Muscles stunt growth in height?

On Nov 26, 1:34 am, b... DeleteThis @gmx.net wrote:
> So, does a body (less than 25yrs old) has a higher priority to spend
> proteins(and similar) it gets on growing to the genetically
> predetermined height,

Most people reach their lifetime height in their mid teens (16 for
girls/18 for boys) when growth plates fuse.
When my daughters needed braces(at around 14yrs old), a test to see if
they had finished growing was to xray their wrists.
Peak bone mass is also reached in early teens, so proteins are not
contributing to your bones beyond this time.
Minerals, such as calcium are important to overall bone health
(density/loss) and lifting weights or any weight bearing exercises also
helps to prevent bone loss.

> or rather on maintaining muscle mass which is not really used as a person is not working-out anymore?

If you are not working out anymore (back to a couch potato), you will
lose (over time) any muscle you previously gained no matter how much
protein you eat. The use it or lose it syndrome. And of course, too
many calories and you just get fat.


joanne
 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height? 

Proctologically Violated©® ha scritto:

> <br.m DeleteThis @gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:1164533681.354599.15190@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >A person gained some nice muscle mass(85kg=170pounds, 175cm=5'9) by
> > bodybuilding between the age of 15.5 to 17. (8-15 reps to failure, no
> > $upplements).
> > Then, he stopped working-out and (high calorie intake) kept most of the
> > muscles, but he grew only 2cm=1 inch (now being 22yrs, 90kg, 5'10).
> > He was doing no sports afterwards and eating normally about 50-70g
> > proteins/day.
> > I suspect that the body has spent proteins on maintaining muscles
> > (which he didn't use) thus making him kind of malnutritioned.
> >
> > So, does a body (less than 25yrs old) has a higher priority to spend
> > proteins(and similar) it gets on growing to the genetically
> > predetermined height, or rather on maintaining muscle mass which is not
> > really used as a person is not working-out anymore?
> >
>
> This is a very interesting and very important question, the whole notion of
> weight lifting for kids.
> I read somewhere a fairly cogent explanation from an endocrinologist-type,
> who definitively argued against heavy weight lifting for pre-pubescent kids,
> having to do with high chronic loads interfering with the epiphyseal (????)
> bone joints req'd for growth. Somehow the loads signal these joints to
> prematurely fix/harden, and growth is diminished. He explained how, wish I
> had taken notes.
> Thus, not a protein issue, from this standpoint.
>
> A million Qs remain on this subject: How much is too much lifting? What
> happens after pubescence?
> Kids have a naturally higher strength-to-weight ratio, so how is "too much"
> even evaluated for kids?
> It's a very important Q also because there is some evidence, proly mostly
> anecdotal, but perhaps some epidemiological stuff at this point, that
> whilst an adult must always use it or lose it (a kind of Sissyphean hell
> when you think about it), kids can actually alter their DNA permanently thru
> activity, iow, *stay muscular forever*, in much the same way immune function
> is affected by early exposure. And certainly other traits, as well.

Lifting weights doesn't cause the joint to prematurely fix
It's an hypothesis which isn't confirmed by real life data and is
ruined by many counterevidences

The most important one is this: according to the theory you explained
the relative weight load would signal the joint to fix sooner than they
should/were supposed to
Only that whatever activity that involves running and jumping exerts a
much greater weight load than weight lifting

How do you know when lifting is too much? When you can't lift it
The cartilage injuries are so unlikely because if a kid is going to be
injuried by a certain weight he or she isn't going to be able to lift
it in the first place

That's why there are no literature evidence of stunted growth from
weight lifting, even in kids as young as 6 years old. If there was then
a kid would have to sit still in order not to ruin his or her growth as
whatever kind of sport (except swimming) and playing and activity would
be more likely to stunt his or her growth than way lifting

Avery Faingenbaum is an authority in this field. He has reviewed the
literature and conducted researchers and has a weight lifting program
for kids 6 to 14.
According to Faingenbaum "resistance training" is vital for children
According to him sedentary kids who don't do chores and play in the
countriside as in the past needs it absolutely, but those few kids who
are involved in sport and competitive traning need it even more than
others as according to his researches, resistance training is the basis
to make other kinds of training safe and effective.

You can read more about the program here:
http://ride.0taxi.com/danny/skids.html

Anyway both the weight load hypothesis and the malnutrition by proteins
maintaning muscle mass don't explain a stunted growth or small growth
for the reasons explained: if lifting would stop growth then jumping,
running and playing would do it before weights can do it, if nothing
there are small evidences that resistance training at a young age may
stimulate bone growth and the amount of protein needed to maintain the
muscle mass would so small to have any impact on the amount of protein
used for growth
 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height? 

"Davide" <davideb_music.TakeThisOut@yahoo.it> schreef:

> No the amount of protein used to mantain muscle mass is very little so
> it isn't possible that muscle mass maintenance "stole" proteins from
> the growth process

What about massive ejaculations?

> Out of 70 grams of protein only about 6 grams would be needed to
> maintain your mass

Really?

----
Pete
 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height? 

"Pete" <phoutstra.TakeThisOut@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:456973fb$0$61249$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Davide" <davideb_music.TakeThisOut@yahoo.it> schreef:
>
>> No the amount of protein used to mantain muscle mass is very little so
>> it isn't possible that muscle mass maintenance "stole" proteins from
>> the growth process
>
> What about massive ejaculations?

Proly not an issue today.
Today, our more socially-conscious yout' are more into recycling.

>
>> Out of 70 grams of protein only about 6 grams would be needed to
>> maintain your mass

He likely left off zeros: 700 grams, 60 grams.
70 grams is stupidly close to the RDA for protein.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs



>
> Really?
>
> ----
> Pete
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height? 

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
[...]

> <snip> ito of <snip>

<anal retentive proofreader>

Typically, I type "wrt to" and then notice it afterwards. BAH! That
drives me 'round the bend. ;o)

Uh, ito means in terms of, right?

</anal retentive proofreader>

[...]

> <snip> For 100 lb 6th grader, any recs for 1 RM
> in the various lifts? Or more rep-oriented?

Wouldn't 1 RM be highly individual? Just as with adults, some children
will be stronger while other children will be weaker, yes? How can
people make recs? Personally, I'd recommend more rep-oriented exercise
versus singles and doubles or any kind of max efforts for the 6th grade
set.

[...]

> I've seen some farm boys, who never lifted a
> weight in their life, and goodgawd, 6+ foot tall
> supermen they were.

That's true. Some children are little kids for a much too short period
of time.

> Charles Bronson was a coal miner,

Yeah, but he was also only 5-foot tall. Which probably supports the
"Muscles stunt growth" part of the Subject line.

(Googles)

Okay, The Washington Post offers that, "Charles Bronson was 5-7, not
5-11," according to a Men's Health magazine comparison of claimed
heights to actual heights. From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories...ll08039


> Bobby Orr, I believe, was a laboring kid, and probably
> countless others are good examples of this.

While Bronson was Brink-sized, Bobby Orr could skate on Dutch ice and
not look out of place. And this height-related bit from
www.bobbyorr.com might be of interest:

"He was 5'6" and 135 pounds at 14. The next year, when he moved to an
Oshawa high school and played in the Ontario junior league, he was 5'9"
and 25 pounds heavier. By the time his junior career was over - when he
was all of 17 and a man playing with boys - he was a sturdy 6' and
almost 200 pounds. The phenomenon Boston fans had been reading about
since he was a freckle-faced kid with a brushcut was ready to enter the
professional game."

> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height? 

This reminds me of a joke I once heard about statistics."Statistics can
prove without a doubt , playing basketball makes one grow taller than
average". Having said that, I have always suspected short people have
an advantage in bodybuilding and strength ."Tall and thin" vs Short and
stocky.
 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height? 

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

> Military guys, vietnam vets, will tell you how
> the northern boys cried like fukn babies, whilst
> the southern boys had a much easier time of
> it--physically, at any rate.

> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

RE-R 1, but not a Vietnam Vet. A Northern boy who has cried like an
effing baby at least once or twice. Having a pretty easy time of it
with the exception of seeing through to the logical context
somethingsomething of your reply.

Iow, say again???

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height? 

Well, let me first say, I hope you, and Avery, are right. And appreciate
the link and name.

You are right: the momentary impacts of running/jumping do dwarf those of
lifting.

But, altho I may have implied the problem lay in weight training being a
load-bearing exercise on the bone, that is indeed not the issue.
Altho your counter argument doesn't really hold either, because to compare
the jumps and bumps of child play w/ a rigorous weight training program is
not quite a level playing field. A better example would have been *marathon
training* for kids versus rigorous weight training.

Hypertrophy-inducing weight training is a biochemical issue, of hormones,
chemical signalling, de-repression of inhibitory proteins within the genome
(which is what keeps the couch potato from getting unnecessarily muscular),
etc.
It is *these* events that the endocrinologist was referring to, ito of child
development.
Not saying he's right, just that it made sense at the time.
And even if growth were compromised, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

But ultimately the Q is: How much?
Haven't read the link yet, but do you know offhand if they recommend heavy
lifting, to hypertrophy, as in BBing/powerlifting? For 100 lb 6th grader,
any recs for 1 RM in the various lifts? Or more rep-oriented?

If I were to guess, I would try to assess the work done on farms by kids,
and use that as a model for a resistance program. That, I believe, would be
a good bet, and a safe hedge.
I've seen some farm boys, who never lifted a weight in their life, and
goodgawd, 6+ foot tall supermen they were.
Charles Bronson was a coal miner, Bobby Orr, I believe, was a laboring kid,
and probably countless others are good examples of this.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Davide" <davideb_music.DeleteThis@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:1164567380.675500.318770@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Proctologically Violated©® ha scritto:

> <br.m.DeleteThis@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:1164533681.354599.15190@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >A person gained some nice muscle mass(85kg=170pounds, 175cm=5'9) by
> > bodybuilding between the age of 15.5 to 17. (8-15 reps to failure, no
> > $upplements).
> > Then, he stopped working-out and (high calorie intake) kept most of the
> > muscles, but he grew only 2cm=1 inch (now being 22yrs, 90kg, 5'10).
> > He was doing no sports afterwards and eating normally about 50-70g
> > proteins/day.
> > I suspect that the body has spent proteins on maintaining muscles
> > (which he didn't use) thus making him kind of malnutritioned.
> >
> > So, does a body (less than 25yrs old) has a higher priority to spend
> > proteins(and similar) it gets on growing to the genetically
> > predetermined height, or rather on maintaining muscle mass which is not
> > really used as a person is not working-out anymore?
> >
>
> This is a very interesting and very important question, the whole notion
> of
> weight lifting for kids.
> I read somewhere a fairly cogent explanation from an endocrinologist-type,
> who definitively argued against heavy weight lifting for pre-pubescent
> kids,
> having to do with high chronic loads interfering with the epiphyseal
> (????)
> bone joints req'd for growth. Somehow the loads signal these joints to
> prematurely fix/harden, and growth is diminished. He explained how, wish
> I
> had taken notes.
> Thus, not a protein issue, from this standpoint.
>
> A million Qs remain on this subject: How much is too much lifting? What
> happens after pubescence?
> Kids have a naturally higher strength-to-weight ratio, so how is "too
> much"
> even evaluated for kids?
> It's a very important Q also because there is some evidence, proly mostly
> anecdotal, but perhaps some epidemiological stuff at this point, that
> whilst an adult must always use it or lose it (a kind of Sissyphean hell
> when you think about it), kids can actually alter their DNA permanently
> thru
> activity, iow, *stay muscular forever*, in much the same way immune
> function
> is affected by early exposure. And certainly other traits, as well.

Lifting weights doesn't cause the joint to prematurely fix
It's an hypothesis which isn't confirmed by real life data and is
ruined by many counterevidences

The most important one is this: according to the theory you explained
the relative weight load would signal the joint to fix sooner than they
should/were supposed to
Only that whatever activity that involves running and jumping exerts a
much greater weight load than weight lifting

How do you know when lifting is too much? When you can't lift it
The cartilage injuries are so unlikely because if a kid is going to be
injuried by a certain weight he or she isn't going to be able to lift
it in the first place

That's why there are no literature evidence of stunted growth from
weight lifting, even in kids as young as 6 years old. If there was then
a kid would have to sit still in order not to ruin his or her growth as
whatever kind of sport (except swimming) and playing and activity would
be more likely to stunt his or her growth than way lifting

Avery Faingenbaum is an authority in this field. He has reviewed the
literature and conducted researchers and has a weight lifting program
for kids 6 to 14.
According to Faingenbaum "resistance training" is vital for children
According to him sedentary kids who don't do chores and play in the
countriside as in the past needs it absolutely, but those few kids who
are involved in sport and competitive traning need it even more than
others as according to his researches, resistance training is the basis
to make other kinds of training safe and effective.

You can read more about the program here:
http://ride.0taxi.com/danny/skids.html

Anyway both the weight load hypothesis and the malnutrition by proteins
maintaning muscle mass don't explain a stunted growth or small growth
for the reasons explained: if lifting would stop growth then jumping,
running and playing would do it before weights can do it, if nothing
there are small evidences that resistance training at a young age may
stimulate bone growth and the amount of protein needed to maintain the
muscle mass would so small to have any impact on the amount of protein
used for growth
 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height? 

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> "Curt" wrote
> Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>
> > Military guys, vietnam vets, will tell you how
> > the northern boys cried like fukn babies, whilst
> > the southern boys had a much easier time of
> > it--physically, at any rate.
[...]

> <snip> say again???

> Was just apropos

Apropos? First tautology and now apropos. Akeelah and the Newsgroup! I
love this place.

> of the whole child-exercise-conditioning thing.
> More accurately, southern farm boys; which
> coulda been northern farm boys. So I guess
> it's the farm.

Cool. )

Say, I noticed your ascii face has no nose. Could that be a
creatine-based side effect? I'll ask Doc Kreider the next time I see
him. (Yeah, which might be NEVER.) ;o)

> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height? 

Strength to weight ratio gets larger as you get smaller, across all species,
insects (fleas) being Da Bombs.

Small powerlifters clean and jerk *triple* their bodyweight--and they are
*small*.
Heavyweights can about eke out doubling of their bw, iirc.
There will probably be someone who will quadruple their bodyweight, and
they will undoubtedly be a midget. Some of these "triplers" also have
decidedly short arms!
This is why S/W intensive sports, like gymnastics, are selecting for younger
and younger athletes.

True story: we had a bit of champeen gymnast at an up-state school, rings,
pommel horse, etc.
He had only rudimentary legs, just enough to get him to the rings, etc. Talk
about turning negs into positives!
Selection, bruh, selection.
Darwin, and Malthus, rool.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Sid Bonfire" <jenvarin.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164578448.203113.13920@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> This reminds me of a joke I once heard about statistics."Statistics can
> prove without a doubt , playing basketball makes one grow taller than
> average". Having said that, I have always suspected short people have
> an advantage in bodybuilding and strength ."Tall and thin" vs Short and
> stocky.
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height? 

Military guys, vietnam vets, will tell you how the northern boys cried like
fukn babies, whilst the southern boys had a much easier time of
it--physically, at any rate.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Curt" <curtjames DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164578253.017445.311330@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
[...]

> <snip> ito of <snip>

<anal retentive proofreader>

Typically, I type "wrt to" and then notice it afterwards. BAH! That
drives me 'round the bend. ;o)

Uh, ito means in terms of, right?

</anal retentive proofreader>

[...]

> <snip> For 100 lb 6th grader, any recs for 1 RM
> in the various lifts? Or more rep-oriented?

Wouldn't 1 RM be highly individual? Just as with adults, some children
will be stronger while other children will be weaker, yes? How can
people make recs? Personally, I'd recommend more rep-oriented exercise
versus singles and doubles or any kind of max efforts for the 6th grade
set.

[...]

> I've seen some farm boys, who never lifted a
> weight in their life, and goodgawd, 6+ foot tall
> supermen they were.

That's true. Some children are little kids for a much too short period
of time.

> Charles Bronson was a coal miner,

Yeah, but he was also only 5-foot tall. Which probably supports the
"Muscles stunt growth" part of the Subject line.

(Googles)

Okay, The Washington Post offers that, "Charles Bronson was 5-7, not
5-11," according to a Men's Health magazine comparison of claimed
heights to actual heights. From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories...ll08039


> Bobby Orr, I believe, was a laboring kid, and probably
> countless others are good examples of this.

While Bronson was Brink-sized, Bobby Orr could skate on Dutch ice and
not look out of place. And this height-related bit from
www.bobbyorr.com might be of interest:

"He was 5'6" and 135 pounds at 14. The next year, when he moved to an
Oshawa high school and played in the Ontario junior league, he was 5'9"
and 25 pounds heavier. By the time his junior career was over - when he
was all of 17 and a man playing with boys - he was a sturdy 6' and
almost 200 pounds. The phenomenon Boston fans had been reading about
since he was a freckle-faced kid with a brushcut was ready to enter the
professional game."

> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height? 

Was just apropos of the whole child-exercise-conditioning thing.
More accurately, southern farm boys; which coulda been northern farm boys.
So I guess it's the farm.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Curt" <curtjames RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164581201.430685.50960@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

> Military guys, vietnam vets, will tell you how
> the northern boys cried like fukn babies, whilst
> the southern boys had a much easier time of
> it--physically, at any rate.

> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

RE-R 1, but not a Vietnam Vet. A Northern boy who has cried like an
effing baby at least once or twice. Having a pretty easy time of it
with the exception of seeing through to the logical context
somethingsomething of your reply.

Iow, say again???

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height? 

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
Dnia 2006-11-26 br.m.TakeThisOut@gmx.net napisa³(a):
> A person gained some nice muscle mass(85kg=170pounds, 175cm=5'9) by

85kg is 187 lbs. I weight that much and I'm skinny. "Nice muscle
mass" my posterior chain (well, I'm taller, but stil).

> bodybuilding between the age of 15.5 to 17. (8-15 reps to failure, no
> $upplements).
> Then, he stopped working-out and (high calorie intake) kept most of the
> muscles, but he grew only 2cm=1 inch

1"=2.5 cm. Approximately.

> (now being 22yrs, 90kg, 5'10).
> He was doing no sports afterwards and eating normally about 50-70g
> proteins/day.
> I suspect that the body has spent proteins on maintaining muscles
> (which he didn't use) thus making him kind of malnutritioned.

What?

> So, does a body (less than 25yrs old) has a higher priority to spend
> proteins(and similar) it gets on growing to the genetically
> predetermined height, or rather on maintaining muscle mass which is not
> really used as a person is not working-out anymore?

He got fatter so he maintained muscles even without working out. I
don't understand all the rest beside the fact that you obviously
confuse food with proteins. Proteins are not food. They are part of
food, but a part doesn't make a whole.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Muscles stunt growth in height?