Author Archives: Senior Researcher

Product Review On The Grow Taller Satogrowth Formula At Satogrowth.net

This is from another grow taller formula or supplement which I had found from looking at the tracking statistics of the website and noticed that someone somehow found the website by typing in the term “Satogrowth Formula”. Naturally I got curious to see what other internet marketing scam was selling another bogus grow taller miracle pill.

satogrowth grow taller formulaAnd I was not disappointed with what I found. Sometimes I do wonder just how many of these crazy schemes and herbal formulas are there on the internet space which offer the same result but not one of them can give any type of real results.

So what will this product be offer or say that can be anything different from the dozens of other height increase creams, pills, sprays, or programs out there?

I will put away my bullshit detector for just a few minutes to see there is anything that is valid about the offering.

Analysis & Interpretation:

I am willing to say that the website is at least slightly better designed in terms of being better looking than some other products I have reviewed before. There is at least a picture of someone who looks like a doctor. His name is Dr. Mirkin Alyco. Do I believe that this doctor at least exists? I don’t know and I don’t want to put the effort to spend even one minute to find out whether Dr. Mirkin Alyco really does exist.

What is the product supposed to do?
What Are the Key Benefits of Satogrowth Formula?
. Helps to improve bone strength and regeneration.
. Helps to improve overall posture and self-image.
. Helps to improve your current height and health.
. Helps to prevent bone resorption (bone loss).
. Helps to maintain good health.
. Helps normal development and maintenance of bones.
. Rehabilitation of spinal discs and thickening of cartilages.

. Improves growth in joints, cartilages and discs.

So what are the active ingredients inside?

Satogrowth Advenced ingredients: carob pulveris, gingiberi , turmeric , galanga , ginseng , ginkgo biloba, gelee Regalem , pollen , specialis mixtio de satogrowth

How does one take this compound?

Satogrowth Directions: Mix one teaspoon (approximately 3gr.) satogrowth with a full glass of low-fat milk and take once every two days in the morning on an empty stomach,take it one hour before meal or two hours after food.

It seems that this grow taller product or at least the website has been around since 2006 since it is copyrighted from 2006-2013. The website has only 6 main webpages. the information is lacking.

The thing that would really determine whether this product would ever have a chance of doing what it is claimed of it would be from looking at the active ingredients. The carob pulveris seems to refer to dust made from pounding locusts or insects. The gingiberi is just ginger. The turmeric is a anti-inflammatory anti-bacterial food supplement. The galanga is another type of ginger. the ginseng is a well known herb, ginkgo biloba is supposed to help improve memory. gelee Regalem is a compound which I have never heard before.

Conclusion: Whoever is selling the satogrowth is telling the prospective buyer that the product will make them taller. After reviewing the active ingredients inside, most of which are plants an dherbs used in traditional eastern food and medicine, there is not one compound in the satogrowth product which has any type of osteogenic or chondrogenic potential. If the compound would ever help a person, it might help the still growing child be able to stave off illness and infections, which can lead to slight stunted longitudinal lengthening. If this product is sold to adults or people with bone maturity hoping to grow, it will not work.

 

Product Review On JMEXY Growing Taller Formula

Someone who managed to find the website the other day was apparently researching another grow taller program or supplement called JMEXY so I decided to do another grow taller product.

This is for the “JMEXY GROWING TALLER FORMULA”

jmexy grow taller formulaFrom a look at the design of the website, I sort of realize right away that the compound would never work. The website is only 5 webpages of content. Two of the pages is to 1. order the product and to 2. contact the product’s suppliers. It seems that the contact information is from the city of Santa Cruz or Lima in Peru. In terms of price, a 3months supply would cost the person $150 while a 12 months supply would cost $450.

The formula is supposed to be from western derived special herbs and it is a special formulation.

The other thing is that the product website is supposed to be copyright since 2012 but it feels like the design of the website is from something 10-12 years ago.

I don’t even want to go much further in this review. This thing just doesn’t work, at least for adults with bone maturity. Give up and move on to something else. I hope no one ever will pay $150 for a 3 month supply of whatever is really inside this “special” herbal formulation.

The Concept Of Youngs Modulus, Stress, And Strain Explained For The Application Of Bone Tensile Loading Or Bone Stretching (Important)

I felt that after the last big scientific post “Would A Tibia Subjected To High Intensity Dynamic Mechanical Tensile Loading Fracture Or Elongate Through Stretching First?” I had to write a final, conclusive post on explaining whether the idea of bone stretching is even possible. 

At this point, if one is looking for a yes or no, question, I would lead to the side that says that bone stretching is probably not feasible. This means that all of the previous efforts by other height increase seekers were probably never supposed to work. I wanted to give a personal interpretation on some engineering principles I learned years ago to show why the idea of pulling on the bone most likely will not result in longer bones, just broken bones.

Let’s look at the mechanical engineering or materials science explanation of what is known as the Youngs Modulus concept. In addition, we look at the engineering concepts of stress, strain, plastic deformation, brittleness, stiffness, elasticity, and a whole lot of other Materials Science & Engineering basic concepts.

Note: One of the focuses in my undergraduate degree was in Material Science so I might wish to talk a little more about the engineering aspects and the calculations than the average height increase researcher or height increase seeker might wish for.

Along the way I will be combining all of the terms above to dissect the diagram of the stress – strain curve, the Modulus of Elasticity, tensile strength, as well as the Yield Point aka Yield Strength aka Elastic Limit

First of all, I am proposing that the reason we are even talking about mechanical engineering & material science concepts is that we are hoping to eventually figure out how much of a load (aka force over area) we would have to apply in a tensile way to pull the average adult male human’s femur bone to a point where it will stretch out, where the bone will not just spring back to the original length, and that the bone will not fracture or break in a critical way, hopefully.

From the older posts…

I will be referencing and using as a guide to write up this post.

The scientific studies and articles I will be citing are…

So the million dollar question is, what is the load in units of Newtons/meters^2 or Lbs do we need to really pull the bone apart to a point where we do get plastic bone lengthening which is not just elastic and will snap back to the original length when we decrease the load?

In a very recent post “The Values For The Magnitudes For The Forces And Loads Needed To Increase Epiphyseal Cartilages Thickness And Human Femur Bone Without Fracture (Important) I had using two major assumptions and guesses calculated the value of the needed load to be 20,000-30,000 lbs of force needed to create the needed force over area to pull the adult human femur bone apart, resulting in either fracture or plastic deformation.

For the reader, this would seem extremely high. The fact that most normal average sized 4 door sedans weight around 2500-3500 lbs shows just how large of a weight would be required to stretch out a single adult male human femur bone. It would require around 10 of these cars put together on a scale before the bone is supposed to snap beyond the elastic range.

So what exactly are we talking about when we keep on talking about these terms called stress, strain, loading, forces, tension, tensile strength, etc? Let’s go over some basic engineering principles.

Engineering Principles Of Stress & Strain & the Stress-Strain Curve

The concept of stress has the units of Newtons/meters^2 so it is the same idea as pressure. In the field of engineering mechanics, the concept of stress refers to “…the internal forces that neighboring particles of a continuous material exert on each other” (Wiki)

From the website Efunda.com

“….The stress field is the distribution of internal “tractions” that balance a given set of external tractions and body forces.”

For our application, we are only looking at what happens to an object when being pulled in opposite directions along the axis which can be simplified aka idealized into a long cylinder (I think a human femur sort of look like a cylinder) for easy calculation reasons. So from the Wikipedia article on the different types of stress…

“Stress is defined as the average force per unit area that some particle of a body exerts on an adjacent particle, across an imaginary surface that separates them.

concentric annular cylinderBeing derived from a fundamental physical quantity (force) and a purely geometrical quantity (area), stress is also a fundamental quantity, like velocity, torque or energy, that can be quantified and analyzed without explicit consideration of the nature of the material or of its physical causes.”

The way to view stress is basically a force of a certain magnitude being applied across the area of the bone. We are looking at the pulling effect. We can even use the term “load”, “stress” or even “force” interchangeably since the way we set up the system for engineering analysis is very simple. The bone turns into a annular hollow cylinder which is where a smaller diameter of cylinder made of a softer composition is enclosed in a larger diameter cylinder made of a harder material.

From the diagram on the right, the force/stress/load will be pulling at opposite directions.

tensile forceNote: Technically the terms force and stress are completely different concepts in normal physics and engineering situation but our system analysis is very simple so I will be using the two concepts interchangeably.

So the stress is on the axial axis so we can say that the force is tensile. Refer to the picture to the right.

The concept of Strain is a little more subtle. The units of Strain are dimensionless but a look at how the concept of strain is defined reveals what strain is refering to…

Strain = (L2-L1)/L1 where L1 = length of the object having stress exerted on it originally and L2 is the new length of the object from the application of the stress. Another term that is very similar in concept to strain is deformation (for mechanics) and deformation (for engineering).

From the Wikipedia article on deformation using the field of material sciences and engineering, the definition is….

“…deformation is a change in the shape or size of an object due to an applied force….can be a result of tensile (pulling) forces, compressive (pushing) forces, shear, bending or torsion (twisting).” 

“As deformation occurs, internal inter-molecular forces arise that oppose the applied force. If the applied force is not too large these forces may be sufficient to completely resist the applied force, allowing the object to assume a new equilibrium state and to return to its original state when the load is removed. A larger applied force may lead to a permanent deformation of the object or even to its structural failure.” 

So in a way, the term Deformation and Strain can also be used somewhat inter-changeably in our discussion. Now let’s see what is written up about the term Deformation…

stress strain curveThe thing to note is that there is two difference types of deformation, 1. elastic and 2. plastic.

Elastic Deformation

This type of deformation is reversible. Once the forces are no longer applied, the object returns to its original shape.

Normal metals, ceramics and most crystals show linear elasticity and a smaller elastic range.

Me: When we look at the graph above, the elastic region is the first part where the stress applied is not that high. The graph shows that as the stress applied rises, the strain also rises, but not at the same degree of change. The change is linear, but since the object or material we are looking at is so hard and strong, the strain, which is the change in length from a tensile force, will be very small while the stress will be very high.

The thing to remember about this graph is that it is not showing something that is happening as a process, throughout time, but something that is happening from repeating testing of different loads aka stresses. There seems to be a upper limit to the amount of stress but there is no limit to the strain. This means that the material at some maximum point will break or stretch out.

Looking at the charge again, we see that using elementary Geometry principles that the term Young’s Modulus refers to the slope of the stress-strain curve. The stress is the variable we chart or graph on the vertical axis while the strain is the variable we chart and measure on the horizontal axis. The slope, which is rise/run is the Young’s Modulus. Intuitively when we try to visualize what the Young’s Modulus would mean from a physical representation point of view, we can say that it is the amount of foce we have been putting on the area of the object over the amount of small length changes that the bone actually goes through. So the larger the Young’s Modulus, the less that the material will deform in the direction that we want.

From Wikipedia….

Young’s modulus, also known as the tensile modulus or elastic modulus, is a measure of the stiffness of an elastic material and is a quantity used to characterize materials. It is defined as the ratio of thestress along an axis over the strain along that axis in the range of stress in which Hooke’s law holds. In solid mechanics, the slope of the stress-strain curve at any point is called the tangent modulus. The tangent modulus of the initial, linear portion of a stress-strain curve is called Young’s modulus. It can be experimentally determined from the slope of a stress-strain curve created during tensile tests conducted on a sample of the material.

Update: 5/11/2013: it would seem that I have new information showing just how incredibly high the Young’s Modulus value is in human cortical bone.

Reference: Rho, JY (1993). “Young’s modulus of trabecular and cortical bone material: ultrasonic and microtensile measurements”.Journal of Biomechanics 26 (2): 111–119.

Values: 14 GigaPascals or 2,030,000 psi

Comparison: If we look at this high young’s modulus versus other compounds on the Chart for Young’s Modulus article on Wikipedia, we find other values like for polypropylene, nylon, rubber, tooth enamel, and different types of steel. In comparison, it would seem that the elastic nature of cortical bone may not be as high as previous expected, if it is true that human cortical bone may just be around 7X the resistance against deformation as polypropylene and only around 20% of the strength of human tooth enamel.

There is two main things to note that is important as well. That is that there is a major different between the Yield Strength and the Ultimate Strength. Sometimes the terms Yield Strength and Ultimate Strength is used interchangeably but I wanted to make a point that for our application, we have to differentiate between the two terms.

  • Yield Strength – When the object moves past the range where it would exhibit elastic behavior, where the change in stress levels would correlate in proportion to the effect of changes in the strain.
  • Ultimate Strength – This is the lowest limit of what the stress can be and the resultance changes in deformation (aka distraction or lengthening) will happen to any magnitude without the need to increase the stress. For bones, being rather materials, it would most likely be the point where the bone material starts to fracture. 

On a personal educated guess, I would think that there is never a truly only elastic effect. There will always be fractures in the bones, just that the fractures are small and microscopic so on the macroscopic level of measurement, we don’t notice the fractures.

Linear elastic deformation is governed by Hooke’s law, which states:

\sigma = E \varepsilon

Where \sigma is the applied stress, E is a material constant called Young’s modulus, and ε is the resulting strain. This relationship only applies in the elastic range and indicates that the slope of the stress vs. strain curve can be used to find Young’s modulus. Engineers often use this calculation in tensile tests. The elastic range ends when the material reaches its yield strength. At this point plastic deformation begins.

Plastic deformation

This type of deformation is irreversible. However, an object in the plastic deformation range will first have undergone elastic deformation, which is reversible, so the object will return part way to its original shape.

 

stress strain curve ductileFrom the same Wikipedia article, we can see another example of the stress-strain curve, but one for a more ductile material.

I would like to note that sometimes the stress-strain curve is drawn differently due to how brittle, elastic, or ductile a material can be.

Brittle materials don’t have a very large range between the Yield Point and the Ultimate Strength point, if any at all. There is no necking or strain hardening.

Conclusion:

This post is to do one main thing, which is to resolve the subject of ever trying to “stretch” or “elongate” the bones using 30 lbs weights strapped to the shins, ankles, or or parts of the limbs. In the posts “Increase Height And Grow Taller Using Ankle Weights , Part I” and “The Thigh Bone Routine Of EasyHeight.Com” I referred to the old height increase researcher Sky trying to pull his bones to elongate them. That didn’t work and he tried for over 5-6 years to find something that worked.

In a recent post I had shown that about 30 lbs is what would be needed to distract the femur bone of a young laboratory rabbit with a lot of growth plate cartilage. That resulted in hyperplasia.

The thing I really wanted to emphasize and to close down the possibility of ever trying a stretching motion using a constant or even linearly increasing load like putting ones leg in a corkscrew device to slowly pull at the adult human leg bone without at least first creating a small fracture or distraction to decrease the amount of tensile load needed dramatically.

I thought I could conclude and state a definitive answer of “NO” for the idea fo stretching bones from writing this article but it seems that more research would need to be done to resolve this issue for good.

A Critical Mistake I Believe I Made On On The Feasibility Of Increasing Periosteum Thickness For Height Increase

Something that I became only very recently aware of about the anatomy of long bones might jeopardize a lot of the research and proposed ideas on how to increase height has come about.

periosteum and articular cartilageIt seems that for long bones, underneath the articular cartilage at the ends on the epiphysis, there DOES NOT seem to be a layer of periosteum!

All that you need to do is look at the diagram/picture to the right which I found from another website to see that the periosteum does not go under the articular cartilage, but moves around the cartilage once it reaches the synovial joints.

Something that I have been claiming for at least a few posts was the idea of stimulating the periosteum which I believed before was under the articular cartilage at the end of the long bones. New pictures and diagrams seem to show that it is not true.

Due to how the process of appositional growth seems to function (at least at my level of understanding months ago), where the thickness of the cortical bone layer of the long bones seems to stay constant, even though the periosteum is supposed to be constantly making new layers on the outside, I had assumed that for the long bones to stay with the same length over time there would be needed a periosteum layer on the ends of long bones as well. The rate of osteoblasts and the rate of osteoclasts are supposed to be equal where the amount of bone matrix removed is about the same as the amount of bone matrix stimulated.

I imagined that the long bones were like long, thing cyclindrical rods and the two flat ends, like the long outer surface, was being regenerated constantly. It seems that this is not the case. The articular cartilage seems to be the tissue that keeps the bone tissue underneath it from being rubbed away due to friction.

I didn’t realize that in the anatomy pictures and diagrams in long bones, the periosteum doesn’t surround the long bones completely. It seems that they don’t cover the ends but that articular cartilage does that. There is no periosteum underneath the articular cartilage of the long bones.

If this is the case, I suspect that I have been wrong in many of my old posts, and for us to succeed in our endeavor, it would be much harder.

The Values For The Magnitudes For The Forces And Loads Needed To Increase Epiphyseal Cartilages Thickness And Human Femur Bone Without Fracture (Important)

While we are usually talking about how it would be possible to distract and pull apart the extremely strong bone tissue for our height increase desires, it might be useful to first see how much of a weight would be required to pull the cartilage of a real growth plate apart.

Let’s see what some other PubMed studies have shown about at least distracting the cartilage in the growth plate for limb lengthening. It would seem that bones are considered brittle materials. For cartilage, they may not be that brittle, but they are also very strong. This means that there is probably a very small range of loading magnitude which will do the plastic deformation before the cartilage of the epiphyseal growth plate develops fractures.

Breaking force of the rabbit growth plate and its application to epiphyseal distraction.

Acta Orthop Scand. 1982 Feb;53(1):13-6.
Breaking force of the rabbit growth plate and its application to epiphyseal distraction.
Noble J, Diamond R, Stirrat CR, Sledge CB.
Abstract

The in vitro breaking forces of the distal femoral growth plates of young rabbits were measured as a background to the design of a bone lengthening method, using epiphyseal distraction. The mean breaking force in 16 femora was 12.98 +/- 3.48 kg and the mean strain was 0.91 +/- 0.33 mm. The mean stress in 10 femora was 14.51 +/- 3.88 kg/cm2. The procedure was repeated, after applying a 1.0 kg dead weight to 6 femora for 24 hours and the breaking force was then 15.01 +/- 4.70 kg, with a mean strain of 0.85 +/- 0.62 mm. A further 8 rabbits then underwent epiphyseal distraction for 2 days in vivo, with 1 or 2 kg forces delivered to two parallel K wires by a pair of spring devices, whereupon the femora were removed and tested as before. The breaking force on the distracted side was now only 8.91 +/- 3.71 kg, compared with 13.99 +/- 3.40 kg on the control side. Although not fractured, these plates had obviously been weakened. The clinical implication of this is discussed.

PMID: 7064671

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978 Oct;(136):111-9.
Sledge CB, Noble J.
Abstract

Kirshner wires were placed either side of the right distal femoral epiphysis and a constant tension device applied a distracting force across the plate in rabbits. Growth increase was measured between the wires and found to be about 150% greater than the concurrent normal growth between 2 control (undistracted) wires on the left; such growth increase can occur in the absence of fracturing. The forces required to do this were between 1/5 and 1/10 of those shown to cause fracturing in vitro. The growth increase was shown to be associated with hyperplasia and hypertrophy of the plate, as well as an increased rate of cell division and sulfated polysaccharide synthesis. This was in turn shown to be associated with an increase in new bone formation.

PMID: 729274

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 Jan;(250):61-72.
Kenwright J, Spriggins AJ, Cunningham JL.
Source

Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, England.

Abstract

Axial force applied during epiphyseal distraction has been measured close to skeletal maturity in patients having leg lengthening, in a rabbit model, and in vitro from an amputation specimen. In the patient study, both slow distraction rates and low constant distraction loads were applied. For all the distraction regimens, it was not possible to lengthen the limb significantly without evidence of fracture as demonstrated by a sudden decrease in distraction force. Growth plate failure was observed from 600 to 800 N, these levels being lower than those recorded from the in vitro tests. In the animal study, three distraction regimens (0.13, 0.26, and 0.53 mm/day) were applied across the upper tibial growth plate of New Zealand white rabbits close to skeletal maturity. Distraction was applied and force measured using a strain-gauge dual-frame external fixator. The force-time results revealed two distinct patterns. One pattern, in which the forces rapidly increased to maximum values of approximately 25 N and then suddenly decreased, indicated fracture of the growth plate, which was confirmed histologically. In the other pattern, forces increased steadily throughout distraction, reaching maximum values at the end of distraction of approximately 16 N. Histologic observations indicated hyperplasia of the growth plate without fracture, however, only a small increase in limb length was detectable. Hence, if a significant increase in leg length is required close to skeletal maturity, then fracture of the growth plate must occur.

PMID: 2293946

Analysis & Interpretation

I have looked over my old post “Long Bone Tensile Strength, Loading Capacity, Compression Strength” and looked over the values which I had found back then. It seems that the values found for the bones were from a doctor from many decades ago taking the leg bones of already slaughtered cows and doing the tensile testing on them.

What we can gain in information from the old post is that the tensile strength in bones seem to be from collagenous fibers. However the collagenous fibers are more elastic than say the mineral calcium derived compressive strength. I note that one of the most basic elements that form the extracellular matrix of cartilage is Collagen Type 2. The stuff that is supposedly giving human long bones their strength in the tensile fashion is the exact same material as the element that makes up the majority of the cartilage in the growth plates.

Does this means that if we figure out what is the tensile loading capacity of the growth plate cartilage, we will be able to figure out the real tensile strength of human bone?

So cartilage might have around the same level of tensile strength as bones, but we have not ever really been able to figure out just how much of the overall material’s intrinsice resistance to the strain induced by tensile loading can be contributed to the calcium minerals.

So what does the results say from the abstract of these 3 PubMed studies?

From study #1, the testing was done on rabbit growth plate cartilage, is the results are not that easily translated into human growth plate cartilage values much less human bone tissue deformation values. The distal femoral growth plates were tested. The average magnitude of the force where the growth plate would “break” (whatever that means) was around 13 plus or minus 3.5 KG. The average real difference seen in the growth plate was around 0.90 plus or minus 0.33 mm. The average stress was around 14.50 plus or minus 3.90 kg. If the same growth plates had just 1 kg of a load was added on them for 24 hours, the average breaking force increased to 15 plus or minus 4.7 kgs. However after just the smallest epiphyseal distraction, the average force load needed dropped to 8.90 plus or minus 3.70 kg compared to the concurrent controlled growth plates which averaged around 14.0 plus or minus 3.4 kgs. For this study, the researchers didn’t see any type of fracturing but the growth plates were definitely weakened by just the smallest of distraction on the growth plate.

From study #2, two kirshner wires wrapped around the growth plate of the rabbits were pulled in opposite directions to simulate a tensile force in the axial direction. The tension force was constant and increased at a steady linear rate. The result is that the growth of the growth plates did increase by 150% which means that the growth plates increased in the thickness or rate of longitudinal increase by 2.5 X of the normal rates. It seems that the value of the tensile loading/ tension forces needed to push the growth rates up to this level is 10-20% of the amount of force needed to cause fracturing if the femur of the rabbits was instead removed from the rabbits body and done in vitro. The cause of the increase is determined to be from hyperplasia and hypertrophy

It seems that study #3 is the one that really reveals to us just how feasible is the idea of even trying out cartilage distraction would be for our endeavor let alone bone distraction. The results are not good. when the distraction forces are applied on just the cartilage when the rabbit or human reaches close to skeletal maturity shows that “…it was not possible to lengthen the limb significantly without evidence of fracture as demonstrated by a sudden decrease in distraction force”

The fact is that when we get close to the point where we loss the cartilage completely, it seems that any type of plastic deformation of even the cartilage seems to disappear, possibly due to the fact that the growth plate thickness becomes too small due to thinning and the creeping nature of the calcification layer moving upwards. The point where the distraction drops dramatically aka the point where fractures show up is around the 600-800 Newtons mark. This converts to around 135-180 lbs in american units. It seems that this is done in the body of the rabbit. However if the femur is taken out and have the tension testing done in vitro, the value of the breaking point is decrease. This is significant since most height increase seekers wish for something non-invasive. We would have to be able to stretch out the bones in vivo. With the cartilage testing from this study, it seems to suggest that cartilage stretching in vivo have higher values.

However there is some good results which suggest that the values we need to get distraction may not be that high. If we increase the loading magnitude at a much faster rate at just the 25 Newtons point, the growth plate cartilage will distract meaning that fractures will occur. The other option is to increase the load at a slower rate, but the results show that the cartilage had very little lengthening although there was no fractures in the cartilage, being only up to 16 Newtons.

The conclusion made by the researcher I feel is most revealing in that they state “Hence, if a significant increase in leg length is required close to skeletal maturity, then fracture of the growth plate must occur.”

Implications For Height Increase:

The biggest considerations we have to make about the results in the study and the ability to translate the results for human height increase applications are…

  • The studies were most performed on small laboratory rabbits, specifically New Zealand white rabbits.
  • In addition, the rabbits were also young, indicating that they might have had much more cartilage than one who was closer to bone maturity. We as human are not that young, and most of us don’t have growth plates anymore. 
  • The studies were done to see what are the values when the cartilage will distract and/or fracture, not for bones. This means that we have to account for the difference in different tissue types, and that may not be possible to do accurately without some serious “guesstimation”

The values were are finding are 13-15 KGs, 600-800 Newtons, and 25 Newtons if there is a sudden jerking motion done. So for what situations do these load values work in?

  • 13-15 kgs – To to induce cartilage fracture or distraction for young new zealand lab rabbits
  • 600-800 Newtons (135-180 lbs) – To induce fracture in the cartilage of old or adult new zealand lab rabbits that are about to reach full bone maturity.
  • 25 Newtons (5.6  lbs ) – To induce fracture in the cartilage of old or adult new zealand lab rabbits that are about to reach bone maturity through a very fast, quick increase in the tensile force loading aka a sudden jerk or “tug” on the long bone cartilage area. 

This shows that even for rabbits who are young with a lot of cartilage in their growth plate, the needed amount of load to get growth plate increased growth has to be as high as 30-35 lbs of force. For the ages rabbits who still have a little bit of cartilage left, the value increases to 135-180 lbs, and the researchers say that plastic deformation is not possible, but fractures has to occur.

Now, let’s remember that we are talking about RABBITS, NOT HUMANS. The human bone is at least around 10 times wider which means that the overall cross-sectional area of human long bones, minus the cavity from the intermedullary cavity, is around 50-100 more in area.

In addition, we are talking about rabbits with cartilage, and we want to translate these values to humans without cartilage!!

So let’s try to do a level by magnitude calculation.

  • Young rabbits with a lot of cartilage: 35 lbs
  • Older rabbits with very little cartilage and close to full cartilage ossification: 180 lbs

I had stated earlier from older posts that the main reason that human bones have their compressive strength is due to the calcium mineralization in the bone matrix and that the tensile strength is from the collagenous material.

So if the calcium minerals were removed from the huma bone, would the “bone” still have the same value of tensile strength? I mean, it is said that the tensile strength is from collagenous tissue.

I guess is that it would not.

Cartilage is also made from the same collageneous material.

I would guess that while the calcium minerals are not as dominant in being the real contributors to the bone strength in the tensile direction as the compressive direction, they still make up around a large percentage of the bone’s tensile strength. I would guess the calcium is 60-80% of the cause for high tensile strength too.

So we have to multiple the value of 180 lb by 5X. to get 900 lb. I really do think that it requires 900 lbs of force to cause fracture in the long bone of rabbits without cartilage. 

I am guessing the human femur bone is usually around 3 cms wide. The rabbit femur I would guess is maybe half a cm wide, 0.5 cms.

If we did an area difference between human femur and rabbit femur calculationg, assuming that the cavity in the middle of the femur is around 1/3rd the length.

  • For Rabbits: so 0.5 cm = 5 mm so radius 2.5 mm –> remove the 1/3rd in the middle of the femur to get a value of Area= 2.5^2*pi – 0.83^2*pi = 6.24*pi mm^2
  • For Adult Human Male: I assume diameter of human femur at 3 cm in thickness. 3 cm is 30 mm so radius is half, at 15 mm –>remove the 1/3rd in the middle of the femur to get a value of Area = 15^2*pi – 5^2*pi = 200*pi mm^2 

If I am to assume that my guess that 900 lb of force is needed to distract an adult rabbit’s femur bone to induce any type of elongation, whether through fracture or plastic deformation, then I have to somehow be able to extrapolate that already guessed value to a value for humans that is even further from hard data.

Calculation Style #1: Value for needed tensile force to elongate or “stretch” an adult human male’s femur bone 

Since the human bone is 6 times as wide as a rabbits bone, 3 cm in comparison to just 0.5 cms, the needed tensile load would be 36 times as much, since to calculate area, we have to square everything, and that would have to be applied to tensile force loading on bone. Sot the value for calculation style #1 is 36*900 = 32400 lbs of force needed.

Calculation Style #2: Value for needed tensile force to elongate or “stretch” an adult human male’s femur bone 

If we instead assume that strength is determined in terms of discrete quantities of area of bone, then he relative difference aka ratio of the human bone area to the rabbit bone area is the multiplicative factor we need. The values are human/rabbits = 200/6.24 = 32

So the value needed from Calculation Style #2 for adult human femur bones is 32*900 = 28800 lbs of force needed.

Previously, I had stated that the values of the breaking point of the human long bone was around 120-150 MPa which was found from Wikipedia and some very old studies done in the 19th century by amateur medical researchers. 150 MPA is around 21750 psi. Psi is pound per square inch. If we then multiple the area of the average adult male human femur bone, at around 3 cms thick, we get  

in terms of calculations, when the 3 cms is converted to inches, and then the area of the cortical bone is calculated, it is…

((1.18110236/2)^2-(1.18110236/6)^2)*pi = 0.9739 inches^2 = so the adult bone for tensile strength needs around 21750 pounds of tensile force to pull the bone apart. 

Conclusion: 

From the values found on a study looking at the breaking point of cartilage in lab rabbit legs, we reach 3 different values for how much tensile force would be needed to cause the bone lengthening in adult humans, 32000 lbs, 29,000 lbs, and 21,000 lbs, but all of them showing that the human bone can withstand more than an 2 – 5 elephants standing on a scale pulling the human bone apart.

It would seem that there is no hope in hell that height increase seekers would ever be able to even find a machine that can create that much tensile force.

However that might be something that I did not include from the results of the 3 studies. The fact is that when the cartilage of the rabbit experienced really fast increases in tensile load aka a “strong tug or pull”, the break point of the cartilage was just 25 Newtons, which is much smaller than the 600-800 Newtons needed if the tensile force was increased gradually. The ratio of 800/25 is 32.

If could be that if we took the value of the lowest value we have found or calculated, at 21,000 lbs and divided it by 32, it suggest that with just around 660 lb of tensile loading, maybe the human femur bone might be able to deform and elongate if we gave the bone a really strong, and really fast jerk or tug.

As an after thought to this post, I am not against the idea of pulling bone longitudinally for plastic deformation it since the idea can not be completely disapproved yet. If anyone can give me a single study or article which shows that bone itself can deform in the longitudinal direction, I would look into it further.

A List Of The Types Of Disorders And Pathologies Which Can Cause Overgrowth, Excessive Height, And Gigantism

Here is just a short post on the many types of conditions, disorders, and pathologies which can cause overgrowth, excessive height, and gigantism.

I took this information mainly from the article that was studying Siah Khan, entitled “Cranio-Spondylo-Tubular Dysostosis – A Unique Historic Iranian Giant “Siah-Khan Syndrome” – Report of an extremely rare or perhaps a unique case in the world from Iran”.

It was published in probably a scientific journal entitled “Genetics in the 3rd millennium, Vol. 8, No.2, Summer 2010”

In the article it is stated that these conditions lead to tall stature, but of course the tall stature is form a medical disorder.

1. The most common cause of pathologically tall stature is pituitary gigantism. – The excessive growth hormone, usually results from over- secretion by a group of somatotrope cells of anterior pituitary gland (somatotrope adenoma). The primary effect of the disease is excessive growth resulting in tallness (1, and 2). Tallness is accompanied by heavy, thick bones with large hands and feet and a heavy jaw. Once puberty is complete and adult height achieved, continued growth results in acromegaly. In this case diagnosis is not so difficult. By measuring blood growth hormone (GH) and insulin like growth factor 1 (IGF1), clinical impression can be confirmed.

2. There are some other very heterogeneous and very rare genetic and non-genetic conditions that overgrowth or tallness is a consistent finding in them (3, 4); such as

3. Precocious puberty

4. Extra sex chromosome syndromes (4),

5. Sotos syndrome (3, 5),

6. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (3, 6),

7. Simpson- Golabi-Behmel syndrome (3, 7),

8. Marshal-Smith syndrome (3, 8),

9. …and some of the Craniotubular Dysostoses (3, 9, 14). 

If you are a height increase or genetic researcher, I will list the articles and studies for reference below for you to find off of PubMed.

Note: On a personal note, I would also add the fact that maybe Weaver’s Syndrome, Proteus Syndrome, and Marfan’s Syndrome also all seem to lead to tall stature. This implies that we should be doing even more studying on all of these syndromes and disorders to find out what are the main link that connects all of these syndromes to lead to tall stature. It could just be one main link and cause or it could be from a multiple of causes.

References

1. Daniels GH, Martin JB. Growth hormone excess: Acromegaly and gigantism. In: Isselbacher KJ, Marhn J13. Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine. Vol 2 13th ed. McGraw Hill; 1994.p.1989-91.

2. Cohen P. Hyperpituitarism, tallstature, and overgrowth syndromes. In: Behrman R, Kliegman R, Jenson HB. Nelson’s textbook of Pediatrics. 16th ed. WB Saunders; 2000.p.1685-7.

3. Jones KL. Early overgrowth with associated defects. Syndromes In: Smith’s recognizable patterns of human malformation. 5th ed. WB Saunders; 1997.p.150-68. 4. Graham JM. Rimion DL. Abnormal body size and proportion; generalized overgrowth disorders. In:

Rimon DL, Conner JM, Pyeritz RE, et al. Emery and Rimoin’s principles and practice of medical genetics. Vol. 4th ed. Churchill livingstone;2002.p.1075-77.
5. Sotos J F, Dodge P R, Muirhead D, et al. Cerebral gigantism in childhood: a syndrome of excessively rapid growth with acromegalic features and a nonprogressive neurologic disorder. New Eng J Med 1964;271:109-16.

6. Beckwith J B. Macroglossia, omphalocele, adrenal cytomegaly, gigantism, and hyperplastic visceromegaly. Beckwith J Birth Defects 1969;5:188- 96.

7. Savarirayan R, Bankier A. Simpson-Golabi-Behmel syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in two brothers. J Med Genet 1999;36:574-6.
8. Johnson JP, Carey JC, Glassy FJ, et al. Marshall- Smith syndrome: two cases reports and a review of pulmonary manifestations. Pediatrics 1983;71(2); 219-23.

9. Sillence DO. Craniotubular remodelling disorders. In: Rimon DC, Conner JM, Pyeritz RE, et al. Emery’s and Rimoins principles and practice of medical genetics. 4th ed. Churchill Livingstone;2002.p:4130-5.

10. Ayuk J, Sheppard MC. Growth hormone and its disorders. Postgrad Med J 2006;82(963):24-30.
11. Viljoen D, Beighton P. Marfan syndrome: a diagnostic dilemma. Clin Genet 1999;37(6):417-22. 12. Faravelli F. NSD1 mutations in Sotos syndrome. Am J Med Genet Semin Med Genet 2005;137(1):24- 31.

13. Endo F. Berardinelli lipodystrophy syndrome. Ryoikibetsu Shikogun Shirizu 2000; (30pt5):143-4. Review. Japanese.
14. Lachman RS. Skeletal dysplasias. In: Taybi H, Lachman RS. Editors. Radiology of Syndromes, Metabolic disorders, and skeletal dysplasias. 4th ed. Mosby;1996.p.791-802.


For an even greater collection on Studies and papers on abnormal and unique cases on overgrowth and gigantism I would list the references I also found from the paper on Zech Devits below which was entitled “A Provisionally Unique Syndrome Of Macrosomia, Bone Overgrowth, Macrocephaly, and Tall Stature” which I had found from the TallestMan.com website.

reference