Greetings flexible-ga,
I think I have found what you're looking for and more. I have located
a fantastic study that was completed by the International Radiation
Protection Association (http://www.irpa.net). You may ask, what do
these people have to say about my question? You'd be surprised...
Gi-ichiro Tanaka and Hisao Kawamura completed a study that used data
obtained from autopsies for the Reference Man Project, which is a
study to determine the exact weight and volume of the human body. This
study was based on studies of Asian males and females, and known data
on european males and females was used to determine the exact
proportions of caucasian males and females. That presents the
question, which are you looking for? You may ask for clarification of
this question if necessary, however, I don't believe it will be
necessary as the study provides information on both. It does not
however provide information for other human groups, most notably those
individuals of African descent. However, the study does note that
differences in human composition are relatively insignificant, and
seeing as height/weight proportion for Africans and Caucasians is very
similar, I would recommend the caucasian numbers if you are needing to
reference African makeup.
For the 'average' Asian male, total connective tissue weight is 4300
grams.
(7% or .072)
For the 'average' Asian female, fascia and tendon weight is 3300
grams.
(6.5% or .065)
For the 'average' Caucasian male, fascia and tendon weight is 5000
grams. (6.8% or .068%)
For the 'average' Caucasian female, fascian and tendon weight is 3836
grams. (6.4% or .064)
The exact numbers for this study, which I would recommend printing out
for future reference if you are in the medical field or otherwise
interested, is http://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/00602.pdf (note: this
is an Adobe Acrobat document, you can download the free viewer if
necessary from http://www.adobe.com/).
Please note, I obtained the percentages by dividing the total weight
of connective tissue in grams by the total body weight in kilograms
for each
'average' individual. These total weights are available at the above
site as well.
I have yet to determine the total volume, but have an inquiry with a
local medical school, and am expecting a reply soon. I will add the
answer as a clarification when I receive it. I will do this within 24
hours.
This answer is of course very similar to the answer I made for your
other question, due to the source of information being the same.
Thanks again for your interesting question, and please use our
services
again. Good luck!
--mosquitohawk-ga |
Clarification of Answer by
mosquitohawk-ga
on
25 Jun 2002 11:26 PDT
Please note, in my original answer, three of the lines indicate
'fascia and tendons' rather than 'connective tissue'. This was a typo
on my part, the figures are correct. Below you will find the volume
for connective tissue including bone structure.
The percentage of connective tissue by volume for the human body is
20.6% (including bone which is a mineralized connective tissue).
My previous answer did not take into account bone as connective
tissue. Below are how the figure are different if you include bone:
For the 'average' Asian male, total connective tissue weight
(including bone) is 6500 grams. (10.83% or .1083)
For the 'average' Asian female, connective tissue weight is 4990
grams. (9.78% or .0978)
For the 'average' Caucasian male, connective tissue weight is 7600
grams. (10.41% or .1041)
For the 'average' Caucasian female, connective tissue weight is 5834
grams. (9.72% or .0972)
My sources for this information are:
University of Queensland Department of Anatomical Sciences
http://www.uq.edu.au/~anvkippe/an324/kinanth.html
About.com Biology forum
http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa011801a.htm
|
Clarification of Answer by
mosquitohawk-ga
on
27 Jun 2002 04:18 PDT
As to percent volume of fascia, I have inquired with several medical
schools' gross anatomy professors, as well as a local medical
examiner, and they have all indicated a belief that these values
probably have never been determined due to the difficulty of measuring
such minute tissues spread widely through the body. I will provide you
the most entertaining answer I received:
First response:
"At Wednesday, 26 June 2002, you wrote:
That's a mighty tricky question which would be specific to A. the
size of the given form B. what was included in your definition of
fascia (e.g., I include the adipose layer, aka the superficial fascia,
aka loose aereolar fascia, which would also be represented by the
kidney packing, etc...whereas you may only be talking about
myofascia...In any case, there's plenty of volume!!!"
Second response:
"Frankly, I'd have to toss everything that wasn't fascia into a
bucket,
drop the remainder in a tub, and see how much water was
displaced...this could be messy, but accurate..."
These responses were from a gross anatomy professor...Good luck with
your research! You might also consider contacting the two scientists
mentioned above who conducted the IRPA Reference Man study, they may
have these figures but not have them published, although I feel they
probably would have done so if they had determined it.
|
