I recently found from typing in the phrase “stem cell height increase” into Google a forum message entitled “The Science of Increasing Height” from the forum ScienceForums.Net
The post who goes by the name HeightAudodidactic started the post back in August 2010 with this segment which I will post below…
“I’ve done a lot of research on height increase and it’s hard to get information that’s not from laymen or people who are so advanced they’ll just blow you off(cartilage and stem cell researchers).
I can prove that it’s possible to increase height on every level. Long bones can experience appositional growth (there’s been studies done on runners showing increase in periosteal width unless the increase is due to thicker periosteum people being more successful runners) and short, flat, and irregular bones have periosteum covering longitudinal directions such as calcaneus, pelvis, bone of the skull, spine, etc. Therefore it’s possible to grow taller that way.
The epiphyseal cartilage does not completely mineralize. I have not seen microscopic slides of this but not because I have not been looking. However, a texture of whiteness can be seen in the epiphysis that’s around the same texture of the articular cartilage. I have read textbooks that state that a layer of hyaline cartilage remains in the epiphysis as well. Endochondral ossification can occur from a lot of places. See the study called: Reappraisal of mesenchymal chondrosarcoma… If a hyaline cartilage line exists in the epiphysis then growth could be enhanced in that manner either through extraneous stem cell injection or by trabecular microfracture in the epiphysis (which contains red bone marrow which contain stem cells). Also, the fibrous capsule contains cells that have the ability to differentiate into chondrocytes and studies on lateral loading increasing height (see study: lengthening of mouse hindlimbs with joint loading). Lateral loading does cause shear strain on the fibrous capsule And the fibrous capsule leads almost directly into the hyaline cartilage growth plate line.
I was wondering if I could get maven’s opinions on height growth and the topics I mentioned above.”
I wanted to talk about this poster’s points because some of what he/she was saying does make a lot of sense to any height increase researcher who is at a higher level of understanding. They claim that they can prove that height increase can be achieved at every level. They also wanted someone else who understood enough about the science and biology of the human body to sort of argue with them on whether they were right or wrong.
The task I felt was something that I should try to either rebuttal, analyze, discredit, or agree with. So first I wanted to focus on the highlighted parts because those are the point which I felt is the most unique and original, ideas put forth which I have not seen before.
Analysis #1:
The first thing that this person says is very controversial already. They say that they can prove that growth is possible. The claim that runners have wider long bones from looking at the cross section of the tibia/long bones in general might be true since appositional growth is something that does occur. Due to Wolff’s Law, the bones will from constant loading start to remodel the bone mineral density and the bone width as a response to the external stimuli. His comment that the periosteal part (outer part) getting thicker is right, and it just might be that the thickness is due to the periosteal appositional growth (where periosteum get thicker). However we must remember that the way that appositional growth even works is to grow bones on the inner germinal layer that pushes in the inward direction. The bones do get thicker on the outside, but the layer on the inside actually breaks down as calcium minerals get adsorbed into the blood in the cavity or get resorbed into the trabecular bone region. The direction of bone growth is from outside inward. This means that that net thickness of the bone doe snot change.
His next few claims are the ones that I would definitely contend with, and I am sure almost every person who has ever gone through medical school would contend this person’s claim as well. There is no hyaline cartilage layer left. I have actual X-Rays of my own knees from 4 years ago and from careful inspection, I do not see any line. Even the epiphyseal line that is supposed to result when the last bit of cartilage ossify seem to disappear as well over time. This guy talks about how he has not seen slides and that is the mistakes. I have seen the slides of at least two people in my life who were adults, one of them being mine. In both cases the X-Rays show that the long bones like the femur have absolutely NO line or white tint at the region where the growth plates used to be. There is just nothing there.
If this person’s argument in the beginning is challenged and disproved, which I think I have already, then all the arguments that they made after the first claim holds no water in logic. He talks about stem cell injections and trabecular microfracture in the epiphysis, which do make some sense and possibly work if there was a thin layer of cartilage still available, however there is no layer of hyaline cartilage left. It is all gone.
This guy uses the term ‘fibrous capsule’ and I would assume that the term is referring to the inner part of the overall long bone, like a femur. The bone is an enclosed area that encapsulates the marrow and progenitor mesenchyme inside. he talks about the inside of the fibrous capsule having cells that differentiate into chondrocytes and that it true. His mention of LSJL and the fact that it would cause the shear stress that leads to more stem cells that go towards a layer of hyaline cartilage cells and then start differentiating into the chondrocyte lineage, (although I state that he was wrong about this because the assumption is always that there is some chondrocyte-like layer still around where the growth plates used to be, but I challenged and disproved the initial assumption)
So it seems that this person got what they wanted, which is a somewhat educated response to their question.
For me I guess the most useful thing that this guy/girl showed was a study that they specifically named “See the study called: Reappraisal of mesenchymal chondrosarcoma…”. I found it, and wanted to look at the science of this type of cancer to see if it might have something useful we can learn from and take away for future research.
This type of rare cancer is said to be a round cell and hyaline cartilage tumor. Researchers wanted to see what would happen if they put SOX-9, Beta-Catenin, and osteocalcin in people who had this type of cancer. The tumors were examined and some things were found.
It is noticed that in the tumor, there are cartilage cells that are going through a similar process as if they were going through endochondral ossification. Cells positive for osteocalcin were found. There seem to be at least two types of sarcomas defined in this abstract, the mesenchymal chondrosarcoma, and the small cell osteosarcoma which seem to be formed from small round cells and turn to osteo-like tissue.
The sentence that the guy was referring to on why they say that cartilage can be regrown or regenerated is probably the one below…
“Mesenchymal chondrosarcoma demonstrates centrally located hyaline cartilage with a linear progression of chondrocytes from resting to proliferative to hypertrophic, which undergoes endochondral ossification, recapitulating growth plate cartilage and suggesting that this component of mesenchymal chondrosarcoma may be a differentiated (benign or metaplastic) component of a malignant metastasizing tumor…”
This seems to me to mean that if a person developed this type of cancer, there will be hyaline cartilage that is formed in the cavity in the middle of long bone which has all of the same types of chondrocytes as natural growth plates. It says that growth plate cartilage is recapitulated, which implies that the cartilage can be regrown over again from the advent of this cancer.
Implications For Height Increase
I am not sure at this time how to interpret this abstract and whether I am even reading the abstract correctly and understand it like I am supposed to. It seems to show that for people who have this rare condition known as msenchymal chondrosarcoma who are adults, tumors in the center of long bones develop. This tumor are NOT the same as the osteosarcoma developed by small round cells which ultimately form bone tissue. This tumor seems to consist of a linear progression of chondrocytes that look very much like the histology of natural growth plates.
This might mean to show that for people who have this disorder, they have newly formed growth plates but I am very cautious on this claim because I still understand very little of what is really going on with the bone tissue. Even if growth plate structure is noticed in the center of the bone, it does not mean that the growth plate has the strength to expand to a degree to pull the cortical bone apart to lead to renewed longitudinal growth.
So more research needs to be done.
