Bonesmashing FFSS theory

[tomacōck]

There are many theories discussing how bonesmashing can work and I came across one that makes the most sense.

First it was Wolff's law which is bs cause it's only BMD related, not volume.

Second it was the subperiosteal hematoma ossification theory but it's completely off cause of how hard it is to get one and make it ossify, which rules it out as practically impossible.

Third it was fibrosis theory which can make sense but the constant TGFb elevation is a mess and many users report the bone feeling hard and not soft like the fibrotic tissue made of collagen.

What I propose is FFSS driven periosteal apposition. FFSS causes osteocytes, especially cortical to send Piezo1 signals which drive the expression of Wnt and Ihh, causing thickening.

Thoughts?

@SpectrumAesthetics3 @Paul.jnxy and tag whoever else is in this kettle

 

[tomacōck]

Bump

 

[teguslayer23]

First it was Wolff's law... Second it was the subperiosteal hematoma... Third it was fibrosis... What I propose is FFSS driven periosteal apposition. FFSS causes osteocytes, especially cortical to send Piezo1 signals which drive the expression of Wnt and Ihh, causing thickening.

out of all the theories floating around, the ffss/piezo1 pathway is by far the most biologically sound model for how cortical bone senses mechanical load. fluid shear stress forces interstitial fluid through the osteocyte lacunar-canalicular network -> triggers piezo1 ion channels -> downregulates sclerostin -> activates wnt/beta-catenin & ihh signaling -> drives appositional growth at the cambium layer.

 

[teguslayer23]

out of all the theories floating around, the ffss/piezo1 pathway is by far the most biologically sound model for how cortical bone senses mechanical load. fluid shear stress forces interstitial fluid through the osteocyte lacunar-canalicular network -> triggers piezo1 ion channels -> downregulates sclerostin -> activates wnt/beta-catenin & ihh signaling -> drives appositional growth at the cambium layer.

the only catch is the stimulus type ffss relies on dynamic, cyclic deformation where direct blunt impact is more likely to cause micro-contusions or periosteal tearing, which triggers inflammatory callus healing rather than smooth appositional remodeling.

 

[tomacōck]

out of all the theories floating around, the ffss/piezo1 pathway is by far the most biologically sound model for how cortical bone senses mechanical load. fluid shear stress forces interstitial fluid through the osteocyte lacunar-canalicular network -> triggers piezo1 ion channels -> downregulates sclerostin -> activates wnt/beta-catenin & ihh signaling -> drives appositional growth at the cambium layer.

Yeah that's what I thought, especially accounting for the fact that most smashers report hard bone rather than soft tissue

the only catch is the stimulus type ffss relies on dynamic, cyclic deformation where direct blunt impact is more likely to cause micro-contusions or periosteal tearing, which triggers inflammatory callus healing rather than smooth appositional remodeling.

Depends on intensity, it can grow into an unstable response yes but that if we go too far
FFSS is best low hz (0.2 for example) cyclic and we could see that through JJ Mao 2003 studies on Gli1+ cell activation through the same pathway, even though it's partially different kind of tissue

 

[tomacōck]

@Iamspace @B13 @Disturbed @Emolifta

 

[Tesarossa]

im advocating for the second one since i can feel my soft tissue hardening

 

[tomacōck]

im advocating for the second one since i can feel my soft tissue hardening

The subperiosteal hematoma argument is the easiest to debunk after Wolff's law. Jordan Wood did it quite flawlessly

 

[teguslayer23]

FFSS is best low hz (0.2 for example) cyclic and we could see that through JJ Mao 2003 studies on Gli1+ cell activation through the same pathway, even though it's partially different kind of tissue

citing mao 2003 is high iq. low frequency cyclic loading (0.2-1 hz) maximizes interstitial fluid displacement in canaliculi without triggering high peak shear stress that tears the periosteum.

that essentially confirms controlled cyclic mechanical strain > blunt high-impact force for actual cortical remodeling.

 

[teguslayer23]

im advocating for the second one since i can feel my soft tissue hardening

The subperiosteal hematoma argument is the easiest to debunk after Wolff's law. Jordan Wood did it quite flawlessly

that's just early fibrotic tissue calcifying from chronic inflammation, not true subperiosteal ossification.

wood was right, actually achieving a stable subperiosteal hematoma without periosteal rupture or systemic resorption is basically impossible via random blunt force JFL.

 

[Paul.jnxy]

Mirin. Interesting discussion too. Tag me more Bhai