Talk:Motor unit

Neuroscience Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Recent subtraction

I just removed this:

groups of motor units work together, as a single muscle

because I couldn't quite gather the meaning and didn't want to convey the idea that a group of motor units is equivalent to a muscle. Motor units contain muscle fibers, which are the substance of muscles, but a mass of motor units is not equivalent to a muscle. It's better to say that groups of motor units often work together to coordinate the contractions of a single muscle. Which I suppose I could easily add to the article right now... ;-) --David Iberri (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

I'm confused about what 'They stretch the spinal column to increase height.' could mean. If this makes sense to someone, could you please rephrase it. I am taking it to mean 'They (the axons of neurons which extend from the spinal column) pull on the spine, and this results in lengthening the spine.' This doesn't seem possible. I hope someone can clarify.-- Dolmetscher —Preceding undated comment added 11:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Today's reversion

For the rationale behind this reversion, see here. --Randykitty (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]