Skepticism on height increasing methods

How should we think about weird things?
Minigolfer
New Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 7:32 pm

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby Minigolfer » Mon May 26, 2014 3:17 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Where is your evidence that the bones were actually lengthened and the claimed increase doesn't stem only from other tissue and fluids and the like?

What happens when you keep the clamps off for a prolonged time? Does it stay the same length/thickness or does it shrink back?


And, AFAIK, you still haven't provided links to the studies you mention on your page: "Here's a study that shows that LSJL increases height in adult rats!" and "They would have had to measure the bone length...it's possible that there was a length increase in the mice but it was not mentioned...".


Is there evidence that tendons ligaments could produce such a length increase and you can see the enlargement of the epiphysis in all the bones unlike swelling in which the enlargement is all over. The targeted enlargement of the epiphysis is proof that the affect area is bone. I could post a video showing movement and illustrating that it's not swelling.

My left finger I used to clamp the epiphysis is still a little enlarged relative to the other finger bones but I did not clamp as intensley on the right finger once people are satisfied with the right finger growth I can go back to left finger and see what happens to the right finger once clamping stops.

The LSJL on adult rats were 16 weeks old and ideally the rats would be 6 months old when their growth plate becomes totally dysfunctional(rats don't fuse growth plates but they become totally dysfunctional at around 6 months). The study mentioned is just a poster and not a study and is posted completely on the page. On this page(the image on the page is just a contrast of axial loading to the effects on bone of LSJL) is a link that shows bone degradation as a result of LSJL: http://www.heightquest.com/2010/05/grow ... yseal.html. Here's the name of the paper: Effects of surgical holes in mouse tibiae on bone formation induced by knee loading. Thus illustrating that LSJL can cause degradation to bone. And degradation of bone is required for psuedoarthrosis which can produce lengthening effects.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19638
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon May 26, 2014 4:31 pm

Minigolfer wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:Where is your evidence that the bones were actually lengthened and the claimed increase doesn't stem only from other tissue and fluids and the like?

What happens when you keep the clamps off for a prolonged time? Does it stay the same length/thickness or does it shrink back?


And, AFAIK, you still haven't provided links to the studies you mention on your page: "Here's a study that shows that LSJL increases height in adult rats!" and "They would have had to measure the bone length...it's possible that there was a length increase in the mice but it was not mentioned...".


Is there evidence that tendons ligaments could produce such a length increase and you can see the enlargement of the epiphysis in all the bones unlike swelling in which the enlargement is all over. The targeted enlargement of the epiphysis is proof that the affect area is bone. I could post a video showing movement and illustrating that it's not swelling.

My left finger I used to clamp the epiphysis is still a little enlarged relative to the other finger bones but I did not clamp as intensley on the right finger once people are satisfied with the right finger growth I can go back to left finger and see what happens to the right finger once clamping stops.

The LSJL on adult rats were 16 weeks old and ideally the rats would be 6 months old when their growth plate becomes totally dysfunctional(rats don't fuse growth plates but they become totally dysfunctional at around 6 months). The study mentioned is just a poster and not a study and is posted completely on the page. On this page(the image on the page is just a contrast of axial loading to the effects on bone of LSJL) is a link that shows bone degradation as a result of LSJL: http://www.heightquest.com/2010/05/grow ... yseal.html. Here's the name of the paper: Effects of surgical holes in mouse tibiae on bone formation induced by knee loading. Thus illustrating that LSJL can cause degradation to bone. And degradation of bone is required for psuedoarthrosis which can produce lengthening effects.


That's a bit confusing. And "could" and "might" means nothing. Combined with your unwillingness to link directly to the study but only back to your site seems to show you have no longer leg to stand on.


The 2007 study you are pointing to says:
We previously reported that knee loading is more effective at the periosteal surface than the endosteal surface in tibiae and femora of C57/BL/6 mice [5, 6]. The differential sensitivity between the periosteal and endosteal surfaces was also observed in the present study regardless of surgical holes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2048766/

and which for all intends and purposes could be the cause for:
Minigolfer wrote:you can see the enlargement of the epiphysis in all the bones unlike swelling in which the enlargement is all over. The targeted enlargement of the epiphysis is proof that the affect area is bone.

My left finger I used to clamp the epiphysis is still a little enlarged...

below 2009 study wrote:...our observation indicates dependence to the loading site was observed only in the periosteum.
...which could account for your thicker knuckles, but that seems to be it. (BTW, may I ask how old you are?)


Looking at the findings of the above mentioned 2009 study I linked to here, it also shows increase in thickness, not length.
In summary, the current study demonstrates that ankle loading is an effective means to induce bone formation throughout the tibial periosteal and endosteal diaphysis and it potentially induces multiple signaling pathways involved in mechanotransduction and bone metabolism. For preventing bone loss in the patients with osteoporosis, it is important to increase bone mass in the endosteum since a greater proportion of bone is remodeled on its endosteal surface [47, 48]. Ankle loading could with further research provide potential for slowing bone loss on the endosteal surface in the tibia while simultaneously adding more bone on the periosteal surface. Although the scope of the present study was limited to one loading condition (0.5 N at 5 Hz) and genome-wide molecular analysis at one time point, the data support the efficacy of ankle loading and its characteristic effects throughout the tibia. Understanding the mechanism of bone formation with ankle loading would contribute to future treatments and therapies for improving bone strength.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2700035/



If I'm misunderstanding something here or got it wrong, I'd love to be corrected.
Hi, Io the lurker.

Minigolfer
New Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 7:32 pm

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby Minigolfer » Mon May 26, 2014 8:19 pm

I posted a link to the page rather than the study as there was already a link to the study on the page which you found.

A paper about periosteum: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826636/. "periosteum covers the majority of the bony structures with the exception of their intra-articular surfaces[within a joint] and sesamoid bones" So finger bones do in fact have periosteum but finger bones usually only undergo endochondral ossification at one end and I've heard from one source that finger bones may have periosteal patches rather than periosteum developed to the extent of the finger. And since most of the growth is the epiphysis and in a disproportionate manner I believe it is non-periosteal growth. And most of the epiphysis is considered an intra-articular surface with a fibrous capsule instead of a periosteum and the fibrous capsule does not attach to the bone via sharpey's fibres.

There is the dreaded "might" and "could" again. In all areas of science there is a lack of evidence. It is just a prediction based on the evidence. I'm not presenting things as fact. I'm presenting it as there is a strong probability that this method could induce longitudinal bone growth based on the research and there needs to be more resources devoted to this.

Another to interpret the sentence "dependence to the loading site was observed only in the periosteum." That only periosteal growth was dependent on where exactly things were loaded and the other structures in the bone developed regardess of where the bone was developed.

Just because they only measured bone thickness does not mean that length increased. I asked Hiroki Yokota about this study "Resonance in the mouse tibia as a predictor of frequencies and locations of loading-induced bone formation" and he said "We did not check tibia length in this study. " So it's logical that Hiroki Yokota may not have checked the length in the other studies.

The relevant 2009 study was by head scientist CH Turner who passed away so it's hard to make sure that length data was collected in that study. My record on getting a response from Yokota is fair but feel free to email him if he has the length data(I emailed him about it in 2012 with no response).

Remember, rather than finding one thing wrong with a theory and dismissing it it's best to have a discussion about a theory and revise it.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10256
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby Pyrrho » Mon May 26, 2014 10:38 pm

Basically I think your method seems to be ideal for inducing arthritis.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

Minigolfer
New Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 7:32 pm

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby Minigolfer » Tue May 27, 2014 10:04 pm

Pyrrho wrote:Basically I think your method seems to be ideal for inducing arthritis.


I've given evidence that joint loading has increased my finger length by 1/4". That's enough that this method of loading is worth studying and looking into. Proving that it doesn't cause arthritis is too high a threshold of proof. It'd take years of anecdotal study. Lab work would be very helpful to seeing the Nitric Oxide levels or mitiochondrial damage in response to this clamping method.

All I can say is there is no pain in my finger and there is no decrease in strength.

I've provided enough proof that it is worth putting time and resources into this. Once there are resources available then we can look at arthritis but it's not responsible to except to prove that it doesn't cause arthritis when that would require lab work or decades of clamping without consequence.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8119
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby Poodle » Wed May 28, 2014 12:15 am

Minigolfer wrote:
Pyrrho wrote:Basically I think your method seems to be ideal for inducing arthritis.


I've given evidence that joint loading has increased my finger length by 1/4". That's enough that this method of loading is worth studying and looking into. Proving that it doesn't cause arthritis is too high a threshold of proof. It'd take years of anecdotal study. Lab work would be very helpful to seeing the Nitric Oxide levels or mitiochondrial damage in response to this clamping method.

All I can say is there is no pain in my finger and there is no decrease in strength.

I've provided enough proof that it is worth putting time and resources into this. Once there are resources available then we can look at arthritis but it's not responsible to except to prove that it doesn't cause arthritis when that would require lab work or decades of clamping without consequence.


OK - so you've made up your mind on this. What's your next step?

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10256
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby Pyrrho » Wed May 28, 2014 12:36 am

Minigolfer wrote:
Pyrrho wrote:Basically I think your method seems to be ideal for inducing arthritis.


I've given evidence that joint loading has increased my finger length by 1/4". That's enough that this method of loading is worth studying and looking into. Proving that it doesn't cause arthritis is too high a threshold of proof. It'd take years of anecdotal study. Lab work would be very helpful to seeing the Nitric Oxide levels or mitiochondrial damage in response to this clamping method.

All I can say is there is no pain in my finger and there is no decrease in strength.

I've provided enough proof that it is worth putting time and resources into this. Once there are resources available then we can look at arthritis but it's not responsible to except to prove that it doesn't cause arthritis when that would require lab work or decades of clamping without consequence.

Nah, you've provided essentially zilch.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11310
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby Major Malfunction » Wed May 28, 2014 12:58 am

Bones are a living, plastic organ. They do change structure throughout life, and relatively rapidly, depending on repetitive stressors.

But I would never recommend DIY bone growing. If you have a legitimate skeletal issue, consult a bone doctor.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Minigolfer
New Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 7:32 pm

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby Minigolfer » Wed May 28, 2014 6:45 pm

Re: providing zilch. I've provided photographic evidence that LSJL increases bone length in the fingers by showing that the tip is longer when the fingers are aligned at base and the base is longer when aligned at the tip. In the loaded finger. By the significant amount of a quarter of an inch. There's also noticeable alterations in the size of the epiphysis of the fingers.

Maybe my pictures could use work. But a before and after picture is just not as effective as a left-right side-side comparison. And I have tons of before pictures around my site and youtube channel.

How is documented increase in length by 1/4 of an inch zilch?

Re: DIY bone growing. Being a skeptic, you have to be skeptical of the status quo too not just outsider opinions. A bone doctor may not know in detail everything there is about bone nor may he be up to date in all the recent developments. Especially since there are other tissue types involved in longitudinal bone growth like stem cells and cartilage. A bone scientist is a much better source but they too tend to be laser targeted on what they are trying to prove. You should try to get as much information from as many sources as possible even uncredentialed curators of such information.

Minigolfer
New Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 7:32 pm

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby Minigolfer » Thu May 29, 2014 10:20 pm

I did an analysis recently comparing my finger to osteophytes http://www.naturalheightgrowth.com/2014 ... ults-lsjl/. And yes my finger does appear to have osteophytes which is a sign of arthritis but that is independent of the 1/4 increase in finger length. I could do a picture comparing finger length but excluding the knuckle which would help confirm that. But there's only an osteophyte near my knuckle and not the knuckle itself so that shouldn't make a difference.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10256
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby Pyrrho » Thu May 29, 2014 10:57 pm

Minigolfer wrote:Re: providing zilch. I've provided photographic evidence that LSJL increases bone length in the fingers by showing that the tip is longer when the fingers are aligned at base and the base is longer when aligned at the tip. In the loaded finger. By the significant amount of a quarter of an inch. There's also noticeable alterations in the size of the epiphysis of the fingers.

Maybe my pictures could use work. But a before and after picture is just not as effective as a left-right side-side comparison. And I have tons of before pictures around my site and youtube channel.

How is documented increase in length by 1/4 of an inch zilch?

Re: DIY bone growing. Being a skeptic, you have to be skeptical of the status quo too not just outsider opinions. A bone doctor may not know in detail everything there is about bone nor may he be up to date in all the recent developments. Especially since there are other tissue types involved in longitudinal bone growth like stem cells and cartilage. A bone scientist is a much better source but they too tend to be laser targeted on what they are trying to prove. You should try to get as much information from as many sources as possible even uncredentialed curators of such information.

You should try to approach your claims scientifically and stop expecting others to take your claims at face value. Got something that falsifies current hypotheses? Awesome--what's your evidence? And I don't mean Frankenstein self-mutilation.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby Flash » Thu May 29, 2014 11:39 pm

Minigolfer, good work but I am dying to know if your techniques will work for the penis enlargment as well. ;)
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

Minigolfer
New Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 7:32 pm

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby Minigolfer » Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:49 pm

I do approach my claims scientifically.

There are some problems to finding a purely theoretical method for height increase:

1) Studies are often incomplete and attempts to gather more information are often met with silence.

2) Not all things work as expected. You'd except that something that increases chondrocyte proliferation and delays chondrocyte hypertrophy would increase height but often that ends up reducing adult height. A study can show one effect but unless the study is very specific you cannot say for sure what the effect on longitudinal bone growth is.

What we do is that certain stimuli tends to induce chondrocyte differentiation like hydrostatic pressure and shear strain. We know that chondrocyte precursor cells are more of a limiting factor of continuing growth by the growth plate itself(which is shown by growth resuming if the growth plate is removed or damaged). We know that space within the bone is required as bone is not capable of interstitial growth(which is what causes longitudinal bone growth) and this can also be created by shear strain and hydrostatic pressure.

I did some data here on the LSJL gene expression data and there were some genes that LSJL upregulates that indicate that LSJL could upregulate these chondrocyte precursor cells: http://www.heightquest.com/2012/11/lsjl ... lysis.html. Genes like Cyr61, FGF2.

And here I have an image of a growth plate post LSJL: http://www.heightquest.com/2010/08/hist ... aline.html. I can't say for sure what exactly is happening in the bone marrow and the rest of the bone but I can say that they two images are dramatically different in many ways. I've tried to get pros to identify all the items in the image with no luck.

So basically, I just have some evidence that suggests that certain stimuli like hydrostatic pressure can induce chondrocyte-like morphology and then I have some images and genes that suggest that LSJL may induce chondrocyte-like morphology. Not enough? That's why I'm doing "Frankenstein self-mutilation". I've lengthened my finger by 1/4". It's definitely there and I think I have the photographic evidence to show it's there. I'm trying to get it for my legs it's just a lot harder.

Minigolfer
New Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 7:32 pm

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby Minigolfer » Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:17 pm

As requested I produced some x-rays: http://www.naturalheightgrowth.com/2014 ... roof-lsjl/.

There is some measurable difference between my right-loaded(clamped) index finger and left-unloaded finger as well as the left loaded and right unloaded thumb. The problem is GIMP measurement tool has some flaws. Any ideas on how to get a measurement technique? The main problem is that the fingers are at different angles. However, one good sign is that the right index finger measures longer even with the angle so if there was a correction it's not apparent.

There are no visible growth plates but growth plates are not visible on x-rays anyways. Growth plates are detected by the absence of visible bone in a certain region. So "micro"-growth plates would not show up on the X-ray anyways.

Here's the images posted here if you guys want to help measure. Remember a true skeptical should not only be skeptical about the minority opinion but majority opinion as well as well as "common sense". Thus you should help provide more accurate measurement ideas to challenge height increase assumptions.

Image
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19638
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Skepticism on height increasing methods

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Sep 18, 2014 2:22 am

Minigolfer wrote:As requested I produced some x-rays: http://www.naturalheightgrowth.com/2014 ... roof-lsjl/.

There is some measurable difference between my right-loaded(clamped) index finger and left-unloaded finger as well as the left loaded and right unloaded thumb. The problem is GIMP measurement tool has some flaws. Any ideas on how to get a measurement technique? The main problem is that the fingers are at different angles. However, one good sign is that the right index finger measures longer even with the angle so if there was a correction it's not apparent.

There are no visible growth plates but growth plates are not visible on x-rays anyways. Growth plates are detected by the absence of visible bone in a certain region. So "micro"-growth plates would not show up on the X-ray anyways.

Here's the images posted here if you guys want to help measure. Remember a true skeptical should not only be skeptical about the minority opinion but majority opinion as well as well as "common sense". Thus you should help provide more accurate measurement ideas to challenge height increase assumptions.

ImageImage
ImageImage



Hope you don't mind my adjusting them. :-D

Using [imgfit], they come out like this:



Hi, Io the lurker.


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest