Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Why animals have different muscle fibre types

Abstract

Animals have different muscle fibre types: slow fibres with a low maximum velocity of shortening ( Vmax) and fast fibres with a high Vmax. An advantage conferred by the use of different fibre types during locomotion1 has been proposed solely on the basis of their in vitro properties. Isolated muscle experiments show that force generation, mechanical power production and efficiency are all functions of V/Vmax, where V is the velocity of muscle shortening. But it is not known whether animals actually use the different fibres at shortening velocities that are optimal for mechanical power production and efficiency. Here we compare the V of muscle fibres during locomotion with their Vmax. This comparison shows that during slow locomotion, the slow fibres shorten at a velocity that gives peak mechanical power and efficiency and the fast fibres shorten at their optimal velocity when powering maximal movements. Our results also show that maximal movements are impossible without fast fibres because the slow ones cannot shorten rapidly enough.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goldspink, G. in Mechanics and Energetics of Animal Locomotion (eds Alexander, R. McN. & Goldspink, G.) 57–81 (Chapman and Hall, London, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hill, A. V. Scient. Prog. Lond. 38, 209–230 (1950).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hill, A. V. Proc. R. Soc. B 159, 319–324 (1964).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kushermick, M. J. & Davies, R. E. Proc. R. Soc. B 174, 315–353 (1969).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rome, L. C., Loughna, P. T. & Goldspink, G. Am. J. Physiol. 249, R272–R279 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rome, L. C., Loughna, P. T. & Goldspink, G. Science 228, 194–196 (1985).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Julian, F. J., Rome, L. C., Stephenson, D. G. & Stirz, S. J. Physiol. 370, 181–199 (1986).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Altringham, J. D. & Johnston, I. A. J. Physiol. 333, 421–449 (1982).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Julian, F. J., Rome, L. C., Stephenson, D. G. & Striz, S. J. Physiol. 380, 257–273 (1986).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Zottoli, S. J. J. Exp. Biol. 66, 243–254 (1977).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eaton, R. C., Lavender, W. A. & Wieland, C. M. J. Comp. Physiol. 144, 521–531 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Curtin, N. A. & Woledge, R. C. J. Physiol. (in the press).

  13. Alexander, R. McN. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. 49, 263–289 (1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rome, L., Funke, R., Alexander, R. et al. Why animals have different muscle fibre types. Nature 335, 824–827 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1038/335824a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/335824a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing