Slashdot Mirror


Mutation Creates SuperKid

Tzarius writes "It's not exactly regular Slashdot fare, but the NYTimes has a story about a kid in Berlin (now 4 years old) who was born with naturally massive muscles. It's not a new condition, but it apparently hasn't been recorded in humans before. It also looks like the cause is a suppression of the myostatin protein, which could be reproducible." Reader Spazmasta adds "A gene that blocks production of a muscle-limiting protein (called myostatin) has been found in a abnormally muscular German baby. This news comes apparently 7 years after researchers at Johns Hopkins created 'mighty mice' through a related approach, turning off the gene that produces the muscle-limiting protein. I, for one, welcome our new myostatin-free overlords."

747 comments

  1. It's destiny by foidulus · · Score: 5, Funny

    he was born to become the governor of California!

    1. Re:It's destiny by sherms · · Score: 1

      No, I could think of a few other states that need him, like UTAH!!!

    2. Re:It's destiny by RevDobbs · · Score: 1
      NEW YORK--Somewhere in Berlin, Germany, is a baby Superman, born with bulging arm and leg muscles.

      Uh-oh. Isn't this what Nietzsche was writing about... and subsequently appropriated by the Nazis to further their ideals? Zee Germans may have a few tricks up zhere sleaves.

    3. Re:It's destiny by BarryNorton · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Zee Germans may have a few tricks up zhere sleaves.

      And they were the rascists?...

    4. Re:It's destiny by BarryNorton · · Score: 1

      Ah, damn it... before you say anything, yes, I hybridized racist and fascist... deliberately, of course!

    5. Re:It's destiny by nizo · · Score: 0

      I can't believe no one has gotten the tin foil hat wearers in an uproar by pointing out this superbaby is from Germany (hint: WWII eugenics). Now I gotta run and buy some RJ Reynolds stock.

    6. Re:It's destiny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you funny man,ha ha.

    7. Re:It's destiny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he was born to be wild!

    8. Re:It's destiny by NimNar · · Score: 5, Funny

      OK, where's his twin? You know, the Danny DeVito baby.

    9. Re:It's destiny by BLAMM! · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's simpler than that. He was just lucky enough to roll a natural 18/00!

    10. Re:It's destiny by Drawkcab · · Score: 1

      Eugenics can't introduce new traits into a population in a single generation. The best it can do with one generation is very slightly alter the frequency of traits that already exist. The heterozygous form of this gene was in the mother's family since before ww2, and there must be others who have it. This is just the first well documented case in which it came together to be homozygous and scientists were able to identify the trait.

    11. Re:It's destiny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate it when people cry reverse racism or reverse discrimination to hide from the facts.

    12. Re:It's destiny by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

      why utah?

      anyhow i think it's horrible that you are all making jokes about this. this kid is gonna die before he turns 20 (and probably well before then). it's not a joking matter.

    13. Re:It's destiny by jtev · · Score: 1

      Ok... That's just... BAD.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    14. Re:It's destiny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kid is Michael Jackson's worst nightmare.

    15. Re:It's destiny by Maavin · · Score: 1


      right... they were, long ago (and not all of us were...)

      dammit...

      --


      Crivens! I kicked meself in me own heid!
    16. Re:It's destiny by cfuse · · Score: 1
      And they were the rascists?...

      Probably no more so than anyone else in that war, but it's always more comfortable to think that wars are about ideas and morals and not about territory and control.

    17. Re:It's destiny by sjames · · Score: 1

      Eugenics can't introduce new traits into a population in a single generation.

      While this is not a case of eugenics, based on the article, it seems likely that the mother and the grandfather already carried the trait, so it wasn't new. The remarkable part is that either the father also carried this trait, or something really odd happened so that the child got two copies from the mother with no apparent other effects. It's hard to say which is less likely.

    18. Re:It's destiny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life is the cheapest thing there is and death comes to us all. Get over yourself. One more, one less, who cares? UTAH = JESSE THE BODY VENTURA, which you'd know, having familiarized yourself with the culture of a country obsessed with physical power.

  2. Cute baby! by RLiegh · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can you get him to give me my car back?

  3. Looks like by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Governator has been playing away from home

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  4. where are the pics? by Richthofen80 · · Score: 5, Funny

    i expect it to be a sitcom-esque situation, where the baby lifts the family car when it gets stuck in the mud.

    --
    Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    1. Re:where are the pics? by rush22 · · Score: 2, Funny

      heh. It reminds me of one of my favourite snl sketches--Chris Farley as a gigantic baby on 'the Sally show', with guest Tim Meadows as the author of "My God, These Enormous Children With Their Disproportionate Strength and Inability to Logic Are Sure to Rise Up and Destroy Us"

  5. here's a picture of his asscrack! by squarefish · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm not kidding!

    --
    Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
    1. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by networkBoy · · Score: 1, Redundant

      um.....
      yikes, the article mentions that the whole family is strong.
      "Researchers would not disclose the boy's identity but said he was born to a somewhat muscular mother, a 24-year-old former professional sprinter. Her brother and three other close male relatives all were unusually strong, with one of them a construction worker able to unload heavy kerbstones by hand."
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by greenhide · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is an unfortunate photo (it's a pretty gross photo actually, surprised it was the only one they could get their hands on).

      For those of you who are afraid to follow the link, in the photo the kid has very well defined leg muscles for a 6 day old baby.

      I myself make, uh, plenty of myostatin. In fact, that's my superpower -- making tons of myostatin to keep my body almost superhumanly unmuscled.

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    3. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So help me, but torn between modding this comment as funny and interesting, I chose interesting.

      Where's the +1 Interesting, but Disturbing

    4. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I myself make, uh, plenty of myostatin. In fact, that's my superpower -- making tons of myostatin to keep my body almost superhumanly unmuscled.

      And I thought I was the only one... ...and that picture is amazing. The child looks like a bodybuilder.

      I've always wondered about that. My sister's kids are built like tanks... incredibly solid bodies, large and very strong. My kids however, are more normal, what you'd typically expect for kids (at least their bodies... they all have "interesting" personalities just like their parents ;-). It was always strange holding a large but lean, muscular two-year-old like that compared to the typical soft, cuddly toddlers (like mine used to be). I wonder if the kids inherited one copy of that gene since they have a former NFL football player for an uncle.

      Her oldest child is now eight. He's a sweet boy, but he's had a fair amount of medical problems. He's the biggest and strongest in his class though, which can be good... or bad, and not suprisingly, he excels at athletics.

      I have a feeling that the interest in this will be huge and some day there might be some skinny, sickly kid named Steve Rogers who gets and injection and goes on to fight America's enemies as some kind of super soldier.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    5. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by kir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is an unfortunate photo (it's a pretty gross photo actually, surprised it was the only one they could get their hands on).

      I'm curious. Why do you think it's a pretty gross photo? It's a baby's butt. That's about as "ungross" as you can get. Well... unless the kid is taking a dump. HE HE HE

      When my daughter was a baby, her butt was the cutest thing... well... until odor starting hitching a ride with the payload. Damn solid foods.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    6. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by nunofgs · · Score: 1

      If this turns out to be goatse, I swear...

    7. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by GuyFawkes · · Score: 4, Funny

      err, that pic looks like it is of a female......

      --
      http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
    8. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I myself make, uh, plenty of myostatin. In fact, that's my superpower -- making tons of myostatin to keep my body almost superhumanly unmuscled.

      RTFA - myostatin inhibits muscle development.


      RTFR[eply] -- that's exactly the point behind the humour of the parent post.

    9. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA - myostatin inhibits muscle development.

      I think greenhide is quite aware of that fact. His superpower makes tons of myostatin and keeps him superhumanly unmuscled.

    10. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I myself make, uh, plenty of myostatin. In fact, that's my superpower -- making tons of myostatin to keep my body almost superhumanly unmuscled.


      RTFA - myostatin inhibits muscle development.

      RTFComment - He said he's superhumanly unmuscled. Christ you're an idiot.
    11. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      RTFA - myostatin inhibits muscle development.

      I think that's his point - and I too have plenty of myostatin to spare.

      110% Lady-Proof! (tm)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    12. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Lord_Frederick · · Score: 1

      Maybe if YOU RTFA you'd get his joke!

    13. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's not easy being green...

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    14. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well why don't you just turn it off then????

      http://www.bodybuilding-supplements-for-you.com/ bi otest/biotest-myostat.htm

    15. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see cooter.

    16. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      I wonder if the kids inherited one copy of that gene since they have a former NFL football player for an uncle.

      They've got an incredibly understanding father if they inherited any genes from their "uncle" ;)

    17. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Of course not, silly.

      But their father obviously shares a lot of genes with his brother. He's huge and strong too.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    18. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the slashdot protein .. =-)

    19. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      Uncle Milkman?

      --
      Sig it.
    20. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

      I have not looked at the picture myself (at work, generally not a good idea to click on picture links at Slashdot at work I've found), but it'[s recognized that until puberty, most children look female in their body shape when other clues are not present. That's one of the reason there are very few male gay pedophiles. The body shape simply doesn't appeal to them. Or at least so the psychology books say...

      --
      This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
    21. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by bpatterson · · Score: 1

      Greaaat... how am I going to get over the humiliation of getting my ass kicked by a 5 year old?!? I'm staying inside from now on - not worth the risk.

    22. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Uncle Milkman?


      As opposed to Uncle Dad?

      ewwww.. I just grossed myself out.
    23. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a joke, silly.

    24. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by greenhide · · Score: 1

      Uh, right. Lots of myostatin; hence, UNmuscled.

      See, this is why we need a "Stupid" moderation, not just "Redundant".

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    25. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just wait till this spreads. Soon we pasty, overweight nerds will be oppressed by myostatin-free gradeschoolers stealing our lunch money, kicking sand in our face and laughing at our brushed aluminum cases with cold-cathode blacklights and fluorescent USB cables.

      On the plus side, in 800,000 years, my descendants will be the eloi and not having to live underground. Um.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    26. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by compactable · · Score: 1

      You tell him that (-;

    27. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Informative

      but it'[s recognized that until puberty, most children look female in their body shape when other clues are not present

      The "clues" in this case include what looks an awful lot like vulva where a scrotum should be.

      Now, I'm not a parent, but...

      --

      I write in my journal
    28. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Reminds me of a joke:

      A white guy, an explorer, let's call him Livingstone, is living with a native African tribe. One day the leader of the tribe aproaches him angrily.

      Tribe leader: "My wife has just given birth to a white son!"

      Livingstone: *face turns red* "Well, you know... uh... sometimes nature can surprise you. For example, look at the goats over there. All the goats are white except one that is black. You see? There's a natural explanation"

      Tribe leader: "ok, I understand. I no talk about white son, you no talk about black goat"

    29. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When in doubt, choose Interesting. Funny mods don't give you karma.

      Of course, by posting in the same discussion (even if you checked the 'Post Anonymously' box), you've invalidated your moderation. Unless you logged out to post that....

    30. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Trifthen · · Score: 1
      I myself make, uh, plenty of myostatin. In fact, that's my superpower -- making tons of myostatin to keep my body almost superhumanly unmuscled.

      Yeah, I have that superpower. I think it comes with hyper metabolisms. If you don't mind eating two or three times as much as any normal human being, you can probably put on some muscle, but it sure as hell isn't easy. Oh well, I have an appointment to be beaten up by a little girl - see ya later. :p

      --
      Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
    31. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could just engineer a virus to melt the flesh from their bones... Brains over brawn.

    32. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by super+awesome · · Score: 1

      I was seriously afraid that it was going to be a picture of the goatse man.

      --

      m y k a r m a i s m o r e p o s i t i v e t h a n y o u r s.
    33. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      OH it's not that bad. You just have to raise your activity level to match your metabolism. If I don't do 30 hours/week of hard physical labor, I skinny up real badly. On the other hand, doing the 30 hours/week of hard physical labor only bulks me up if I eat 2 pounds of meat each day (not to mention the potatoes and crap that go with it). Right now, though, my upper arms are about 3 inches in radius, and while it's larger than they've been in a few years, it's not as big as they've been.

      The trick is to play geek for fun, not for a living. ;) Right now I'm selling barbecue in a few farmer's markets, so three/four times a week I'm hefting heavy shit either setting up or tearing down (it's a 400 pound operation and I have to set up and tear down for every appearance I make each week).

      But it's still *not* the junkyard. I looked like a body builder back then, and could even lift most automatic transmissions by myself and carry them (granted I could only lift them up to knee height, but I could bench them to full reach), and some of the small 3 or 4 cylinder engines I could lift. The job itself sucked, but I got pretty tough working it. ;)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    34. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      goatse doesn't get modded up!

    35. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by plaa · · Score: 1

      And I thought I was the only one... ...and that picture is amazing. The child looks like a bodybuilder.

      One interesting question: Assuming he doesn't get massive medical complications, would he be allowed to take part in athletic competitions? After all, he is naturally born, but is still vitally different from others. (I recall that even nowadays some skiers may have trouble getting past doping tests because they have naturally high levels of hemoglobin.)

      --

      I doubt, therefore I may be.
    36. Re:here's a picture of his asscrack! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      He should... I assume that a lot of the successful athletes have one copy of this gene. This little boy just happens to have two. I'm sure he's not the only person like this. His grandfather could heft 330-pound curb stones... I could look at a 330-pound curb stone, but I'd need to sit down afterwards.

      Good thing Nazi Germany is gone or I think we'd have to worry about a new eugenics program. </me pulls out old Captain America comic books...>

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  6. I, for one, by GillBates0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    welcome our new future overlords.

    they's us.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:I, for one, by Blublu · · Score: 1

      Could you please try a little harder next time? Thanks.

      --
      meh
  7. boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big muscleed freaks won't take over the world. on the other hand, tell me when we isolate the IQ genes...it's quite an advantage to be born smart and rich.

  8. Someone.. by tbaggy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Someone told me he's weak to kryptonite...

    1. Re:Someone.. by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Funny

      maybe later we can have him fight this other kid, Richard Sandrak...

      I dont think Richard is a genetic anomaly though... IIRC his parents are just martial arts and bodybuilding nuts.

    2. Re:Someone.. by sstidman · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've never heard of Richard Sandrak before; here is an interesting link. I swear, some of those photos look fake. Jeez that kid is flexible!!

      --
      Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
    3. Re:Someone.. by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      he made several tv appearances... I'm sure there are video files out there.

    4. Re:Someone.. by Brainboy · · Score: 1

      Richard was home schooled by his mother and has already graduated 1st year college math

      Alright, that's is just a little to much.

      --
      Just a guy with an opinion
    5. Re:Someone.. by NonAnonymousCoward78 · · Score: 1

      I dont think Richard is a genetic anomaly though... IIRC his parents are just martial arts and bodybuilding nuts.

      If his parents are martial arts and bodybuilding nuts, then their genes likely don't produce much myostatin (therefore enabling them to be proficient in their vocation). So it probably is genetic.

      --
      --- My dog ate my sig.
    6. Re:Someone.. by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      Jesus.. the JonBenet of the fitness world.

    7. Re:Someone.. by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Wait till you hear of his cancer cure !

      No wait, that was Reagan.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    8. Re:Someone.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Jesus H Christ, that kid is going to knock off more pussy than animal control.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Someone.. by icestorm487 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      if i remember correctly it isn't a good thing to be working out (AKA body building) before roughly the age of 16 because it can damage the growth plates. If that happens the person is stuck as a short s**t for the rest of their lives.

      --
      help?!? in search of sig
    10. Re:Someone.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He can thank his parents for that, as they no doubtably "forced" him into becoming a body builder... Similar to the little girls whose parents dress them up like adults w/ full make-up for baby contents, etc...

      These parents should be killed.

    11. Re:Someone.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would you dare call them a short shit though?

    12. Re:Someone.. by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      Actually, most of what I've read suggests that this danger is generally overblown. As long as it is done cautiously, there's no reason why kids can't safely train with weights

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  9. Listen to me now.... by wwest4 · · Score: 2, Funny

    and believe me later.

    1. Re:Listen to me now.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and think about it some other time...

    2. Re:Listen to me now.... by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think you mean: "Listen to me now, and hear me later!"

      We are Hans and Frans, and we're going to PUMP YOU UP! ;)

      --
      sudo eat my shorts
    3. Re:Listen to me now.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Franz not Frans

    4. Re:Listen to me now.... by raygundan · · Score: 1

      I think both quotes are correct, or close to it. They made quite a number of jokes of this variety in their various Hanz and Franz skits. I think it might even have been the Arnold episode with the "Listen to me know and believe me later" quote.

    5. Re:Listen to me now.... by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 1

      Franz not Frans

      You are correct. "Frans" brings up the image of a very beefy woman with man-hands ;)

      --
      sudo eat my shorts
  10. There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...as there seems to be little evolutionary pressure to supress myostatin in the normal population.

    1. Re:There must be a major downside... by Mz6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was actually wondering the same thing. It's used in cattle and mice now. But what is the downside? Wouldn't everyone want to be big and muscular? This kid can already hold 7 lb weights from his arms, something that adults have a hard time doing. What's the downside to not producing myostatin?

      --
      Hmmm.
    2. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The downside is that your skeletal structure has to be strong enough to support the extra weight, your circulatory system and lungs need to be able to pump enough blood and supply enough oxygen to all that extra tissue and you need to ingest a hell of a lot more food to provide enough energy to grow and sustain your body mass, which in turn requires your digestive system can process the amount of food you'll need to eat.

      Think of it as being obese, but with muscle instead of fat. Why would that be an advantage?

    3. Re:There must be a major downside... by Sir_Limps_a_lot · · Score: 1

      What might happen to his skeleton when he gets too big? Maybe his heart won't keep pace with his muscular growth, either. I agree, there has to be a downside, somewhere. At least, us mortal humans hope so.

    4. Re:There must be a major downside... by Nos. · · Score: 3, Informative
      And there very possibly is, from the article...

      The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems

    5. Re:There must be a major downside... by confused+one · · Score: 5, Interesting
      rtfa. They mentioned there's a concern he'll use up all the satellite cells in his muscles (the source of replacement cells when the muscle is damaged). They believe the myostatin works to suppress these cells; and, without it, his muscle repair / replacement mechanism is working overtime. He may end up a man of 30 or 40 with a muscle wasting disorder because he hasn't got the ability to repair damaged cells anymore.

      of course, they don't really know. He may live to be 90, still be able to lift 2-3 times his weight, and show no ill effects.

    6. Re:There must be a major downside... by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't everyone want to be big and muscular?

      For myself no. I tone up pretty quickly when I work out but I would not like to get too bulky, it used to be a real pain getting pants to fit my waist and thighs properly when I was bigger.

      That aside there are health and dietary implications. You heart has to work harder to supply blood, particularly under heavy exercise, you lose mobility, and endurance sports become a lot more difficult (not really a bad thing :-) ). I'm sort of half expecting to hear this kid keeled over from heart failure at 35 while putting the garbage out.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    7. Re:There must be a major downside... by confused+one · · Score: 1
      As someone who grew up with a heavy skelatal structure, and strong muscles I can tell you the advantage: I can pick up and carry 2-3 times my own weight. At least I could until the lymphoma showed up.

      OK, I don't have his problem, I had to work for the muscles... I really need to get back into a gym...

    8. Re:There must be a major downside... by gmuslera · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Evolution put us that gene for something (ok, is random and we still carry things from the fishes stage and before).

      Being definately stronger should be a surplus, unless ever growing muscles implies problems like heart attacks, needing more food or things more structural, like the bones or how they are connected with muscles can't stand what those muscles can do in an adult body.

      I remember reading somewhere a reason why some topics in bad movies, like really giant insects, apes, humans, or to the other direction, very tiny humans (think in Giant's Land) and was related to body architecture and strength of materials. A 20 mt human built proportionally to normal people and with the same "materials" probably will broke by its own weight. This case could have similar problems.

    9. Re:There must be a major downside... by missing000 · · Score: 1

      It would be a surprising finding indeed if the major side effect occurred much past 20.

      From an evolutionary perspective, one would assume myostatin would provide benefits relating to genetic survival prior to age of reproduction.

      Finding that the usefulness of the protein is in the post-reproductive age would be an upset to evolutionary theory.

    10. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      keeled over from heart failure at 35 while putting the garbage out

      Projecting our own fears upon this poor little kid, eh? I suspect that most [overweight] /.'ers have a greater chance of having a heart attack at 35.

    11. Re:There must be a major downside... by julesh · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to the Medical College of Georgia, it weakens ligaments.

    12. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution isn't something that happens over night, that must first an for all be remeberd. Other than that I would guess that large body mass = higher energy consumtion = larger need for foof. Since man originated as a hunter I would guess that you simply would have to hunt a lot more than your brethren. And with added buld, the energy needed to propell the hunter is incresed, thus leeding in a spiral. Perhaps also the redundancy of the human cell system, as someone else pointed out earlier.

    13. Re:There must be a major downside... by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is. After a certain point it's not advantageous.

      I lift weights and I can tell you from experience, large muscles and being strong do not always go together. A lot of the training that bodybuilders do is to add bulk muscle (explosive strength). This type strength only works for short bursts and those huge guys get tired real quick. Take a look at how a gymnast or martial artist is built. That's real strength and flexibility. They may be musclely but they are not super-huge freaks.

      At a certain point the added weight of muscle bulk becomes a disadvantage. Ever watch those crappy reality shows where the super-huge muscle guy fails at some physical activity like climbing a rope? Yeah, too much weight and not enough stamina.

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    14. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ...and you need to ingest a hell of a lot more food to provide enough energy to grow and sustain your body mass...
      That's the real reason. The human body is very energy constrained, mainly because that big brain burns energy at 20% of the basal metabolic rate. Giant muslces would need to provide a major guaranteed increase in food to be favored by evolution.
    15. Re:There must be a major downside... by nanosmurf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The "downside" is linked to a variety of rare neuromuscular disorders, related to (but distinct from) various forms of muscular dystrophy (think Jerry Lewis Telethon). It's not so much what this discovery means for body-builders or people looking to be "extra-strong" but what it means to folks who are born _without_ the ability to produce myostatin. A lack of myostatin would more than likely mean a quick deterioration of the skeletal muscle system, and more importantly, a progressive weakening of the heart muscle and diaphragm, eventually leading to death by complications.

    16. Re:There must be a major downside... by kanthoney · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Humans are pretty weak anyway - chimps are up to 8x stronger than us, IIRC. The reason we've lost all that strength is so that we can run after gazelles for hours on end (think skinny marathon runners) instead of swinging through trees.

    17. Re:There must be a major downside... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Everyone being a superstrong giant that eats enough for ten regular people isn't exactly an evolutionary advantage in starved pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer humans.

      Even still, those heart and neural problems will probably mean it's still a negative even though food is readily available (in our part of the globe, that is)

    18. Re:There must be a major downside... by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      Exactly my thought.

      I guess Jr. here will have to take regular Myostatin injections just to keep his condition in check, else he'll wind up in a wheelchair by 35.

    19. Re:There must be a major downside... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That's the real reason. The human body is very energy constrained, mainly because that big brain burns energy at 20% of the basal metabolic rate. Giant muslces would need to provide a major guaranteed increase in food to be favored by evolution.

      ...Then this sounds like a perfect adaptation for an environment full of double-meat burgers, super-sized fries and 1/2-gallon sodas. This baby's genes seem to have a very bright future.

    20. Re:There must be a major downside... by orthogonal · · Score: 4, Informative

      I remember reading somewhere a reason why some topics in bad movies, like really giant insects, apes, humans, or to the other direction, very tiny humans (think in Giant's Land) [are unrealistic] and [it] was related to body architecture and strength of materials.

      You're thinking of the cube-square law: surface area increases according to the square of the length, but volume increases according to the cube of the length. As mass correlates with volume, thus the thin legs of insects suffice to carry their weight, but elephants need thick stumpy legs.

      But this has a number of biological consequences: not only would miniature elephants be (proportionally) super-strong and giant insects unable to support their own weight, but cells in the greater volume of larger animals require food and oxygen.

      In an organism with a small volume to surface area ratio, all the cells are close enough to the organism's periphery to obtain their food and oxygen more or less directly from the environment. In "large" organisms, the internal cells must be supplied by the organism itself, so lungs and circulatory systems are needed.

      (Indeed, the lungs -- and the intestines -- are designed to pack a lot of surface area, surfaces at which gases can be exchanged or nutrients absorbed, into a small volume, by means of foldings and branchings.)

      In "medium-sized" (but still microscopic) organisms, primitive "lungs" -- as simple as a large hollow internal area lined with cells -- and "circulatory systems" -- such as an undifferentiated internal "soup" of nutrients -- can suffice.

    21. Re:There must be a major downside... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      This kid can already hold 7 lb weights from his arms, something that adults have a hard time doing.

      That's something that seemed odd to me - the kid can hold 3kg in an extended arm - that's pretty good for a 4 year old, but shouldn't a reasonably fit adult be able to at least double that?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    22. Re:There must be a major downside... by swv3752 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The kid is no longer soft and cuddly. We have parental instincts hardwired to respond to soft and cuddly. (This is a bit of oversimplification). A kid built with the hard lines of an adult will not get the automatic benefit of a doubt that a regularly child will receive. If you have kids or been around kids, think of the ire they raise when they do something worng, whether crying as babies or making a mess, or breaking your PS2. Now think of how much madder you'd be if you viewed them as miniature adults instead of children. While having the extra muscle mass might be an advantagous, there is a severe downside in that as a species we would have been less likely to raise such mutants.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    23. Re:There must be a major downside... by Pendersempai · · Score: 1

      Baloney. If there were a survival advantage to looking big and beefy as kids, then maternal instincts would adapt. If they couldn't adapt, no mutation could ever occur that would change one's physical appearances. Clearly that hasn't been the case.

      Furthermore, I think the maternal bonding instinct is keyed much more to knowing that it's your kid than observing that it's soft and cuddly. Severely retarded children often look vastly different from normal children, sometimes in very disturbing ways, but mothers care for them anyway. And that's a survival DISADVANTAGE.

      Finally, as the article states, the kid doesn't look all that different from most kids. Put clothes on him and you couldn't necessarily tell the difference.

    24. Re:There must be a major downside... by goldcd · · Score: 1

      There will undoubtedly be a downside, otherwise we wouldn't have evolved the prodction of myostatin. As the article points out it may be that the deficiency in myostatin activates proto-muscular cells, which are an 'emergency backup', and thus could cause problems later on. Or it might just be that the body regulates the amount of muscle to what's actually needed - inefficient to build and maintain muscle that there's no use for. Since nowadays there's no shortage of food, then maybe he'll just be able to stuff his face and look like an Adonis *sulks*

    25. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not very surprising at all - Muscle mass must be maintained using energy. Even though it might sound surprising to us in the Burger King generation, once upon a time (Well, most of the time humans have been around, actually), energy (Read: Food) came at a steep premium, and starvation wasn't all that uncommon. So no, this mutation should pose no problem to evolutionary theory whatsoever.

    26. Re:There must be a major downside... by merdark · · Score: 1

      For myself no. I tone up pretty quickly when I work out but I would not like to get too bulky, it used to be a real pain getting pants to fit my waist and thighs properly when I was bigger.

      First, there very few muscles around your waist other than the lower ab muscles. It's unlikely that you built your ab muscles enough to affect your pant size.

      Second, do you realize how hard it is to get that bulky? Just working out regularly wont' get you bulky. I work out quite intesively, but in 4 years, I'm still not bulky. If you don't overeat, you won't become bulky.

      That aside there are health and dietary implications. You heart has to work harder to supply blood, particularly under heavy exercise, you lose mobility, and endurance sports become a lot more difficult (not really a bad thing :-) ). I'm sort of half expecting to hear this kid keeled over from heart failure at 35 while putting the garbage out.

      While it is true that being HUGE is as bad as being overweight, I'm not sure this kid really qualifies as huge. If he works out and builds more, perhaps, but right now I'd guess he's about as big as someone who works out moderately.

      Speaking of working out moderatly, if you stretch enough you won't lose flexability. Also, it is possible to be big and still good at endurance sports so long as you continue to practice endurance. The biggest reason bodybuilders often suck at endurance is simply because they never practise it.

    27. Re:There must be a major downside... by freqres · · Score: 1

      Or maybe we are seeing evolution in action. Hmmmm. I welcome our new super strong overlord children.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    28. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An adult will be holding the weight much further away from the body - maybe 3-4 times. So the relative weight for an adult would be 20 lbs or more - and that is not easy.

    29. Re:There must be a major downside... by John+Harrison · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This kid can already hold 7 lb weights from his arms, something that adults have a hard time doing.

      Adults would have an easier time of this if their arms were the length of a 4 year old's. I don't mean to belittle his strength, but this is an odd way to measure it since the length of the arm plays as much of a role as the weight involved. I would be more interested in what he can bench press compared to a normal 4 year old.

    30. Re:There must be a major downside... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Think of it as being obese, but with muscle instead of fat. Why would that be an advantage?

      You'd be able to crush webheads without having any manipulator arms fused to your spine.

      Now if we could only get Steve Rogers to take the experimental myostatin antibody serum....

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    31. re: there must be a major downside... by ed.han · · Score: 1

      sure, him and the rest of the x-men... :>

      ed

    32. Re:There must be a major downside... by maxpublic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've got it wrong. It is an advantage, and it has no downside in a society where you can get regular access to a lot of food.

      But for nearly the entire history of the human race, and for much of the world today, starvation has been common. Prior to the advent of agriculture humans starved about one out of every three years. Under those conditions, the demands of big muscles which apparently don't easily convert to food will get you killed.

      For the kid in Germany who won't have a problem getting enough food to eat, this is one big bonus with no downside.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    33. Re:There must be a major downside... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, you are incorrect about the health implications.

      - Muscle actually helps circulation by pushing veinous blood back towards the heart. The reason big powerlifters and Olympic lifters have problems is all the fat they have in addition to the muscle. Do leg presses and squats with light to medium weight for a few months and then walk up five flights of stairs. You will be considerably less winded than you would have been before you built those leg muscles.

      - Endurance sports that don't involve long term steady activity are actually easier for muscular people. This kid may have as tough a time jogging 10 miles as someone the same weight and much fatter, but in football he'll probably catch his breath much more quickly between plays than anyone less fit.

      - Bodybuilders who haven't ruined their flexibility with constant short range motions, joint damage from improper use of explosive motion exercises, and tendon damage from dangerous anabolic supplements can be extremely flexible. John Grimek, one of the greatest bodybuilders of the 20th century, could stand with his legs straight and rest his forearms on the ground. Casey Viator could touch his elbows together behind his head.

    34. Re:There must be a major downside... by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      I find all this talk of evolution funny. This is simply a case (an interesting case) of variation in the genome. Get over it and move on, please.

    35. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It would be a surprising finding indeed if the major side effect occurred much past 20.


      Not by the suggested mechanism. One of the major features of Duchenne muscular dystrophy is repeated bouts of muscle regeneration, which has led to the hypothesis that DMD kids die when their satellite cells (SC) reach replicative senescence. Right around age 20. One might imagine that the myostatin null kid's SCs would proliferate less than those of a DMD kid, so it might take a little longer to reach senescence.

    36. Re:There must be a major downside... by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or maybe it's an advantage now, in an industrialized society where there's plenty of food, but hasn't been an advantage for much in our history and prehistory, when famine was much more likely. Maybe, until recently, the chance one of the support systems wouldn't be able to keep up during lean times was that major downside, so the gene hasn't spread much until modern times. Possibly, that major downside has been mitigated or rendered moot.
      Hey, when this little guy grows up, he could have a real interest in supporting a society stable enough to protect his geneticly vulnerable to famine uber-offspring. Once he has a few kids, it will make sense if he gets out there and fights for truth, justice, and the German way, and even before he reproduces, he might want to take a not too risky but socially consious job like crusading reporter for a major metropolitan daily.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    37. Re:There must be a major downside... by Fencepost · · Score: 1
      For myself no. I tone up pretty quickly when I work out but I would not like to get too bulky, it used to be a real pain getting pants to fit my waist and thighs properly when I was bigger.

      First, there very few muscles around your waist other than the lower ab muscles. It's unlikely that you built your ab muscles enough to affect your pant size.

      True, but there's plenty of muscle in your thighs. I seem to recall something mentioned during one of the Winter Olympics some years back about one of the speed skaters having thighs that were ~36 inches around (at the time, my waist was that size as well). I have a strong suspicion that the guy in question had a waist that was no more than 38 inches, and quite possibly less.

      In other words, he probably even had to have custom-made sweatpants, much less jeans or slacks. While very few people will be to that extreme, thick thighs can make pants troublesome even if your waist size is larger.

      --
      fencepost
      just a little off
    38. Re:There must be a major downside... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Since some adult males in their 70's have managed to father children, there is some amount of what you can call evolutionary pressure from diseases that don't hit males until their 50's, 60's and so on. It's smaller than the pressure from something like schizophrenia, that hits at an average age of 23-25 or so, but it's not non-existant. In the same way, since humans raise their kids for often many years, there are some evolutionary disadvantages to a disease that kills post menopausal women, for at least the next 12 years or so, as it is harder for the offspring to reach reproductive age.
      So no, this would not be a major upset to evolutionary theory. What would be upsetting would be if this gene had a drawback that apparently only manefested itself at age 50 or so, but was somehow being selected against with greater frequency and vehemence on the part of nature than genes like the ones causing progeria or cystic fibrosis, which tend to kill by about age 13-14.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    39. Re:There must be a major downside... by Phillup · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First, there very few muscles around your waist other than the lower ab muscles. It's unlikely that you built your ab muscles enough to affect your pant size.

      I can tell it is a problem you've never had... I have.

      He specifically said: waist and thighs

      Typical/Average/Normal clothes expect a specific ratio between waist and thigh size.

      If you are a bodybuilder/weightlifter in good shape then your waist will typically be smaller, and your thighs bigger.

      Finding a pair of pants that fits the thighs means getting a waist size that is about 8 inches too big.

      You have to get the pants over the thighs before you get anywhere close to the waist...

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    40. Re:There must be a major downside... by Phillup · · Score: 1

      You haven't had a physics class at your high school yet, have you?

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    41. Re:There must be a major downside... by Phillup · · Score: 1

      I'm not seeing this...

      Are you assuming that the insertion point of the muscle is the same distance from the joint no matter what the length of the arm is?

      I'm seeing a lever whose proportions remain somewhat constant (at least for the same person)... with growth happening on both sides of the lever.

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    42. Re:There must be a major downside... by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      The kid is developing the harder lines of an adult. I saw the pics. Modern parents are more likely to help odd looking kids. In societies living much more on the edge, they would be less likely to protect such a child. But more important, is non-parents protecting the kids. How much more likely would you be to haul off an belt a crying midget over a crying child?

      Instinctual preferense apply more pressure on evolutionary selection than just about anything else. Bird mating displays, particularly things like the peacock, are an extreme example. Men prefering hourglass figures is another. But our preference for pets is another one. Maybe you are one of those jerks that kicks puppies, but the rest of us like them, partly because we have instincts that respond to cuteness- large eyes, soft lines.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    43. Re:There must be a major downside... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Some pro-grade body builders have complained that they were competitive in bodybuilding itself, but made changes in their regimin, such as going more to cross training, running, and so on for overall fitness, and stopped winning.
      For example, Former 3 time Mr. Olympia Frank Zane quit competeing because he started emphasizing overall fitness, with increaseing distance running, gymnastics, and the like, and stopped looking like what the Olympia judges wanted. What chiefly surprised him, was, he was was not only scoring better on cardio-vascular measures, flexability, and endurance, but his actual strength was higher, at least as measured using such methods as bench press and ovehead lift.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    44. Re:There must be a major downside... by PantsWearer · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is simply a case (an interesting case) of variation in the genome.

      That's what evolution is based on. It's generally not substantial never-been-seen-before mutations. It's the accumulation of a number of these "interesting cases" that slowly, over generations, redirects the genome of a population.

      These little mutations may cause this population to become non-breeding with other parallel populations due to a number of issues. With some species this may simply be the fact that one sub-population's breeding season no longer overlaps with another's (spring vs. fall), even though it's only a minor genome variation. It might be that some new mutation that plays well with other mutations accumulated with the population proves fatal when interacting with the original population's genes. It might also just be a social change; if one population is unattractive to the other, there's not much chance of cross breeding. (Like slashdotters and supermodels.)

      In the end, no matter what the reason, separation of populations generally leads to further genetic drift. Not necessarily completely new species, especially if their environments are similar, but drift nonetheless.

      --
      Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.
    45. Re:There must be a major downside... by Wicked187 · · Score: 1

      There is a big downside... the same downside that caused Gov. Arnold to have his heart-attack... the same one that causes most body builders to have heart problems.... it puts a lot of stress on your heart, having to supply all of this blood to the large muscles. Then your heart gets bigger, and their is less room in your chest. That is pretty bad stuff. That is why I would not want to be any bigger than I am, muscular, but by no means a body builder.

      --
      Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
    46. Re:There must be a major downside... by dnamaners · · Score: 1

      Beyond the potential taxing of the muscle repair potential and the overall energy needs of the child they may be other problems. think about his heart. this mutation may well cause him to suffer severe heart problems in the future. an over muscled heart can easily lead to several problems:

      1 enlargement of the heart (generally a bad thing)
      2 potential valve damage (likely in enlarged or arhythmic hearts)
      3 arhythmia (enhanced or caused by enlargement and/or the muscle mass, large hearts take longer to respond to beat signals)
      4 heart attacks (increased O2 need from all the extra muscle makes a clogged coronary artery that much worse).


      The human body can cope with some of these depending on genetics. However that is not controlled by his gene mutation. so if he is not blessed with a high resistance to heart and circulatory disease from his parrents this "extra burden" on his body may well be quite unhealthy even if he looks buff now. so no rushing out for custom gene therapy now ......

    47. Re:There must be a major downside... by Pendersempai · · Score: 1

      Regarding your crying midget vs. crying baby argument: somehow, severely retarded children manage to survive. Perhaps this is only the case in modern, not-on-the-edge societies, but fortunately, that's what we're talking about. You think starving peasants would be lining up for gene therapy or cutting-edge myostatin suppression technologies?

      Regarding what you call "instinctual preference": you're talking about sexual selection. Being well-muscled is NOT a disadvantage in sexual selection. By the time the person is ready to reproduce, he'll be beyond the stage that childlike features are normally present anyway. To take a page from your own rhetoric: maybe you are one of those jerks that is sexually attracted to children, but the rest of us like a more adult figure, which this kid HAS.

    48. Re:There must be a major downside... by galtsavenger · · Score: 1

      Although I am not aware of what paternal instincts are made from, maternal instincts are generated by hormones at least for the first few months. We evolved so that our moms have this hormonal imbalance for the first year or so that means they love us unconditionally. It's why they say he's got a face only a mom could love. Very true - a woman could give birth to a lizard baby and she would still love it as long as the oxytocin lingers. Once it wears off, we have a different ball game of course.

    49. Re:There must be a major downside... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Well, all mutations are accidents. And accidents happen with approximately the same rate per capita. Since the human population of the planet grows exponentially, it is entirely possible that whenever these fluke accidents happened in the past their didn't have an environment to flourish.

      Since until the beginning of the petroleum economy there were very few segements of the population that had more food than the bare essential, the chances of opportunity (plenty of food) and talent (the right gene) comming together were even more rare.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    50. Re:There must be a major downside... by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Same here.

      The big problem that I have is decreased flexibility. When I was going at the weights hard-core, my boss would make fun of me for walking down the hall like a zombie. I'd rather be limber and slender with muscles, than heavily muscle-bound.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    51. Re:There must be a major downside... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      "Ever watch those crappy reality shows where the super-huge muscle guy fails at some physical activity like climbing a rope? Yeah, too much weight and not enough stamina."

      Strength is not linear: being able to bench press 100 pounds 20 times does not mean you can bench press 200 pounds 10 times or 400 pounds 5 times. Each increase in weight means a substantial reduction in the amount of repetitions someone can do.

      So while the 160 pound guy does 15 pullups and the muscular 220 pound guy does 5, if you had them both do pulldowns with 160 pounds of resistance the second guy could probably do twice as many. The second fellow just has more weight to move with pullups.

      If you're using bodyweight resistance as the benchmark, then yes heavier people will have less endurance than lighter ones. If you are using a fixed level of resistance for all participants, more muscle will give more endurance.

    52. Re:There must be a major downside... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dude, Schwarzenegger's surgery was done to correct a congenital heart defect. In other words, it's a problem he was born with.

      Weightlifting itself doesn't do anything bad to your heart. What damages your heart is overdosing on anabolic supplements, and taking advantage of your accelerated metabollism to eat all kinds of foods that clog your arteries.

    53. Re:There must be a major downside... by merdark · · Score: 1

      If you are a bodybuilder/weightlifter in good shape then your waist will typically be smaller, and your thighs bigger.

      Sure, but if the ratio is that much of a problem, then you are already into the "huge" catagory and that means you must have really TRIED to get that big. I always hear people saying 'I don't want to get too big' as an excuse for not working out. They do not realize that getting that huge doesn't happen by accident. You have to try really hard to get that big.

      The orignal poster had a tone that sounded a bit like an excuse. Maybe it wasn't, and he really did go all out and get huge at one point, but I find it questionable when he says things like 'when I workout'. To get to be abnormally large, you have to workout consistently, not every now and then.

    54. Re:There must be a major downside... by saha · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't everyone want to be big and muscular?

      You ever see a large body builder run...well they can't do it well. Their inner thighs collide with each other giving them a bow legged stance, which is less than ideal posture for our structure.

      This reminds me of is a photo I saw of a cat with overly large muscles I saw a year ago, who couldn't closed his mouth because the tongue (which is a big muscle) was too large. The cat suffered throughout its life, they might have eventually put it to sleep, because it had so many medical complications. Hope the kid ends up being healthy and not a guinea pig for the curious scientists.

    55. Re:There must be a major downside... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      The downside is skeletal deformity, fracture, breaks and joint wear and stress while the body is growing. Remember, this is a CHILD who is massively muscled. The bones are still pliable and growing. They aren't designed to handle this kind of muscle mass.

      People joke about the kid lifting seven pound weights with his arm at the age of five. What about when he snaps his forearm by flexing the muscles a bit too strongly?

      There's your downside.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    56. Re:There must be a major downside... by Phillup · · Score: 1

      Sure, but if the ratio is that much of a problem, then you are already into the "huge" catagory...

      Just to be clear, the "problem" isn't the ratio... the ratio is close to "ideal" according to some people. The problem is that "average" people are not "ideal"... so, finding clothing is not easy if you are fit and closer to "ideal" than "average"... because the clothing is designed for the "average" person.

      (man... that is a sh*tload of quotes...)

      I hit that problem at 205 lbs... I didn't consider that "huge", even tho it was more muscular than virtually everyone I met (outside of the gym).

      A normal suit is designed for an "8 inch drop" where the waist is 8 inches smaller than the chest. My chest was 46" and the waist was 32". The legs were even futher from "normal" because even the majority of gym rats don't work their lower body that much.

      To me, "huge" is 280 lbs of raw muscle. Consider that Arnold's chest was 54" across... 46" is not close to the same category. Eight inches is a lot of beef in the chest area.

      Anyways... I guess it is all a matter of perspective.

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    57. Re:There must be a major downside... by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      True, and that is part of my point. As humans there is a balance between being strong with just enough muscle and going too far (ie. going past the human body's design). Past that point you're not accomplishing anything other than looks, while seriously retricting overall performance. While in absolute terms they may be able to lift more, that's not what I would call strength (definitions vary of course).

      In my book strength is survival of the fittest. And survival more often than not involves your own bodyweight because that's what the human body is designed to deal with.

      I'll put up any boxer against some muscle-freak any day of the week. Who do you think will survive?

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    58. Re:There must be a major downside... by missing000 · · Score: 1

      The only problem with that logic is that we are talking about the past. A past where human lifespan was almost certainly less than 25 years.

      To debate where genetic history comes from we must observe our past. A discussion of current era human evolution, while interesting, is of little value to determination of usefulness of our genetic makeup.

      People seem to assume that my earlier comments were somehow contesting or at least questioning the evolutionary process. That could not be further from the truth. I am simply asserting that there is a great likelihood that the genetic value of this protein will be evident in early life.

    59. Re:There must be a major downside... by Chas · · Score: 1

      "You've got it wrong. It is an advantage, and it has no downside in a society where you can get regular access to a lot of food."

      Again, yes it IS.

      Okay, re-read the article.

      The kid pretty much has NO constraint on how much he can build his muscles.

      To paraphrase what the previous poster said:

      The skeletal and ligature structure has to be able to support the muscle mass and strength.

      Imagine being able to break arms and ribs simply by flexing. Imagine being able to pop tendons and ligaments at will, simply by exerting oneself.

      Also, the circulatory and respiratory system have to be able to supply enough blood and oxygen to the musculature as well. Granted that the child comes from a family of very physically capable people, so there's not such a likelyhood of this happening, but imagine it in someone else without these hereditary benefits.

      The again, the heart itself is a muscle. If there's nothing to contstrain it's growth (pretty much the only muscle in the body that works out all the time), he could have severe cardiac problems as a teen or adult.

      Sure, he might not get picked on in grade school (since he'd whup the kid's butt and then go rip the doors off their parent's cars). But is that really a good tradeoff for possibly dying young?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    60. Re:There must be a major downside... by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Read up on cuteness. We are hardwired to like babies, because of what babies look like.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    61. Re:There must be a major downside... by evenparity · · Score: 1

      Little known fact: The average slashdotter's brain burns energy at 30%+ their basal metabolic rate. Hence, the need for Mountain Dew and Cheeto supplements....

    62. Re:There must be a major downside... by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Are you sure that doesn't just apply to zero-G conditions?

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    63. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyways, it is quite certain that evolution usually prefers the more buffed creature if there is plenty of food around due to Darwin's theory of Sexual Selection that states that organisms with physically superior qualities are likely to be able to mate more successfully

    64. Re:There must be a major downside... by evenparity · · Score: 1

      What if your body can only process so much food into energy and your body's unchecked muscle growth starts competing with, for example, brain development?

    65. Re:There must be a major downside... by bluesnowmonkey · · Score: 1

      Why, when you put it that way, it's so obvious. Thank God I'm not buff!

    66. Re:There must be a major downside... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      In a boxing match? The boxer.

      Now put the 'muscle freak' and the boxer in a contest to see who can move the most furniture, haul around the most bags of cement, and otherwise handle the most heavy physical exertion. Unless the bodybuilder has pursued big muscles to the exclusion of all else, he will have the advantage.

    67. Re:There must be a major downside... by piecewise · · Score: 1

      Seriously! You see this sort of thing ALL THE TIME. What's the big deal?

      (Moderate me Sarcastic as all hell.)

      --
      The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    68. Re:There must be a major downside... by makeyourself · · Score: 2, Informative

      One of the reasons is stated in the article, where it may be possible that the child's cells will be too tired to properly sustain his muscles when he reaches 30. Moreover, i read once about this issue envolving the 'garbage' inside the DNA, called introns. They accumulate on the chormosomes arms and are spliced each time it duplicates. Up to here there is no real problem, but think about the times this kid's cells will multiplicate by the time he reaches 10. When the telomerase starts fading away, the part of the chromosome that is chopped are introns, and that can be a real issue if you start thinking about cancer being 12. In the other hand, IMO evolution doesn't make mistakes, so this might just be one of it's first experiments to improve one of it's youngest species, and most (that is genetically) underdeveloped.

    69. Re:There must be a major downside... by deisher · · Score: 1

      The downside would be to have overdeveloped musculature without the corresponding increase in bone density/strength. When I was a kid, I always wondered why the bionic man on TV didn't fracture his spine when he used his bionic arm and bionic legs to lift a semi-trailer with one hand.

    70. Re:There must be a major downside... by Cthefuture · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt it. I still think the boxer will be better off. Those big guys have no stamina at all, after 30 minutes he be laying flat on his back.

      Although it would be an interesting contest. Maybe we can get Discovery Channel to do a special. Take the middleweight champion and pit him against Mr. Universe or something. Test them in various activities (kinda like a car comparison).

      --
      The ratio of people to cake is too big
    71. Re:There must be a major downside... by phorm · · Score: 1

      Since the baby is like that from birth, I'd imagine that his body will adapt to such a situation much better than somebody who was "altered."

      With steroids etc, altering your body too fast is overstressing it in various ways. Being born as a superkid though, with enough food he'll probably grow up to suit his enhanced body just fine.

    72. Re:There must be a major downside... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Heart problems, skeletal problems, development problems, etc.

      All things come with a price, especially when discussing evolution.

    73. Re:There must be a major downside... by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      there's a concern he'll use up all the satellite cells in his muscles (the source of replacement cells when the muscle is damaged).

      We'll probably know pretty soon. If there is one person like this, there are probably many, so it should be possible to do a study of families in which this allele is present. If there is some severe pathology associated with the trait, then it's probably already in the medical literature, even if the gene has not been identified. Certainly there must be a selective disadvantage, or most of us would have it. But it might be something as simple (and as irrelevant in developed countries) as requiring more food and being the first to go in times of famine.

    74. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Little known fact: If you chop off all your limbs, you can get that up to 37%.

    75. Re:There must be a major downside... by Hoch · · Score: 1

      The most logical downside ignoring all hypothetical diseases is that it uses too much energy. Fat needs to be produced to be stored for times when the hunt is not plentiful and that sort of thing. Raw strength was never something that was strongly selected for in early humans.

      --
      2*31*37*263
    76. Re:There must be a major downside... by merdark · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I guess it depends also on your height. I'm currently 145 lbs. If I were 205 lbs with the extra wieght made of muscle I'd be extrodinarily abnormal by any standard. Of course 205 is not that much for people with larger builds.

      I still find it hard to believe that it's hard to find pants that fit though. The ratios in your links are indeed normal, and I think even I have that ratio. But I have no problems at all finding pants that fit width wise. Maybe it's because I'm fairly short?? Of course it's impossible for me to find pants that are short enough. All pants seem way way too long for me.

    77. Re:There must be a major downside... by another_henry · · Score: 1

      Amusing that your name is "Fulcrum"... you can get quite a moment from holding a heavy mass at the end of an extended arm. Admittedly, less so for a child. Myself, I can barely lift 3kg like that - I just tried. I consider myself moderately fit.

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    78. Re:There must be a major downside... by another_henry · · Score: 1

      Correction - the weight I tried to lift was 7kg. You're right, 3kg should be a piece of cake.

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
    79. Re:There must be a major downside... by ildon · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the additional downside that the kid might just be able to kick your ass.

    80. Re:There must be a major downside... by wildchild978 · · Score: 1

      This kid's lacking genetic material. exactally the opposite of evolution.

    81. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is his penis bigger?

    82. Re:There must be a major downside... by jtev · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you talking about with evolution not making mistakes? Evolution is all about mistakes. It's about what mistakes work. 99% of species are extinct. Evolution is great, but it's not something to trust individual survival.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    83. Re:There must be a major downside... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Any URLs you could share with us on the matter?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    84. Re:There must be a major downside... by KernelHappy · · Score: 1

      Isn't that how evolution starts? Mutation, beneficial result, more desirable mate, stronger chance of survival.

      --
      -- Button up, your ignorance is showing
    85. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    86. Re:There must be a major downside... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      A lack of myostatin would more than likely mean a quick deterioration of the skeletal muscle system...

      Unless I've misunderstood what you mean, don't you have this backwards? Myostatin inhibits muscle growth. So a *surplus* of myostatin would lead to deterioration of muscle tissue.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    87. Re:There must be a major downside... by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1
      There seems to be little evolutionary pressure to limit myostatin in the general population

      Loosely put: feed conversion. Muscle is expensive to maintain, so why would you want alot of it if food were limited as it often is where evolutionary pressures prevail.

      Even the Belgian Blue beef cattle that lack myostatin mentioned in the article don't seem to have taken over the meat industry where evolutionary pressure comes from economics. 'Why not?' I wonder. Lots of lean saleable muscle meat seems ideal. But maintaining all that mass while building more might be more expensive than it is worth, fat tissue being mainly for caloric storage and muscle being mainly an engine to burn calories. Not being familiar with the beef industry I couldn't do more than guess. I would guess that female beef cattle breed until their calving output decreases to where it makes more sence to slaughter them ( though they might be tough at that age.. ) I know excess male dairy cattle are often sold for beef.. I imagine a myostatin deficient animal would not produce as much milk as a breed built with a more miserly metabolism.

      Then again, maybe Belgian Blues would be quicker to bring to a slaughterable weight... A younger animal might be more tender, and not suffer from mass maintenance problems. A fleet of Belgian Blue Cows producing calves like hotcakes which were slaughtered earlier than normal steers might be economic.. I dunno..

      --

      Eat at Joe's.

    88. Re:There must be a major downside... by quies.net · · Score: 1

      What do you think will hapen during a war or some natural disaster?
      They will die first :(

    89. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not likely. They'll kill the weaker ones, and before the medium ones gang up, they'll show their worth as hunters. This is called an alpha-male.

    90. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This kid can already hold 7 lb weights from his arms, something that adults have a hard time doing."

      You are kidding, right? 7lbs is nothing! What kind of weak lard-arses are you people? Personally, I'm 6'1", weigh 135 lbs, and can effectively hide behind a broomstick, but I don't consider something heavy until its at least half my own weight.

      "What's the downside to not producing myostatin?"

      Uneven physical activity can cause imbalance in muscle growth, leading to bone deformities and arthritic damage of joints. And, if there isn't protein intake to match the muscle-bulding needs, there can be deficiencies in other parts of the body (greater muscle mass means more energy is burned, meaning higher nutritional requirements). Frankly, the long term risks outweigh the benefits of such a mutation, otherwise this wouldn't be a mutation, it would be a trait of our species.

    91. Re:There must be a major downside... by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      We'll probably know pretty soon. If there is one person like this, there are probably many, so it should be possible to do a study of families in which this allele is present.

      The article states that this is the first recorded human with this condition.

    92. Re:There must be a major downside... by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      They would eat the weaklings.

    93. Re:There must be a major downside... by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      The article states that this is the first recorded human with this condition.

      Keyword being "recorded". Myostatin is a fairly recent discovery, so I doubt if there has yet been a broad genetic study of muscular families. Remember, the mother is apparently heterozygous, and the child is homozygous. That suggests that the father likely has the gene as well.

    94. Re:There must be a major downside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright... how many people tried to touch their elbows together behind their heads?

      Come on, you know you want to...

    95. Re:There must be a major downside... by makeyourself · · Score: 1

      yes, evolution is a process where the results are neither good or bad, but rather a step forward. DNA replication produces innacurate copies of itself, being this only one part of the whole concept of evolution...

    96. Re:There must be a major downside... by jtev · · Score: 1

      Right, sort of. Forward and backward are not very good concepts when it comes to evolution. More adventagous, or less adventagous are far more meaningful. Evolution is the ultimate in realpolitik. You do what works, and that is the only justification that is needed. This is often times seen as progress, however a species can evolve itself to extinction. This is what many scientists believe happened to a lot of the megafauna that died out at the end of the last ice age. They evolved behaviors and traits that worked for cold climate. When the climate changed they were ill adapted to the warmer climate.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    97. Re:There must be a major downside... by nanosmurf · · Score: 1

      My bad. That's correct. A surplus would lead to deterioration. Thanks.

  11. It's (the wrath of) Khan! by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1


    A product of late 20th century genetic engineering!

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  12. Somebody has to... by NaugaHunter · · Score: 5, Funny

    KHAAAAAN!!!!!

    --
    R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
    1. Re:Somebody has to... by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      But Khan wasn't a mutant. He was a product of eugenics.

      Yes, I am bitter that your Star Trek joke appears above my X-Men joke.

      -Peter

    2. Re:Somebody has to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KEEEERRRRRRRRKKKKH!

  13. dear god by insomnyuk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, two things about this story are amazing.

    Firstly, that a 4 year old toddler can hold 3 kilo individual handheld weights, straight out.

    Secondly, that 'many adults' can't hold that much weight. My leatherbound volume of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy has to weigh AT LEAST that much. What the hell is wrong with people?

    1. Re:dear god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is wrong with people?

      you do relise that this is /. dont you?

    2. Re:dear god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that if your arms are short the mechanics of the situation are different.

    3. Re:dear god by mikael · · Score: 2, Funny

      Firstly, that a 4 year old toddler can hold 3 kilo individual handheld weights, straight out.

      He's only 4 years old and can already carry his own laptop.

      I'd hate to be the parent to ask "Where did you hide Daddy's laptop?".

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:dear god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats 3 15kg weights, 45kgs total. pretty difficult to hold straight out.

    5. Re:dear god by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      The most amazing part of this story as far as I'm concerned:

      The NYTimes link in the main header is a google affiliate already!

      The thing about not being able to hold out 3kg as adults seems quite reasonable - especially considering the picture I once saw of a Gym in america with an escalator going up to the entrance!

      from the Bloated overweight unfit McDonalds eating couch potato, to the CRT tanning milkbottle white stereo-typical geek, the modern world is in need of a health kick.

      (btw, I fall into the milkbottle category!)

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    6. Re:dear god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost nobody could hold that much without years of training and it's heavy enough that some people could never get that strong.

      Most people can't even bench press that amount.

      The actual weight was two 6,6 pound that is about 6 kg total. Not being able to hold that is probably not that common.

    7. Re:dear god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 kg is more than you think. I don't know the LotR edition you have, but 3 kg ~= the mass of 3 litres or about 0.8 US gallons of water. To test this, you could e.g. put three full one-litre bottles of soda in a bag and hold that with your arm completely straight and out to your side. It'll be surprisingly hard to keep up, I guarantee you.

    8. Re:dear god by kfg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What the hell is wrong with people?

      They write dumb shit.

      My leatherbound volume of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy has to weigh AT LEAST that much.

      I just weighed mine (we've all got one, don't we?) and it came up a bit short. 2.33 kg. Call it five pounds. I just straight armed a five pound dumbell and then placed my LOtR on top of it. No problemo.

      No one's going to mistake me for Mr. Universe either. My 5'4" (162.5 cm) size 5 (35) wife gave up arm wrestling me because there wasn't enough challenge in it.

      I suppose by "many adults" they must mean "at least three."

      KFG

    9. Re:dear god by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Holding weights straight out at your sides (as I recall is what this child is doing) is far more difficult than lifting them. I can lift about 140 pounds and move. I struggle to hold twenty pounds weights straight out at my sides, and I'm in fairly good shape, 22 years old, and only weigh 150 pounds.

      I can only imagine the bodybuilding potential this child must have, but it begs the question: what sort of risks are associated with TOO MUCH muscle mass? I can imagine that bulking up to an extreme could eventually put a lot of stress on internal organs, the heart, etc. Anything else?

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    10. Re:dear god by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      That's the first thing I thought of. Unless your arm weighs 50 pounds and you never lift it, how tough is it to hold 6 pounds at arm's length? That's only 3/4 gallon of water. It's impressive that a 4 year old can do it, sure, but what a nation of pansies. I sit my lazy butt in front of a computer all day and don't *ever* work out on purpose (sometimes I have to lift a monitor, but still). I'm thin. I don't have much muscle definition. I can hold several times that weight at arm's length, though...

      I guess that's why the Atkins thing's caught on - we're a nation of stupid lazy people who think that an unhelathy diet is the best way to lose weight, and that being able to hold 1/30 of their body weight is some impossible feat of strength. :)

    11. Re:dear god by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      thats 3 15kg weights, 45kgs total. pretty difficult to hold straight out.

      No 4 year old could ever do that - he'd tip over.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    12. Re:dear god by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Longer arms, more leverage?

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    13. Re:dear god by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Lifting the hood of your car is about that. A bicycle is more than that. Most people have no problem lifting a bicycle up, and most people don't complain too much about lifting the hood when going to change the oil.

      Perhaps the "most" that they refer to is the increasing number of geriatric cases in the world. They aren't really dying off like they used to.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    14. Re:dear god by denlin · · Score: 1
      how tough is it to hold 6 pounds at arm's length?

      yeah, right. unless you're arms are 12" long, i don't believe you can fully extend a single arm & hold 20-26 pounds for more than a few seconds...if you can pick your arm up at all. go ahead & try this 1st before you reply.

      --
      Yes, I have RTFA. Yes, I have a girlfriend. Yes, I'm new here. And no, I don't want a free iPod.
    15. Re:dear god by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      1. I'm no fan of Atkins, but in every single book Dr. Atkins absolutely insists that exercise is an essential part of the Atkins diet. If you aren't exercising at least twice a week, you aren't on the Atkins diet.

      2. I doubt the article is accurate, for men at least. Any woman with reasonable arm strength should be able to handle the job too, but since there's a big social stigma against muscular women, women with reasonable arm strength are rare.
      I'm three steps away from being a complete couch potato, but easily twice as strong as my wife in any benchmark you care to mention.

    16. Re:dear god by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Olympic-class weightlifters are at a very high risk for heart disease in their 30s. This might carry a similar risk.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    17. Re:dear god by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Atkins is popular because people have latched onto it as a fad diet. A diet won't really work, though, unless you stick to a relatively healthy lifestyle. Given the stuff that people give up for the Atkins scheme, combined with the high protein (die kidneys, die!) and induced chemical impbalance that's linked to depression, Atkins isn't likely to be something people can or will stick with as a lifestyle change. South Beach, while initially low-carb, seems like a better scheme - but then, it's not just low-carb for life...

      I didn't know about the excercise requirement, though. Mostly because I have no need to diet and have only done cursory research on the thing. :)

    18. Re:dear god by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      Somebody failed physics class.

      Grab a 12" stick of wood and tie 6 pounds to the end of it. Grasp your hands around one end (cover up 6" or so) and hold up that 6 pound weight.

      Now, try it woth a 20 foot pole. Let's assume that the pole has no weight.

      You know how a lever works? The fulcrum of your shoulder is right near the body. It's not designed to lift things straight away from your body because it's too damned long.

      Shorter arms make this easier.

      Oh, hell, tie the weight to your elbow if you don't beleive me.

    19. Re:dear god by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Are you telling me that your shoulders can only exert 20-26 ft-lbs of *static* torque on your arms? You, my friend, are either a small woman or a pansy - or possibly both. :)

      I'll get the digital camera out when I go home in a few hours and post a picture, I guess. I may not hold it there for the full afternoon, but it'll get there.

      Several times, BTW, only implies 3x to me, which would be 18lbs. I could do a 5 gallon bucket of water (a little under 40 lbs) a few years ago, but I don't have one of thse around the house. I think my wife's got a couple of 5 lb dumbells and a gallon of distilled water - that'd get me to 18 lbs. I'll see what I can find in the way of measurable weights to get me closer to your 20 lbs, though. Maybe a new bag of kittie litter - I think that's about 25 lbs...

    20. Re:dear god by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      This kid is holding it outright. That means he was pretty much using only his deltoids (shoulder muscles at the top of your arms). Lifting your bike, or lifting the hood of your car will use all sorts of arm back, and even leg muscles.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    21. Re:dear god by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Notice the Atkins diet REALLY only took off after Dr Atkins cracked his head opened and died. I would have to say, thats when whoever in charge started REALLY commercializing it. Most people will try anything to lose weight, while putting forth little effort.

      Dr Atkins developed the diet as an ALTERNATIVE to conventional dieting... in that some people can't lose weight by cutting fat/calories or doing more excersize. A lot of his patients had real life threatening weight problems... not a small pudge around their bottom two abs.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    22. Re:dear god by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Oh, you are right to criticize Atkins as it is publicly perceived. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most people who actually think they are on the diet have no idea about the exercise requirement.

      To be fair, the diet is only ultra-low carbs for two weeks and individuals on it are encouraged to regulate their carb intake up to 70 grams per day after that. It is also supposed to include at least 3 cups of green vegetables per day and a gallon of water. And cutting out all of the excess sugar in the typical American diet probably has nearly as much health benefits as there are drawbacks to increased fat and protein intake.

      I should lose about 50 pounds for my health, but while I'm fairly confident I can lose the weight I'm almost positive I will regain it all. A year long commitment to fat loss is relatively easy. Keeping the weight off for the next 50 years is not. Until I find a way I am certain will keep me motivated for the long term, I'm not going to risk yo-yo weight loss.

    23. Re:dear god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless you are rather short, 150 lbs is not very good shape.

    24. Re:dear god by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Eh. Most people at the gym can do delt lifts with 20 lb weights. I usually use 35's.

      I still don't see what the big deal is.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    25. Re:dear god by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      I agree... lifting that with your delts is pretty easy. I personally, from doing this for a few years, can almost double what you can... but I cant hold it more then 5 seconds. Apparently this kid can for quite a while longer.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    26. Re:dear god by denlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i'm assuming you're unlike the parent, you *do not* "sit your lazy butt in front of a computer all day and don't *ever* work out on purpose, thin, & don't have much muscle definition." i'm in fairly good shape & tried 20 pounds w/ 1 arm for only a few seconds *fully* extended (no bending at the elbow). i had no intention of holding it there for too long. :) also, the article states that he can maintain 6.6 pounds w/ each arm, my several being 19.8 to 26.4 pounds.

      --
      Yes, I have RTFA. Yes, I have a girlfriend. Yes, I'm new here. And no, I don't want a free iPod.
    27. Re:dear god by denlin · · Score: 1
      Let's assume that the pole has no weight.

      in this real world example, your arms do have weight. :)

      --
      Yes, I have RTFA. Yes, I have a girlfriend. Yes, I'm new here. And no, I don't want a free iPod.
    28. Re:dear god by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Doing a little research, you're right. It it just a couple of weeks and then a gradual build-up until your weight levels off. Thanks for encouraging me to do more research before I rant again. ;)

      I dunno, any of those "target this one aspect" diets just can't be good for you in general. Reducing calorie intake will reduce calorie storage, and increasing calorie burn-off rate will consume calorie storage. Therefore, "watch calories and work out as a new lifestyle" sounds like something that usually works, which is probably why it's endured through the years. It's also a lot of work - especially as a lifestyle change, which probably explains the fad diet popularity. I need to work out more too, and also just can't find a way to stay motivated. My wife's pretty self-motivating - maybe I can get her on some kind of workout program (not that one - it's not generalized enough) that I can just join in on... :)

    29. Re:dear god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they are talking about is standing up straight with your arms to each side, level with your soulders (think 'T' shape) holding a 3KG weigh in each hand. Its not particualry hard but there are many people who would not be able to do it. If you want to give it a try a gallon of water weighs about 8 lb. Get 2 of those and hold one in each hand. Now try lifting them with your elbows locked. Its not a trivial task.

    30. Re:dear god by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      I *am* the parent poster. :) I guess that, technically, I did grow up on a farm, which may have given me a bit of an advantage over the typical sedentary-lifestyle child. I don't think that my 6'2" 180lb body makes me a big guy, but I guess it could. Anyway, I head home in about an hour. There may be food waiting for me, but I fully intend to get a picture taken tonight, and to be either lifting 25 lbs with a straight arm, or wincing in defeat as I try and fail. ;) I *know* that I used to be able to do more...

      I've got a spool of cat5 next to me here, but I think it only weighs about 10 lbs now. Maybe a couple of months ago, before I rewired stuff...

    31. Re:dear god by CommieOverlord · · Score: 1

      "lifting"

      Lifting is the hard part. The hard part is "holding" it. Holding something straight out from you side with a straight arm at shoulder level is hard.

      I'm a fencer. I happily do several 2 or 3 hour practices a weeks. I have a reasonably strong arm (the left one less so). But I can't hold a -book- in the described fashion for more than 40 seconds or so.

    32. Re:dear god by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      I just lifted and held an office chair like that, but I'm guessing it's only about 20 lbs - and our company camera is MIA, so it seems... That was getting pretty close to my limit, so 25 lbs might be about all I can do now.

      I'm not big into sports that make it easy for me to get stabbed, but I put up some fence a few times, does that count? ;)

    33. Re:dear god by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Oh, I have no problems working out. I get about 90 minutes' worth of weightlifting exercise per week, and if I had the free time I would gleefully spend half of my waking hours in the weight room.

      Unfortunately, my wife and I weren't clever enough to consider cardiovascular exercise when we went house shopping. Even if I did enjoy running or biking, sooner or later I would get run over.

      I think my physique would be just on the good side of average if I didn't keep the six pack very well hidden underneath the keg.

    34. Re:dear god by Rothron+the+Wise · · Score: 1

      The "Belgian Blue" breed of cows probably give some indication on what kind of problems this kid will have.

      The double musculature of the cow doesn't add to the net mass, it simply occupies a larger portion. Belgian Blue bulls may look huge, but are in actually not larger than bulls of other breeds.

      Bigger muscles means everything else is smaller, most notably the internal organs. Heart, lungs, etc. Smaller organs is pretty much the opposite you need when you have larger muscles, so this might be a big problem.

      --
      A witty .sig proves nothing
    35. Re:dear god by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      It turns out, we don't have enough water, but we do have several cans. My wife and I weighed about 5 cans of soup, beans, and Red Gold tomatos at a time (scale only reads up to 7 lbs) until we had 21 lb, 6 oz in a pair of plastic bags (which, coincidentally, was all of our cabinet's canned supplies). Then she recorded while I lifted and held momentarily. The thing only records for a few seconds, leading me to choose a controlled descent over holding onto it for a long time.

      So, after getting a crack for my expired mjpeg codec (why in the hell doesn't Canon include one with their camera if it's gonna record in that format!) and tweaking TMPGEnc so the rest of the world can view this feat in mpeg format. It's just a shade over 1 MB, but I don't have a whole ot of bandwidth so it might take a couple minutes to grab (hopefully this thread has died down enough to keep traffic down - I certainly don't need a slashdotting). I've also got video of dropping a 3 lb leg weight in there (actually, just enough to make it 24 lb 3 oz) and that was about all I could do. The grunting wasn't attractive, and I didn't quite get it level anyway, so it's not getting posted. I think the office chair from this afternoon was somewhere in between 21 and 24 lbs, but I can definitively say that I can, in fact, lift over 21 lbs with a straight arm, which surpasses my 18lb claim. :)

      BTW, that's about 26 inches from my shoulder, which Google says ends up at 46.3 ft-lbs. Not terribly impressive, but about 5-6 times the torque my pushmower engine puts out... I'm gonna go out and taunt my pushmower now.

    36. Re:dear god by jargonCCNA · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, four-year-olds aren't toddlers. Just thought I'd fill you in.

      --
      Matthew G P Coe
      http://mgpcoe.blogspot.com/
    37. Re:dear god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are supposed to hold it to your side. By lifting the weights in front of you your chest muscle plays much more of a role.

    38. Re:dear god by nacturation · · Score: 1

      http://www.cloudmaster.com/cloudmaster/lift-21.5lb .mpg

      Okay, not bad. But it looks like you're lifting on the diagonal, both to the front and the right. Which means you're using two of the three deltoid heads. Try lifting that same mass straight out to the side, so that your arm is parallel to the plane of your torso. If you can do *that* with 20 pounds, I'll be very impressed!

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    39. Re:dear god by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      That's just the camera angle / bad lighting / etc - it's actually directly in front of me. One article says "with arms extended", and doesn't specify whether that's in front, to the side, or what. The NYT article says "horizontally with his arms extended".

      That said, it didn't feel much more difficult to lift an office chair from the side than in front., aside from the balance issues caused by 20 unbalanced pounds located ~3 feet away from my spine. :) I guess I can get the soupcans out again this evening, though. I'll let you know howw it goes.

      Regardless, my point is that I'm not a very big guy, and I can do that. Ergo, it must not be all that amazing of a feat, and I'm sorely dissapointed by the thought that most adults can't.

    40. Re:dear god by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      1/2 of a 40lb bag of bird seed, lifted to the side. Result: similar to the cans - it lifts fine, but is approaching my limit. This is still not anywhere as cool as a gymnast doing an Iron Cross, though (and yes, I know those are different muscles)...

  14. Mutants by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, lets just hope Xavier gets to him first.

    -Peter

  15. What's his name? by Cajunator · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let me guess.......Bam-Bam?

    1. Re:What's his name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      He's German, it's Baum Baum...

  16. Another Photo by applemasker · · Score: 4, Informative

    Courtesy of Yahoo here.

    --
    Bush Lies On the Record.
    1. Re:Another Photo by LouCifer · · Score: 0

      Bah. That picture doesn't look any different than my 7-month-old son, who weighs in at 23.5 lbs.

      Seriously.

      Now I need to find some weights and see if he can hold 'em too.

      --
      Religion is for people afraid of going to hell.
    2. Re:Another Photo by jpaz · · Score: 1, Funny

      I clicked on the next pic in the slide show. It was a picture of a blonde looking at Rasputin's penis in a jar at a Russian museum of erotica. Wasn't expecting that one.

    3. Re:Another Photo by leomekenkamp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just above that picture there is a 'next' link. DO NOT FOLLOW THAT LINK!

      I told not to follow that link... That blonde does seem to have a certain fascination for that 'artifact'.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    4. Re:Another Photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quite a tasty lady though lol

      . o O ( why hasn't my boyfriend got one that big? )

    5. Re:Another Photo by MikeXpop · · Score: 1

      For those who need to know, it's a picture of Rasputin's penis in a jar for a new sex museum that opened up in St. Petersburg, Russia a few months ago.

      On the other side of the news, Rasputin was hung.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    6. Re:Another Photo by nobody69 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Okay, here's your modelling assignment for today."

      "Go to museum and gaze longingly at penis in a jar. I should have stayed in college."

      --
      "Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
    7. Re:Another Photo by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      Rasputan, or as his friends liked to call him: "Tri-pod".

      It would be funny if they had a thought bubble coming from that lady's head: "I wonder if rigamortis.....Hmmmmmmmmmm".

      --
      Sig it.
    8. Re:Another Photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she's probably wishing she could take it out for a test drive.

    9. Re:Another Photo by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? First time I hit next it's the same picture, hit again and I get a (fully clothed) surfer dude.

    10. Re:Another Photo by MikeXpop · · Score: 1

      There seems to be a slight glitch. here's what should have come up (and what did come up before).

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    11. Re:Another Photo by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      It comes up when I hit "prev" instead of "next" now.

    12. Re:Another Photo by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 1

      why hasn't my boyfriend got one that big?

      Come on... it's probably only soaked with the preservative surrounding it. And the glass makes it look bigger than it actually is. Also, the lady in the photo is probably just 4'8" so that gives the viewer a false sense of proportions.

  17. Long term effects by Mr.+Certainly · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Troll rant here beware...

    What do you think the long term effects of this such a proposed treatment on humans might be by limiting this natural growth limiter?

    I'm not necessarily speaking religiously, but isn't some of this stuff supposed to be here for a reason?

    1. Re:Long term effects by Zzootnik · · Score: 1

      I think that study of it could lead us to some Anti-Muscle-Wasting therapy for People living in space. I know the bone density thing is also a problem, but one thing at a time.

      I seem to recall some comics when I was a kid where this race of humans was engineered to be super-musclly and dense to be able to survive living on the surface of Jupiter or some other larger planet with a LOT of gravity... Weird concept, but a good start on a plan... if the bugs could be worked out (of ALL of it), we could provide maybe a month or so of genetic modification to a given person to prepare them to go live in a different environment...Like Mars or one of the other planets...or even just out among the asteroids/space...

      I think that a lot of traditional evolution has stopped. There's not a whole lot of "Survival of the fittest" going on. People aren't regularly being consumed by cheetahs and the like anymore. Mutation like this one and self-modification sound like the way to go.

      --
      Sig currently under construction. Mind the gap....
  18. Roids by Soporific · · Score: 1

    I wonder if steroids would make this kid even more huge when he gets about high school age and is lifting 500 lbs.

    ~S

    1. Re:Roids by confused+one · · Score: 1
      up until his heart melted down...

      anabolic steroids are bad, bad, bad for you.

    2. Re:Roids by swimmar132 · · Score: 1

      Heh. Any evidence that are are "bad, bad, bad" for you, if used properly?

      Steroids are perfectly healthy, if used properly.

    3. Re:Roids by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, it may be possible to raise a person's testosterone level to at or slightly below the healthy adult male maximum with no long term ill effects. Few tests are done on the subject because, unfortunately, the substances involved are illegal.

      The problem is, most champion bodybuilders willing to discuss the subject admit regularly dosing themselves to two or three times the normal maximum. Some of the biggest people out there - like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Dorian Yates - refuse to disclose how much they used.

      I'm sure steriods are beneficial if used properly. I'm just as sure that very few people know exactly what doses constitute proper use and what exceeds it.

    4. Re:Roids by Lobo93 · · Score: 1

      Steroids are perfectly healthy, if used properly.

      Famous last words...

      How 'bout shrunken testicles, acne, a taxed liver and aromatization of TS causing, among other things, gynomastica? Even small amounts of D-bol will give you palpatations, water retention, bigger jaws and severly weakened ligaments.

      Flex Wheeler would probably concur with your statement, but that only shows how unintelligent and sacrificial some people really are. Diuretics or inherited liver problems, my ass! Attention-whores, congregate!

      --
      "The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
    5. Re:Roids by azav · · Score: 1

      What is sad is that I lift > 500 lbs and I am NOT huge.

      It's not fair I tell you.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    6. Re:Roids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lift where? Standing calf raise? Or bench press?

  19. *never* been found in humans? by Kainaw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think it goes a bit far to claim that this mutation has NEVER been found in humans. Sure, there may not be any popular hospitals with records of this mutation, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that this mutation happens about every 5-10 years in small areas all around the world.

    For an example, there was a kid in my teeny little high school who had a muscular growth mutation. His muscles grew so much so fast that he had regular surgery to remove the excess lumps and knots of muscle. He didn't resemble a body builder. He looked like a mutation with lumps all over his body and scars where they had done surgery. I read this article and wondered if he has the same mutation.

    --
    The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
    1. Re:*never* been found in humans? by Brie+and+gherkins · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sounds a bit more like Von Recklinghausen's disease to me, rather than anything else.

      --
      If I promise to be a good boy can I have some better karma?
    2. Re:*never* been found in humans? by julesh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Googling for 'myostatin mutation' finds this, which seems to be an account of another person who has this condition, so you're probably right.

    3. Re:*never* been found in humans? by John+Harrison · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure what to think of BALCO sponsored science. The link above should at least be modded funny.

    4. Re:*never* been found in humans? by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Pictures of Flex Wheeler - http://www.bodybuilders.com/flex.htm, who, to me, looks like any other bodybuilder...

    5. Re:*never* been found in humans? by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      "Flex Wheeler". I suggest he be renamed "Lumpy".

    6. Re:*never* been found in humans? by Mr.+Neutron · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The BALCO (heh) letter states that Flex Wheeler has two different mutations that make him an extreme responder, one of which is a myostatin mutation.

      What's different about the Berlin kid is he has the myostatin mutation on both chromosomes. His mother and father both had the mutation, and both passed it on.

      I just hope that this isn't going to cause the child health problems. If one copy of the gene can produce Flex Wheeler, and allow a man to carry 330-pound curbstones by hand, two copies could be disastrous. He could end up completely immobilized by his own overgrown muscle tissue.

      --
      dinner: it's what's for beer
    7. Re:*never* been found in humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mention of BALCO and Victor Conte bring this recent scandal to mind:
      http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap /200406 24/ap_on_sp_ot/montgomery_grand_jury_3

    8. Re:*never* been found in humans? by noldrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I also wouldn't be suprised if the stories about Heracles are based on such a condition.

    9. Re:*never* been found in humans? by Ian+Monaghan · · Score: 1

      anyone else find it odd that document is from balco, the people under fire for supplying major athletes like barry bonds performance enhancing drugs?

  20. No limit to muscles? by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1

    Wait a sec, I'm not a biological specialist, but aren't some vital organs composed of muscles, like the heart? I mean, if there is no limit to muscle growth, eventually the kid's ribcage would cease expendaning when he's full grown and the only way the heart can grow then ( because it's no longer limited ) is to the inside...

    Then again, I might be a fool and the heart might be excluded from this or not be made out of muscles at all...

    1. Re:No limit to muscles? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Then again, I might be a fool and the heart might be excluded from this or not be made out of muscles at all...

      The heart is made from a different type of muscle tissue. It doesn't normally grow all that much, so it may no be subject to this myostatin stuff.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:No limit to muscles? by 00Sovereign · · Score: 5, Informative

      Agreed, as a graduate student in the biological sciences, I know that there may be numerous complications from this muscle growth. It depends on the exact function of myostatin, but some problems could be:

      enlarged heart - much like someone suffering from chronic ostructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This causes the heart to work more and eventually fail

      pseudo neuronal degeneration - failure of the nervous system to keep rewiring itself to accomodate the new muscles. This would lead to all sorts of failure in motor control, and eventual paralysis

      These are just two that I can think of off of the top of my head. There may be other, unforeseen consequences. Of course, he could live a "normal" healthy life and get about 20 gold medals in weight lifting.

      --
      "Me fail English, that's unpossible." --Ralphie
    3. Re:No limit to muscles? by shird · · Score: 1

      I dont know about this article, but at least a couple of the articles i have read on this have mentioned that scientists are wacthing him closely because of that very reason.

      --
      I.O.U One Sig.
    4. Re:No limit to muscles? by IWantMyNickBack · · Score: 1

      Either that, or it heavily depends on myostatin to remain at the same growth rate.

    5. Re:No limit to muscles? by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      As someone who laughed at jokes about Biology majors being somewhere between Basketweaving and MBA/PolySci, I disagree. :)

      There are 3 major types of muscles, basically. The stuff in your arms that you can control voluntarily, things like your diaphram and esophagus that work without you thinking about it, and your heart. I took a biology course in high school once, and would note that those muscles don't usually develop in the same ways as your triceps. People who eat a lot don't generally develop a super-powerful esophagus, while people that lift heavy stuff for no reason sometimes get larger arms. Therefore, I'm betting that, while this kid may have well defined legs, his diagphram probably won't be able to crush aluminum cans anytime soon (largely because it'd be difficult to get aluminum cans into his chest cavity).

    6. Re:No limit to muscles? by nanosmurf · · Score: 1

      From the New England Journal of Medicine Article: "These results strongly indicate that our patient has a loss-of-function mutation in the myostatin gene, thus suggesting that the inactivation of myostatin has similar effects in humans, mice, and cattle. So far, we have not observed any health problems in the patient. Since myostatin is also expressed in the heart, we have closely monitored our patient's cardiac function but have not yet detected any signs of cardiomyopathy or a conduction disturbance. However, at 4.5 years of age, our patient is still too young for such abnormalities to be ruled out definitively. "Our results suggest the possibility that muscle bulk and strength could be therapeutically increased by the inactivation of myostatin in patients with muscle-wasting conditions." n engl j med 350;26 www.nejm.org june 24,2004

    7. Re:No limit to muscles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which, like erythropoetin and other medical treatments, will of course make its way into athletics.

      Reminds me of one of the cartoons in the "Animatrix", of the huge sprinter...

  21. uberkind by Guano_Jim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's a good thing this kid wasn't born in Germany in the mid-to-late thirties.

    What I want to know is:

    A. How soon will myostatin inhibiting pills become available and:

    B. How soon before jock dads start feeding them to their toddlers.

    1. Re:uberkind by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought too. "In Germany? Ja, naturlich!"

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:uberkind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. has learned Umlaute recently. ä etc... äöü Please use them.

    3. Re:uberkind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, don't kid yourself.

      its just as bad that americans can get hold of this technology. whereas in the 30's and 40's of the previous century, it would've been all over the führers' plans to breed this kid with all the blond honies he could possibly want, americans are gonna commercialize it even further, all in the name of 'wellness'.

      i give it 3 months until we start seeing surrogate mom's with inclinations towards this mutation selected from the national DNA databases ... and/or "SPAM" for "Mega-Muscle Baby Pills" being hawked on late-night TV ...

      (Anon., since inevitably, this will get marked as 'flamebait', but i'm telling you ... the American Empire is just Soft Aryanism these days ...)

    4. Re:uberkind by julesh · · Score: 2, Informative

      (A) they already are. (B) they already are, I guess.

      The problem is that they don't work. It seems that you need to perform gene therapy in order to effectively achieve this kind of result.

    5. Re:uberkind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My browser doesn't support umlats, you insensitive clod!

    6. Re:uberkind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all you had to say is "AMURICANS R NAZIS!!!" Why do you speak if you have nothing useful to say?

      Asshole.

    7. Re:uberkind by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1

      Fortunatly since the cold war ended some of the fanaticism around sport has subsided...remember the East German female swimmers of the '70's? YIKES!!

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    8. Re:uberkind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ja, natürlich! is actually a company that sells food without additives.
      http://www.janatuerlich.at/janatuerlic h/

    9. Re:uberkind by compactable · · Score: 1

      More importantly, (C) how soon before I see spam in my inbox for "mucle v!agara" ...

    10. Re:uberkind by dheltzel · · Score: 1

      And:
      C. How soon until I start getting Spam for "myostatin inhibiting pills".

    11. Re:uberkind by ed1park · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering how long before they make a fast acting myostatin-inhibiting/viagra like concoction that you inject straight into the penis. ;)

    12. Re:uberkind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...inject straight into the penis"?

      Dude, I have no idea what kind of wang you got, but if you can seriously face the prospect of penile injection with a hypodermic, you should see a doctor. That's just wrong man.

      "Honey, come to bed"

      "Just a minute dear...YEOOWH!!!!!"
      "a-all r-read-y" (limps to bedroom)

    13. Re:uberkind by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 1

      Are you sure that your penis contains muscles?

    14. Re:uberkind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's how the previous ED treatments worked. What's your point?

    15. Re:uberkind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how long it will take, only that this may be the first time I purchase spam. You see, I was born with a mutation that causes me to produce an excess of myostatin (At least that's my theory)

  22. makes you wonder... by MagicM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If in most humans there is a process that actively limits muscle growth, then there must be a downside to being muscular... I wonder what it is.

    1. Re:makes you wonder... by oni · · Score: 1, Funny

      there must be a downside to being muscular... I wonder what it is.

      Chicks dig the pale glow of a scrawny computer geek.

    2. Re:makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quickest most obvious one that comes to mind, is that having that much muscle, would mean that you'd need alot of energy to maintain them. Now food isn't much of a problem anymore in the western world, but in the past and in many places of africa/asia/SA it can still be a problem, and thus needing to eat alot could be a fatal disadvantage.

      Quickshot

    3. Re:makes you wonder... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Starvation.

      Think about it. In the wild (i.e., in the hunter-gatherer mode of living that represents most of human existence to date) it's obviously useful to be strong -- but you also have to be lean enough to be fast on your feet, and be able to run long distances, and most important, not burn up too many calories just sitting there. Big huge people don't handle "lean times" (and no wild animal is ever too far away from potential starvation) nearly as well as little, wiry ones.

      The pre-industrial agricultural period (roughly speaking, 8000 BC to 1800 AD -- again, a damn big chunk of time) probably exacerbated this with its frequent episodes of famine. These days, we regard it as an aberration when a few million people are starving to death somewhere; for most of recorded history, that has been a fear with which everyone had to live, all the time.

      Dire wolves and sabretooth tigers died out. Grey wolves and mountain lions are still here.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:makes you wonder... by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      be lean enough to be fast on your feet

      Actually this was originally the human (or ancestors of our species) method of hunting. First stab the animal with some crude spear weapon, then run it down as it slowly bleeds to death. Humans can't run fast but they can run a long time if they have to. Add that to some intelligent hunting techniques, such as scaring animals to where other hunters are waiting, and killing off competitive predators. There's no wonder why humans are the most successful predators on Earth.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    5. Re:makes you wonder... by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I know it's a joke, but just for record sake, evolution was not a beauty contest. ("Chicks dig muscular guys! I want to be muscular too!") It was about tuning an animal to be able to at least survive its environment.

      As was already mentioned by several other people, the food intake is one factor. I won't go into that again.

      What I will go into is the situation humans evolved in. Humans didn't evolve as brave muscular cavemen wrestling sabertooth tigers in 1-on-1 combat. Au contraire. It was more like a stealth game, if you will.

      It was a rather small and wimpy fruit eating ape, only suddenly there were less and less trees with fruit. It had to find a new source of food.

      Now contrary to popular belief (e.g., among rabid vegetarian zealots) not all animals can eat grass and leaves. Raw grass and leaves contain an enzyme that prevents you from extracting the protein in it. Unless you have the _very_ specialized digestive system of a herbivore, _or_ can boil those plants (high temperature destroys that enzyme), you can't survive on leaves. That ape didn't fit either category. (We're still millions of years before taming the fire.)

      There is, howver, one thing that any animal can digest, and provides all the aminoacids needed: meat. Yes. Sorry, vegans. The human species evolved on _meat_.

      There was another problem, however: that ape couldn't hunt. It didn't have the speed to catch an antelope, nor the claws or teeth to kill it with.

      It had to survive by basically stealing food killed by the carnivores. The problem not ending up as second course for those carnivores.

      It was a game of stealth, speed and cunning, not one of brutal hand-to-hand combat. Evolving into something more muscular and slower was _not_ an option. A small ape twice as muscular still can't kill a tiger with its bare hands.

      The correct evolutionary path was to become more agile and, most importantly, _smarter_. Being able to improvise a plan raised your survival chances a lot more. And conversely, having a supply of meat allowed you to have a bigger brain. This cycle is what put us on the evolutionary course to what we are today.

      I.e., in a way, yes, the correct evolutionary course was to become a scrawny smart geek. That was the survival trait.

      And you can see it in how the species evolved. In the original ape, the male was about twice as big as the female, much more muscular and had bigger teeth and jaws. It was originally supposed to be, yes, the muscular jock that can defend his woman.

      What the species evolved into, was something where the two genders are a lot more comparably sized. Most of the muscle advantage disappeared, and the big jaws were lost too.

      It's easy to extrapolate that the brave and muscular jocks were the first to get out of the gene pool. That was not a survival trait.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    6. Re:makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well we now live in a country were we (as a nation) are becoming increasingly overweight. Our genetic makeup compells us to eat and store, and since we don't have the rigorous daily routine that our ancestors had for ages, our weight is not being kept in check.

      This could possibly be a great tool to enhance the health of our country. Muscles use energy to maintain, so if we could make people a tad more muscular, diets could become alot easier.

      I'm not saying give everyone huge muscles, but if we can moderate it and allow people to attain and maintain a healy muscle tone, it would do wonders for those who do not have the time (or the desire) to go to the gym often.

      I hope people can see how useful a tool like this could be. While it's true new technologies can be dangerous, they often have astoundingly good applications that can be lost by blindly banning them out of fear.

    7. Re:makes you wonder... by mshiltonj · · Score: 1

      If in most humans there is a process that actively limits muscle growth, then there must be a downside to being muscular... I wonder what it is.

      Maintaining the muscle weight must require significant caloric intake. How much does the child eat? What is his metabolism?

      That might be one reason for limiting it. We couldn't hunt/gather enough food to support to the energy needs for that much muscle.

      If so, then that evolutionary pressure no longer applies. Well, mostly.

      Und now ve vill all be like Ahnold. I vant my muscles and such tings like dat now. I vant to be pumpep up.

    8. Re:makes you wonder... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying give everyone huge muscles, but if we can moderate it and allow people to attain and maintain a healy muscle tone, it would do wonders for those who do not have the time (or the desire) to go to the gym often.

      I can see it now: instead of being full of fatasses, Walmart will be full of overmuscled morons that think muscles make them good fighters. Guess I'll be staying away from bars now.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:makes you wonder... by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Big huge people don't handle "lean times" [...] nearly as well as little, wiry ones.

      I dunno, if you quite feeding big, muscular people, they don't just keel over dead, they start breaking down muscle for energy, eventually turning into little wiry people.

      But building muscle requires lots of raw materials, and if you aren't getting much food, you just won't get big.

    10. Re:makes you wonder... by Ansonmont · · Score: 1

      Good point. However, I think we aren't really the scavenger model. We are more hunter-gatherer, which places plenty of emphasis on the stealth factor, which you brought up, but we still needed some muscle to do it effectively. Hence the fact that we are near the top end of size for most animals. Certainly not the biggest, but still decent size. Coyotes run from us. Rancid meat makes us sick, though, so we aren't really true scavengers.

      Being incrdibly large was less important than have a smart brain that made hunting and gathering more productive.

      One very interesting aspect of the mutation is that almost EVERYONE else MAKES myostatin. This is not a mutation where someone is producing something thast no one else does. This little boy is NOT making it. My guess is that we need it for some as yet unexplained reason, as most living things make very few things that they don't really need.

    11. Re:makes you wonder... by Dread_ed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      These days, we regard it as an aberration when a few million people are starving to death somewhere; for most of recorded history, that has been a fear with which everyone had to live, all the time

      You are quite correct in this. However what many people fail to see is that the cycles of starvation/famine that the "old world" had are quite similar to our boom and bust cycles of business. There would be good years and bad years and most of it was predicated on weather and later on the planning skills of the leaders. This is drawn into even sharper focus when you understand that the economies of the "old world" were agricultural. When food was not produced at a certain level everyone suffered because the "money supply" was directly tied to agricultural goods.

      I find it odd that people do not realize that the same ups and downs that put people out of business, starve famalies, put strain on the workers, etc. have been going on since before recorded history. It is even funnier when people try to lay the blame for the natural cucle of things at the feet of one person (the president/fed. chairman/Ken Lay/grandmother) when all of humanity has not been able to eradicate this cycle of change and we have been trying since before anyone can remember or document.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    12. Re:makes you wonder... by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      ...no wild animal is ever too far away from potential starvation.

      Whaddya mean, "wild animal"? I'm in the same situation cause day tuuk mah jaab.

    13. Re:makes you wonder... by swv3752 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The kid looses cuteness. We are hardwired to protect cute. A kid that looks like a miniature adult will get treated like an adult. The kid would not get the benefit of automatic responses to protect children. One might try to distract a bear from menacing your neighbor Bob. One is more likely to fight the bear to protect Bob's child.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    14. Re:makes you wonder... by toolio · · Score: 1
      It was a game of stealth, speed and cunning, not one of brutal hand-to-hand combat. Evolving into something more muscular and slower was _not_ an option. A small ape twice as muscular still can't kill a tiger with its bare hands.

      Oh Please, I saw Disney's Tarzan. Don't be spreading FUD...

    15. Re:makes you wonder... by Sgt+York · · Score: 2, Informative
      evolution was not a beauty contest.

      Sometinmes, it is though. Evolution is not about tuning and organism for the environment. It is about producing the largest number of offspring that go on to reproduce. Being finely tuned to the environment will help in this regard, but so will the ability to attract a mate. Witness, most of the avians (peacocks, any crested bird, etc).

      Raw grass and leaves contain an enzyme that prevents you from extracting the protein in it.

      It doesn't change the point, but as a technical issue it's that we lack an enzyme needed to extract sugar from cellulose (primary calorie source in vegetable matter). No animal has this enzyme. Herbivore animals like cattle, deer, termintes, etc have developed symbiotic relationships with bacteria to use the carbon in cellulose.

      I.e., in a way, yes, the correct evolutionary course was to become a scrawny smart geek. That was the survival trait.

      Add "that can run marathons" and you've got it precisely, according to some theories. Look at the hunter-gatherer cultures in Africa today. Our ancient predecessors probably hunted in a smiliar manner; wounding prey and tracking them until they dropped.

      Evolving into something more muscular and slower was _not_ an option.

      To nitpick to death, it was an option. Just not a good one :).

      The big jaws in apes were not primarily for combat. They were for crushing nuts (Please don't take the obvious joke...). The strong upper body was from the ancestors aboreal nature. Once we became upright and savannah-dwelling, we didn't need massive upper body strength. We needed long bones in the legs, and powerful leg muscles. So jocks were selected for. At least, the track & field type.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    16. Re:makes you wonder... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      You are of course right, but you're talking about a whole other time interval than I was.

      Once that ape developped the tools needed to hunt, yes, it indeed became a hunter-gatherer species, instead of just gatherer. And indeed, at that point the factors changed a little. E.g., having a steady supply of meat made it a much safer bet to have a bigger brain than poaching half-eaten corpses did.

      Inventing the fire changed the factors too. For starters it brought the vegetables back into the menu. This brought more protein intake, which in turn was needed to support an even bigger brain.

      As I've said, it was a sort of a spiral, with needing a bigger brain to invent the next big thing, which in turn allowed an even bigger brain, and so on. This continued for a long time, including, yes, a very long interval of hunting-gathering.

      But in the first millions of years of the evolve-or-go-extinct race, it simply couldn't hunt. It had no natural weapons, and it didn't yet invent any weapon that could kill a fast herbivore, nor a trap that could catch one.

      It started as a scavenger. Later, yes, it evolved into hunter-gatherer. Then much later into agriculture.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    17. Re:makes you wonder... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Well, not exactly; they turn into not-quite-as-big, unhealthy people, who are more vulnerable to death by disease or by simple exhaustion. The human body seems to be quite good at adapting to a certain lifelong level of caloric intake, but it doesn't handle sudden changes nearly as well.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    18. Re:makes you wonder... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Living on muscle is pretty bad for your body. You're supposd to live on your fat reserves, not muscle. Your body actually goes into ketosis when you don't take in much carbs, which is partially to preserve muscle (the rate of lean muscle loss is slowed in ketosis.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:makes you wonder... by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ""Evolving into something more muscular and slower was _not_ an option."

      To nitpick to death, it was an option. Just not a good one :).
      "

      Well, given the time intervals needed for evolution, and the environment, I still say that it wasn't an option at all. Small mutations in that direction happened all the time, and died, but actually _evolving_ in that direction for any signifficant interval was not realistically possible.

      As you undobtedly know, evolution works in _very_ small steps. The mutations along the line are almost infinitesimal.

      Such abrupt one-in-a-million mutations like this kid don't count, because the chance is pretty much zero that in a tribe of, say, 100 people he'd also find a similar wife, so they can transmit this abrupt mutation to their children. Or if they do, it's not too far.

      Such big deviations randomly appear, and then die.

      So to start evolving in a given direction, _tiny_ deviations in that direction have to offer a very immediate short-term advantage.

      I.e., you can imagine that an 800 pound ape, pure muscle, and with razor sharp claws and tiger-like teeth, would have been _perfect_ for that environment. However, evolving into that was not an option. Why? Because it involves going through steps like a _slightly_ more musculare ape, and maybe with _slightly_ bigger fingernails.

      Which step just lacks the survival advantage to continue along that line. It would need to go on like that for a couple million years, before it starts being an advantage. Before that it's actually a disadvantage, so it gets purged out of the gene pool.

      The opposite direction, namely the ape with a _slightly_ bigger brain and other small deviations towards human had a much bigger advantage, so those were the ones who lived to have kids.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    20. Re:makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or we can stop making food companies zillions of dollars and *gasp* eat less!!!!!

      The only diet that will EVER work is eating less. That's all there is to it. Eat less food than you use and you will lose weight. No food company will ever tell you that and they lobby the government not to tell you that. Instead they promote low fat/ low carb diets. Why? They can make money off of these diets. Sell the same food for more money with different serving sizes and put a low carb/low fat label on it. Start a trend and rake in the free cash. See "Supersize Me" for more info. But yeah, stop fucking eating you fat fuck!

    21. Re:makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone is biologically prepared to make those desicions. We were trained (as a race) our whole existance to eat food when we could. Our bodies take in food and convert it to fat for storage in case of famine.

      If you would zoom out for a second and imagine the world without the abundance of food we have today, you would see that there would still be overweight and underweight people. However the VAST majority of people would fall in the middle ground.

      When you add the kind of environment we live in today, our bodys and genetic training fail us. This argument that we must stop eating so much is as silly as saying the way we should avoid teen pregnancy is through abstinance.

      As much as you would like to belive our brain s function a certain way because of our past. Reasoning will take us only so far away from that. We have biological motivations for everything we do.

    22. Re:makes you wonder... by medvezhatnik · · Score: 1

      You are right, Homosapiens sirvived because their brains were bigger and put to use, not muscles.
      Mutation is a main part of an evolution, the most adopted to the environment mutant will survive and reproduce.
      In the current environment we have lots of mutants that would never survived million years ago. Sad but movies and stupid TV ads will have an impact on how we evolve in the future.
      Fortunately the smart ones will survive ;-)

    23. Re:makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close, but no cigar. It is not an enzyme that makes plants indigestible to animals without specialized digestive tracts, but the simple facts that plant cells have a cell wall that is made of cellulose. Cellulose is the stuff paper and cardboard is made of. Pretty strong stuff, and therefore requires a pretty strong (and long) digestive tract to break up to get to the good stuff - the cells interior. That's why cows ruminate (i.e., digest food several times over in several stomachs) and have a digestive tract that's several times longer than an animal tract.

      Animal cells, on the other hand, do not have a cell wall, and can therefore be broken up much more easily. Hence the short digestive tracts of carnivores.

    24. Re:makes you wonder... by PantsWearer · · Score: 1
      Sometinmes, it is though. Evolution is not about tuning and organism for the environment. It is about producing the largest number of offspring that go on to reproduce. Being finely tuned to the environment will help in this regard, but so will the ability to attract a mate. Witness, most of the avians (peacocks, any crested bird, etc).

      While I agree with your argument about attractiveness, there is actually a good argument about the ungainliness of some of the male avian adaptations. What it comes down to is this: If you had a huge bright colorful tail that could be seen by any predator within 100 miles, but still managed to thrive, you've got something going for you and the chicks dig you.

      I like to think of it as success through overcoming a permanent handicap and having a huge sign telling everyone so.

      --
      Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.
    25. Re:makes you wonder... by Sgt+York · · Score: 1
      Well, given the time intervals needed for evolution, and the environment, I still say that it wasn't an option at all

      Good point. How about I revise my statement to "that evolutionary path was an option, just not a viable one"

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    26. Re:makes you wonder... by fantom2000 · · Score: 1

      Movies and TV ads do not effect anyone's ability to breed before they die. There is barely any evolutionary pressure on us. I would say we aren't evolving at all. We are mutating.... not evloving. While mutation is part of evolution it is NOT evolution in itself.
      By the way, this is a very good book on the subject of evolution: Climbing Mount Improbable

    27. Re:makes you wonder... by Graff · · Score: 1
      Such abrupt one-in-a-million mutations like this kid don't count, because the chance is pretty much zero that in a tribe of, say, 100 people he'd also find a similar wife, so they can transmit this abrupt mutation to their children. Or if they do, it's not too far.

      Such big deviations randomly appear, and then die.

      It doesn't disappear quite as quickly as you may think. Assuming that this mutation is of the type where the child has two copies of the mutation, one from his mother and one from his father( which the article pretty much said it did), then the mutant's children would have one copy of the mutation. In successive generations every carrier of one mutation would have a 25% chance of having offspring with one mutation.

      Once the mutation has gotten in enough of the population there will be some breeding back. Eventually two people with one copy of the mutation each will breed. Their offspring will have a 25% chance of having two copies of the mutation, a 50% chance of having one copy, and a 25% chance of having no copies. If the mutation is a positive factor then the people with mutations will do slightly better than those that don't have it and the people who don't have the mutation at all will get edged out. You won't eliminate all of the non-mutants but they will eventually make up no more than 25% of the population. The rest of the population would consist of around 50% one-mutation and 25% two-mutation people.

      All of this is assuming that the mutation doesn't have some factor selecting against it, such as a physical appearance which lowers the chances of getting a mate or increased mortality before sexual maturity. Unfortunately (or even fortunately in many mutations!) most mutations do have factors that select against them and they die out for that reason.
    28. Re:makes you wonder... by zbik · · Score: 1
      evolution was not a beauty contest. ("Chicks dig muscular guys! I want to be muscular too!")

      Bullshit it wasn't. Sexual selection (aka "mate choice") is now regarded as being at least as important as natural selection in determining which genes get passed down. Another poster mentioned the peacock's tail. This trait has been propagated precisely because it is anti-survival: the pea-hen recognizes that when a peacock can survive despite his huge tail, he must have exceptionally good genes indeed.

      Being able to improvise a plan raised your survival chances a lot more.

      Sorry, but the Homo sapien brain evolved far bigger and faster than any survival function can justify -- it grew uncontrollably for two million years before hitting on anything actually useful, like tool-making. Evolution is not far-sighted. Over-large brains are, in the short term, an evolutionary handicap; they require more energy to maintain, it's more vulnerable to damage, there's increased incidence of childbirth trauma, a longer development cycle, etc. It evolved as a "fitness indicator"; a mating ornament, like the peacock's tail. Fortuitously (or not), our brains eventually ended up being useful for something besides impressing girls/boys.

      In the original ape, the male was about twice as big as the female, much more muscular and had bigger teeth and jaws. It was originally supposed to be, yes, the muscular jock that can defend his woman.

      Actually, male apes are bigger to compete for a bigger share of the female pool. There is a direct relationship between monogamy and gender size differential. In purely monogamous species (think songbirds), male and female are about the same size. By contrast the bull elephant seal is many times larger than the cow; this is a result of many females opting to be in one male's large harem, creating an intense competition in which most males never mate at all, while the few that do sire all of the next generation's seals. The 10% size difference in humans puts us midway between ape and monkey on the monogamy scale -- again a result of female choice, so don't let your girlfriend bitch if you cheat on her once in a while ;)

      Admittedly some areas of sexual selection are still controversial, but to simply deny it is ignoring the past 30+ years of evolutionary thought; even Darwin acknowledged it. Try something like Geoffery Miller's "The Mating Mind" ; then check out Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson if you're interested.

    29. Re:makes you wonder... by HumanTorch · · Score: 1

      I know it's a joke, but just for record sake, evolution was not a beauty contest. ("Chicks dig muscular guys! I want to be muscular too!") It was about tuning an animal to be able to at least survive its environment.

      Jocks and beauty are still very much with us .. perhaps mere survival is not enough when pitted against other humans? That reproduction is a competition amongst potential mates?

    30. Re:makes you wonder... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I suspect that we always did some hunting/gathering once we came down from the trees. True, we lacked the speed to catch antelope, or the brawn to bring one down if we caught one, but it probably didn't take us long to discover how to kill rabbits and squirrels with rocks. Of course, if we had the opportunity to snatch a piece of venison without becoming lion-chow, I'm sure we took it.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    31. Re:makes you wonder... by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1
      I know it's a joke, but just for record sake, evolution was not a beauty contest.

      Nope, evolution is a fictional concept created by the MAN to keep us all DOWN, man! Fossils? Planted. The earth is 6000 years old. Don't get me started on radioactive dating, glacial core samples, sedimentary rock formations, DNA tracing.......

      On second thought maybe I'm wrong. I guess that's more likely than all the physicists, biologists, paleoclimatologists, and geologists being in on a massive global conspiracy. Damn, I lost my point....

      --
      WWJD? JWRTFA!
    32. Re:makes you wonder... by DDX_2002 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I.e., you can imagine that an 800 pound ape, pure muscle, and with razor sharp claws and tiger-like teeth, would have been _perfect_ for that environment. However, evolving into that was not an option. Why? Because it involves going through steps like a _slightly_ more musculare ape, and maybe with _slightly_ bigger fingernails.
      True, but as I understand it, the real question is if there is some minor advantage to those intermediate steps - you know, the old slightly photosensitive cells -> barely being able to sense a shadow falling on you -> millions of years -> stereo colour vision thing. It doesn't have to be useful in the same way as in the ultimate form (not that there's really any such thing) for it to be selected for along the way. I should thing tougher fingernails and more powerful muscles could be of use in digging, cracking things open/scraping meat from bones, climbing trees, etc. Eventually they'd enable you to be a nasty predator, in the interim they might make you a better scavenger.
      --
      MHO. YMMV. Any resemblance between this post and real persons, or reality in general, was accidental.
    33. Re:makes you wonder... by evenparity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I wouldn't deny the existence of a DOWNSIDE to this kind of muscle growth, readers are probably overestimating the UPSIDE. Think about it, the major human evolutionary advantage was the brain, not the brawn. Being stronger can lead to incremental advantages, but more intelligence was "evolutionary" because it was more unique.

    34. Re:makes you wonder... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Saying that eating less food than your body needs is the key to weight loss is like saying that making more money than you spend is the key to riches.

      While the statement is true, the information it contains is worthless.

      Diets - like financial savings plans - work or fail on the way they make lifestyle changes sustainable in the short and long term. You can scream 'eat less' at me all day, but until you can figure out how to stop me from being hungry for more food than my body needs for the rest of my life, your advice has no value. Any short term weight loss that doesn't address that question will just lead to yo-yo dieting, which according to some studies is worse than obesity.

    35. Re:makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OR,

      Having some muscles and perhaps a higher metabolism cranking out energy for you might induce you to take up a physical activity.

      It's kind of a cycle, you know?

      I started rock climbing with my GF. At first I wasn't that into it. But now I enjoy the activity and the endorphin kick.

      People don't like to do things they aren't good at. People don't get better at things they don't do. Maybe a bit of muscle mass would get people on the track to more physical activity.

    36. Re:makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I dunno, if you quite feeding big, muscular people, they don't just keel over dead, they start breaking down muscle for energy, eventually turning into little wiry people."

      No... if you quit feeding big, muscular people, they don't just keel over dead, they start killing little wiry people and eating them.

    37. Re:makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It is even funnier when people try to lay the blame for the natural cucle of things at the feet of one person (the president/fed. chairman/Ken Lay/grandmother)..."

      I don't know about that. People have been stubbing their toes for eternity. This is drawn into even sharper focus when you consider that the very old world had a rock-based economy. When rock production went up people were more likely to trip over one.

      But when I kick a coffee table in the middle of the night it's still my own damn fault.

    38. Re:makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad. Whenever I see a midget my "protect cute" kicks in and I want to pick em up and craddle them. Pinching them on the nose and giving snuggle sounds. Probably explains why I've gotten my ass kicked by a few midgets...

    39. Re:makes you wonder... by Bahumat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is an important factor in human evolution, and primates in general, that is frequently overlooked.

      Humans are strong. No, like, /really/ strong. And we're weak compared to most of the primate family.

      Primates of all sorts sport a good deal of muscle, and moreso, a very efficiently designed skeletal and tendon system. Whereas many animals focus their real strength in specialized parts of their body (usually the thighs for running, or jaws for biting), the human+primate bodies have it strongly built throughout their torso, shoulders, arms, etc.

      Long before brains came along, primates were already happily cookin' along with a hefty dose of strength/weight ratio. Hands were pretty helpful too.

      If this seems counter-intuitive, think about it for a moment: Take an animal weighing as much as you (St. Bernard, a whitetail deer, and a juvenile tiger).

      St. Bernard: Can't lift nearly as much as you with his jaws. Can't carry nearly as much on his back. Can certainly bite harder, and pull more. The torque his neck can create twisting isn't going to compare with the torque your body can produce with a similar motion. Leverage, and advantage: human.

      Whitetail deer: Strong neck, but a human can overpower the torque. Powerful thighs, which can easily outrun and outleap a man, no contest there, but can't carry the same weight on their back (no, they can't, ask the Laaps). Lifting strength, torquing strength, etc, all less than humans, and with a body definetly not designed to use leverage.

      Juvenile tiger: Let's declaw this kitty for simplicity. Pointy bits are, of course, a major evolutionary advantage, but that's not what we're gauging here. First, the spring-like back of all felines is powerful, but can't bear a tremendous amount of weight on it. Note that cats tend to drag their kill, not hoist it and go. (With the notable exception of cheetahs, who tend to tree their prey). Having spoken with a tiger trainer on this subject before, he's indicated that a tiger's forearms aren't incredibly strong; most people at the same weight could "arm-wrestle" a tiger and win, so to speak. Tigers gain most of their knock-down power from lunging their body and hitting with the shoulders; again, back to powerful legs. Twisting torque isn't a forte of theirs; they rely instead on a tight bite at the neck, and their body weight, to bring most prey down.

      As a last example; an animal your weight, were one to tie 15 lbs. weights to each of their arms and legs, would be very unlikely to be able to move at all. A human being, while not able to move /easily/, would still be able to exert the necessary leverage to travel distances.

      --
      "To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
    40. Re:makes you wonder... by Eivind · · Score: 1
      Energy consumption. Muscle burns more calories per kg than most other body-tissue, even when at rest.

      You should remember that 99.9% of our evolution took place in an environment where getting enough to eat was a struggle, and starvation was a real problem that killed lots and lots of people.

      More muscle is good, if you need it. Thus muscles do grow if used. But a lot more muscle than your body "needs" for what it's doing will only increase your energy-consumption and thus increase the chanse that you starve.

      In general our bodies are rather poorly adapted for the current condition where overfeeding is a couple of magnitudes more common than underfeeding.(I'm talking rich people like 99% of those reading slashdot here, I know thats not globally true.) A lot of things your body do make no sense in the actual situation you're in now, for example:

      • The body tries to store away energy from the food for getting you over worse times. That's counterproductive for a modern person who *are* at risk for heart-disease or other problems of overweigth, but who will probably never in its life experience a single week without food. More sensible would be a body that does this only aslong as BMI is under say 25, and then simply lets any extra energy after that go straigth trough, or get wasted.
      • If it's cold, your body tries to preserve heat in central important organs *without* resorting to shivering by shutting down blood to extremities, making you freeze on your fingers and toes. Shivering is essentially wasting energy to produce heat. Excess shivering typically would lead to starvation. Today pretty much everyone would consider it a *double* bonus if the body would simply burn whatever is needed to keep you warm, making you a) warm and b) slim. It's not as if it's a *problem* to the typical westerner if he needs to provide the body with a 1000 calories extra today because of the cold.
    41. Re:makes you wonder... by Lurkingrue · · Score: 1

      Raw grass and leaves contain an enzyme that prevents you from extracting the protein in it. Unless you have the _very_ specialized digestive system of a herbivore, _or_ can boil those plants (high temperature destroys that enzyme), you can't survive on leaves.

      Really? Now, what enzyme would that be? I was never taught this, and I find it fascinating.

    42. Re:makes you wonder... by tf23 · · Score: 1

      No way. Maternal instinct rules. Most mothers will go nuts to protect their kin, whether ugly, malformed, etc.

    43. Re:makes you wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely false. To lose weight, you have to eat 5-6 times a day of the proper foods. But don't let your ignorance stop you from spreading your point of view!

  23. It bears saying that... by jemfinch · · Score: 1

    THIS STORY IS USELESS WITHOUT PICS! :)

    Jeremy (typing some non-caps here to pass the lame lameness filter)

    1. Re:It bears saying that... by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      No it doesnt. It will be tough enough for the kid growing up without people like you needing to look at him as if he's in a freak show.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:It bears saying that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's what he gets for being such a FREEKIN FREEKO-WEIRD MUSCLEBABY!!!!!!

  24. Myostatin in cattle by Lust · · Score: 5, Informative

    Muscle doubling in cattle with the same gene was publishedin 1997, with extraordinary photos of a Belgian Blue bull: HERE

    1. Re:Myostatin in cattle by confused+one · · Score: 1

      didnt' read the article did you? They mentioned Belgian Blues as well as lab super mice.

    2. Re:Myostatin in cattle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You havent been here very long have you? The poster offerd a very good picture while your RTFM and wasting everyones time with your goofy post

    3. Re:Myostatin in cattle by JamesD_UK · · Score: 1

      mmmmm double muscle beef. Myostatinlicious!

    4. Re:Myostatin in cattle by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Holy Crap! That is one bad-ass bull...

    5. Re:Myostatin in cattle by _randy_64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Holy cow!

      --
      I mod down all the "free iPod"-sig losers.
    6. Re:Myostatin in cattle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he's not allowed to show a pic of what the cow looks like?

    7. Re:Myostatin in cattle by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      So why aren't all cattle like this? Is the increased meat not enough to offset the increased cost of food or care or something?

      It seems like you'd want all meat cattle to be like this, wouldn't you?

    8. Re:Myostatin in cattle by bgeer · · Score: 1

      There's also an article about myostatin in this month's Scientific American, which includes an even more striking photo of a Belgian Blue. Here's the original from Corbis (which belongs to Bill Gates... ugh).

    9. Re:Myostatin in cattle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are exceptionally lean. Lean beef != juicy. A well marbled cut would be what is tastiest.

  25. It's known already by luugi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Products that claim to regulate myostatin are already used by many athletes and bodybuilders.These guys are always ahead of the game.

    --
    Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought.
    1. Re:It's known already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that the products only "claim" to work. I've seen the "articles" and read all about them, I work in a GNC. It's all bullshit for now, you can't genetically modify yourself with a pill.

      Bodybuilders and athletes are not using myostatin blockers. They'll advertise for them, sure, but they know they don't work. Steroids, baby.

    2. Re:It's known already by Bearpaw · · Score: 1
      The problem is that the products only "claim" to work. I've seen the "articles" and read all about them, I work in a GNC. It's all bullshit for now, you can't genetically modify yourself with a pill.

      You're probably right that the claims are bullshit, but it likely wouldn't be necessary to "genetically modify yourself with a pill" to block myostatin. It'd just be necessary to find a way of interrupting the production mechanism governed by the normal gene.

    3. Re:It's known already by Erwos · · Score: 1

      Porn sites and athletes - always on the bleeding edge of technology!

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    4. Re:It's known already by lazyl · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the products only "claim" to work. I've seen the "articles" and read all about them, I work in a GNC. It's all bullshit for now, you can't genetically modify yourself with a pill.

      Well you wouldn't have to do that. Myostatin is just a protien. A myostatin-blocker would be a drug (antibody) that attacked it. You're right, none of the current products actually work, but there is no reason that we can't eventually develop ones that do. The linked articles mention some drug companies that have been (and are) researching it.

      --
      Aw crap, ninjas!
  26. One of the X-men? by bored_lurker · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Didn't I just watch this story on DVD last night? I guess we know where this kid is going to school.

    --
    --- Tolerance is the axiomatic "virtue" of those without convictions ---
    1. Re:One of the X-men? by justkarl · · Score: 1

      abnormally muscular German baby

      Well, yeah! It's Colossus. Although, technically, colossus was Russian, but I'd bet that this kid can change his body to steel too.

  27. July Scientific American by peter303 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The cover story in the July Scientific American is about genetic enhancements of muscle. (They havent put the article online free yet.) The thrust is finding an inhibitor for the muscle-growth inhibitor called myostatin. In the article is a picture of a bovine lacking the myostatin gene. It is so bulked up, that it looks like a cylinder of meat with a nose and four hooves sticking out.

    1. Re:July Scientific American by Tozog · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is up for free now here.

      The method in the article is gene therapy, replacing the natural gene with a gene to block myostatin. The NY Times article talks about a drug antibody to prevent myostatin from reaching muscle satalite cells.

    2. Re:July Scientific American by tunabomber · · Score: 1

      Here's a direct link to that story.

      --

      pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
    3. Re:July Scientific American by paz5 · · Score: 1

      The artical also spoke of at least one family of weight lifting champions who had this condition naturally. They did not say the name because the family wanted to be anonymous, but if they know of a family who this happens semi frequantly in then it can't be the first case of it.

    4. Re:July Scientific American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With gene therapy, any scrawny nerd can grow 15% to 30% more muscle mass. Soon, we'll see some ex-nerds in the Olympic weightlifting competition!

    5. Re:July Scientific American by nucal · · Score: 1
      To be a stickler, the main gene therapy method described in the SciAm article is to stimulate muscle cell growth with IGF-1.

      Local satellite cells residing outside the muscle fibers answer this call. First these muscle-specific stem cells proliferate by normal cell division, then some of their progeny fuse with the muscle fiber, contributing their nuclei to the cell. Both progrowth and antigrowth factors are involved in regulating this process. Satellite cells respond to insulinlike growth factor I, or IGF-I, by undergoing a greater number of cell divisions, whereas a different growth-regulating factor, myostatin, inhibits their proliferation.

      Another article by Sweeney on the ethics of using gene threapy in athletes is in Discover. The main point here is that since you can drive overexpression of human IGF-1 injected directly into muscle (as opposed to the circulation), this is an essentially undetectable method for "doping" athletes.

    6. Re:July Scientific American by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Cows are cylinders of meat with a nose and four hooves sticking out. So are sheep, pigs and peop^H^H^H^Hgoats.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    7. Re:July Scientific American by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      The NY Times article talks about a drug antibody to prevent myostatin from reaching muscle satalite cells.
      So the extra muscle mass is due to satelite cells being developed prematurely. I guess that means that these people will suffer muscle wasting as they age, and muscle injuries will take longer to heal, if they do so at all.
  28. All I want to know is... by celery+stalk · · Score: 1
    ...when can I get the drugs?

    In addition, myostatin blockers could be used as performance enhancers.

    --
    aaaand...whee!
    1. Re:All I want to know is... by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      The google search comes up with this as the third link, and has a sponsored link on the right.

  29. The kids school by uwquazi · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wouldn't it just be TOO funny if he ended up at Xavier University in Ohio?

  30. Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by SilentChris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like the fact that they're already touting this as an advance for athletics. That is, until people find out that (for example) it increases ALL muscles, including the heart, which'll then overgrow and collapses at the age of 35. There's a reason why mutations don't happen all the time.

    1. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by kneecarrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or perhaps the muscle will become so developed that it will bring flexibility down to zero essentially rendering the individual athletically useless.

      --

      I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.

    2. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by julesh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My understanding is that short of genetic engineering, there is no way to take advantage of this for athletics.

      Of course, that hasn't stopped numerous companies selling "myostatin inhibitors", but from what I've read, none of them actually work.

    3. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by presarioD · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can see the future:

      Ladies and Gentlmen welcome to Bagdad Olympics 2044 were all sorts of mutants will compete for the gold medal.

      For the 300m sprint we have Rabbit-Man with a third leg from LegBotics(TM) with the capability to run(TM) and jump(PATENT PENDING) as high as 4m.

      Next to him we have MuscleMan(TM) with genetically engineered MuscleSoft(TM) muscles that can boost performance to all time records.

      We hope(TM) you enjoy(TM) the games! Here are a few messages for you...


      --
      Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
    4. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by Tozog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The gene therapy version of this talked about in Scientific American says it can be targetted to specific muscles. They were able to use this on mice to enhance one leg by 25% while the other leg's muscles developed normally.

      The increase in muscle came with no additional work, the mice were essential sedentary, but still gained 15-25% muscle mass.

    5. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Gene Therapies are real and in limited use. A crippled myostatin gene could be introduced into muscle cells. It would have a dampening effect on any existing mystatin genes. The gene would also be active for at least several months if not years.

      2. If the gene were introduced directly into muscle cells it would *not* effect the heart. All of the myostatin would be generated and consumed inside the altered muscle cells. It would not circulate in the bloodstream.

    6. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by csteinle · · Score: 1

      They'd be great offensive linemen, though...

    7. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      Obviously, this 'muscle suppresant' is in our bodies for a reason. If it wasn't, these 'mutants' would have been the evolved aspect of us (unless you prescribe that they are GOING to be the evolved aspect of us).

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    8. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by spells · · Score: 1

      They'd be great offensive linemen, though

      Sorry you have been banned from /. for a football reference. I'm worried I'm going to be banned just for understanding the joke ;)

    9. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by Surt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read the scientific american article. They've already figured out how to use it for athletics short of genetic engineering, and they've done proof of concept in rats.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    10. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      >>They were able to use this on mice to enhance one leg by 25% while the other leg's muscles developed normally.

      This means I can get my left arm to the same size as my right?

    11. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      I'd like one giant muscle leg and one regular leg. Then I'd fit right in with the other people at Wal Mart, instead of bing stared at for being "normal" and wearing clothes bought "outside of Wal Mart"... :)

    12. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Obviously, this 'muscle suppresant' is in our bodies for a reason.

      What's not so obvious is the reason. Maybe muscular people eat more? That might be a problem in times of famine. All we really know is that this gene is typically present.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    13. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This means I can get my left arm to the same size as my right?

      There's an easier way... just give yourself some lefty every other time. Or if you are adventuresome, switch hit.

    14. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by AceM2 · · Score: 1

      Well, look at what some of the athletes are already using. Injecting massive amounts of Growth Hormone will cause these problems and more.

    15. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by gearry · · Score: 1

      I agree generally. If there were no immediate drawback to this mutation it would seem that it would have become commonplace long ago assuming that a stronger human would have had an evolutionary advantage.

      An earlier post theorized that this mutation may cause the heart to collapse at 35, thus preventing the proliferation of this mutation. The problem with that theory is that heart failure at that age would have been after average childbearing age even up to modern times. Even accepting that having living parents increases a childs chance of surviving to fertile age, it would appear that death at 35 would not have had a large effect on human evolution over much of its course.

      The only conclusion I see is that the particular mutations neccesary for this condition to manifest are rare. I am not a specialist in gentics, but it seems that the nature of mutation is such that its rare manifestion as this condition, abnormal muscle development, would not exert a strong evolutionary pressure.

      --
      like g-a-r-y, only different
    16. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No can do. It just feels... wrong. I end up feeling completely uncoordinated. Though, maybe I should cause I think my penis is starting to bend to the right.

      *glad for that -Post Anonymously- option*

    17. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the SciAm article, the mice tested with gene therapy did not die any sooner than normal mice. They lived just as long, and when they were older, they were still active with twice the muscle strength of younger, normal mice.

      Now, granted that these mice were not born with the unusual gene. They were normal mice given an injection as adults.

    18. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are lots of muscles in the body. Any number of problems could result from them being overgrown. Your eyes might have difficulty focusing, your digestive system might croud itsself and stop working. You might have difficulty controlling the release of enzimes for digestion or hormones for controlling body chemistry. Modern medicine should be able to compensate for most of these problems, but it is highly unlikely that this kid will live to see old age.

    19. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you want to fit in with the assholes at wal-mart, just park your cart in the way and stand around with your thumb up your ass at every opportunity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Last time I was in WalMart, I stood in front of a woman with my arms out on both sides of me, preventing her from passing. She was probably annoyed, but this shoud be expected since just minutes earlier she put her cart sideways in the aisle, making me move the thing to get past while she selected only the finest loaf of bread Wally World has to offer. I had to use my arms to return the favor since I had no cart. :(

      That reminds me - why do people always leave their cart in front of / next to my car, instead of in the "cart corral" that's 10 feet away? It's somewhat likely that the cart will roll into their car while they're backing away. So they want dents? *I* don't want dents...

    21. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by yabos · · Score: 1

      Sure you can do it. You just need to block the protein from working, which they have already found a way to do. The mutation the kid has produces no myostatin, but blocking it would have the same effect.

    22. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Every time I'm in wal-mart I have to move someone's cart. Last time I was there two women were standing, lost in deep thought over the dairy products wally world thoughtfully put on the endcap of an aisle right next to some crap on a display island, and when I said "excuse me" one woman said something to the other one (in some foreign language) and the other one just stood there looking at me like, "what could you possibly want?" So without significantly breaking stride I shoved her cart sideways in between the two of them and strode along. She gave me about half a dirty look but I have the pleasure of being 6'7" and about 300 lb and people usually don't say shit. I know that makes me sound like a bully, but I honestly do try to use my powers for good. Or at least, I only do evil on people who are an unmitigated pain in the ass.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Shoving inconsiderately placed carts out of the way is *definately* using powers for good. I'm a mere 6'2", but that's still taller than most old women and I can kinda manage that "intimidating because I might be deranged" look if I frown real hard. ;)

    24. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      An earlier post theorized that this mutation may cause the heart to collapse at 35, thus preventing the proliferation of this mutation. The problem with that theory is that heart failure at that age would have been after average childbearing age even up to modern times.
      Agreed. That's why, as others have observed, the primary disadvantage is not heart failure, but starvation. A less muscular person is more likely to survive a famine.
    25. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Muscle mass doesn't interfere with flexibility unless the person is positively colossal or excessively fat as well as muscular.

      One of the most famous pre-steroid bodybuilders, John Grimek, could do splits and stand with his legs straight and rest his elbows on the ground.

      If this kid grows up with flexibility problems, it's either another indirect result of his odd genetic makeup or he's so big he can enter Mr. Olympia contests.

    26. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by SEE · · Score: 1

      No, not necessarily.

      You need a significant selective pressure for a mutation for it to become common. Even a genetically dominant trait -- say, six fingers in humans -- will remain indefinitely confined to a small subest of the population unless there is a significant selective pressure for it.

      In a species whose primary -- and overwhelming -- adaptation for survival is its intelligence, it's quite possible that a mere 20% increase in musculature would have sufficient selective pressure in its favor to overcome genetic "inertia", even if there were no drawbacks. Often the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but merely to those fit enough that a new mutation isn't enough to displace them.

    27. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      No can do. It just feels... wrong.

      Mike, is that you?

      (Not safe for work)

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    28. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      "Even accepting that having living parents increases a childs chance of surviving to fertile age, it would appear that death at 35 would not have had a large effect on human evolution over much of its course"

      Noooo way. Having your parents survive until you are of childbearing age is a HUGE benefit to your own reproductive chances. This has been studied and shown to be generally true for the great apes, although I can't find a link on Google at the moment (except for some crap on stormfront.org :-P)

      That aside, it's worth noting that it doesn't matter if mutations are rare, since they'll quickly become common if they confer any slight overall benefit. My guess is that this mutation was disadvantageous in the past (broken bones, increased metabolism and whatnot) but not necessarily disadvantageous in our modern environment, where food is not a problem and broken bones aren't life threatening injuries.

    29. Re:Will be used in athletics for a limited time... by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      You know, this is exactly the theme of "Les Olympiades truquées" (~fraud olympics) book by Joelle Wintrebert.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
  31. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry... by FrostedWheat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does he turn green when he's having a tantrum?

    1. Re:You wouldn't like me when I'm angry... by Steamhead · · Score: 1

      More likely blue, since his lungs probably couldn't deliver enough oxygen.

  32. Article about this in latest Scientific American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Look at Gene Doping. Look at the bull on page 2.

  33. I bet the problem is the heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet the long muscles in the limbs might see a benefit, but the heart gets so big it can't pump effectively.

  34. my05t/\t1/\/ by bl8n8r · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am adding this to my spam filter now.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  35. Pics of the kid at school by aapold · · Score: 0

    Though it's hard to see the definition inside those school uniforms: http://www.agh2o.org/badlarp/badlarp_files/musclem en.jpg

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
    1. Re:Pics of the kid at school by aapold · · Score: 1
      --
      "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  36. let me get this straight... by jmrobinson · · Score: 1

    we've had heroine babies, crack babies, and now we have 'roid babies??

  37. Bodybuilding... by Mz6 · · Score: 1

    It's already used for bodybuilders...

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:Bodybuilding... by julesh · · Score: 1

      You're linking to a snake-oil product that doesn't work.

    2. Re:Bodybuilding... by geordi177 · · Score: 1

      "If you want to get lean and gain muscle or strength, myostatin is your worst enemy. It is the one hormone in your body whose only mission is to stop you from getting in better shape! Everyone makes myostatin, and it is the primary reason why it is almost impossible to make dramatic increases in muscle size and performance naturally. That's because every time you do something that stimulates improvement, your body stops it with a burst of myostatin."

      They advertise like myostatin is your enemy, where it has been found that most everything in our complex bodies provided by mother nature has a useful purpose (except maybe the appendix...but that may have a purpose yet). Messing with something that works is a bad idea...If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

    3. Re:Bodybuilding... by swimmar132 · · Score: 1

      Has a useful purpose in evolutionary terms, perhaps, not necessarily a useful purpose in today's world.

  38. Baby's Father.. by cOdEgUru · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the article

    There was no information on the baby's father

    Second Coming of Christ! This time, he's kicking your ass!!

    1. Re:Baby's Father.. by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Funny

      but is he going to forgive the lesbians AND get rid of the vampires?

      (see the 0-budget movie Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter)

    2. Re:Baby's Father.. by perdu · · Score: 1
      Second Coming of Christ! This time, he's kicking your ass!!
      Was this about the article, or your regular sig? ;)

      --
      You only use 2% of your DNA
    3. Re:Baby's Father.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yah...the Saviournator...

    4. Re:Baby's Father.. by thetaco82 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sylvester Stallone stars in this summer's ACTION BLOCKBUSTER Jesus 2: This Time it's Personal!

    5. Re:Baby's Father.. by medvezhatnik · · Score: 1

      His father was green goblin from "Spiderman"

    6. Re:Baby's Father.. by haggar · · Score: 1

      "Last time I died for your sins. That didn't really work. So now I came back to kick your ass." ;o)))

      --
      Sigged!
  39. hmm.. by leakingmemory · · Score: 1

    Will this be considered doping in sports?

  40. Re:Here I come to save the day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO, I DID NOT KNOW THAT WAS COMING! I have to disagree with all my might. Really, what does that mean?! And what are you going to do to save the day? Save whose day? You have just ruined my day, now I have to be angry all day long. Saved the day? More like here you came to ruin my day. So shut up, will you?

  41. Better contact Professor X.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Someones gotta show the superbaby how to use his power correctly, right?

  42. he's 4 right? by surreal-maitland · · Score: 1
    so, when he's 18, i'll be 36 . . . that's not so big an age difference . . . . ;)

    mmmmm, tasty buff boys . . . .

    --
    -ninjaneer
  43. You idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The story link already contained the GOOGLE referrer link already. There was no need to register you insensitive karma whoring clod.

  44. bodybuilders have been using this stuff by astanley218 · · Score: 3, Informative

    A few years ago I managed a retail health/nutrition shop. Shortly before I left there was lots of commotion over new research involving certain myostatin inhibitors. Once such product was made from a special marine algae. You can read a review about it here.

    Unfortunately, I left the position before I had a chance to discuss with any first-hand users of these things, but it looks like they're still being sold at various web sites, so somebody must think they're working.

    1. Re:bodybuilders have been using this stuff by julesh · · Score: 1

      it looks like they're still being sold at various web sites, so somebody must think they're working.

      What, you mean like people think powdered rhino horn is a good treatment for impotence?

    2. Re:bodybuilders have been using this stuff by NerdSlayer · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, I left the position before I had a chance to discuss with any first-hand users of these things, but it looks like they're still being sold at various web sites, so somebody must think they're working.

      Ah, the joys of supplement snake oil. Let's just say that kelp hasn't replaced dianabol as the breakfast of champions.

  45. Not mentioned in the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the child's parents have decided on the name 'Clark Kent'

  46. Belgian Blue by luiss · · Score: 1

    A picture of a belgian blue cattle.

  47. well, according to the article by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 2, Informative

    they think he could very well use up his 'sattelite cells' (whatever those are) and his muscles would start to deflate at 30yrs...

    1. Re:well, according to the article by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      The one thing I don't understand about that worry is that the "satellite" cells are described in one article as dividing before giving themselves to the muscle.

      So shouldn't the satellite cells be able to replenish themselves? Examples of cases where a human has a limited supply of cells that cannot be replenished are very rare. (I can only think of female egg cells - sperm can be infinitely replenished, same thing with blood and nearly any other cell.) Oh yeah, nerve cells grow extremely slowly. There is actually an infinite supply, but that supply is replenished so slowly that it cannot cope with almost any neural injury.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  48. But what happens..... by WyerByter · · Score: 1

    When you cut his hair?

    --

    This signiture copied from somewhere.
    1. Re:But what happens..... by Ikoma+Andy · · Score: 1

      Score:1

      See, you have to know your audience...

    2. Re:But what happens..... by WyerByter · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do act all high and mighty and all knowing, but a single reference to clasical liturature stumps them.

      --

      This signiture copied from somewhere.
  49. Ramifications by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    This month's Scientific American discusses gene doping. The basic premise is that the same gene therapies that can help individuals with genetic diseases can be twisted to give athletes an unfair advantage. More massive muscles, more oxygen carrying blood cells, taller, etc. Although it's years away, given the state of drug doping in athletics today, it only seems the next stage.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  50. Energy by Herz · · Score: 0

    Muscles spend energy when resting too. Good if you want to lose fat, bad if you are low on food.

    --
    In vino vici
  51. PHOTO HERE by swordboy · · Score: 5, Informative
    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    1. Re:PHOTO HERE by itwerx · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up! None of the linked articles had pictures.

      (Oh wait, nobody around here RTFA anyway, right? Nevermind... :)

    2. Re:PHOTO HERE by macdaddy357 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The little boy dresses in animal skins, wears a turtle shell hat, carries a club, and can constantly be heard saying, "Bam! Bam! Bam bam bam!".

      --
      How ya like dat?
    3. Re:PHOTO HERE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article at that links makes the claim that the kid can hold 7 lb. weights with his arms extended, something many adults can't do! I find that hard to believe, maybe most people can't do it for any length of time, but can't do it at all??

      Then again, maybe I am just buff :-)

    4. Re:PHOTO HERE by Mattcelt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's an article about gene doping (which talks about myostatin) in Scientific American this month. You can read it here.

      It's particularly interesting that this [the German child's case] is the first time it's been recorded from infancy - that seems very odd!

    5. Re:PHOTO HERE by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Be careful, under the new SOCK (Screw Over Computer Kids) act if you have that image in your browser cache you could get busted for child pornography.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:PHOTO HERE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... I would take that as bullshit. I can take a ten pound weight and hold it in one hand, arm extended, with no problem for a decent amount of time, and my arms are basically twigs. Maybe I'm just doing wrong... do I have to be standing on my head or something at the same time?

    7. Re:PHOTO HERE by T'hain+Esh+Kelch · · Score: 0

      Scary picture... It actually looks like he's holding his super-size weener (spelling?) ind his hands...

  52. Hercules by iplayfast · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the same thing happened to Hercules. It would explain a lot wouldn't it?

    He killed snakes bare handed when he was a toddler. ref

  53. Re:So Fark cliches are invading Slashdot now? by bandy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Still no cure for cancer.

    --
    "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
  54. Re:Here's the article. Registering for news is gay by tiptone · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    posting the article text for karma is gay...

    --
    Please don't read my sig.
  55. Not a mutation by Saltine · · Score: 1

    I don't think it's a mutation. All the articles say that they have no information about the baby's father. It's obvious to me, at least, that the father is none other than Jor-El, famous Kryptonian scientist. The whole "myostatin" thing is just a red herring to cover up his unfaithfulness to Lara.

  56. picture here! by elinenbe · · Score: 1

    here is a picture of the child. Quite amazing! check out those quads!

    --
    -eric
  57. Juiced by ChrisTower · · Score: 1

    They already sell sports supplements that claim to supress myosatin.

    The claim to use a marine vegetable extract called Cystoseira canariensis that "has been shown to help safely and effectively scavenge myostatin in the body". I imagine a Ms. Pacman game at the cellular level but I'm sure it's not that interesting and I hear that it doesn't work so well.

  58. Downside by Osgyth · · Score: 2, Informative

    If anyone bother to RTFA (but hey this is /. so that's too much to ask) it would tell you the hypothesized downside.

    Muscle cells are surrounded by immature satellite cells that lie dormant until the muscle is injured. Then they migrate into the muscle, replacing injured or dead cells. A recent paper indicated that myostatin might normally function to keep satellite cells quiescent. Without myostatin, he said, the satellite cells might be so active building muscle that they become depleted early in life.

    So they worry that the muscle growth will stop, and eventually reverse without the cells to repair.

  59. Athletics by pHatidic · · Score: 1

    "Myostatin blockade," Dr. McNally wrote, "will probably work its way into professional and amateur athletics, as well as into the ever-growing business of physical enhancement."

    No, it won't work its way into amateur athletics because by definition people who do amateur athletics do it for the LOVE of the sport, not money, respect, or fame. No one who wakes up at 5am to get down to the boathouse to go for a row or who goes for a jog before work is going to risk mucking up their heart and body in a sport no one else cares about.

    /rower

  60. German Uber child? by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 1


    Who saw this one comming?

    1. Re:German Uber child? by Walrus99 · · Score: 1

      Who saw this one comming?

      Nietzsche. The kid will become Tier Anastazi's great-great-great grandparent.

  61. Gene by l0wland · · Score: 1

    Bye bye V|1|A|G|RA| and iiiiinstant eeeeeeerection-pills, it's the gene we have to go after. Ladies, here I come!

    --

    "Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
  62. Finally!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    After 65 years worth of failed attempts, the german ubermensch experiment is a success!

  63. Heart problems by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Technically your heart is a muscle (okay so not technically but follow me), if your heart becomes too strong wouldn't it in theory screw up your blood flow? Also penis problems come to mind as well as many other things, but they seem to be the two major problems with having overly active muscles.

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:Heart problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude ... your penis is NOT a muscle.

      Get this through your thick skull. Your penis isn't even attached to your body by muscles, but by ligaments.

      Therefore, you can stop lifting those weights I know you've been lifting. It ain't gonna help.

      Oh yeah, and stop playing with yourself.

      --GOD

    2. Re:Heart problems by Drawkcab · · Score: 1

      There are animals with similar genes, such as cattle bred for more lean meat, and this trait has already been studied in these animals, just not identified in humans. Nobody has mentioned that cattle with these traits are sickly. Of course, we wouldn't really notice anything but the most severe health problems since animal health problems aren't monitored the way human health is.

      This gene affects one pathway by which muscle growth is regulated. But organisms evolve with plenty of failsafes and redundancies. One mutation isn't necessarily going to be lethal. There are other ways in which the body keeps tissue growth in check.

      Besides, this boy only has about twice the lean muscle mass of his peers. If he were an adult athlete, it wouldn't be that unusual to have more than twice the strength of an average person. Its not like he's the incredible hulk or something, just far above average, which is particularly noticeable at 5 when there is less individual variation in athleticism.

  64. Of all the places by Sir_Limps_a_lot · · Score: 1

    For this to happen, it had to happen in Deutschland. If there is any justice in the world, he'll have a two inch penis, and be impotent as well. OK, lame, but I couldn't resist.

  65. Muscular Dystrophy by Paulrothrock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My fiance's little brother has MD, a disease where the muscles degrade over time. Eventually, his heart or diaphram will be affected and he will die. Would a myostatin treatment help him by increasing muscle production? I'm not that familiar with his condition, so maybe some doctors or future doctors could help.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    1. Re:Muscular Dystrophy by SteveZep · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article says:

      In mice with muscular dystrophy, blocking myostatin helped overcome muscle wasting....
      Hopefully this type of therapy proves useful in people with MD too.

      The article also says:

      There is also the potential to help people who have muscle loss from normal aging or from cancer and diseases like those of the lung or kidneys.
      This would be a huge benefit to people who are bedridden because of long term illnesses. It could allow them to resume their normal lives quickly once their primary illnesses are resolved, without having to deal with the effects of muscle atrophy that set in after extended periods of inactivity.
    2. Re:muscular dystrophy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two things that I'm very surprised about. One that there is a female (your mother) with muscular dystrophy and two that she lived long enough to reproduce.

  66. He's UNBREAKABLE!!! by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    GET THIS KID SOME PROTECTION!! Mr. Glass has been waiting for him!! (He's still vulnerable to water if u recall)

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  67. Why would that be an advantage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Large paychecks from the NFL or WWF?

    And the resultant effect of being a chick magnet?

    Is that good enough of an advantage for ya?

    1. Re:Why would that be an advantage? by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We're not talking NBA- or NFL-muscular here. This kid may grow so much musculature that he will have trouble walking in a straight line later on. Physical handicaps are seldomly ever a "chick magnet".

    2. Re:Why would that be an advantage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being a chick magnet does not mean you reproduce more than the average person. Evolution is all about the offspring you have. Right now, poor africans are more popular than caucasians from an evolution point of view.

    3. Re:Why would that be an advantage? by Anonymous+Shepard · · Score: 1

      WWF - The World Wildlife Fund?

      --
      I have a life. I really do. I've just chosen to ignore it.
    4. Re:Why would that be an advantage? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Maybe he should go find that place where other people who suffer genetic mutations can go and find solace and education from the cruel world. You know, that place run by a bald man called Xavier?

      This is the first X-men post I've seen, and I had to post it. Man, it was so obvious, too. I would've put "First X-Man?" as the headline or something had I submitted the story. ;)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  68. Welcome Them? by caldroun · · Score: 1

    "I, for one, welcome our new myostatin-free overlords."

    I think that you only welcome them because they could beat you up.

    --
    "If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg
  69. No info on the father? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK lets connect some dots here:

    1. This is a rare mutation.
    2. The mother has one mutated gene and was unusually strong.
    3. The mother had several close male relatives who were unusually strong as well. None of them would agree to genetic testing.
    4. The boy has two copies of the gene - one of them had to come from the father.

    Draw your own conclusions...

    1. Re:No info on the father? by Sir_Limps_a_lot · · Score: 1

      Yuk. iiinnnnnbbreeeeeeeeeeders

  70. Re:Here's the article. Registering for news is gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    using gay for an insult is gay.

  71. Then only picture I could find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From spiegel.de:
    spiegel.de

    The picture shows the baby's legs at the age of nine months.

  72. Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Informative
    German supermen, nothing scary about that, eh, untermenschen?

    From this MSNBC article:
    Researchers would not disclose the German boys identity but said he was born to a somewhat muscular mother, a 24-year-old former professional sprinter. Her brother and three other close male relatives all were unusually strong [implying they also have one mutated copy of the gene], with one of them a construction worker able to unload heavy curbstones by hand.

    In the mother, one copy of the gene is mutated and the other is normal; the boy has two mutated copies. One almost definitely came from his father, but no information about him has been disclosed. The mutation is very rare in people.


    The boy has two copies. He could (absent an extremely unlikely second identical mutation on the other copy of the same gene) only get one from his mother. The other had to come from his father. The mutation is very rare. The mother has four male relatives with one copy of the mutation. The identity of the father has not been disclosed.

    Anyone care to connect the dots?

    I'm not pointing this out to be cruel or catty; I'm pointing it put because it's a good example of what's called the "founder's effect", a mechanism by which mutations -- by definition unique or nearly unique events -- became part of a general population.

    Since this child has two copies of the mutation, not only are phenotypic effects greater -- he's even more muscular than his mother who has a single copy -- but all of his children will have at least a single copy, like his mother.

    Were the conditions for founder's effect stronger -- that is, if he were a member of a smaller and more isolated population than modern Germany -- one can easily see how inbreeding could result in the mutation becoming common throughout that population.

    When two persons with a single copy of the mutation breed, one-quarter of their offspring (on average) will have, like the child being studied, two copies of the mutated form (or allele) of the gene (and no copies of the gene's normal allele), one-quarter will have two copies of the normal allele, and one-half of the offspring will have, like the mother, one mutated allele and one "normal" allele.

    But when a person with two copies breeds with a person with a single copy, one-half the offspring (on average) will have two copies of the mutation, and one-half will have one copy of it.

    So if there's any preferential benefit to having the mutation -- if those with the mutation do better and so have more offspring -- and if there's the in-breeding of founder's effect, the mutation should become common in the founder population.

    Indeed, it's likely that founder's effect, along with environmental conditions, explains why Germans and other Europeans, despite being descended from Africans 40,000 years ago, are white rather than black: being white is bad under the Africa sun, as, unprotected, it will lead to skin cancer and death by about age twelve. But being black in the weaker sunlight of Europe prevents the metabolization of vitamin D, leading to the weakened bones of rickets. In Africa, mutations that lead to less melanin production and whiteness also lead to death -- but in Europe it allowed a longer, better life.

    But how did lessened melanin production and "whiteness" spread in Europe? Likely through founder's effect in small and isolated inbreeding populations -- but certainly not because of any "Aryan" superiority.
    1. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      White people don't have melanin because melanin blocks the intake of vitamin D, which comes from the sun. In the sunless climate in northern Europe, people needed all the vitamin they could get.

    2. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smells fishy to me, too.

    3. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by lazn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Errm I grew up in Africa and did not die of cancer by age 12.. nor did plenty of my friends. (there is a "white" population in africa)

      And I spend enough time outdoors, that after moving back to the USA some of my friends had a hard time recognizing me when I lost my (very) dark tan. (yes I am now "pasty white boy")

      ==>Lazn

    4. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Errm I grew up in Africa and did not die of cancer by age 12.. nor did plenty of my friends. (there is a "white" population in Africa)

      I'm going to guess that you weren't living like humans lived in Africa 40,000 -- or 120,000 -- years ago: unclothed except for skins (and many days would be too hot for wearing skins), spending most of the day under the hot sun gathering uncultivated fruits and vegetables or running down undomesticated game, without sunscreen or medical supplies beyond naturally occurring plants, with no doctors or even any understanding of why skin cancer occurs.

      And quite possibly before natural mutations offering resistance to skin cancers had spread through the human population (by the death of those without those mutations).

      And I spend enough time outdoors, that after moving back to the USA some of my friends had a hard time recognizing me when I lost my (very) dark tan. (yes I am now "pasty white boy")

      And even with all the modern conveniences of (opaque but light enough to wear in the heat) clothing, sun-screen, and medical care, your body caught enough sunlight to provoke increased melanin production even in your white, European descended body.

      I not trying to be overly critical of you here; it's normal for people to think that the conditions that they have personally experienced obtained universally and throughout all of human history. Part of the challenge of learning history or understanding evolution (human or otherwise) is to begin to grasp the enormous differences and the great epochs of time -- time far, far in excess of the span of any single human's life, time measure in the millions of years -- that separate us from our origins.

      Let's play a game by pretending that every year only lasts a minute. It's 2004 today, so, by this game's metric, a "minute" ago it was 2003, and thirty-five minutes ago -- a little over half an hour ago -- Neil Armstrong, in 1969, set foot on the moon. In these terms, World War Two ended just a minute less than an hour ago. Three hours and forty-eight minutes ago -- in 1776 -- Thomas Jefferson declared independence for one nation while, essentially simultaneously in our terms, Adam Smith revealed an Invisible Hand that regulated commerce among all nations.

      Each hour is comprised of sixty minutes, each day of twenty-four hours, for a total of 1440 minutes per day. So by our scheme, one "day" ago, 1440 minutes ago, an English King named Riothamus -- or Arthur -- had just recently failed to keep south-western England from plunging into barbarity in 564. Since Arthur's reign, the rest of "yesterday" saw the Dark Ages in Europe offset by the flowering of Islamic science and mathematics, the rebirth of Europe in the Renaissance, the exploration and colonization of most of the world by Europeans, and, an hour ago, the beginning of the atomic age. All this in one busy "day".

      Even given the brevity of our metric, compressing one year of 525600 minutes into a single minute, it's still easily possible to recite the salient historical events on a year in the sixty seconds we are given, and even include our own particular history: "1903: first heavier-than-air flight; Grandma born." or "1943: Battle of Guadalcanal, Allied invasion of Italy, Warsaw Ghetto uprising against Nazis, Dad born."

      But what's most interesting isn't those years, like 1943, crammed full of events, but the far greater number of years which our histories don't distinguish from one another. Two days ago, 48 hours ago, we come to the year 875 BC (since there's no year zero, 1 AD being preceded immediately by 1 BC). While I'm sure that a historian of that era could come with an interesting event of that year, the nearest I can come up with is the ascension of Osorkon II to the pharoah's throne in Egypt the next year in 874 BC. The remainder of day two will be pretty packed: Rome will be founded and will reign for most of the day, Christ will be born and crucified in a brief half-hour - but will give rise to over a "day"

    5. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      So many slashdot discussions are just people spouting off their unbacked opinions, and being moderated to +5 by those who agree. Your comment is one of those extremely rare ones in which you read the article, and induced something insightful from it, actually adding to the conversation. I applaud you and wish there were some moderation that could set your +5 apart from all of those worthless "I agree with opinion" mods.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    6. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I applaud you and wish there were some moderation that could set your +5 apart from all of those worthless "I agree with opinion" mods.

      I've got an idea: Why not find out where he lives and go give him a blowjob?

    7. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I modded this post up (hence the AC status), and I'd just like to say that it is quite simply one of the greatest and most interesting posts I have ever read on Slashdot.

      We should have a /. hall of fame or something for comments.

    8. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont be racist!

    9. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by hshana · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it's likely that founder's effect, along with environmental conditions, explains why Germans and other Europeans, despite being descended from Africans 40,000 years ago, are white rather than black: being white is bad under the Africa sun, as, unprotected, it will lead to skin cancer and death by about age twelve. But being black in the weaker sunlight of Europe prevents the metabolization of vitamin D, leading to the weakened bones of rickets. In Africa, mutations that lead to less melanin production and whiteness also lead to death -- but in Europe it allowed a longer, better life.

      Actually, this isn't quite right. Skin color is based on the balance between several factors. Cancer as a selective pressure doesn't kick in quickly enough. The problem with being light skin near the equator has to do with UV rays breaking down folate, which is critical to embryonic development. No folate means no healthy babies. Skin cancer doesn't rear it's ugly head until the twenties or thirties, so therefore doesn't exert as much selective pressure. There was an article about this in Nature (IIRC) a couple three years ago.

    10. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The boy has two copies. He could (absent an extremely unlikely second identical mutation on the other copy of the same gene) only get one from his mother. The other had to come from his father. The mutation is very rare. The mother has four male relatives with one copy of the mutation. The identity of the father has not been disclosed.

      Anyone care to connect the dots?

      I'll take a stab. So you're saying the mother was diddled by her father? Or perhaps one of her brothers? You sick, probably correct, bastard.

      Incest, it's the game the whole family can play!
    11. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by Grandmasta · · Score: 1

      I want you to be my friend.

    12. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by geschild · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I had no mod points to give so I can respond under my own name, but I second the AC's reaction that this is one of those memorable posts that you wish you could give a bonus on top of some mod-points. If this is your own writing, please keep it up, it makes up for all the trolls and blabbering idiots out there.

      Thanks. Again.

      --
      Karma? What's that again?
    13. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by Groovus · · Score: 1

      "But how did lessened melanin production and "whiteness" spread in Europe? Likely through founder's effect in small and isolated inbreeding populations -- but certainly not because of any "Aryan" superiority."

      Ever shave a gorilla? A chimpanzee? What color was their skin under the hair? If you said "white" (well pinkish really but what we consider white for these purposes) you'd be correct in most cases! Whatever the case it certainly isn't what we'd consider to be "dark" for this converstation. Where do these sorts of primates live? Africa!

      Here's a thought - whiteness didn't spread to European people, those of our species who migrated to Europe were already "white". Darker skin is an adaptation to different living conditions. Those of our species who remained in (or moved to) climates which encouraged it evolved darker skin pigmentation - not the other way around. Remember, the climate of today or even the last few ten thousand years is very different from what it was when our species started out and has undergone drastic changes throughout that time.

    14. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Well, written... but doesn't all the evidence point to the fact that life began in Africa? Wouldn't the fact that Africans have much more diversity in the genepool than Europeans despite the enormously smaller population in Africa than in Europe suggest that a small group of Africans broke off and went north? And then some of them kept the mutation of white skin because tanning is the only way they had to produce vitamin D and you had to be much whiter to tan?.... And more vitamin D gave them the advantage of having stronger bones?... Which might come in handy in the environment in which they lived?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    15. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by mikebelrose · · Score: 2

      There's another possibility, some sort of accidental eugenics. Think of it this way, the mother had one of the genes, and it helped her become a competitive runner. It's reasonable to assume that there are men out there who are also good runners because of having a similar gene. The high-level track meets would then accidentally select many people with these genes, and while they're hanging around for their next race, they may get to talking.

    16. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by haggar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and my grandma was smoking and still lived 84 years, therefore smoking is not unhealthy.

      Most probably, the earth is flat, too. All this science-thing is just a hoax.

      --
      Sigged!
    17. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by zhenlin · · Score: 1

      Even as AC, I believe that the moderation will be canceled, unless you're logged out.

    18. Re:Mutations, founder's effect, and inbreeding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happened here is commonly known as the dueling banjo effect.

  73. How about some sobriety? by amightywind · · Score: 1

    Before you all get carried away with the superhero wisecracks, lets hope that this is not a serious birthdefect, and that the kid will develop normally. I wouldn't be to excited about what these Dr. Frankenstein wannabe biologists are accomplishing with their superrats. My guess is they live shorter lives than plain ones.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:How about some sobriety? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Heh, I wonder if his mom breastfed...

      --
  74. Shows up in domesticated cattle. by Richard+Mills · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming this is basically the same mutation that is present in Belgian Blue cattle. The mutation suppresses myostatin production, and thus muscle growth goes nearly unchecked. Google for a picture of one... they look like some sort of cross between cattle and a tank.

    1. Re:Shows up in domesticated cattle. by Sir_Limps_a_lot · · Score: 1

      Those things are freakin' huge. Gotta wonder what happens to this kid when he grows up.......

    2. Re:Shows up in domesticated cattle. by RCO · · Score: 1

      A gov. from Germany rather than Austria???

      --
      'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
    3. Re:Shows up in domesticated cattle. by Sir_Limps_a_lot · · Score: 1

      ja. "You vill vote for me, und you vill like it. Hear me now und vote for me later."

  75. Re:Here's the article. Registering for news is gay by DroopyStonx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    i wasn't posting it for karma. cry about it.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  76. I am Hans, and I am Franz, and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're here to pump you up!

  77. Look out! by thpdg · · Score: 3, Funny

    This kid was designed to beat up Slashdotters, in high school.

    --

    -Patrick

    "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

  78. Target specific muscles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, one day those penis-enhancing emails will actually be touting something that works?

    1. Re:Target specific muscles? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      That would be funny if it weren't for that fact that penii are not really "love-muscles".

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  79. Hurculese by Hojit · · Score: 0

    Hurculese Hurculese Hurculese Hurculese.

    1. Re:Hurculese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has to be the worst spelling I have ever seen.

    2. Re:Hurculese by seamarfan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That has to be the worst grasp of humor I've ever seen.

  80. It's about time by hshana · · Score: 1

    A super baby born in Berlin, Germany? And it only took them about 60 years...

  81. Re:uh oh. by underworld · · Score: 1

    Doesn't mentioning 'aryan' pretty much instantiate Godwin's Law?

    So, move along folks, this thread is dead.

  82. in what may be a related story by hkgroove · · Score: 1

    Larry Csonka was seen leaving ABC studios this morning, where he was rumored to be pitching a new show idea revolving around kids, a giant wall, and a gauntlet.

  83. Re:So Fark cliches are invading Slashdot now? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 2

    But it might be a cure for muscular dystrophy.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  84. There's a reason for having the myostatin by mz2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's normally a reason for having a tight regulation of muscle growth in animals, as there's a reason for regulating cell divisions and changes that lead to growth and proliferation overall in all sorts of multicellular organisms (otherwise you'd be just a big blob of tumour).

    So, taking out that regulatory protein myostatin will not perhaps be the healthies thing to do if you want to increase muscle size, as you'll just probably end up getting a heart-attack and all sorts of other nasty muscular problems with the most essential muscle tissues you have (heart and intestine at least). This sort of issues occur in GM-modified cattle with the similar myostatin mutation very regularly, and human as another not-too-distant mammal will probably not be any more safe from these problems.

  85. Good-bye muscle monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great! At last someone who can dump off Mr. Swarzenegger's muscle monopoly.

  86. muscular dystrophy by knightrdr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As someone who has muscular dystrophy and has a mother who is severely disabled by the same disease, this makes me very hopeful. Although the article specifically warns that they don't know what the long term effects of this disease are I think you would find that most people suffering from muscular dystrophy would gladly take 30 years of a somewhat "normal" life compared to being doomed to watch my body waste away for lack of a viable treatment. That said, I'm still very skeptical of this discovery. There are over 40 types of muscular dystrophy, not to be confused with multiple schlerosis, which may be affected to varying degrees by myostatin. One thing that the article didn't mention was that even with myostatin it's not possible to regrow muscle with our current technology. So what is already lost may be permanently lost, yet even a 25% improvement or even arrested development of the disease would be welcomed by many of us in the MD community.

  87. Myostatin blockers by julesh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For anyone who's wondering about the uses of treatments for blocking myostatin, here is an article you might want to read.

    Myostatin and Myostatin Inhibitors: The Next Big Supplement Scam

  88. In a related story.. by MyosinII · · Score: 1

    Old papers of a Nazi Eugenics experiment were found...

    --
    Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase
  89. Ubermensch! by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

    When he grows up, will be look like Dan Ackroyd, Christopher Reeve, Dean Cain, or Tom Welling?

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  90. Re:So Fark cliches are invading Slashdot now? by ComaVN · · Score: 1

    Luckily, it will be too late for Völler to benefit from this.

    --
    Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
  91. Don't know if this is the first. by Gadzinka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know if this is the first human w/o muscle-inhibiting protein.

    I once saw a program on Discovery about the guy whos muscles grew indefinitelly, even w/o any physical activity. He had to have them removed surgically from time to time.

    I'm not sure if that was the same condition, but I don't think I'd like to have it.

    Robert

    --
    Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
  92. Natural Selection for Pro Athletes by ianscot · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There's a reason why mutations don't happen all the time.

    They happen 'all the time' -- often enough -- but they mostly just don't result in an advantage that'll make you more successful, natural selection wise.

    You'd have to think, though, that dying at 35 might not stop some people. Tonight's the NBA draft. There's a 7 foot-5 inch European center who'll get taken mid-lottery or so. The kid has a growth hormone problem, diagnosed, that he's being treated for; teams regard it as an advantage, pretty clearly. Andre the Giant didn't live to old age, but he sure could pull down a paycheck in the meantime. If you take a look at steroid use, you'll see a bunch of people who might think this'd be worth it...

    ...making them less likely to reproduce and have their children reproduce, probably, unless the gruopie factor outweighs the difference. Selected against, on balance.

    (I love the popular idea that natural selection and evolution are constantly "improving the product." Super muscles! Rabbits get faster and faster, snakes get more and more poisonous! -- that idea. Sometimes the faster rabbits run out and get eaten by hawks before their more cautious friends. Sometimes a big brain means you're more likely to kill your mother during childbirth, reducing your chances of thriving and reproducing yourself. "Better" in that 6 Million Dollar Man sense isn't necessarily an evolutionary advantage at all.)

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Natural Selection for Pro Athletes by iabervon · · Score: 1

      They'd be selected against, assuming evolution stays Darwinian. But gene therapy already works for giving people genetic material neither of their parents had. Given how much body modification there is in American society (pierced ears or circumcision, just to mention two which are more common than not), there is a substantial amount of phenotype which is obviously not genetic, and is therefore passed on by conscious decisions, not natural selection.

      Once there's a substantial portion of behavior that is based on information passed between memebers of the species during their lifetime, things get much more complicated. Things that limit the advantage of various features may be corrected for afterwards. Chances are that this kid will get myostatin somehow before the lack of it kills him, and will grow up to need occasional unusual medical attention, but not be reproductively impaired.

    2. Re:Natural Selection for Pro Athletes by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "They happen 'all the time' -- often enough -- but they mostly just don't result in an advantage that'll make you more successful, natural selection wise."

      True, at least according to one theory. I've also heard that some mutations seem to burst forth in "spurts" all at once (usually due to a massive environmental change), and those mutations are the ones that tend to stick.

      There are some graphs out there -- maybe you've seen them. One shows more or less a steady line of mutations for evolution, the other one looks like stairs. I don't think it's been decided (or can be decided) which one is "right".

    3. Re:Natural Selection for Pro Athletes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sometimes the faster rabbits run out and get eaten by hawks before their more cautious friends.

      This example is stupid. You're conflating a physical capability (fast vs. slow) with a behavioral tendency (cautious vs. careless).

      Why would a faster rabbit necessarily be less cautious?

    4. Re:Natural Selection for Pro Athletes by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. That's a good point. Who's to say we aren't entering a period of rapid mutation right now? IIRC, that's pretty much the premise of X-Men.

      Given the environmental changes around us, greater population mixing, and plentiful and contaminated food supply we enjoy, I would not be at all surprised if we've reached an interruption of our equilibrium. It just makes sense; I should have seen it coming.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  93. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  94. ohh, goodness... by templest · · Score: 1

    I for one, re-welcome our German overlords.

    --
    I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
    1. Re:ohh, goodness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you from Poland by any chance? ;-)

  95. Evolution by arvindn · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If being a 'superhuman' were to confer a survival advantage, then natural selection would have ensured that the mutated gene would have become the standard. Given the obvious advantages of huge muscles, what are the downsides that apparently more than negate it? I read the article and couldn't find a definitive answer. There's one interesting bit:

    A recent paper indicated that myostatin might normally function to keep satellite cells quiescent. Without myostatin, he said, the satellite cells might be so active building muscle that they become depleted early in life. ... will his satellite cells be used up so that his muscles start to deflate when he is 30 or so?

    I'm wondering if that could be it. But then getting weak after age 30 doesn't sound like a big deal to me because humans' reproductive peak occurs well below that age. Any bio people have a clue about any other possibilities?

    1. Re:Evolution by Pendersempai · · Score: 1

      I think the limiting disadvantage is that muscle mass needs lots of protein. A human with this mutation living on the edge of starvation (as humans historically have) would die very quickly, I think.

      I hope I'm right, because starvation is something we (slashdot users) don't have to worry about much anymore -- which means we might be able to collect enormous health advantages without any significant downsides when and if functioning myostatin inhibitors are invented.

    2. Re:Evolution by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 1

      As many other people have noted in this thread, having essentially no fat would have reduced the survival chances for our ancestors in relatively recent history, in anything less than perfect conditions.

    3. Re:Evolution by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Could it be the effect of the new work cycle in the last 100 years that is delaying sexual reproduction until after 30?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:Evolution by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Given the obvious advantages of huge muscles, what are the downsides that apparently more than negate it?

      His heart is affected just as much as any other muscle in his body. He is probably going to be in for a host of heart related health problems throughout his life.

      Modern medicine might be able to make him comfortable or at least keep him alive, but if this had happened a few hundred years ago he'd probably be doomed.

    5. Re:Evolution by Detritus · · Score: 1
      ...getting weak after age 30 doesn't sound like a big deal to me because humans' reproductive peak occurs well below that age.

      It could be a liability if children with the trait do not have living grandparents to help raise them because of premature death. There would also be economic consequences to the larger social group due to the reduced number of productive adults.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  96. Selective use by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If it can be selective, then perhaps it could be used to bulk up a damaged heart. For example after a heart attack.

    In general, I'm with the parent poster on this one - more is not always better, and there is likely a down side to this. However, as humans really can't say one way or the other. Perhaps you need this mutation AND another one, two, or 12 to really be "better". Even a "bad" mutation may be good when taken with another set of modifications we don't know about. Embrace genetic diversity.

    1. Re:Selective use by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      if you are heterozygous (carrier) for Tay Sachs you are resistant to Tuberculosis and Sickle cell anemia carriers are resistant to malaria.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:Selective use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember rightly, cystic fibrosis carriers are resistant to cholera.

  97. Jeebus save me! by oomis · · Score: 1

    OhGodOhGodOhGodOhGod

  98. Better than a Tapeworm!!! by funkdid · · Score: 1
    This is so much better a diet then my last two ideas.

    Human Growth Hormone

    Ingest a Tapeworm

    The human growth hormone was reall an idea to speed up your metabolism to what it was like when your body released lots of it into your blood. (Think 17 year old). You eat cake for breakfast and don't gain weight no matter what you do. Unfortunetly it doesn't really work, and their are nasty side effects. - Go figure.

    As for the Tapeworm diet -I know what you're thinking, "He's Brilliant!". I could bottle tapeworms in a little jar and sell them for $19.95 each. It's the only diet where you can eat whatever you want, and still loose wait. - Again pretty ugly side effects.

    This however seems to be spot on. Super muscles for nothing. This is so marketable to Americans it's not funny. Hell I'd love this sh!t. I'm always complaining that I need to go to the Gym. With some gene therapy I could continue to be lazy, yet still have the benefit of walking around saying "Yo, I'm jacked!!!"

    --

    I boycott signatures

  99. You go now or I'll re-arrange your organs by vurg · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the baby will have an austrian accent.

  100. 2005 NFL Draft by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

    'The Cincinnati Bengals have selected, as its first-round draft choice, from the BerlinKids-International Kindergarten e.V....'

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  101. This has been recorded before... by BassettHound · · Score: 0, Redundant

    doesn't anyone remember Bam-Bam!!!?

  102. In A Related Press Conference... by Niello · · Score: 1

    ...Elijah Price has announced that his search can end. Of this tremendous discovery he said, "Now that we know who he is, I know who I am. I'm not a mistake. They called me Mr. Glass."

    --
    I give men fish.
  103. Oh my god! by Eudial · · Score: 1

    X-men is becomming reality!

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  104. In other news... by Ignatius_VI · · Score: 1

    ...the fatherland has plans to raise another army by the year 2024.

  105. Is he unbreakable? by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 3, Funny

    I see a strange, fragile comic book dealer in this kid's future.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  106. So Hitler was right after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The German people are a super race. This is only the beginning! Now that you have found out our secret we will accelerate our program of eugenics and create an entire nation of super people and once and for all have our thousand year reich.

    We now return you to your regularly schedule programming.

  107. BAM BAM! by perfectlynormalbeast · · Score: 1

    Look out Pebbles Flintstone! You're dream man has arrived!

  108. I just finished reading about this.... by TheVidiot · · Score: 1


    It was in a story called "Oryx and Crake". I thought it was fiction... but now...

  109. Flex Wheeler... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    supposidly has a rare mutation in this gene. google search first link

  110. Re:uh oh. by Sir_Limps_a_lot · · Score: 1

    We're safe, I don't think Godwin reads slashdot any more.

  111. Holy crap! by dexter+riley · · Score: 1

    Now I'm afraid that freakishly muscular bull will come to my house and beat the living crap out of me if I so much as look at another hamburger again!
    Tofu and sprouts, it's what's for dinner...or else!

  112. Anyone else notice by TerminalInsanity · · Score: 1

    the simpsons reference? =P

    1. Re:Anyone else notice by rush22 · · Score: 1

      yes...and I look forward to the day of toiling in their underground sugar mines!

  113. Confessions of a Pervert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I initially read that as "...naturally massive testicles..."

  114. Will the Olympics allow mutants to compete? by thisissilly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He's not taking any performance-enhancing substances. If he goes into weightlifting, and gets good at it, can he go to the Olympics?

    1. Re:Will the Olympics allow mutants to compete? by meringuoid · · Score: 1

      Look at the people in the Olympics. By the sheer fact of being Olympic-level athletes they're already at the very far end of the bell curve. Even if I'd been in training all my life I could never run a hunded metres in under ten seconds or a mile in under four minutes, and neither could most of humanity. If you ban people from the Olympics because their genes give them an advantage over most of the human race, you might as well call the whole thing off.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  115. Zero Gravity by Tekoneiric · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder what effect the blockers would have on the human body in zero gravity.

    --
    *It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
  116. Spooky thought... by Dr.+Smeegee · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From Associated Press Article
    Researchers would not disclose the German boy's identity but said he was born to a somewhat muscular mother, a 24-year-old former professional sprinter. Her brother and three other close male relatives all were unusually strong, with one of them a construction worker able to unload heavy curbstones by hand.
    In the mother, one copy of the gene is mutated and the other is normal; the boy has two mutated copies. One almost definitely came from his father, but no information about him has been disclosed. The mutation is very rare in people.

    I hate to sound the banjo alarm, but I suspect the easiest way for these genes to double up in the bairn would be in a case of incest.

    Eep. Wonder if they are recessive?
    1. Re:Spooky thought... by Xconnect · · Score: 0

      My biology's a little rusty but wouldn't it be dominant if the mother is muscular and she only has one copy of it? Even if it were recessive, incest would be a possible way but not the only way (thinking of albinism here).

      --
      --- root@127.0.0.1
    2. Re:Spooky thought... by Dr.+Smeegee · · Score: 1
      wouldn't it be dominant if the mother is muscular and she only has one copy of it?


      I believe you are correct.

      The reported rarity of the gene in humans is what makes me suspect inbreeding.

    3. Re:Spooky thought... by Blethrow · · Score: 1

      The mutation is likely semi-dominant, so you get a mild phenotype if you have one copy, and a strong phenotype, as in the kid, if you have two.

      Very likely the kid is the product of incest, or call him 'purebred' if you prefer.

      FWIW, IAAB.

  117. MAMA please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...raise him to be good, not evil!

  118. Kid will be a millionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Imagine the money he'll earn supplying sperm banks and renting out his studly services..

  119. Überman! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately he'll have to avoid red kryptonite for the rest of his life.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  120. Very Bad - Known in the Horse world as HYPP by user404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok folks, while genetic mutations happen, sometimes they are bad. In the horse world there is a halter horse known as 'Impressive'. He was what the particular comunity was looking for, massivly muscled, very high definition etc. Well since he won just about everything that he was entered in, he was bread to many, many horses. The gene that causes this is a dominate so it is passed along with about a 50% chance. The problem comes when a horse has this on both sides, he developes etc then he will die, quite a painful death. It was called 'Impressive Syndrome' for the longest time. They re-labled to be HYperkalemic Periodic Paralysis. This link is older but gives a decent background in it. The key point I am making here is that it's the gene is responsible for myostatin production. I truly hope it doesn't affect humans in the same way. It has gotten to be so bad they require testing of all of the known decendants of Impressive to be tested for HYPP, and if either side has the defect, they are not allowed to be bread (AQHA and APHA in particular). If they are, then they cannot enter the events (no $$,$$$,$$$.$$). They are intentionally trying to kill off this gene. Since the liniage of most registerd horses can be traced back several hundred years, it gave a powerful way to research this one in particular.

    --
    User not found: Please check the world and try again.
    1. Re:Very Bad - Known in the Horse world as HYPP by Larthallor · · Score: 1

      According to the link you supplied, this mutation has little or nothing to do with myostatin or this boy:

      In horses with HYPP, studies revealed a defect affecting a protein called the voltage-gaited sodium channel, a tiny gateway in the membrane of muscle cells. This gateway controls the movement of sodium particles in and out of the muscle cell. These sodium particles carry a charge that changes the voltage current of a muscle cell, allowing it to contract or relax. In horses with HYPP, the regulation of particles through the sodium channel occasionally fails, disrupting the normal flow of ions in and out of the muscle cell, causing uncontrollable muscle twitching or complete muscle failure.

  121. Space Exploration and Myostatin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am kind of surprised no other /.'er mentioned this possibility, so I will. Wasn't a limiting factor to space travel always considered the shriveling of muscles?

    In Zero-gravity, muscles atrophy rather quickly. Perhaps mystatin inhibition is part of an answer? If there was less Myostatin present in a given astronaut, perhaps muscles would rebuild themselves at a given rate. The rate would certainly vary with dose and individual, but I think there may be a possibility here for removing a serious limiting factor for long, manned space voyages.

    Research must be done, but what does everyone here think?

  122. Picture at Tribune by nightsweat · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi- 040624baby-photo,1,7431047.photo has a photo of the kid's legs. You might have to register. Hulk smash.

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
    1. Re:Picture at Tribune by zaren · · Score: 1

      Yes, you need to register, and yes, "slashdot" works for both :)

      I gotta say, my boy had thighs like that when he was that age, and he's a normal skinny 7 year old now. That just looks like a pudgy baby leg to me; I was expecting bulky, sinewy, Marvel-esque musculature. Makes me wonder what the kid looks like now.

      --
      Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
  123. "Better" isn't usually what we think it is by ianscot · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Bigger brains -- possibly higher intelligence, definitely higher risk in the birth canal.

    Faster rabbit -- sometimes runs out and gets nabbed by a hawk when the more cautious ones are holding back.

    Higher metabolism and endothermism -- requires more energy to keep going. (Similar cost for huge muscles.)

    There's a popular idea that things are getting "better" through natural selection and evolution. The things is, our ideas of what "better" would be are usually kind of silly and superficial. "Better adapted" is probably the way to think about it.

    Imagine a genetic trend toward, say, bolder, more aggressive personalities, as Nazi eugenicists would have wanted things to go. People who aren't afraid of life, who'll go out and seize it and try to change things for the better! Great, right? Except maybe a more cautious social nature is a heck of a good thing, given how complex human society is. Maybe personalities like that would be a disaster: wars, instability in our societies, and so on.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  124. Your muscle mass is limited by your hormones. by NarrMaster · · Score: 0

    The more testosterone, etc, you have, the greater muscle mass your body can sustain. Hence bodybuilders and steriods. Only by using the roids and HGH can bodybuilders sustain such massive bodies, which, in itself, is unhealthy. (5'4" at 260 lbs is unhealthy no matter what its composed of.) Take em off the roids, and they deflate like a balloon. So, this kid may or may not be limited to the amount of muscle he can sustain over time; it depends on his hormones.

    --
    That's right. All your base.
    1. Re:Your muscle mass is limited by your hormones. by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      Part of the post-steroids deflation is because the body ceases natural testosterone production in an attempt to compensate for all of the ingested/injected testosterone.

      Before steroids, bodybuilders like John Grimek had impressive levels of musculature.

      He would look like a pip squeak next to modern juice champions, though.

    2. Re:Your muscle mass is limited by your hormones. by NarrMaster · · Score: 0

      I'm not saying its not possible to have a large amount of muscle mass with out steriods, its just that their is a natural upper limit. And in respect with John Grimek vs the new modern bodybuilders, I wouldnt' say pipsqueak, I'd say "streamlined" vs. "bloated. Some of these guys look like they are about to explode with water. I think it kinda funny that there is a group of men who say they epitomize everything masculine, and then they shave, oil themselves, comment on each others "glutes" and "pecs", crash diet, etc. Actually, I think its fucking hilarious. Oh well. Anyway, I think we need travelling strongmen back, and make bodybuilders in today's competitions do feats of strength. Or stop with this so called "sport".

      --
      That's right. All your base.
  125. Re:Here's the article. Registering for news is gay by cloudmaster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I guess that clicking the link and noting that you don't have to register is also gay?

  126. Picture by skjernaa · · Score: 3, Informative

    A picture from a Danish newspaper. He is 7 months old at this picture.

  127. Marvel Comics by razmaspaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wasn't there (I suppose there still is) a Marvel character called Juggeernaut where this was his mutation?

    Will this guy be allowed to compete in the Olympics when he grows up?

    Are we going to accept this guy or make him an outcast like the X-Men series predicts?

    So many unrelated questions so little time.

    --
    I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
    1. Re:Marvel Comics by Hassman · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there (I suppose there still is) a Marvel character called Juggeernaut where this was his mutation?

      Something like that.

      Will this guy be allowed to compete in the Olympics when he grows up?

      If the kid lives that long, I can't see why not. The problem is all his muscles will continue to grow, including his heart. Animals produce this protien for a reason...

      Are we going to accept this guy or make him an outcast like the X-Men series predicts?

      Probalby accept. He'll get his 15 min of fame every now and then, but that'll be it.

      Hmmm...I may have taken this post too seriously.

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    2. Re:Marvel Comics by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

      Juggernaut was not a mutant. His power came from a magical ruby he 'liberated' from the temple of Cyttorak.

      He was not an outcast because of his size or strength. He was an outcast because he was a S.O.B. *before* he got his power.

      Awww nuts, there goes any chance I ever had of passing for a non-geek.

    3. Re:Marvel Comics by littledreamer · · Score: 1

      actually I think the character was called "StrongGuy" as a spoof to call characters that fit that gener(mind the spelling). He was able to absorb energy and increase that to muscle mass. - ya I know I'm a comic geek but hey I make 120G a year

  128. Skeletal muscle only? by bchernicoff · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if this affects smooth muscle too? You may not want, say, your bowel muscles to be twice as strong... GRRRR! PLOP!

    1. Re:Skeletal muscle only? by Zapdos · · Score: 1

      All muscles. This is fairly well documented in animals. Death related to a heart muscle so thick it will no longer function properly is common.

  129. Cute maybe - but at 10 yrs old he'll turn green... by M1rth · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can just see his parents putting green makeup on him for Halloween some year after he sees The Hulk for the first time...

    --
    If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
  130. Bodies like G(r)eek Gods by DCheesi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After googling for myostatin, it looks like there have been other cases of this. It sounds like different specific mutations of this gene produce varying levels of inhibition; this kid is just an extreme case.

    Also, although the scientists are moving cautiously on this, the bodybuilding-supplement industry has already jumped on the bandwagon (as usual). There's already a "natural" product (their quotes) on the market that claims to block myostatin. As always, I take their claims with several pounds of salt :)

    Obviously I'll wait for the real scientists' findings, but a drug for this could be a real lifesaver for the modern geek^H^H^H^H white collar worker. Basically it causes your body to spend all its extra resources building & fueling muscle, instead of growing fat cells and dealing with hyperglycemia. We'd all be in great shape; that is, until the inevitable post-apocalyptic famine hit ;)

  131. Here it comes. by Geekwad · · Score: 1

    Biology over ideology. Maybe now they can actually win a war.

    --

    - http://pakman.sytes.net/
  132. does this mean.... by feelyoda · · Score: 1

    ...when I mod my body with gene therapy that I won't be allowed in my neighborhood WholeFoods because I'll be a GMO?

    or does it mean that the market will pursue these changes (without federal funding in some cases) and all the luddites warnings be damned because people can make a choice to improve their lives?

    Or does this mean that I can sit in front of my computer all day, alternating from coding robots to playing robots in UT2004, and stay in shape?

    Is it exercise if it only happens when I choose it to? wu-wu-walk...WALK in the park? What is that?

    all hail the beauty and wealth of a world bettered by technology!

    --

    Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
  133. Melanin and Founder's Effect by lxt · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "But how did lessened melanin production and "whiteness" spread in Europe? Likely through founder's effect in small and isolated inbreeding populations -- but certainly not because of any "Aryan" superiority."

    I disagree - your example of melanin doesn't really apply, because of environmental factors. Europeans are predominantly white due to the European lifestyle and climate, whereby considerable amounts of time are spent indoors, and (certianly in Britain), it isn't that sunny for most of the year. To quote Wikipedia: "As with peoples that migrated northward, those with light skin that migrated southward had to acclimate to the much stronger solar radiation."

    Melanin production has very little, if anything, to do with the founder's effect, and more to do with adaption to changing environments...it's just a really bad example to use for your case.

    1. Re:Melanin and Founder's Effect by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that black people in Britain get lighter over time simply by living indoors? What the the mechanism that causes this?

    2. Re:Melanin and Founder's Effect by julesh · · Score: 1

      In a civilised society this won't happen, because we no longer have the problems (probably massive malnutrition) that caused the selection for more efficient production of vitamins in the skin (which is the benefit of having white skin) over resistance to long term exposure to sunlight (which is the benefit of having dark skin).

    3. Re:Melanin and Founder's Effect by Random832 · · Score: 1

      the point of the original post is that selection wouldn't have worked to begin with without 'founder effect'

      --
      We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
    4. Re:Melanin and Founder's Effect by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1
      I think it does apply.

      If your skin is too dark and you lack a source of vitamin D, you will suffer from vD deficiency; especially the higher north in lattitude you travel. If you are genetically predisposed to a certain amount of melanin, then there's an optimal lattitude for you to live. Too far south and you increase chances of premature aging and skin cancer, too far north and you waste away from lack of vitamin D!

      So if your genes predispose you to produce more melanin, you can live in a sunnier location than your peers, and you and your children precisely exhibit the founder effect.

      Your own example confirms this:

      Europeans are predominantly white due to the European lifestyle and climate, whereby considerable amounts of time are spent indoors, and (certianly in Britain), it isn't that sunny for most of the year. To quote Wikipedia: "As with peoples that migrated northward, those with light skin that migrated southward had to acclimate to the much stronger solar radiation."


      People with light skin had to take active steps to thrive in the sunny south. They had 'adapted' to live in the less sunny north. Vs the natives of the south, they would have had to stay in the shade more, dress appropriately, and use sunscreen. The only other way to acclimate to stronger solar radiation is to tan, and have you noticed how impossible it is for Irish and Scandanavians to tan? :)
  134. You know what pisses me off? by danharan · · Score: 1

    It's the first I hear about this, and just googling it reveals a wasteland of affiliate spam for myostatin inhibitors.

    It would be kind of neat if for a little while you could just do a search and find out what foods might inhibit the thing... but no, the affiliates have it already bottled and shrinkwrapped. f*ck!

    --
    Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
  135. This is a child’s misfortune. by Zapdos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's all hope the doctors and scientists have good luck. They are trying to figure out how to save this child's life. If left the way he is, his heart will become too thick to stay functional.
    This condition has been documented in animals, which have all died at a fairly young age.

    This is just this child's misfortune to be the first documented human case.

    1. Re:This is a child’s misfortune. by Iberian · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You didn't read the article did you? Of course not this is slashdot.

    2. Re:This is a child’s misfortune. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the mutation affect cardiac muscle as well or are you referring to the added demand of the heart in supplying the excess skeletal muscle?

  136. Not really.. by DeafDumbBlind · · Score: 1


    The downside may be that he needs to consume more calories to function. Since for most of our evolutionary history we've lived on the verge of starvation, being super strong but needing to eat more would have been a disadvantage...

    --


    Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
    1. Re:Not really.. by azuretek · · Score: 1

      I think it would just drive us to find more sources of food... even drive us to find more space to keep our livestock and farmland

      I dunno, I think super humans would do much cooler things.... well at least I would, in fact I already do. I've allways been strong, so I've allways done things that require more strength and it feels good, like when I used to landscape I would pick up trees we had just cut down and toss them away

    2. Re:Not really.. by DeafDumbBlind · · Score: 1

      Except that there were times, like during the ice age, when food was very scarce.

      Also, there were often times of extended drought, etc.

      --


      Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
    3. Re:Not really.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might not be super-strength for picking up trees - it might be good judgement of balance / centre of gravity. I have a rep for being able to move heavy stuff, but I just seem to know _where_ to lift things - the actual weight of a small tree isn't that much if you do weights at a gym, but it's a very awkward shape for the average person to hold, apparently.

  137. another example of reverse mutation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice how the mutation "adds" super strength not by adding something new but by blocking a protein that was already there

  138. Who's Your Daddy? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
    The little boy dresses in animal skins, wears a turtle shell hat, carries a club, and can constantly be heard saying, "Bam! Bam! Bam bam bam!".

    Barney and Betty's kid? How about a reality check. Consider the following from one of the articles:

    The child's mother was strong - she had been a professional sprinter in the 100-meter dash - and she came from a strong family. Her grandfather, a construction worker, had unloaded curbstones by hand, hefting stones weighing at least 330 pounds. (There was no information on the baby's father.)

    They probably couldn't get ahold of the father because he was doing the laundry, taking out the trash or washing dishes, if he knows what's good for him!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Who's Your Daddy? by kerrbear · · Score: 1

      Barney and Betty's kid? How about a reality check.

      Bam Bam Rubble was adopted, so Barney and Betty's genes don't count.

      To avoid offtopic moderation: do you think this is all positive for the kid, or is this musle limiting protein perhaps useful for something like cancer prevention or some such?

    2. Re:Who's Your Daddy? by airjrdn · · Score: 1

      That was good. lol

    3. Re:Who's Your Daddy? by Lobsang · · Score: 1

      Barney and Betty's kid? How about a reality check. Consider the following from one of the articles (...)

      If I'm not completely mistaken, the cartoon made some references to the fact that BamBam was, in fact, adopted. Perhaps the article is talking about his real parents. :)

  139. ObSoutpark Quote by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Funny

    When asked why he was destroying the town, the boy replied "Stan bad! Bechomp bechomp, bechewie chomp, bechewie chomp."

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  140. las drugas by austad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If drugs come out to block this protein, of course it's going to be abused by people.

    I forget what it's called now, but there is a condition where your heart can grow too big inside your chest, and your ribcage and organs press on it and cause all sorts of problems. People who take steroids are susceptible to this condition.

    I'm fairly active, and I used to take creatine before workouts. I started having chest pain and went to the doctor, and he was telling me that could be the problem, especially since I was using creatine. An X-ray showed I was fine, but it does happen to people, and I would think the abscence of this protein would surely make one more likely to have the problem.

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
    1. Re:las drugas by themightythor · · Score: 1

      Grrr....creatine != steroids. Creatine is stored in the muscles as creatine phosphate. Creatine phosphate helps re-promote ADP to ATP in the muscles. That's it. So, it helps you perform strength movements longer. It's not magic.

    2. Re:las drugas by austad · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to imply that creatine is a steroid... though it may have came off that way.

      My point is, that when using something that helps build muscle, it increases the risk of the condition that I mentioned above.

      --
      Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
  141. Evolution IS a beauty contest by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

    > evolution was not a beauty contest. ("Chicks dig muscular guys! I want to be muscular too!") It was about tuning an animal to be able to at least survive its environment

    Hence the dazzling fan of the peacock, which the peacock uses to beat it's prey to death in a frightening, yet fashionable, display of evolutionary fitness.

    There are many examples of evolution in weird directions for better sexual selection. For example song birds, fireflies, and Bill Clinton's exaggerated male chin.

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    1. Re:Evolution IS a beauty contest by avandesande · · Score: 0

      Actually a bodybuilders muscles are mostly scar tissue, most of them aren't that strong.
      If you look at champion weightlifters/power lifters you will see that the muscle areas are small and their connective areas are large (large shoulder, small bicep). Perhaps muscle scarring is a secondary sex characteristic like big boobs.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Evolution IS a beauty contest by clarkc3 · · Score: 1

      I've never heard or seen anything that stated their muscle are mostly scar tissue. On a side note, a large percent of bodybuilders have powerlifting backgrounds, they just work on getting leaner for bodybuilding (i.e. Ronnie Coleman) - and as for champion weightlifters, Mariusz Pudzianowski (2002 & 2003 World's Strongest Man) defintely doesnt look like what you describe

    3. Re:Evolution IS a beauty contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but Maruisz is definitely not your typical powerlifter. The way I understand it, he started as a bodybuilder and was just so freakin' strong he switched to powerlifting, but (apparently) kept some of his bodybuilding training habits. I mean, most powerlifters do not have a 6 pack of ripped abs.

    4. Re:Evolution IS a beauty contest by avandesande · · Score: 1

      It takes many build/atrophy cycles to get this scar tissue. This is why most top body builders are in their 30s.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:Evolution IS a beauty contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Hence the dazzling fan of the peacock"

      Strawman. The topic is HUMANS.

    6. Re:Evolution IS a beauty contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No the topic is EVOLUTION

      Re:Evolution IS a beauty contest
    7. Re:Evolution IS a beauty contest by Seahawk · · Score: 1

      If you haven't read it, I can recommend "Det generøse menneske"(The generous man?) by Thor Nørretranders.

      He argues, in a non fanatic way, how sexual attraction is by giving yourself a disadvantage.

      He actually uses the peacock as an example - and the argument goes like this.

      The peacock gains this extremely big noticable tail so every fox in the country can spot him. The female thinks - WOW he can survive with THAT big an disadvantage - the rest of his genes must be pretty darn good!

      Its VERY simplified - but read the book(If it's translated to english), its a pretty good read imho.

    8. Re:Evolution IS a beauty contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot. You can't read.

  142. not just that... by dekeji · · Score: 1

    Starvation is one thing, but there is more. Your bones and joints can't take arbitrarily large forces. Muscles need to regenerate, and that takes resources. If you get more muscles very early, it is possible that more of your cortex gets devoted to controling them (less available for other stuff, silly as that may sound). Having lots of muscle mass may increase the risks for some kinds of diseases. There are just lots of possibilities. Time will tell.

    1. Re:not just that... by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Don't forget tendons and ligaments as well - some of the steroid discussion around Major League Baseball has been that you can tell which players are shooting up based on the recurring injuries they seem to incur...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  143. That's a belgian blue... by Phil+John · · Score: 1

    ...I lived in Belgium for 18 years and must say that

    a) The meat you get over there tends to be VERY lean, hardly any fat at all (which poses a problem for roast meals). However, their filet steaks are probably some of the best in the world, very tasty despite their being little fat.

    and b) They have the best beer(s) in the world :o)

    Mmmm, what I wouldn't give for a Steak avec Sauce Bernaise, Frites et un distanguer de Bier from my favourite restaurant over there (if anyone ever goes to Waterloo, Belgium - eat out at l'Amusoir to see what I mean)

    --
    I am NaN
  144. Latest Issue of Scientific American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Latest Issue of Scientific American has an article on gene doping which talks about this.

  145. Photo would be nice :) by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    Photo would be nice :)

  146. Poor Kid by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He grows up to have damaged skelatal structure, heart problems and will probobly die before he's forty and all the while biotech companies have patented his DNA, reaped massive benifit and he hasen't seen a cent, let alone a euro.

    You doubt me. Call me back in 2050 and we'll see.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Poor Kid by Iberian · · Score: 1

      Great another person who doesn't read the articles. Try doing some googling before posting. Better to be thought a fool then post and remove all doubt.

    2. Re:Poor Kid by glwtta · · Score: 1
      and he hasen't seen a cent, let alone a euro.

      Wha? What exactly should he be receiving money for?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  147. I know this kid! His name is ... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    Hans...or is it Franz?
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

  148. New drug based on the discovery by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Drugmaker Wyeth, based in Madison, N.J., already has begun human tests of a genetically engineered drug designed to bind to and neutralize myostatin, said spokeswoman Natalie de Vane.

    Wow, can Steve Rogers' SuperSoldier formula be far behind?

  149. someone mod parent up! by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    +4 funny, Please. :)

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  150. Having spent 18 years in belgium... by Phil+John · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...I can say that they have some of the tastiest steak on the face of the planet...really lean, but yet still very, very flavoursome.

    --
    I am NaN
  151. Diaper Duty by blackbear · · Score: 1
    ...until odor starting hitching a ride with the payload. Damn [sic] solid foods.

    God bless my wife. Her sense of smell is much less defined than mine. Which helps me avoid diaper duty more often than not.

  152. Who will grow up to be... Superman! by jelle · · Score: 1

    In only 14 more years, that 4 year old superkid will begin saving the planet!

    --
    --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
  153. Muscular people hanging out at gyms? by Fencepost · · Score: 1

    From another link in this thread (about some bodybuilder, look for BALCO), it looks like there are multiple mutations that affect the genes in question (or multiple genes that affect muscular development). If the woman in question is a bodybuilder or any of those male relatives are, it's not at all unlikely that she's involved with another bodybuilder that she either met herself or met through a relative.

    I could be wrong, but I suspect that folks with mutations that cause them to develop extra muscular tissue tend to gravitate to the social environments where that sort of thing is valued. In other words, while 0.1% of the bodybuilder population out there might have this mutation, I'd be surprised if more than 0.001% of the slashdot-reading population does. Welcome to the joy of choice in who you socialize with.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
  154. He can not stop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  155. be by no-body · · Score: 1

    like siss? Ah dunno....

  156. Big Surprise by mephisto73 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Krauts are at it again. Colonel Hogan already knows and has formed a plan to blow up the secret superbaby factory.

  157. you picked the wrong simpsons quote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    nazi supermen are our superiors

  158. Marry him to a tetrachromat mu-tant! by StefanJ · · Score: 1

    Mutant woman who see in four primary colors!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273 ,4 128183,00.html

  159. (-1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's already been asked

    Personally, I'm waiting for a mutation that keeps people from posting comments that say the same stuff over and over on Slashdot.

  160. Am I the only one by twigles · · Score: 1

    who is intensely jealous?

    1. Re:Am I the only one by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      jealous enough to.. kill? good idea, you take the kid, ill destroy all the research!

      (Disclaimer: this post is not conspiracy to comit homocide and arsen, im not threatening anyone you cant arrest me go fuck yourself fbi)

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  161. Myostatin blocker available by dindi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am actually experimenting now on myself with a myostatin blocker. It is commercially available from
    Cytodyne Technologies (same company who sells Xenadrine an Ephedra based (lately in the US ephedra free fat burner))

    Anyway, the product is called Myo-Blast CSP^3.
    Anyone interested might consider Juiced Protein from Pinnacle (pretty OK taste compared to other protein shakes)

    Why ? Why not. I am not a Gym freak, but I do st 45-60 minutes weight training +
    40-60 minutes cardio /day (good to rent an office with Gym use included ;) )

    While I am against steroids I happily take an algae based product or bioengineered protein
    as a little experiment - at the end probably they makes less harm than a bigmac :>

    ahm + I am a vegetarian who does lotsa sports so extra protein is welcome ....

    for those who might wonder: myostatin is responsible for skeletal muscle! Your tongue, and your heart muscle won't grow bigger than it is if you block that enzyme (I hope it really)

    I recommed these searches "myostatin cow" : http://images.google.com/images?q=myostatin%20cow& hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
    myostatin:
    http:/ /images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8 &q=myostatin+&btnG=Search

    cheers :)

    1. Re:Myostatin blocker available by misterpies · · Score: 1


      >>Why ? Why not. I am not a Gym freak, but I do st 45-60 minutes weight training +
      40-60 minutes cardio /day (good to rent an office with Gym use included ;) )

      Correction. You are a gym freak.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
  162. Whew by beckerbuns · · Score: 1

    My 8 year old can kick my ass as it is. Good thing he's not a mega-muscled freak.

  163. Re:...to be favored by evolution... by name_already_taken · · Score: 1
    Giant muslces would need to provide a major guaranteed increase in food to be favored by evolution.

    No, that's not how evolution works in situations where food is amply available (such as this one). Evolution favors the individual most likely to breed.

    So, if big muscles mean more sex, then evolution favors individuals with bigger muscles as long as there is no other downside that reduces survivability or likelyhood of breeding (since food is amply available the greater nutritional requirement to support the increased muscle mass is not a downside).

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
  164. Oh great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    A genetically superior Arian!

  165. Hmm Heracles/Hercules by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Legend has it when he was a baby he killed two snakes one in each hand.

    Babies already have quite a decent grip strength, and often if you put something in their hand, they'll grip it almost automatically. I wonder whether what this kid's grip strength was like when he was born.

    Enough to kill a small snake? I doubt it takes much to kill a small snake, and looking at his muscles, could just be enough.

    --
    1. Re:Hmm Heracles/Hercules by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Think of having a super-strong kid in your womb. Oh, that must have been an interesting birth. Ow. You don't want a newborn with a three-pound grip.

  166. Well that's new (?) by phyruxus · · Score: 4, Funny
    Hmm. A 5 year old with hyper-developed musculature. This kind of puts a whole new twist (for me) on the Greek "myths" of Heracles/Hercules (You know, the really strong dude).

    Of course, I had the same thought about the "miraculous virgin birth" when I learned about parthenogenesis.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    1. Re:Well that's new (?) by Yusaku+Godai · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's much simpler than that to be skeptical of the "miraculous virgin birth" It's been long since pointed out, and biblical scholars won't deny it, that the word used in the original Hebrew scriptures is "almah", meaning "young woman", and not "bethulah" which actually means "virgin". But in an early translation to Greek they used "parthenos", meaning "virgin".

    2. Re:Well that's new (?) by b-baggins · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What out for skeletal deformity. This child's bones are still pliable and are growing. I predict there will be problems with fractures and misshapen bones as he continues to grow.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    3. Re:Well that's new (?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Almah" is used 10 tens in the Hebrew scriptures to denote a young unmarried woman. Young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew society would be assumed to be virgins.

      Also, the Greek translation called the Septuagint where "parthenos" is used predates Christianity by over 200 years.

      In other words. Yes, "bethulah" always means virgin, "almah" implies a virgin.

    4. Re:Well that's new (?) by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      Once again, a valuable post by an AC.

    5. Re:Well that's new (?) by Alranor · · Score: 0, Troll

      Or, alternatively, Joseph had good range and remarkable accuracy on his money shot.

    6. Re:Well that's new (?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Belgian Blues (the cattle), and the "mighty mice" which have similar inactivations of myostatin have a normally developed skeletal structure - I'm guessing he'd just expect the same thickened bone structures you see in serious athletes - stronger bones, not malformed ones.

    7. Re:Well that's new (?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parthenogenesis also appears to only occur in lower animals and has never been observed in humans.. Also, the resulting offspring tends to be exactly identical to the mother.

      Sooooo.. not entirely sure where you're drawing a connection between this and the miraculous virgin birth..

    8. Re:Well that's new (?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that since no genetic recombination occurs during parthogenisis the child would be a clone of the mother. IIRC Jesus was male.

    9. Re:Well that's new (?) by KernelHappy · · Score: 1

      "It's hard for many people to believe that there are extraordinary things inside themselves, as well as others. I hope you can keep an open mind." - Samuel L. Jackson as Elijah Price

      I can't believe that I'm the only one that thought of Unbreakable while reading this article. What kind of geeks are you people.

      --
      -- Button up, your ignorance is showing
    10. Re:Well that's new (?) by bahamat · · Score: 2, Informative
      Of course, I had the same thought about the "miraculous virgin birth" when I learned about parthenogenesis.


      Using parthenogenesis to attempt to "explain away" the virgin birth is just stupid. I quote one of the sites returned in your google search link:

      Unusual patterns of heredity can occur in parthenogenetic organisms. For example, offspring produced by some types are identical in all inherited respects to the mother.


      It's impossible, even in the absurd event of unstimulated parthenogenesis, for a male to be born this way. Sorry to just blow a big huge hole in your weak arguement, but if you make arguements as dumb as this you should expect it to happen.
    11. Re:Well that's new (?) by Monkelectric · · Score: 1
      Actually fractures will be the least of his problems. Remember all those kids who worked out a ton in junior high and high school? The really short ones?

      Too much exercise as a kid can cause your bones to harden prematurely, then they don't grow. It's extra creul because these kids end up with napolean complexes later :)

      Long story short, I hope this kid is being advised to not really work out or use these muscles, as he's probably *screwed* already.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    12. Re:Well that's new (?) by phyruxus · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      >>Using parthenogenesis to attempt to "explain away" the virgin birth is just stupid.

      Wow, you are really humorless. BTW, asshat, I made that insight when I was 16. You must be a real big man, to see the logical phallacy in a joke. Woo Woo! I ph34r your asshat-5kills!

      >>It's impossible, even in the absurd event of unstimulated parthenogenesis, for a male to be born this way. Sorry to just blow a big huge hole in your weak arguement, but if you make arguements as dumb as this you should expect it to happen.

      Dude, grow up. The whole world isn't a catholic convent, ya know. Oh yeah, just what argument do you presume I was making? Hmm? I don't recall making one at all. Wow, you religious freaks are really volatile when your faith comes into question, aren't you? Fucktard. Get a clue, or at least take a class. Fuck you! :)

      One last thing, god-boy, what if anything do you have to say about the other posts, re: translations of the Bible? Oh, nothing huh. That's what I thought. Apologies to non-asshats (that doesn't mean you, bahamutherf*cker.)

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
      "d'Oh!" ~Homer
  167. Advantages outweigh disadvantages by NoData · · Score: 1

    Evolution IS exactly a beauty contest. The only way to propogate genes is to reproduce. The only way to reproduce is to attract a mate. The only way to attract mate is to exhibit traits the opposite sex favors.

    In sharp contrast to your "how the geeks won at evolution" just-so story is the fact that women DO prefer lean, muscular men. Why? This was evolutionarily selected for, and clearly ought to have some advantage. You can argue that it's "cultural" but even then you have to ask "why?"...Why would culture value fit, muscular men? First, it's unlikely to be contemporary culture, as muscular men have been revered for all human civilization (look at Roman art, renaissance art, Michaelangelo's David, etc.). And if the answer is aesthetics rather than survival fitness, then why are we a species that values the aesthetics of physique?

    I think overproduction of musculature has the evolutionary disadvantage you describe. It consumes an excess amount of calories. And, indeed, if you ask the average woman, most prefer lean, athletically muscular men as opposed to hulking body-building giants. Many find muscular overdevelopment unattractive and intimidating. HOWEVER, muscular fitness in moderation is attractive for a very obvious reason: Protection and defense. Fit men, from a evolutionary perspective, are more likely to defend the family against intruders and predators, and also likely to pass on those traits to offspring. It's that simple.

    True, even the fittest man isn't likely to take down a tiger, but I think a stronger selection pressure is to be able take down other MEN. All men are smart enough to know to stay the hell from the tigers of the world.

    I think the disadvantages of pronounced musculature are only true in the extreme.

    And, one can argue all this evolutionary heritage is moot at this point. The ladies like the athletic guys (in terms of sexual appeal). But it's true that women's assessment of mate fitness is more complicated that men's, and other factors (fidelity, ability to provide, fathering style) come to play. It being buff doesn't hurt. Today.

    1. Re:Advantages outweigh disadvantages by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      You have to understand that what the Romans valued 2000 years ago, is a different story than what natural selection valued 2,000,000 years ago.

      Romans valued warfare and conquest above all else. The proper things for a young roman to study were military stuff and administration. Everything else was for the lesser people. (E.g., almost all the medics were Greek. It was below the worth of a true Roman to learn medicine.) Hence the ideal of a fit soldier.

      Any form of state and organized warfare is a _very_ new invention, if you think what kind of intervals are involved in evolution. Even tribal warfare isn't as common as you'd think.

      E.g., take the Bushmen in a Africa, which are a prime example of hunters-gatherers in a very hostile environment. Would fit what mankind had to deal with for most of its evolution.

      Do they have muscular warriors killing each other for territory and prestige? Well, no. Quite au contraire on both accounts.

      First of all their culture is all about sharing and solving conflicts peacefully. If you just can't stand to see someone's face, no matter what, you move to another tribe, not challenge him to a duel. Basically they have enough trouble surviving as it is, without starting taking down other men.

      Second, they don't look particularly muscular to me. Au contraire, they look thinner than any geek you'd see in the Western world. Must have something to do with having a shortage of food.

      Basically warfare for protection and territory, and having fit soldiers to kill other men, started making a lot more sense once you had agriculture or herds of sheep/goats/cows/whatever. Then the land itself started having a value. But hunters-gatherers tended to be a lot more flexible about where they are, and about solving problems with each other.

      While some of their hunters did end up doubling as warriors, it was late and as a response to others threatening them. They were still primarily valued as hunters, and still thought twice before going to war.

      E.g., think about the early Europeans arriving in America. While it was (and still is) fashionable to think of the native Indians as bloodthirsty barbarian tribes of warriors, there also is a day called Thanksgiving. Giving thanks for what? For the fact that those tribes not only didn't attack and enslave on sight, like the Europeans would have, but were willing to peacefully let the Europeans have some land. Even taught those Europeans a bunch of useful stuff.

      That's what a hunter-gatherer culture is like: it will rather try to coexist peacefully and share, rather than directly reach for the war axe.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  168. Indescriminate amount of muscle mass != healthy. by NarrMaster · · Score: 0

    Sure, packing on a few (15-20) pounds of healthy muscle isn't a bad thing, but you don't need myostatin inhibitors to do the job. Proper training, proper diet, 6 months, and hard work are all anyone really needs. Continuously adding muscle is a quick way to heart trouble. Even if you could safely add "a lot" of muscle, you would have to jack your hormones (steriods, HGH) to maintain it. Not worth it in the long run.

    --
    That's right. All your base.
  169. kryptonite by phyruxus · · Score: 1
    Shhhh... his muscular ears can hear us!

    obligatory

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    1. Re:kryptonite by greenhide · · Score: 1
      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
  170. Here it comes.... by DrDebug · · Score: 1

    > "Myostatin blockade," Dr. McNally wrote, "will probably work its
    > way into professional and amateur athletics, as well as into the
    > ever-growing business of physical enhancement."

    Lookout! Another round of SPAM is on its way.

  171. Re:...to be favored by evolution... by druhol · · Score: 2
    No, that's not how evolution works in situations where food is amply available (such as this one).

    While this is (for the most part) true, until very recently it was exceedingly rare for an average human individual to have sufficient food for this sort of mutation to be preferable. Even then, this is only in Western society; most of the world's population still don't get very much protein in their diets.

    --
    WWD4D?
  172. too much tenchu for you by mapmaker · · Score: 1
    Early humans didn't steal food from predators using steal, they scavenged leftovers using tools.

    Our bigger brains allowed us to figure out that we could bang rocks on the femurs of large prey carcasses and crack them open to get at the bone marrow that the tiger couldn't.

  173. The big bottleneck 70k years ago: Toba volcano by geekotourist · · Score: 2, Informative
    While vitamin D production is an important location-specific difference in humans, we also have some traits that have no survival value (for example eye shape, hair curliness, or facial hair patterns). One theory is that founder's effects in small groups of humans 74,000 years ago led to this.

    The reason small groups of humans were cut off from each other was a supervolcano that caused a nuclear winter effect for many years, killing off most humans and keeping the rest separate long enough for superficial traits to become geographically dominant. This article on the Toba supervolcano talks about this theory:

    Some 74,000 years ago, in what is now Sumatra, a volcano called Toba erupted with a force estimated to have been 10,000 times that of Mt. St. Helens. The sky darkened around the globe as ash blocked out the Sun. Temperatures plummeted by as much as 21 degrees at higher latitudes around the planet, said Michael Rampino, a biologist and geologist at New York University.

    Rampino has estimated that three-quarters of the plants in the Northern Hemisphere may have died.

    Stanley Ambrose, an anthropologist at the University of Illinois, suggested in 1998 that Rampino's work might explain a curious bottleneck in human evolution, a phenomenon observed by other researchers who study DNA: The blueprints of life for all humans are remarkably similar given an evolutionary timeline known to stretch back more than 2 million years.

    Ambrose thinks that early humans, struggling as always against the elements, were pushed to the edge of extinction after the Toba eruption. Perhaps only a few thousand survived, Ambrose says. Humans today would all be descended from these few, and in terms of the genetic code, not a whole lot of evolution occurs in 74,000 years.

    At the least, however, we evolved enough to gain the capacity to invent satellites and employ them to warn us of the next Toba, if it is to come

    Oh, and Yellowstone is a supervolcano that is overdue in its pattern of going off every 600,000 years:
    The eruption of pent-up energy will cover half the United States in ash, in some places up to 3 feet (1 meter) deep. Earth will be plunged into a perpetual winter that would last years. Some plant and animal species will disappear forever.
  174. What a coincidence by Nynaeve · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seven years ago, they create myostatin-free mice. Three years later, a child is born with the same "mutation". Also, there is no record of the father to verify parentage or that he contributed the other gene.

    If I were a researcher who had solved the various difficulties (heart problems, etc.) with the process, and I wanted a secret human trial, I'd find a mother which already had one gene as a cover and make sure there was no information available on the father to give away the fact he did not contain the other gene, or falsify it if there were. Then, I'd act real surprised when the baby was born.

    It could be legit, but the rarity of the mutation makes the whole thing sound suspicious to me ...

    1. Re:What a coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, as other posters have pointed out, the researchers just were lucky enough to make use of an obvious case of incest.

    2. Re:What a coincidence by mr_tap · · Score: 1

      Remember that the mother was a german sprinter - I am sure that there is no chance that it was the mothers performance that they were trying to enhance :)

    3. Re:What a coincidence by mstorer3772 · · Score: 1

      I think it more likely that this was the result of an incestuous relationship than of some secret genetic manipulation.

      But where one gene can be found, so can others. It's entirely possible that the father is just a secretive person who did not wish to be bothered by the press.

      If I had to lay money on something, I'd go with incest... but I wouldn't give that good odds either.

      --
      Fooz Meister
    4. Re:What a coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say that the odds are much more in favor of incest than another random mutation.

  175. At least he doesn't have a tail. by jameskojiro · · Score: 0, Funny

    If he did he would be turning into a giant monkey every full moon and no one would want that!

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  176. baby talk by Fished · · Score: 3, Funny
    Quote from the article: "Ooo goo gaga, bebebebe be boo boo."

    Translation: "Hi. I'm Hans, and I am here to 'Pump you Up!'"

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  177. I'm just making sure... by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    ... that he knows I'm a bull!

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  178. Pictorial? by ElDuderino44137 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey There,

    Okay ...

    You can't just throw out phrases like ...
    Massive muscles ...
    Overlords ...
    Super Kid ...

    And not provide any pictures!?!
    I want pictures!

    Inquireing minds want to know,
    -- The Dude

  179. Re:link to website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been posted before but I'm one of those geeks who actually bookmarked it:

    Khaaan!

  180. Re:Belgian Blue Bull by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

    Not to be confused with Belgian Red Bull, which is something entirely different...

  181. deucthland! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All hail the ubermensch!

    Kisses,
    Nietzsche

  182. maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe, it's the Neanderthal gene !!

  183. good for astronauts too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If medication was developed to reproduce the effect, wouldnt the drug also be usefull for long space missions where muscle degradation is a severe problem?

  184. Mr. Glass by cygnus · · Score: 1

    simultaneously, in another part of the world, another child is born with another mutation that causes his bones to be unusually brittle. kids nickname him Mr. Glass. he looks eerily like a moodily-lit Samuel Jackson.

    --
    Just raise the taxes on crack.
  185. So if steroids make your penis smaller... by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the effect is of SUPER-steroids on a fellow's member?

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  186. Have you tried by Teknikill · · Score: 1

    not being a mutant?

  187. Escaped specimen by Zilfondel2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn! I wondered whatever had happened to that lady after she had escaped out of my testing laboratory located deep underground in a remote location.

    Luckily, I just sent my best agents to "collect" this child and do more genetic testing on him, as he obviously has far surpassed his mother.

    Muhahahaha! Soon I will rule the world with my mutant armies of 4 1/2 year olds!

  188. Re:Baby's Father.. is also his uncle by potmos · · Score: 0

    In the mother, one copy of the gene is mutated and the other is normal; the boy has two mutated copies. One almost definitely came from his father, but no information about him has been disclosed. The mutation is very rare in people.

    If this mutation is so rare in people then it is very likely that the boys father is also his uncle or grandfather. Just another side effect of inbreeding.

  189. In/Out signs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sign outside office door of a ubernerd gazillionaire biotech CEO:
    MY OSTAT is IN

    Sign outside office door of his personal bodygaurd:
    MY OSTAT is OUT

  190. You are very wrong by benzapp · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is in fact a major disadvantage that you may not be aware of.

    There is a finite number of times each cell in your body can replicate itself. Excessive muscle growth WILL limit the maximum lifespan of a life form, and it limits the lifespan of humans as well.

    This is part of how limiting caloric intake increases lifespan, it literally reduces the overall cellular growth of a lifeform.

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
    1. Re:You are very wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really want to know how you know this? No one currently knows how cells terminate replication. Your telling me you have solved this problem or have read someones work who has.

      If so let me know so I can live forever please.

    2. Re:You are very wrong by Relifram · · Score: 1

      Mmmm. He reads Criton (or is it Cook) and mixes it up with reality...

    3. Re:You are very wrong by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      However, this has very little impact on selection, since most people at that age no longer reproduce (either because they can't, in the case of women, or because they seldom find partners of reproductive age, in the case of men).

  191. His name is either Hans or Franz.... by Eradicator2k3 · · Score: 1

    And he's going to...pump...you up!

    --
    Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
  192. Re:Indescriminate amount of muscle mass != healthy by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

    15-20 pounds in six months?

    For most people, I don't believe that's possible unless you play with anabolic supplements. I've been lifting off and on for years, and at my best I doubt I gained ten pounds in six months.

  193. Well that explains it.... by FerretFrottage · · Score: 1

    j lo's ass that is...a genetic muscular mutation

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
  194. Dare vas no father by SirLanse · · Score: 2, Funny

    She was working for Jabba the hut... He will bring balance to the force.

    1. Re:Dare vas no father by StuckInSyrup · · Score: 1

      no, there was one.
      his name was bruce banner.

      --
      Ni.
    2. Re:Dare vas no father by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I dont want balance to the force. I want it to be all good.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  195. Re:Not really [-1, Offtopic] by nlindstrom · · Score: 1
    Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
    Funniest. Tagline. Ever.
  196. WARNING!!! GOATBABY.CX IN PARENT!!! WARNING!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was so cute! I'm printing that one out and hanging it on my wall in an English-Oak wood frame, next to the pussy (frollicking kitten) and the weiner (weiner-dog puppy in a bun).

  197. Don't laugh... by David1982 · · Score: 1

    ... it is really a movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311361/

  198. here is the trailer by David1982 · · Score: 1

    http://videodetective.com/home.asp?PublishedID=839 764 note it is a .wmv file

  199. The Hunk or the Hulk? by zhangyong · · Score: 1

    What will the kid become?

  200. A pratical aplication for this gene: by Upaut · · Score: 2, Funny

    *If it is more than likely that someone with this condition would live only to a normal middle age, then wouldn't it be best for these people to be placed into jobs that require great strength and endurance, but with limited life expectancy? Firefighters, police enforcement, farmers, factory workers, and the army, all staffed with these "supermen".
    * Taking it a little further, wouldn't it be best to selectively breed this trait into a controlled population to produce an expendable workforce? Have this boy, at the age of sixteen, breed with, say, female prison inmates? Use him in cloning research? Produce large lots of him, creating a whole new subclass of humanity. Modify his genes to limit his intellect, and condition his childhood to instill loyalty, and this new class of people will never revolt, and we, the normals of humanity, will guide their actions to better our lives.
    * Add to this scenario just a little more: After experiencing the reign of George Bush, a normal/below average intelligence man trying to run the country, it might be best to breed a class of humanity best suited to rule over others: highly intelligent, long lives, and pleasant to look upon. They too will be conditioned, to make them loyal to America, to humanity, to social stability.
    * And we, the normals, are left in the middle. A permanent, middle class, unable to amount to anything grand, but also unable to fall through the cracks of society. Those that cannot produce will be "removed" from the world, into breeding programs, or worse. Everyone will have their place, and society would be perfect.
    Damn, I love this brave new world.
    /fear
    /sarcasm

    --
    3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
  201. The Everlasting Man by bluevector · · Score: 2, Informative

    THE EVERLASTING MAN

    G.K. Chesterton

    [ TABLE OF CONTENTS ]

    PREFATORY NOTE

    This book needs a preliminary note that its scope be not misunderstood The view suggested is historical rather than theological, and does not deal directly with a religious change which has been the chief event of my own life; and about which I am already writing a more purely controversial volume. It is impossible, I hope, for any Catholic to write any book on any subject, above all this subject, without showing that he is a Catholic; but this study is not specially concerned with the differences between a Catholic and a Protestant. Much of it is devoted to many sorts of Pagans rather than any sort of Christians; and its thesis is that those who say that Christ stands side by side with similar myths, and his religion side by side with similar religions, are only repeating a very stale formula contradicted by a very striking fact. To suggest this I have not needed to go much beyond matters known to us all; I make no claim to learning; and have to depend for some things, as has rather become the fashion, on those who are more learned. As I have more than once differed from Mr. H. G. Wells in his view of history, it is the more right that I should here congratulate him on the courage and constructive imagination which carried through his vast and varied and intensely interesting work; but still more on having asserted the reasonable right of the amateur to do what he can with the facts which the specialists provide.

    * * *

    INTRODUCTION

    THE PLAN OF THIS BOOK

    There are two ways of getting home; and one of them is to stay there. The other is to walk round the whole world till we come back to the same place; and I tried to trace such a journey in a story I once wrote. It is, however, a relief to turn from that topic to another story that I never wrote. Like every book I never wrote, it is by far the best book I have ever written. It is only too probable that I shall never write it, so I will use it symbolically here; for it was a symbol of the same truth. I conceived it as a romance of those vast valleys with sloping sides, like those along which the ancient White Horses of Wessex are scrawled along the flanks of the hills. It concerned some boy whose farm or cottage stood on such a slope, and who went on his travels to find something, such as the effigy and grave of some giant; and when he was far enough from home he looked back and saw that his own farm and kitchen-garden, shining flat on the hill-side like the colours and quarterings of a shield, were but parts of some such gigantic figure, on which he had always lived, but which was too large and too close to be seen. That, I think, is a true picture of the progress of any really independent intelligence today; and that is the point of this book . . .

    [ . . . ]

    * * *

    PART I. ON THE CREATURE CALLED MAN

    * * *

    I. THE MAN IN THE CAVE

    Far away in some strange constellation in skies infinitely remote, there is a small star, which astronomers may some day discover. At least I could never observe in the faces or demeanour of most astronomers or men of science any evidence that they have discovered it; though as a matter of fact they were walking about on it all the time. It is a star that brings forth out of itself very strange plants and very strange animals; and none stranger than the men of science. That at least is the way in which I should begin a history of the world, if I had to follow the scientific custom of beginning with an account of the astronomical universe. I should try to see even this earth from the outside, not by the hackneyed insistence of its relative position to the sun, but by some imaginative effort to conceive its remote position for the dehumanised spectator. Only I do not believe in being dehumanised in order to study humanity. I do not believe in dwelling upon the distances that are supposed to dwarf the world; I think there is even someth

    --
    IC XC NIKA
  202. Re:Cute maybe - but at 10 yrs old he'll turn green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, or he is the first of the real x-men!

  203. Mods, that's not +1 Funny, it's +1 Informative by Atario · · Score: 2, Informative

    As your Subject: line says, evolution IS a beauty contest -- at least, in large part. Vast numbers of the traits of organisms are a direct result of sexual competition, or of sexual competition in combination with some other, more necessary, survival trait.

    You don't think female humans have breasts that large because mammary glands take up a lot of space, do you? Even the flattest-chested woman can breastfeed her children handily. The breasts of apes are all pancake-like, yet they work perfectly well. No, large human breasts are mostly fat -- and they're that way because human men like them that way.

    As for why men like them that way in the first place, check out some of Desmond Morris's work sometime.

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  204. Re:Indescriminate amount of muscle mass != healthy by NarrMaster · · Score: 0

    Ok, I made an error, I should have said a year. But 6 months is pretty much the time most people need for really noticeable changes.

    --
    That's right. All your base.
  205. Hunting.... by isotope23 · · Score: 1

    You know that chimpanzees hunt?

    http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

    We may not have been hunting the bigger animals, but I am sure we were hunting the small things because we did not need claws etc to get them.

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  206. spelling by Uninformed+Jester · · Score: 1

    You misspelled "Kalifohniya".

  207. I guess by bXTr · · Score: 1

    Barry Bonds has a new excuse, now.

    --
    It's a very dark ride.
  208. I would argue against your point by isotope23 · · Score: 1

    I would say this "mutant" gene has probably been around since the hunter gatherer stage. I would also think that it has been deselected by the advent of agriculture.

    According to many studies, so called "primitive" man was actually better fed, and had more lesiure time etc than those at the beginning of agriculture.

    The driving force making agriculture a more viable option was probably the rise in population. With a relatively small amount of people on the planet, an HG lifestye is viable as there is plenty of game. However as the # of humans increase the pressure on foodstocks would increase almost geometrically. This would drive human activity towards a method of making food supply predictable (even if the overall diet became less nutritious). If we were like other predators, we would have gone through the feast famine cycle, and probably stayed roughly the same in terms of population (roughly 8 million or so). Because of our brain and tool making abilites, we found a another way out, to manipulate the enviornment to suit our needs.

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  209. Well, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know the germans are nothing if not meticulous, methodical, and maniacal....

  210. Well, I hope that she can run that fast... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...because in Nazi Germany, baby spanks you!

  211. That's not a troll. THIS is a troll. Bitch. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Let me take a wild guess at what might make someone say something that abysmally stupid.

    You're sitting there in your faded blue pajamas because you're too damn fat for anything else. There are orangish stains up the tops of both thighs where you keep wiping your Doritos greased hands. There's a huge stain on the chest where you spilled your 60oz cherry cola from the Super Stop last night.

    As your wandering along through Slashdot, you come upon my post stating my 150 pound weight. You reflect, for a moment, on those bygone days as a grade schooler when last you weighed so little, and then, in a fit of frustrated rage over your own self-inflicted morbid obesity, angrily ramble off the first thing that comes to your head.

    Unfortunately, poor nutrition affects your ability to think and reason just as it does your body, and you, my friend, wound up rambling off some nonsense that suggests that mass is the determining factor in overall fitness.

    Either that or you've been on the Atkins diet and developed a chronic brain disease. One or the other.

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  212. Uhh...right... by Qwaniton · · Score: 1

    Actually, white people have less melanin, because melanin absorbs sunlight radiation and blocks the synthesis of Vitamin D.

    The sun does not cast down Vitamin D.

  213. Baby's First Words Were by dbretton · · Score: 1


    Ka me ha me ha

    (followed by the obliteration of some small German village)

  214. Here's the BEST PHOTO of the SUPERKID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best phot of the superkid so far:
    http://www.mounteverest.net/story/images/200 40624x superkid.jpg

  215. Re:This is a childs misfortune. by Zapdos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually read above and beyond the article. In horses this condition is called Impressive Syndrome.

  216. Probably by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    The current issue of Scientific American talks about it. The cover mentions gene doping in atheletes. The article itself talks about scientists working on myostatin blocking therapies that might be useful for the elderly and people with MD.

  217. Natural Selection, not evolution by complete+loony · · Score: 1
    I mean please, there is no new information in his DNA, just a corruption that prevents this protien being produced. So don't call it evolution.

    Natural selection? sure, he may have some advantages that help him to survive and procreate, but there's nothing new here.

    --
    09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    1. Re:Natural Selection, not evolution by Josh+Booth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think you understand evolution. Evolution is not an improvement in a population, it is simply a change in the DNA of a population due to random genetic mutations. By applying the fairly obvious observations that organisms that survive and procreate, do, organisms that can't survive and/or procreate, don't, you can see that the population will always be fairly well suited to its environment. Admittedly, it's been a while since I've read up on evolution, so correct me if necessary. And also, neither evolution nor natural selection require a change in the amount of DNA information and don't make statements about progress.

    2. Re:Natural Selection, not evolution by complete+loony · · Score: 1
      And I agree with your explanation. The problem is when you say evolution most people would think of the process of "evolving" a microbe into a man, which would obviously require more information to be created in DNA.

      The burden of evolution is to proove that small random genetic mutations and natural selection can create that information. And this is definately not a good example.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  218. Just imagine... by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

    A Beowulf cluster of these!

    What? Oh, sorry.

    --

    Cogito, ergo sig.

  219. Is his name: by fraudrogic · · Score: 1

    Kahn?

    KAAAAaaaaaaaAAAHN!!!!!

    KAAaaaaAAAAAHN!!!!

    --
    I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
  220. Clearly, this is all thanks to... by fail_miserably() · · Score: 1

    No-carb Borden's milk

  221. Half Rhino? by mr_tap · · Score: 1

    That photo looks like someone has crossed a cow and a Rhino!

  222. The Next Ronnie Coleman... by garagecartel · · Score: 1

    For all of us lifting guys who read M.D., Flex. or other Bodybuilding Mags, this article should surely raise an eyebrow since Myostatin has always been a rival for common occurance of those "plateus". I see maybe the next possible Ronnie Coleman, or Jay Cutler, especially when you take into career that this child has special genetic characteristics that could easily allow him to surpass other competitors of the sport.

    --
    -- [H]itman_forhire
    1. Re:The Next Ronnie Coleman... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot, I don't see anyone reading any of those magazines.

  223. There's only 1 muscle I'd target... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess which one.

  224. Belgian blue cattle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Downside - normally born by C-section (caeserian)
    The damn things are too big to be born naturally.

    Thats a major evolutionary downside!

  225. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  226. Re:This is a childs misfortune. by Genza · · Score: 0

    If you like Microsoft Products, You have not read the EULA.

    If you are reading this, You have not read the EULA.

  227. This is really an illness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not just that, the muscles themselves will degenerate if growing unchecked. Highly dense muscle
    becomes harder to supply with blood as the capiliaries are made smaller and fewer. Lactic acid builds up and destroys the muscles, rather like having permanent cramp. This is where the term 'muscle bound' comes from. He will probably have to take medication and do very careful exercise to keep 'healthy' with this condition.

  228. Fortunately I do read medical journals by benzapp · · Score: 2, Informative
    I don't know who either of those authors are you cite, but I will be happy to provide you with some information about how and why cells do not replicate ad infinitum.

    This is stuff out out of a sophmore year biology class. The limiting factor is a part of the DNA strand known as a telomere.

    it is generally theorized that the purpose of limiting cellular replication is it limits cancer, ie a single mutated cell shouldn't replicate forever.

    Here are several medical journal articles you can look up on The National Library of Medicine regarding limiting caloric intake, and several microcellular observations regarding the DNA replication process.

    Miller RA, Extending life: scientific prospects and political obstacles. Milbank Q 2002 ;80(1)

    Sreekumar R, et al, Effects of caloric restriction on mitochondrial function and gene transcripts in rat muscle. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2002 Jul ; 283 (1) / E38-43

    Jolly CA, et al, Life span is prolonged in food-restricted autoimmune-prone (NZB x NZW)F(1) mice fed a diet enriched with (n-3) fatty acids. J Nutr 2001 Oct;131(10):2753-60.

    Hansen BC, et al, Calorie restriction in nonhuman primates: mechanisms of reduced morbidity and mortality. Toxicol Sci 1999 Dec / 52 (2 Suppl) / 56-60.

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
  229. Old idea.... by Garridan · · Score: 1

    Hitler sentenced non-aryans, cripples, etc., to death with the ideal of breeding a superior race. If you think about it, his legacy lives on today. The people of Germany might be quite a bit more likely to produce such a mutant, as their gene pool has already been concentrated.

  230. Re:This is a childs misfortune. by mstorer3772 · · Score: 1

    I just googled for Impressive Syndrome, and it was described as having a potassium-related side effect. Horses with IS can have spells of temporary paralysis. This is (according to the article I just read) controllable with a low-potassium diet.

    So there may be some correlation. It may be that Der Uber-Squirt will have potassium issues. Or it may be that they are two seperate conditions.

    Not enough information to tell.

    --
    Fooz Meister
  231. Are you sure? by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    for those who might wonder: myostatin is responsible for skeletal muscle! Your tongue, and your heart muscle won't grow bigger than it is if you block that enzyme (I hope it really)

    Are you absolutely sure that the only muscles that will grow bigger after taking myostatin blocker are skeletal muscles? Are you saying that those spammers lied to me again? Damn you, email!

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."