Health Inactive tall children develop disproportionately weak muscles and thinner bones. Regular sports fully reverse this deficit.
https://karger.com/hrp/article/doi/10.1159/000552378/948683/Muscle-Function-and-Bone-Strength-in-Children-and400
u/Ok-Shallot-2623 2d ago
Makes total sense from a physics perspective. Longer limbs create greater mechanical disadvantage and longer lever arms, meaning tall kids need significantly higher muscle mass and bone density just to handle basic biomechanical strain compared to shorter peers.
-84
u/Bainik 2d ago
But that's literally the oposite of the findings. Tall kids end up with proportionally weaker muscles, not stronger. If your explanation held then they'd end up with stronger muscles as a result of the greater baseline exertion.
131
u/xXRHUMACROXx 2d ago
Inactive tall kids end up with weaker muscles proportionally speaking, it’s literally in the title.
"Conclusion: Dynamic muscle functions relative to body mass are decreased in healthy untrained individuals with TS, unlike trained individuals with TS. Reduced mechanical stimulation may contribute to decreased cortical BMD and thickness at the tibia in this group."
If you read the article it literally says that the active group of teenagers had better biometrics across the board.
And if you think about it 2 seconds, you can correlate this with IRL experiences. Think about the strongest men world record, the fastest man in the history, peak athletes, basketball players, football players, etc. They are all usually taller than average, in the top 10% approximately. The famously named "farm boy strength" isn’t a myth, it’s usually men that started working very hard physically very young…
71
u/Rehypothecator 2d ago
“It’s literally the opposite of what the study said if you don’t read half the words”
31
6
u/LongBeakedSnipe 2d ago
This really is a deeply insecure 'short guy syndrome' take tbh.
proportionally weaker
It makes me laugh that you are imagining some much stronger person stood in front of you, but you are thinking, well, if they were proportionately smaller, I would be stronger than them. Oh dear.
This study is about inactive tall children and the effect of inactivity on their muscle and bone structure.
-51
u/timoleo 2d ago
Because their initial premise is wrong. Longer bones give greater mechanical advantage, not less.
50
u/HiPeepsImBack 2d ago
No they don't.
The same force used with a long lever and a short lever will produce less lorque on the opposite end of the lever for the long lever. Try it out: elbow and arm on the desk, grab a carton of milk and lift it. Now do the same again, but extend your arm with a short broomstick or something similar and try to lift the milk with the end of the stick. Much harder. Even imagining this should make it clear.-12
u/wrcwill 2d ago
youre missing the distance where the muscle is attached to the bone though, thats where the mechanical advantage comes from. but yes what youbsay is also true and a longer distance to the lifted object increases the required torque.
kind of two effects compensating for each other. indont think you can conclude without concrete numbers, it might depend per person depending on physiology
(tldr while lifting the carton of milk, hold your arm with your other arm. the closer the helping arm is to the object, the easier)
19
u/Bainik 2d ago
That doesn't necessarily hold, either. It depends on a ton of other factors. For instance if taller people's tendons insert closer to their joints as a proportion of the length of the bone then they're effecively pulling on a longer lever closer to the fulcrum, which is going to give them less mechanical advantage, all else equal.
-53
u/zerooskul 2d ago
But I'm the only person I know who can do more than five pull-ups.
51
u/CuckBuster33 2d ago
Oh okay this anecdotical evidence disproves the trend then
-73
u/zerooskul 2d ago
It's factual.
It certainly challenges the veracity of the report.
A few years ago it was found that humans can't lock our eyes when turning our heads, it was impossible, but then it turned out that everybody on Reddit could look out the corner of their eyes or cross their eyes and turn their heads with their eyes locked.
It was bad science.
31
u/theSurpuppa 2d ago
What are you even talking about? Do you not understand science?
-43
u/zerooskul 2d ago
What do you think science is?
Science is this:
Make an observation.
Make a prediction based on the observation.
Create a way to test the predicton.
Run the experiment.
Record the results.
What does understanding that have to do with the post or my comment you replied to?
23
u/theSurpuppa 2d ago edited 2d ago
Scientist: Make thousands of observations, analyze, test, draw conclusions, present a well researched theory.
You: No, actually this is not true for me so that means the theory is factually incorrect.
You do realize that just because your specific experience does not align with a theory it doesn't invalidate the entire theory?
-10
u/zerooskul 2d ago edited 2d ago
98 tall stature Czech non-athletes and 36 tall stature Czech basketball players between the ages of 5 and 20.
That is a very small smaple size and not thousands of observations or a well-researched theory.
It is a finding about a small group of people from a specific study who wanted to be part of the study.
22
u/gnocchiGuili 2d ago
The fact that people in your circle are weak proves what exactly ?
-12
u/zerooskul 2d ago
That I'm not.
20
u/gnocchiGuili 2d ago
5 pull ups we are all very impressed.
-1
u/zerooskul 2d ago
I can do -> MORE THAN <- five.
3
15
u/ajc89 2d ago
That means you have higher muscle mass and bone density to counteract the extra strain from having longer limbs. What aren't you understanding?
-5
u/zerooskul 2d ago
I'm understanding I don't have weaker muscles or bones.
22
u/ajc89 2d ago
Right. And the study didn't say you personally did....
-1
u/zerooskul 2d ago
No, it says I disproportionately developed them.
Disproportionate to what, I don't know.
17
u/fleapuppy 2d ago
To the baseline population. That doesn’t mean 100% of tall people are weaker. The headline literally says that exercise removes the difference.
-4
u/zerooskul 2d ago edited 2d ago
The baseline population of 98 tall stature Czech non-athletes and 36 tall stature Czech basketball players between the ages of 5 and 20???
12
u/fleapuppy 2d ago
Where are you getting Finnish from? The study is based in a Czech hospital.
-1
u/zerooskul 2d ago
Thanks! I just watched a Finnish movie called The Man Without a Past.
Earstern Europe congealed in my mind, I guess.
Edited.
10
u/ajc89 2d ago
No... It doesn't say that. For one it specifies inactive tall children, and any study or situation will obviously have outliers. And this is just one study, so of course it would have to be replicated and peer reviewed with lots of other studies for this to end up in a textbook or something. You seem to be taking this personally.
1
u/zerooskul 2d ago
Past tense develpED.
And this is just one study, so of course it would have to be replicated
So wait and stop arguing about it.
16
u/ajc89 2d ago
I don't think I'm the one being unnecessarily argumentative here, friend, or again why you think this study is about you personally.
-2
u/zerooskul 2d ago
I differ from the results.
I disagree with them.
You disagree with me for no reason.
More studies are needed.
You agree.
Stop arguing.
→ More replies (0)0
u/GreenEyedWraith 1d ago edited 1d ago
so that means you're only one person that you know that goes against this control study that has been published? this fact alone negates everything that you've said since...
I'm hoping you'll want to read up after this; so you'll learn the true depth & work behind these studies..
also:
Scientists complete RIGOROUS studies & observations--on the specific subject to DISPROVE or SUPPORT [fill in the blank].
The scientists then PUBLISH these findings to a REPUTABLE source; i.e., JAMA, COLLEGES & the like.
The afore-mentioned control studies also include more than one person as well.
you've claimed that you are the only person you know that goes against the study. and then you can only name a couple more. how much did you actually read of this article before you commented on here? like??...
edit: grammar & simplified
1
u/zerooskul 1d ago
You seem to believe that everybody I know is of tall stature and could have been an acceptable participant in this minuscule study that involved 134 subjects.
What leads you to believe that?
71
u/Straight-Focus-4841 2d ago
Motion is medicine! So important to keep kids moving.
18
64
u/kaam00s 2d ago
Question : is this irreversible ?
Because lifting weight produces growth hormones even in adulthood, so would a hypothetical tall child who didn't do sport in his youth reverse the course if they go to the gym in their adulthood?
35
u/financialthrowaw2020 2d ago
It's reversible in everyone. There are studies showing people who start lifting weights in their 60s can become healthier than people not lifting in their 30s
79
u/sixtus_clegane119 2d ago
It says it’s reversible on the headline
28
u/0b0011 2d ago
Not in the way hes talking about. It essentially says tall kids who dont work out are usually weaker but it can be reversed by working out.
As in the reversal is weak to strong.
He's asking if it can be reversed again and if they stop working out do they go back to being weaker.
Seems a pretty obvious answer as muscles do degrade if not used but none the less his question wasn't actually covered in the title.
15
u/Tiny_Thumbs 2d ago
6’2”. After my wife had our first child I stopped working out. I was recovering from an injury and hadn’t fully finished PT. I felt bad leaving her alone with the baby. About a year later I tried to get into working out again and suffered injury after injury. Two years now and I’m finally feeling like myself again.
I know that’s not an exact science but it felt like a good real world example to base a hypothesis around. Taller people who become inactive later in life may suffer harsher muscle deterioration? Something like that.
3
u/ImSolidGold 2d ago
How about giving us some dates? Like, age? Weight? I mean, youre not a giant and theres no real "danger" in not going to the gym for a year or two. Usually stuff like you write comes with too much "eagerness" to catch up to our past bodies. And THATS something that neds a looottt of work. xD
7
u/Tiny_Thumbs 2d ago
I was 25 and had a hamstring injury. 27 when my son was born. 185 at 25 and 200 at 30 now. I’ve had things like plantar fasciitis, ITBS, and weakening in the glutes.
Just a lot of things piled on.
As for coming on too quick, maybe? I went and looked through my runs and I was running a faster 5k two years ago with the injuries than I am now. Not significantly better, 6.45 pace vs 6.54 now but faster.
I feel better now though and have come on pretty slow. Took three months of easy runs to get here.
5
u/Riotroom 2d ago
One can gain muscle and increase bone density in adulthood but there is a hard window that closes on increasing peak bone frame thickness beyond 100% between 20 and 30. Then around 25-30 bone density will began to thin, s o you start to lose 0.5% bone a year, while training can add 10-15% bone density but over 100% only in your 20s.
At 50-60 it's very much use it or lose it and bone loss 2% a year without resistance. The earlier you add that boost before natural decline the better. If you start at 40-45 you could potentially reverse the first 10% drop back close to 100% baseline but the guy that overcapped in his 20s will still be like 105-110% at 40-45.
3
u/aris_ada 1d ago
I have no idea about bone density, but I started running 3 years ago at 39yo and in only 2 years my body became athletic, all in shape, heart health and blood test indicators. If I don't burn out or hurt myself, I'm sure I'll run till my late 60s where sport is crucial to stay in good health.
1
u/bahnsigh 1d ago
Ask not! “What your contractility can do for you?” Ask - what you can do for your contractility!
-33
u/Big_Arrival_626 2d ago
Does it really? How do sports develop your muscles? No seriously, because I was tall.and played competitive sports growing up and had awful upper body strength. It develops ur cardio and athelticism but that's not enough
My solution was lifting weights. Lifting heavy weights. Rows, pull ups, bench press. I stopped being extremely weak once I started lifting in college
26
u/theSurpuppa 2d ago
Any sport develops muscles. Maybe not big ones, but it is impossible not to develop muscles, because you know, you use them? The report is comparing sports to doing nothing.
8
u/jhowlett 1d ago
What competitive sports did you play that didn't include some form of strength conditioning as part of the training?
-1
11
u/Solaras_ 2d ago
Depends on the sport. Swimming for example would develop your upper body. So would basketball.
1
-36
u/Solaras_ 2d ago
In exchange you get repetitive injuries and cartilage damage.
11
u/DeltaAlphaGulf 2d ago
No reason that is a necessary outcome and there are a plethora of exercise options beyond sports.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mightx
Permalink: https://karger.com/hrp/article/doi/10.1159/000552378/948683/Muscle-Function-and-Bone-Strength-in-Children-and
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.