2011Sports BiomechanicsRequires access

Common errors in textbook descriptions of muscle fiber size in nontrained humans

Gordon Chalmers, Brandi S. Row

Open publisher page 8 citations

Abstract

Exercise science and human anatomy and physiology textbooks commonly report that type IIB muscle fibers have the largest cross-sectional area of the three fiber types. These descriptions of muscle fiber sizes do not match with the research literature examining muscle fibers in young adult nontrained humans. For men, most commonly type IIA fibers were significantly larger than other fiber types (six out of 10 cases across six different muscles). For women, either type I, or both I and IIA muscle fibers were usually significantly the largest (five out of six cases across four different muscles). In none of these reports were type IIB fibers significantly larger than both other fiber types. In 27 studies that did not include statistical comparisons of mean fiber sizes across fiber types, in no cases were type IIB or fast glycolytic fibers larger than both type I and IIA, or slow oxidative and fast oxidative glycolytic fibers. The likely reason for mistakes in textbook descriptions of human muscle fiber sizes is that animal data were presented without being labeled as such, and without any warning that there are interspecies differences in muscle fiber properties. Correct knowledge of muscle fiber sizes may facilitate interpreting training and aging adaptations.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Exercise science and human anatomy and physiology textbooks commonly report that type IIB muscle fibers have the largest cross-sectional area of the three fiber types. These descriptions of muscle fiber sizes do not match with the research literature examining muscle fibers in young adult nontrained humans. For men, most commonly type IIA fibers were significantly larger than other fiber types (six out of 10 cases across six different muscles). For women, either type I, or both I and IIA muscle fibers were usually significantly the largest (five out of six cases across four different muscles). In none of these reports were type IIB fibers significantly larger than both other fiber types. In 27 studies that did not include statistical comparisons of mean fiber sizes across fiber types, in no cases were type IIB or fast glycolytic fibers larger than both type I and IIA, or slow oxidative and fast oxidative glycolytic fibers. The likely reason for mistakes in textbook descriptions of human muscle fiber sizes is that animal data were presented without being labeled as such, and without any warning that there are interspecies differences in muscle fiber properties. Correct knowledge of muscle fiber sizes may facilitate interpreting training and aging adaptations.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Exercise science and human anatomy and physiology textbooks commonly report that type IIB muscle fibers have the largest cross-sectional area of the three fiber types. These descriptions of muscle fiber sizes do not match with the research literature examining muscle fibers in young adult nontrained humans. For men, most commonly type IIA fibers were significantly larger than other fiber types (six out of 10 cases across six different muscles). For women, either type I, or both I and IIA muscle fibers were usually significantly the largest (five out of six cases across four different muscles). In none of these reports were type IIB fibers significantly larger than both other fiber types. In 27 studies that did not include statistical comparisons of mean fiber sizes across fiber types, in no cases were type IIB or fast glycolytic fibers larger than both type I and IIA, or slow oxidative and fast oxidative glycolytic fibers. The likely reason for mistakes in textbook descriptions of human muscle fiber sizes is that animal data were presented without being labeled as such, and without any warning that there are interspecies differences in muscle fiber properties. Correct knowledge of muscle fiber sizes may facilitate interpreting training and aging adaptations.

Key concepts: Fiber type, Muscle fibre, Fiber, Human muscle, Glycolysis, Anatomy, Biology, Chemistry

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Common errors in textbook descriptions of muscle fiber size in nontrained humans — Research Paper | ScholarLens