Biotech: Help me justify good looking females with high strength values

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That seems extremely unlikely. Biological tissue has to be predominantly water, and water weighs 2.205 pounds per liter, by definition. And the other constituents are mostly organic molecules that aren't that different from water in density. It isn't as if you could have a substantial fraction of the muscle be metallic compounds.

Why not, is not bone a biological tissue too and it weighs an average of about 4 lbs per liter? Would incorporating minerals into soft matrices allow it? How about increasing bone weight from 4 lbs per liter to 6.4 lbs per liter or more?

Various densities compared to water.

[David Johnston2]

Actually those women are not going to be particularly strong for their muscle volume. Bodybuilders may lift weights as part of their training regimen but they are not weightlifters. A ST 14-15 woman is going to look something like this:

http://www.sportivnypress.com/wp-con...7_edited-1.jpg

[jason taylor]

In any case with the advance of biotech, any engineering decision must be limited by function. A female, that is a human possessing elaborate reproductive systems capable of carrying a child and mammary glands capable of feeding it, requires any biogineer to invest in such things. Cutting down in that area and there is a line at a certain point where the creation is no longer a female but a eunech. So in a sense the question is like, how do you justify a submarine without ballast tanks?

In the universe posited, males are always going to have less need for investment in such things. And thus have more "strength". Unless childcare is considered work requiring "strength". One might argue it should be and that that is an irritating prejudice, but that is one for gen chat. Be that as it may the effect on males is always going to be proportionate because they have fewer presloted demands in their specs.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Actually those women are not going to be particularly strong for their muscle volume. Bodybuilders may lift weights as part of their training regimen but they are not weightlifters. A ST 14-15 woman is going to look something like this:

http://www.sportivnypress.com/wp-con...7_edited-1.jpg

She does not look BAD. Not gorgeous but not bad.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Actually those women are not going to be particularly strong for their muscle volume. Bodybuilders may lift weights as part of their training regimen but they are not weightlifters. A ST 14-15 woman is going to look something like this:

http://www.sportivnypress.com/wp-con...7_edited-1.jpg

ST is general, weight lifters have lots of points wasted on the Lifting skill. And if those women were to undergo a liposuction they would look like the bodybuilders. Anyways I need to concentrate into finding a proper way to increase weight without increasing volume regardless of how it looks because I do not want to change the appearance (I have mathematically modeled the system to be able to work specifically with that stature and that weight).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

Why not, is not bone a biological tissue too and it weighs an average of about 4 lbs per liter? Would incorporating minerals into soft matrices allow it? How about increasing bone weight from 4 lbs per liter to 6.4 lbs per liter or more?

That works for mineralized tissues, but such tissues are rigid, and are formed in parts of the body where rigidity is needed. If you make the muscles rigid, they won't be muscles any more.

Bones are 15% of body mass. So a 200-pound person has 30 pounds of bone. If you multiply its density x1.6, you will gain 18 pounds of bone, going from 200 lbs. to 218 lbs.

And I'm not sure that the bone will work if you do that. Biomineralized tissues seem to be significantly stronger than their mineral constituents, presumably thanks to the elasticity of their organic components. Bone's mineral constituent is apatite, which runs about 3.2x the density of water, or 7.04 pounds per liter. So you'd be getting something in between tissue with much less organic substrate (probably weaker structurally) and pure mineral (in which case it would be dead and not self-repairing) if you had density 6.4 lbs./liter and up. And it's still not going to make that much difference to weight.

Of course you could change minerals. But your new mineral might not have useful structural strength, could be toxic, and in any case would require a radical redesign of human biochemistry.

And would this do much for strength? Probably it would increase hit points. But I don't see that it would necessarily add to the contractile force of muscle per square inch cross section.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That works for mineralized tissues, but such tissues are rigid, and are formed in parts of the body where rigidity is needed. If you make the muscles rigid, they won't be muscles any more.

Bones are 15% of body mass. So a 200-pound person has 30 pounds of bone. If you multiply its density x1.6, you will gain 18 pounds of bone, going from 200 lbs. to 218 lbs.

And I'm not sure that the bone will work if you do that. Biomineralized tissues seem to be significantly stronger than their mineral constituents, presumably thanks to the elasticity of their organic components. Bone's mineral constituent is apatite, which runs about 3.2x the density of water, or 7.04 pounds per liter. So you'd be getting something in between tissue with much less organic substrate (probably weaker structurally) and pure mineral (in which case it would be dead and not self-repairing) if you had density 6.4 lbs./liter and up. And it's still not going to make that much difference to weight.

Of course you could change minerals. But your new mineral might not have useful structural strength, could be toxic, and in any case would require a radical redesign of human biochemistry.

And would this do much for strength? Probably it would increase hit points. But I don't see that it would necessarily add to the contractile force of muscle per square inch cross section.

Yes I have thought about the Unusual Biochemistry path before, but I wanted to figure out if we can come up with a path that does not give up on the drugs tests if the character was to join the Olympic Games.

If it is not possible (increasing weight without increasing volume, regardless if it is bone, muscle or other tissues) I prefer to discard this option and keep ST at 13 than to look for alternatives. Or failing that, use the Unusual Biochemistry route.

[Flyndaran]

There is a disorder that's the opposite of osteoporosis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopetrosis
It's not good.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

There is a disorder that's the opposite of osteoporosis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopetrosis
It's not good.

Yes I have also looked over the osteopetrosis path and I used it in my models. It is not that bad. We need to find something else on top to make up that 127 lbs difference.

Other routes also taken:
Mutations in the MSTN gene to cause myostatin-related muscle hypertrophy (discarded because of the aesthetic changes).
Higher fast-twitch fibers (MHC IIa+IId) content in muscles (pending approval).

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

ST 15 is the human maximum strength in this setting so putting humans at the same level as average gorillas by that point. I thought it would be possible to increase the density of muscle fibers so if for example 1 liter of "normal" muscle weighs 2.3 lbs, 1 liter of "upgraded" muscle weighs 3.6 lbs. Is that a possibility?

50% higher muscle 'performance density' might be possible, but the actual density of the muscle would not need to be significantly higher.