Narrative ReviewJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2017

Skeletal muscle mechanics: questions, problems and possible solutions.

Walter Herzog

PMID 28915834

WHAT IT FOUND

This review argues that standard muscle models are incomplete because they ignore the protein titin and misclassify aponeuroses as series elastic elements.

It states we currently cannot accurately measure or predict individual muscle forces in humans during movement.

Key findings

01The cross-bridge theory fails to explain residual force enhancement and sarcomere stability without adding titin as a third filament.

02Calculating series elasticity by subtracting fibre length from muscle-tendon length is mechanically incorrect because aponeuroses are not in series with the tendon.

03Current methods cannot accurately predict individual muscle forces in humans because the distribution problem is indeterminate and experimental validation is lacking.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they found

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

This is a theoretical review and opinion piece, not a systematic review or primary research study. The conclusions are based on the author's interpretation of existing biomechanical literature. No clinical outcomes or patient data are reported.

Declared interests

No funding or conflict of interest declarations are present in the supplied text.

The easy way to misread this

Do not treat the proposed titin-based model or the critique of series elasticity as established clinical fact. These are theoretical arguments from a single expert review, not validated clinical guidelines.

Read it on PubMed →


The study

Certainty of evidence
Low

Browse

    Cite

    Walter Herzog Skeletal muscle mechanics: questions, problems and possible solutions. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation. 2017.

    Read the original