> There was a report of an experiment in New Studies in Athletics (IAAF) a
few
> years ago which appears to contradict this. The experimenters switched the
> soleus and gastrocnemius muscles in a dog. One of the muscles (I can't
> remember which) has a higher proportion of fast twitch fibers. At first
the
> dog had difficulty walking, but after some time it learned to walk with
the
> switched muscles. Muscle biopsies were performed after the dog had fully
> adapted. The muscle which had previously been predominantly slow twitch
had
> become predominantly fast twitch and vice versa.
All this proves is that the body of the dog was incredibly adaptable when
faced with the tremendous trauma of having it's muscles switched. This is
not an entirely surprising discovery. It suggests that part of the
definition of muscle type is related to the context of the muscle.
Given that all the body's cells are broken down and recreated on a regular
basis, and that none of the muscle cells you have today are actually the
"same" cells you had three months ago in a literal sense, we should be even
less surprised that as the body rebuilt cells, it did so the way it
remembered they should have been.
Now if you could trick the body into thinking that a fast twitch muscle
belonged where a slow twitch muscle was, you'd have something. But if you
could do that, you could probably trick the body into thinking that healthy
tissue belonged where a malignant tumor was, which would be a pretty
impressive feat.
- Ed Parrot
