who are ethnically main from colder countries or nations like the Northern European countries are in general taller than people whose ethnicity come from places closer to the equator.

Common sense shows that land or countries closer to the equator get much more sunlight and heat than people who live further away from the equator. So their countries are generally warmer. I know from hearing people say that the Philippines can be very warm, even for the natives. This is also true in the Middle East and such.

Many people I know have suggested that Northern Chinese people are taller than Southern Chinese people. The application of the effect of temperature may explain why. Other people also anecdotally state that Koreans are taller than the Chinese on average, and this again can be explained from a geographically point of view. South Korea is situated further away from the equator, meaning that they get less sun and the temperature is lower, so they grow slightly longer and taller. Since the countries of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand are closer to the equator,  the temperature is higher, so it would suggest that the national average height should be slightly lower. I have not checked the CIA national database for these numbers but it is something interesting to note.

So can we just make the sort of heuristic rule of thumb that people from nations and places further away from the equator tend to be taller? There is a weak correlation to back up that claim at this point.

It is interesting to note that the opposite is also true. There is also a Southern Hemisphere of Earth. And we know that the Southern most part of the world which has been hospitable for habitation for humans was in South America, in the Patagonia region in Chile and Argentina. Of course from my research in the past, I note that Patagonia is famous for the fact that European sailers saw that the humans living in this region were very tall, like giants. The name Patagonia even means something like the “land of the giants”.

We could also say that Australians are on average quite tall, but that could just be from the White European settlers which came there a hundred years ago. This South Hemisphere country/continent should also have tall native people, but there doesn’t seem to be much evidence of it.

So this little fact give even more credibility to the idea that the further your ethnicity are from the heat, to colder places in the world, the bigger your genetic lineage might become.

Of course, we I cam talking about is me trying to make connection and correlations in multiple unrelated areas of study and I could be completely wrong in my conclusion and will be proven wrong from some anthropological or sociological experiment a few decades from now.

Bone Growth Continues Throughout A Lifetime For Rat Species, So Is Tyler And The LSJL Theory Wrong?

I wrote before in a post over the fact that for rats (and maybe also mice) that the cartilage that makes up the growth plate in their bodies never completely disappear due to ossification. This was entitled “A Clue To Why The LSJL Method Works In Rats And Not Humans”

In that post, I had found a study which showed that even though the limbs of rats may not be getting any longer, the cartilage in their long bones are still there. Since the LSJL method is just like a heavy load being pushed laterally on the cartilage, it would seem from just a common sense mechanical point of view that the cartilage would have enough elasticity to be pushed wider in thickness from the loading on the side.

I recently found another article which seems to put the LSJL theory further into question. Remember that the whole premise behind the LSJL method was that hind leg bones performed on even aged lab rats/mice/rodents saw that their bone length increased.

Since we have decided to translate the growth morphology and process of humans to rats, we assumed that the process and rate of ossification and bone maturity in rats is just like in humans. We are both mammals aren’t we?

Well this article I found from PubMed entitled “Review of growth plate closure compared with age at sexual maturity and lifespan in laboratory animals.” seems to suggest that the basic premise of the one study and article on why LSJL can even work on humans is put into deep scrutiny. The abstract is below…

Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci. 2002 Sep;41(5):21-6.
Review of growth plate closure compared with age at sexual maturity and lifespan in laboratory animals.
Kilborn SH, Trudel G, Uhthoff H.
Source

Animal Care and Veterinary Service, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1H 8M5.

Abstract

Although it is assumed that most mammals experience growth plate closure and cessation of bone growth soon after sexual maturity, bone growth in rats continues throughout their lifespan. The rat was compared to other laboratory animals to assess differences in the duration of bone growth and its relationship to age at sexual maturity and lifespan. We reviewed the literature from 1966 to March 1999 by searching MEDLINE and other databases. Growth closure times and age at sexual maturity were retrieved for the mouse, rabbit, dog, cat, sheep, cow, horse, nonhuman primates, and human. For all species, we calculated the ratios of: 1) age at growth plate closure to lifespan, 2) age at growth plate closure to age at sexual maturity, and 3) age at sexual maturity to average lifespan. The ratio of age at physis closure to the average lifespan was large for the rat (22 to 35) and showed some overlap with that of humans (17 to 25); this ratio was comparatively small in all other nonhuman species (range, 4 to 17). This finding indicates that bone growth continues in the rat for a greater proportion of their lifespan than does that in other species. The ratio of age at physis closure to age at sexual maturity was larger for the rat (5 to 6) than that for other species, indicating that bone growth continues much longer after sexual maturity in rats than in other animals. The ratio of age at sexual maturity to average lifespan was largest for humans and nonhuman primates (13 to 14), indicating the increased time to reach puberty versus that in other species. These differences are important for studies in which animal models are used in research involving bone growth.

PMID: 12213043

Analysis & Interpretation:

The study and article suggest that even after sexual maturity, for rats at least, their bone does not reach full maturity ie. haven’t finished growing yet. We saw from the study “Knee loading promotes longitudinal bone growth in both young and adult mice” by Ping Zhang and Yokota that even for adult mice that the bone increased longitudinally. Previously I argued in the other post that the reason even “aged” or “old” rats can increase in long bone length was that there was still cartilage ie growth plates left. Now there is even more supporting evidence that the bone morphology and process in rats is just different from humans’ enough to show that maybe the LSJL theory does not have the scientific backing Tyler might think it really has.

Like I said before, this new study may put more evidence to show that at least in theory, LSJL should not work, at least not in humans. The abstract says 3 critical things.

  1. Although it is assumed that most mammals experience growth plate closure and cessation of bone growth soon after sexual maturity, bone growth in rats continues throughout their lifespan
  2. This finding indicates that bone growth continues in the rat for a greater proportion of their lifespan than does that in other species.
  3. bone growth continues much longer after sexual maturity in rats than in other animals

This shows that at least for humans with open growth plates with the cartilage, maybe LSJL would work on them, but for humans which don’t have any more cartilage, there is more evidence shouldn’t work on them.

So the question comes back again. How come Tyler has said that he grew by 4 cms from using the LSJL method? Plus, there are other people who also claim they have gain from 1-2 cm from doing it. Now for me, I am getting a lot of contradictory information.

The studies and articles published on PubMed shows that because rats have longer relative time after sexual maturity before full bone closure, if ever, that Tyler’s idea would work on rats, but probably not humans.

However there are quite a few testimonials not just from Tyler showing that clamping the knees do work in making a person grow taller from full ossification.

All I can say right now is that I am more confuse than ever, but I will also use the objectivity of science to cut through all the bullshit out there to arrive at the truth.

Update: Igor Vovkovinskiy Does Have Closed Growth Plates, At Least In The Distal Tibia

I wrote the last post a little too fast and never finished the full video on the 60 Minutes website entitled “Walking Tall” about Igor Vovkovinskiy. In the previous post, I had claimed that Igors own doctor is mistaken and wrong about stating that Igor can still grow. We as the height increase researchers and the licensed physician allowed to treat a pituitary giant is wrong in the science.

Now I am even more sure that the doctor was wrong about Igor. Igor can’t grow any taller. HIs height has stooped increasing. HIs tumor might make him wider, and given him a wider face, or hips, or thicker bones, but he should not be getting any taller.

The thing I was wondering about the previous post was whether the doctors had ever taken an X-ray of Igor’s body. Well I at the time did not watch the 2nd half of the 60 minutes video. It seems that they have. around the 9 minute mark the 60 minutes reporter meets Igor’s doctor to look at his leg bones.

You can clearly see that Igor’s lower limbs and the top of his feet has been X-rayed. I spent quite a few minutes to really check the X-ray.

Around 9:07 time, you can get a very clear view of Igor’s left leg. There is no cartilage or growth plates left. There is also no epiphyseal line either. Since the human body is more or less symmetrical, I would say it is reasonable to assume that if we saw the X-ray of his right leg and right feet, we would also find the same thing, no growth plates or epiphyseal lines.

So does this mean that Igor has no growth plates anymore? Not exactly, since in the human body, different areas and specific growth plates ossify at different times in development. I had written before in the past that even though the growth plates in the limbs may be gone, there might still be some cartilage left in the torso, in the vertebrate irregular bones.

If we look at one website MedHelp.com, a medical questions and answers site, we see that we do get sort of answer to our last question. A Dr. Vinod answers someone who calls themselves “shorty”.

Dr Vinod
Jul 12, 2009
To: shorty21841

We can give you the ossification of few of the important bones. It is difficult to write about primary, secondary and the total ossification of all the bones.

Femur:
The 3 epiphyses/growth plates at upper end fuse at 18years
The 1 epiphysis/growth plate at lower end fuse at 20 years

Tibia:
Upper end fuses at 16-18 years
Lower end fuses at 15-17 years

Humerus:
Upper end during 20th year
Lower end at about 16 years

Radius:
Upper end during 18th year
Lower end at 20 years

Take care!

Analysis:
So it does seem that of all the growth plates to go, the distal tibial ones may be one of the most early ones. It could imply then that Igor even at the age of 29 might have still a few cartilage left which might be the reason his doctor has claimed Igor can still grow taller. Maybe due to the difference in rates of growth plate closure, as seen from the chart of different regions above, it might be that igor does have some areas in his body which has been slower in ossifying than others.
If that is the case, then the next million dollar question is, “How is it that igor at the age of 29 could still have growth plate cartilage left?”
If that is not the case, then we can comfortably say that Igor is now past puberty, his growth plates are gone, and he is not getting any taller, and that his doctor is ignorant of how pituitary giantism really works.

Is This Doctor Wrong Or Are We As Height Increase Researchers Wrong About Growing After Puberty?

Today I was watching 60 minutes and I stumbled upon a short video segment talking about Igor Vovkovinskiy who almost everyone seems to know is the current tallest man in in the USA. Recently I was on Skype talking with Noel (will be the next podcast episode) and he mentioned that he lives in someplace close to Rochester, Minnesota, which is where Igor seems to be living right now. So this video was sort of interesting to see.

What is sort of frustrating to me and to so many other fellow height increase or grow taller researchers is what the professional doctor says in the video found from the 60 Minutes website entitled Walking Tall about Igor Vovkovinskiy. As I watched the video, the 60 minutes reporter and speaker, keeps saying that Igor is “still growing” which seems to imply that Igor’s height is still increasing.

We as researchers have always stated that once the growth plates are ossified, there is NO WAY you can grow taller, no matter how much natural or synthetic growth hormone (Somatotropin) you release into the system. So why could the reporters and journalist researchers at such a well established news channel as 60 MINUTES make such a big mistake on the science?

What makes me extremely angry or extremely confused is when Igor’s personal doctor, a Dr. Greg Garrison (might have spelled his name wrong) states around the 6:27 time area that “he continues to grow…” 60 minutes makes the suggestion that Igor’s personal doctor has become very knowledgeable on Igor’s situation and the tumor inside of him. Then The doctor makes the claim around the 6: 45 time area and says, “…but unfortunately, yes, he continues to add height, and he continues to add weight”. WHAT???

Again, you can watch the video by clicking HERE.

So this is the comment that was made which I completely disagree with. This guy who is supposed to know about endocrinology and graduate from Medical School should know more about pituitary tumors than people like us, but how can he as a medical professional claim that Igor is still growing in height? I am astounded at this doctor’s lack of knowledge on auxology like so many other doctors, as I have stated in a very recent post entitled “Why Most Doctors, Physicians And Medical Schools Don’t Teach Enough About The Skeletal System To Answer Questions Dealing With Auxology“. My point is that the doctor is either lying about Igor being able to grow taller or he is just doesn’t know enough about the human growth process and is giving false information to 60 Minutes.

As a side note, you can see that he actually makes a smile or a slight smirk around the time (6:45) when he says that Igor is still growing taller. Maybe he knows it is a lie or making some type of exaggerated joke, to make us believe in something that should not be possible, at least from our current understanding on auxology.

Igor was born in Sept 1982, which would make him 30 years old right, using the American way to measure age. In asia, he might be 31 years old, or maybe even 32. The segment on 60 minutes was aired in Sept 2012, which means Igor was 29 years old when 60 minutes did the excerpt on him. So his doctor claims that Igor was still growing taller at the age of 29 years old, because he has that pituitary gland condition? I think he is wrong, since we know that hGH can not make a person taller after the growth plates close.

I am of course always assuming that Igor being 29, is past puberty and has no more growth plates. I showed you guys recently in that YouTube video of my X-rays from when I was 25 and it shoed not even any epiphyseal lines left. That is what I am guessing Igor also went through. Having a tumour in the brain should not decrease the rate of bone maturity.

I wonder whether these doctors ever took the time to do an X-ray on Igor’s physeal plates. As smart people who made it through medical school, I would assume that they must have done those X-ray tests. Did they find that Igor’s plates were still open, maybe due to the pituitary  gland condition? I am guessing that they got the x-ray, saw no epiphyseal growth plates, but still are claiming that growing taller is still possible. That should not be working, even if you dump a gallon of Growth Hormones onto the human system, since there is no chondrocytes for the growth hormone to effect. All that is left are osteoblasts and hard nonliving tissue.

So who is wrong here, me and the other height increase researchers, or this doctor?

If the doctor is right, and igor is still growing, then we need to completely overthrow one of the fundamental axioms we have always operated on from our research.

What is fascinating to hear is that Igor was already 6 feet tall at the age of 6 years old! That is an insane growth rate

Natural Height Growth Podcast, Episode 8 – Guest Joel Talks About The Psychology Of His Lifelong Desire To Grow Taller

Logo1This episode has a guest Joel come on to discuss his lifelong desire to become taller and the psychology on why this desired has stayed with him over the years.

Episode #8: Guest Joel Talks About The Psychology Of His Lifelong Desire To Grow Taller

We will go into the subjects of…

  • How this desire started
  • The actions he took on deciding whether to go through with limb lengthening surgery.
  • How this near “obsession” has stayed with him throughout the years.
  • His own research into the subject.

Click Here to Subscribe via iTunes and/or leave a review for the podcast!

  • Length of time: 48 mins.
  • Beginning of actual interview: 1:15

Listen Here – (to download, right click and ‘save’)

Increase Height And Grow Taller Using Flurbiprofen (Breakthrough!)

I am happy to inform height increase seekers that I might have found one of the first compounds one can take (orally or through injection) which has the potential to lead to increased growth rate and final height for people with open and closed growth plates.

This is only the first in a long list of posts which I will probably do on this new compound i have discovered which seems to have potential which I have never believed was possible before.

Recently I found through the tracking of traffic software I have installed to this website a backlink from a website that is written in the language of Swedish. I was not able to read the swedish words but having Google Chrome as a browser made everything so much easier. Either chrome allowed me to automatically choose the option to translate the page in swedish to english or I right clicked (which is putting two fingers down using a mac osx) on the page screen and clicked the option to translate.

The website link is http://y4ser.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/benens-langdtillvaxt/ . It would seem that many people around the world write about genetics, evolution and how human sex size differences determine mating privileges or preferences. In one of the April 6 posts, one paragraph I found which was translated talked about a chemical compound called Flurbiprofen…

“Flurbiprofen, a compound once thought to aid in easing arthritis pain, has been tested on growing rats. It produces EXPLOSIVE radial bone growth, some rats bones growing by almost 30-40%! And even in the older rats, BMD has increased by 200% in these trials. It even makes the bones grow longer in growing rats (height increase)!

The Holy Grail to bone growth? That’s for us to test, since we are humans rather than rats.

The best part is Flurbiprofen is legal, and doesn’t shrink your nuts while on a cycle of it! Woohoo!

I would feel much safer for my endocrine system development on this!

Sorry if I am jumping the gun on this, I’m just so excited I found these trials!

Opinions?”

The poster would link two scientific articles showing that the chemical compound has an effect on young and old rats/mice.

One is from PubMed: Flurbiprofen enhances growth and cancellous and cortical bone accumulation in rapidly growing long bones. (Abstract below)

  • Bone. 1989;10(1):35-44.
  • Li XJ, Jee WS, Li YL.
  • PMID: 2660884 
  • Source: Division of Radiobiology, University of Utah, School of Medicine, Salt Lake City 84112.

Abstract

The effects of flurbiprofen, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, on bone growth was studied by static and dynamic histomorphometry in immature (28 days old) male Sprague-Dawley rats. Flurbiprofen at 0, 0.02, 0.1, 0.5 or 2.5 mg/kg/d doses was given subcutaneously daily for 21 days. The 0.1 and 0.5 mg/kg/d doses were most effective in stimulating longitudinal and radial bone growth and enhancing the accumulation of cancellous and cortical bone. Proximal tibial longitudinal bone growth rate, growth plate thickness, and periosteal bone formation rate were increased 30-40%, while cortical bone (tibial shaft) and cancellous bone (proximal tibial metaphysis) accumulated 12% and 90% more bone than controls, respectively. Enhanced accumulation of cortical bone was attributed to stimulated periosteal bone formation without accompanying marrow cavity enlargement. Enhanced accumulation of cancellous hard tissue was postulated to be due to reduced trabecular bone resorption and no effect on bone formation. The cell counts support these conclusions. There was a decrease in osteoclast numbers (-62 to -70%), an insignificant decrease in osteoblast numbers (-5 to -30%) per mm of bone surface and a decrease in osteoclast to osteoblast ratio (-35 to -56%). The findings presented are compatible with the conclusion that flurbiprofen, induced changes in rapidly growing long bones by reducing osteoclast activity and recruitment, stimulating longitudinal and radial growth, increasing the cortical bone mass by stimulated periosteal bone growth and depressed endosteal resorption, and increasing cancellous bone mass by depressed trabecular bone resorption without affecting bone formation.

The other link he cited was from Science Direct but I would guess that the article he cited can be also found from PubMed, and that the name of the article is “Flurbiprofen-induced stimulation of periosteal bone formation and inhibition of bone resorption in older rats.” (Abstract below)

  • Bone. 1988;9(6):381-9.
  • Jee WS, Li XJ, Li YL.
  • Source: Radiobiology Division, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City 84112.
  • PMID: 3248202

Abstract

The skeletal effects of flurbiprofen (Fb), a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, was studied by histomorphometry in 9-month-old retired female breeder, Sprague-Dawley rats. Flurbiprofen was given subcutaneously at 0, 0.2, 0.1, 0.5, 2.5, or 5 mg/kg/d for 21 days. Flurbiprofen had no effect on longitudinal growth, but stimulated radial growth (+200%) over controls. In the tibial shaft, Fb stimulated the mineral apposition rate (+25%), mineral bone formation rate (+100%), and periosteal labeling length (+64%) at the 2.5 and 5.0 mg Fb/kg dose levels, and had no effect on marrow cavity size compared to controls. However, these changes were insufficient to increase cortical bone mass. In the proximal tibial metaphysis, Fb suppressed osteoclasts/mm2 of metaphyseal tissue (-47%), osteoclasts/mm of bone surface (-46%), and the osteoclast/osteoblast ratio (-50%), increased the calcified cartilage core population (+100%), and had no effect on osteoblast numbers at all dose levels. There was an insignificant increase in metaphyseal cancellous bone mass. The current study leads to the conclusion that flurbiprofen-stimulated periosteal bone growth was due to direct stimulation of osteoblast recruitment and activity independent of longitudinal bone growth. Further, it confirms early findings in young rats that flurbiprofen induced depressed bone resorption without lowering bone formation. However, because of insufficient treatment time, the older rat did not accumulate bone as the young rats did. 

If you are a serious height increase researcher, I would STRONGLY suggest you read and look over these articles!

Two other articles I found which shows that this compound seems to have even more osteoblast effects.

There is one major caution which I have to raise up before we go too crazy on the miraculous powers of flurbiprofen just yet. The thing is that even in adult rats, their epiphyseal growth plates never fully go away, but that the cartilage does not completely turn into bone. So even if we are talking about aged, old rats/mice, we must always keep in mind that the scientific experiments done on them can not be directly translated into results that would be the same in humans if humans were the test subjects. So let’s move to the analysis & Interpretation…

Analysis & Interpretation:

From the first study, it seems that the flurbiprofen may have some miraculous bone growth abilities. Not only can it increase the radial thickness of the long bones, it can even stimulate increased longitudinal growth which definitely what we are curious about. However the first study was done on extremely young rats with clearly open large growth plates that can be manipulated. The fact that even the growth plate increased in thickness and that the periosteal layer increased in the appositional growth rate shows that this compound may require much more analysis to see whether it has any possible potential.

The fact that the flurbiprofen is a a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, NSAID seems reasonable. The cortical bone increased in bone density around 15% while the increase in the cancellous bone was around 90%.

The increase in cortical bone is because of the increase in periosteal layer formation but no increased in the size or diameter of the intermedullary cavity. The increase in trabecular/cancellous bone is from the decrease of osteoclasts which are supposed to help induce resorption of bone into the blood stream while not increasing the osteoblast numbers.

The researchers for the first study concluded about flurbiprofen with…

“…the conclusion that flurbiprofen, induced changes in rapidly growing long bones by reducing osteoclast activity and recruitment, stimulating longitudinal and radial growth, increasing the cortical bone mass by stimulated periosteal bone growth and depressed endosteal resorption, and increasing cancellous bone mass by depressed trabecular bone resorption without affecting bone formation”

However it seems that the 2nd study would pull the exuberance by height increase seekers back down since the results are much more sedated. In what are known as 9 month old retired rats, the experiments were done on. If we are to use the term “retired” more liberally, can we assume that the rats were old enough to be considered to have reached physical maturity so that they had not more growth plate cartilage anymore?

I think not.

However the subcutaneous injections of flurbiprofen shows that for the old rat, the long bones did not get any longer, but got thicker where the radial increase was up by 200%. It seems that in the tibial shaft, the increases are due to the fact that the flurbiprofen can decrease the number of osteoclasts leading to increased calcification. Mineral bone formation rate and mineral appositional rate increased. The researchers noted that the bone formation increases seen in the older mice/rats are just not as dramatic as the ones seen in younger lab rats/mice. They conclude with what was said in the 1st study…

“The current study leads to the conclusion that flurbiprofen-stimulated periosteal bone growth was due to direct stimulation of osteoblast recruitment and activity independent of longitudinal bone growth. Further, it confirms early findings in young rats that flurbiprofen induced depressed bone resorption without lowering bone formation…”

Implications For Height Increase: 

I realize now in finishing up the post that my judgement was in haste and I jumped the gun on judgement before I did the full analysis of the studies the guys had listed. It is rather clear that flurbiprofen has tremendous potential to increase bone formation in young children in reducing the effects of osteoclasts. However in older adults there would be little height gain. If the periosteal increases are big enough, maybe we might be able to get more cambium cells in the inner layer of the periosteum but that idea was proven to be unlikely in recent posts.

It seems that the other name for flurbiprofen is alfacalcidol and that on aged and adult rats, as stated in the other two studies linked above is that it does have a stimulatory effect on the periosteal growth of long bones. In aged rats, there are even buds of mineralization found in teh cancellous bone and the cortical bone surfaces but nothing that would indicate any type of longitudinal growth of the bones.

It seems that another possible height increase, bone growth enhancing compound goes down again since it does not have any type of chondrogenic properties.