{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013970588235294118, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0029411764705882353, 'mean_word_length': 5.075892857142857, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Common errors in textbook descriptions of muscle fiber size in nontrained humans

Exercise science and human anatomy and physiology textbooks commonly report that type IIB muscle fibers have the largest cross-sectional area of the three fiber types. These descriptions of muscle fiber sizes do not match with the research literature examining muscle fibers in young adult nontrained humans. For men, most commonly type IIA fibers were significantly larger than other fiber types (six out of 10 cases across six different muscles). For women, either type I, or both I and IIA muscle fibers were usually significantly the largest (five out of six cases across four different muscles). In none of these reports were type IIB fibers significantly larger than both other fiber types. In 27 studies that did not include statistical comparisons of mean fiber sizes across fiber types, in no cases were type IIB or fast glycolytic fibers larger than both type I and IIA, or slow oxidative and fast oxidative glycolytic fibers. The likely reason for mistakes in textbook descriptions of human muscle fiber sizes is that animal data were presented without being labeled as such, and without any warning that there are interspecies differences in muscle fiber properties. Correct knowledge of muscle fiber sizes may facilitate interpreting training and aging adaptations.