|
Bone and muscle strength or density
|
 
@parvez :
About #16: It's the first time I read this term "p value"... But after getting the facts it means "probability (p) value"... After validating a zero probability you can use it to justify a statistic signification... Whether you take a very low probability level (arbitrarily 5%), or you take the probability you obtained. Here is the wikipedia link (in english): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value But this concerns the probability study, what's the matter with the density ? If you want I will come later to try looking more closely this question. (10-13-2018, 08:25 PM)Spalea Wrote: @parvez :No actually whenever i come across studies that say the density of muscle, samples always are represented using p value. The density value is estimated in p values. There is no gm/cc or gm/cm2 values to density. Just they say or express the density in p values. I will give the examples for this. I am just interested in density of big cat bone and muscles as to how strong they are. I think the main density is irrelevant here. We want numeric density as to how many number of muscle fibers and what kind of muscle fibers are present in which part of tiger to estimate the tiger's true strength. Also i have an idea to measure the density of tiger bones from samples of bones if anyone has. I contacted peter for this. After i get the reply, I will post here if any info on density i get from these data. (10-13-2018, 08:32 PM)parvez Wrote:Not too sure about this but I don't think muscle density mean mass divided by volume. I think what they are referring to is related to muscle fibers, some muscle fibers type are smaller than other. So if you pick two muscles of similar volume, one (A) primarly composed of smaller muscle fibers and the other (B) primarly composed of bigger muscle fibers, A would be denser. Thats because for the same volume you would be able to fit a lot more of those small muscle fibers inside sais volume. At least thats what I think they mean.(10-13-2018, 08:25 PM)Spalea Wrote: @parvez :No actually whenever i come across studies that say the density of muscle, samples always are represented using p value. The density value is estimated in p values. There is no gm/cc or gm/cm2 values to density. Just they say or express the density in p values. I will give the examples for this. I am just interested in density of big cat bone and muscles as to how strong they are. I think the main density is irrelevant here. We want numeric density as to how many number of muscle fibers and what kind of muscle fibers are present in which part of tiger to estimate the tiger's true strength. Also i have an idea to measure the density of tiger bones from samples of bones if anyone has. I contacted peter for this. After i get the reply, I will post here if any info on density i get from these data.
Order of animal bone mineral densities from lowest to highest,
 *This image is copyright of its original author Courtesy: an article made available by tiger liver. 
Now I understand there is intramuscular fat and collagen in the muscles. That is why there was varying amount of density among muscles in camels. We must wait for proper study regarding this.
I took a piece of mutton, made sure it is atleast mostly muscle as it still has micro tiny white colour indicating intramuscular fat. I weighed it, it weighed 6gms. Now measuring it's volume was tough. It was triangular shaped at the side and when i tried to multiply area of triangle from measuring its dimensions and then multiply it with length whose measurements i took numbered 13 as it was irregular shaped. I took the mean length and multiplied I got the value 3.5-4. Its weight is excluding cover weight 5.5 or 5gms. So, the density of mutton muscle is roughly around 1.2-1.6gm/cc. Wild specimens have even more higher density as the fat content is minimal. We can imagine around atleast double this density in wild tigers who patrol almost atleast 50km2 per day.
Percent of intramuscular fat in subjects,
 *This image is copyright of its original author https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4575231/  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author It seems it is less in pork. Maximum percentage was around 8.5 . That may be the reason why pigs are so strong. It is interesting to see tigers.  *This image is copyright of its original author https://www.e-sciencecentral.org/articles/SC000005014 Intramuscular fat percent was lowest in ribs and leg cuts. Interesting... |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 3 Guest(s) |