Talk:Muscle (muscle)

This article is lacking even a basic human/muscle overlay! Could someone mark this thing for revision and clean up?

Mammal-Centric Article and other gripes

This article is currently mammal-centric. Also, Cardiac muscle is usually defined as its own type rather than simply an instance of smooth muscle. I do not feel I have the expertise to expand the article though so I am going to do that annoying thing of just complaining on the talk page instead of just fixing it myself. --Qaz

Response: Sorry but what you wrote is not correct. Cardiac muscle is not an instance of smooth muscle. Cardiac muscle is distinct from smooth muscle. There are three recognized types of muscle: Smooth, Skeletal, Cardiac.--Gacggt 00:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There are industrial and research projects for artificially augmenting muscle. Is the Wikipedia an appropriate venue for this topic, since it is a future entry?

Types of Energy Production?

Would a knowledgeable biochemist explain the 4 methods of energy production in muscle tissue? I recall that 2 are aerobic, and 2 anerobic, but i forget the actual reactions and hormones involved. --AnthonyQBachler

DOMS & lactic acid

according to http://www.naturalphysiques.com/cms/index.php?itemid=142, DOMS is not caused by lactic acid buildup, as stated in this article

This is true. I will correct. Dan100 19:22, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

It is no longer believed that the cause is small tears in muscle fibre. A more recent study (by Ji-Guo Yu at the Swedish University in Umeå) has disproved this old theory, showing that there are no tears in the muscle.

Yes I agree with the stated above. The theory from yu gi guo failed to find tears in the fibers immediately after the exercise and thus has re-interpreted data long thought to be linked with sarcomeric damage as protein synthesis and creation of new sarcomeres (sarcomerogênesis) thus being much more a process of adaptation rather than a process of celular repair. The reference for it can be found here:

Yu, J., Carlsson, L. & Thornell, L.E. (2004). Evidence for myofibril remodeling as opposed to myofibril damage in human muscles with DOMS: an ultrastructural and immunoelectron microscopic study. Histochemistry and Cell Biology, 121(3), p. 219-227.

Hyperplasia

There was a paragraph that suggested that muscle hyperplasia could occur in humans. This is untrue - it has only been observed in animals - so I removed it. Dan100 19:22, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

human muscle action?

A larger wiki forum on this area may be found on sense-think-act.org which may be of interest to contributors to this area...

Hmmm. Nice, but it's a bit secondhand information. JFW | T@lk 13:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GFDL statement for "strongest muscle" section

This statement is made for GFDL purposes to allow deletion of Strongest muscle in human body. The section Muscle#Which is the strongest muscle in the human body? was inserted by a 08:39, 3 Apr 2005 edit by User:Dpbsmith. This edit consists of material developed almost entirely by User:Dpbsmith on 30-Mar-2005 and 31-Mar-2005, with two typo/punctuation corrections by User:Mindspillage.

I would never vote for deletion in wikipedia. Instead, every time that is possible, just re-organizing, move to another area / section, or even folder it up, like adding it to muscle/strongest muscle with a link from the main article.

Personally, as I've read most of the article, that section does provide good information about muscles, and by analysing such thing (as what's the strongest and /or weakest muscle) one can have a good start if willing to go deeper into research for more specific information.

--Cacumer 11:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongest muscle

Help on this section would be greatly appreciated. This was a rescue attempt on a substub article that asserted that the tongue was the strongest muscle, without any attribution. VfD consensus was that it belongs here rather than in a separate article. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This section is now soo large it puts the article out of balance. I am also concerned about original research. Could you please trim this down to something smaller? JFW | T@lk 06:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My big problem in trying to assemble this was the occurrence of many throwaway remarks about thus-and-such muscle being strongest without any reference of clear explanation. The article started with a single line asserting that the tongue was the strongest. In every case, it is NPOV-true for each candidate muscle that there are many, many, many assertions that it is the "strongest." But, yeah, in many cases I'm putting my guesses as to the rationale as a sort of placeholder. Although this is silly trivia-question stuff, I think it should be treated somewhere in Wikipedia, and the consensus was that this article was the appropriate place for it. I'll do my best to trim, but what I really need is help. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've at least managed to condense the table of contents and removes the over-conspicuous headings and the whitespace associated with them. The tone of this section is different from the rest of the article and the quality of the information is lower. I'm retitling the section "Trivia: the strongest human muscle" to separate it conceptually.

Please, please, have you got any guess as to the origin or explanation of idea of the tongue being strongest? Does this make any conceivable sense to you? Typical sighting: "The tongue is the strongest muscle in the body and teeth move with pressure" [1] and that's from a dental group... Dpbsmith (talk) 14:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've only looked breifly at this article, but I have an idea that may help. First off, musclular strength is more complicated than simple cross-sectional area as the layman would understand the term, and is more accurately measured with the measurement of physiologic cross-sectional area, which takes into account the alignment of muscle fibers within the muscle (whether they are fusiform or pennate muscles). Perhaps a new section called "Muscle Fiber Alignment" could discuss these issues, and within this section, side facts like the speed and strengths of certain muscles could easily be worked in as their respective muscle types are explained.--Bennihana 21:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a lot more than that. It's also a function of the number of fibers recruited (by the nervous system), the rate at which they twich, and the compressibility of the fibers. →Raul654 00:11, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to just trim this section as much as possible, leave it at the end of the article, and add sections for alignment and compressibility, then talk about recruitment (and its relationship to force and speed) under "Nervous Control" (definitely ought to be there anyway) and also talk about twitch speed under the "types" explanation?--Bennihana 06:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Draft revisions to article

Following proposed work-in-progress revision:

Striated and Smooth Muscle

Muscle that we use in physical exertion, be it lifting a box or batting an eyelash, is striated muscle. However, muscle that is used to move food through the intestines and modulate blood flow through tissues is of a different type, smooth muscle. The two types are named after their microscopic appearance, where striated muscle shows cross-bridged filaments running along the length of the cells and smooth muscle does not. This filament structure is the contractile apparatus that transforms energy release from the hydrolysis of ATP into longitudinal tension against the cytoskeleton of the muscle cell; the complex structure of muscle at the tissue level is so designed that the contraction of individual muscle cells combine to result in an organ-level shortening of the muscle as a whole.

(Courtland 17:14, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC))

The first half is a bit dumbed down. I would avoid the use of "we". It may be enough to state that striated muscles are used voluntarily, while smooth muscle is under control of the autonomic nervous system and cannot be conciously controlled. JFW | T@lk 17:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

beginning parts of articles are meant for the general public and to start pumping in with "sarcomere" doesn't help the general reader; keep in mind also that this is going to be a point to which much of the reading public would go for information on Muscle -- as that's the title of the article. It might be dumbed down to you, but I assure you it's at a reading level and sufficiently demonstrative to be apprehended by the majority of the reading public. yes, need to change, perhaps, the familiarity of "we". Courtland 17:26, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

on voluntary/involuntary: that's not the distinction between smooth and striated muscle; it happens that there is a correlation but it's not perfect and we do have indirect conscious control over some supposedly "involuntary" muscle functions. I don't want to expound on that in this article because it can be kind of controversial and the general public looks at that stuff and thinks "pseudoscience" or "Ripley's Believe It Or Not". Courtland 17:30, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

If I may add my two cents, as I'm not a specialist in any biological area, just a regular curious, I would change almost nothing in your text, Courtland. But yet, since this is a request to review, I would do the following:

Muscles that are used to move food through the intestines and modulate blood flow through tissues can be called smooth muscles. While muscles used in physical exertion, be it lifting a box or batting an eyelash, are of a different type and can be called striated muscles.

The two types are named after their microscopic appearance, where striated muscle shows cross-bridged filaments running along the length of the cells and smooth muscle does not. This filament structure is the contractile apparatus that transforms energy release from the hydrolysis of ATP into longitudinal tension against the cytoskeleton of the muscle cell; the complex structure of muscle at the tissue level is so designed that the contraction of individual muscle cells combine to result in an organ-level shortening of the muscle as a whole.

Also I would change the title for whichever is the name for that classification (the two types) and if those names are "oficial" names I would change both "can be called" to simply "are". Also, I like the plural better since I'm starting to believe as I read the article that most muscles don't work alone.

--Cacumer 12:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Which is the most active muscle in humans?

I need to know this answer since i saw a game show programme (local variant of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? ) where the same question was asked i.e. Which is the most active muscle in human body? The correct answer was given as the eye muscles, but I thought that the heart muscles were the most active since they don't take rest even at night. How is "active" measured? And how can the eye be active when it is asleep at night? this is perplexing... any docs here or anyone else qualified can settle this issue. Tx. Idleguy 16:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

In terms of number of twiches per second? They eye has it by a mile. The heart beats 60-100 times per minute, or about once per second; the muscles that control the eye are capable of rotating it several times in the span of one second. Just think about it this way - roll your eyes around in a circle quickly, and then thick about how many times your eye muscles had to move in order for that to happen. →Raul654 17:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Rolling your eyes around isn't the greatest analogy, because there are so many muscles in the eyes involved in that movement (lateral, medial, inferior, and superior recti, superior and inferior obliques, etc.) Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• The eyes aren't at rest at night, either. REM (rapid eye movements) are a notable feature of the dream-state. Regardless, this is a silly question. "Active" could be measured by average number of contractions per minute, total contractions during the day, amplitude or frequency of EMG (electromyogram), etc. The heart is a large, powerful organ so would give a larger EMG (EKG) response, but there are many "eye muscles" to control various aspects of eye movements. Anyway, does that at least in part answer your question? Semiconscious (talk · home) 18:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Thank You. I think they should have avoided such questions where measurements for "active" are as different as you said. Idleguy 11:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I believe we are missing "muscle" definition as being either a "group of muscle of a certain organ" or just a single muscle as first defined. That also goes for the problem found by classifying the tongue as the strongest "muscle", as it's not compound of just one muscle, so is not the eye, or (probably) any other organ.

I would guess that, in general aspects, when we say "muscle" we mean the whole group as most people won't know how to tell how many muscles are around a specific organ. That would explain and agree with that eye answer, and maybe with the tongue affirmation as well.

--Cacumer 11:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Muscle evolution

Thanks goes to Nunh-huh for the source. Feel free to expand this section, as it still needs a lot of work.

See more info here at this wiki reference desk article: [2]

Muscle#Efficiency

I'm sorry if this is too irrelevant. I'm just wondering if there is, or where we can find, more information about muscle efficiency. This looks like it must be a whole area of study about it, and it looks like it would have a different name, and that's the reason why I'm asking in here instead of just go google for it (as I haven't even tried it yet).

Also, if I'm correct in guessing that, it would be interesting to increase that article topic and add comparison information about muscle efficiency, both within human body, animals and maybe other living beens (as this is actually what I'm looking for, right now).

Thanks for understanding.

--Cacumer 12:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Neuromuscular disease

I've pared down the Disease section, and used the information there to start an article at Neuromuscular disease, which could really be expanded much further. Proto||type 12:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Physiology

In the physiology section it is stated that there are 10 types of muscles yet only three types are mentioned in types sections of the article; smooth, cardiac, and skeletal (type I, IIa, IIb, and IIc). Either the remaining types of muscle need to be added to the types section or the first two sentences in the physiology section need to be changes.

Muscle atrophy and Muscle hypertrophy

I added a new page called "Muscle atrophy"; should this also be included on this page? or on the skeletal muscle page? It seems that the signaling which causes skeletal muscle adaptation (atrophy & hypertrophy) is relevant, but perhaps not on the general "muscle" page... thoughts? Gacggt 00:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mandibles

Someone inserted this comment into the article (which should be here on the talk page):

there are muscles called mandibles but i don't kow where they are so i need help.. but i am just typing this here for no reason

Pentawing^Talk 03:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this was benign vandalism and I think that it should have been complelely deleted from the wiki. Mandibles are jaw bones. Snowman 08:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please expand

Can some one please expand the following: "Exercise has several effects upon muscles." What effects and how it works? How does muscles become bigger, after you excersice ? Igoruha 10:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like someone to expand the article on the subject of temperature effect on muscles specially extreme cold / warm temperatures --YoavD 04:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nervous Control section

The "Nervous Control" section doesn't even mention what a motor unit is. It lacks context, as it is. Fuzzform 22:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization

Previous commentators on this page have commented that it is mammal-centric. Indeed, it appears to focus almost exclusively on human muscles. The encyclopedia does need coverage of non-human musculatory systems. We also already have muscular system. Perhaps it would be a good idea to move human-specific content there, leaving a summary here and expanding animal coverage here. -- Beland 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Muscular system

There's a merge tag with a proposition to move the content of muscle over to muscular system.

Merge backwards: I think the content of muscular system should be merged into this article, then a re-direct put it. This seems like a far more comprehensive article and "muscular system" is a pretty obscure title for what is really about muscles. WLU 13:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do Not Merge: Muscle and Muscle SYSTEM are two different things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.216.199.26 (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Sprotected

I've sprotected this page. There is daily mindless vandalism, including 29 edits today that constitute nothing but vandalism and its reversions. JFW | T@lk 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

whow physiotherapist treat bruise?

female picture

discussion request. do you think a female bodybuilder picture should also be included later below the existing two images. the two there already perfect, but perhaps women should get equal representation or this crazy thinking because that's the only reason. Nastajus 06:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Find a good one and put it up.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I dont think the body builder picture is not a nesseesary visual aid.