The shape of a bone and its microscopic structure have long been viewed as influenced by genetic and functional factors. Two functional factors of particular significance for the skeleton, weight-bearing and muscle action, affect bone by deforming it slightly. Until recently, it was possible only to hypothesize about normal patterns of deformation (or strain) on bone and how changes in functional factors might influence these strain patterns.With the advent of in vivo bone strain measurement techniques, it is possible to directly observe both normal and abnormal patterns of bone strain. Accumulating evidence from observations of a variety of bone strain patterns has contributed greatly to our understanding of relevant parameters for skeletal adaptations. Among strain parameters currently under investigation are peak bone strains, strain rates, number of strain cycles, and bone strain distributions.Results of in vivo bone strain studies have shown that all of the above parameters most likely exert some influence on bone. For example, strain distribution and/or peak strain may be a critical osteogenic signal, while number of strain cycles may provide a critical remodeling stimulus. In addition, some popular concepts of skeletal adaptations to mechanical stresses are currently being challenged. For example, the idea that bone represents a minimum amount of material arranged with maximum efficiency may no longer be tenable since, in some cases, bones seem to be arranged in a fashion that tends to increase rather than decrease bone strain levels.Recognition of local mechanical conditions as a factor in bone growth and remodeling dates back at least to Galileo, who believed that bone form was closely related to its mechanical role in supporting the body (Evans, 1957). Major theoretical advances on the relationship between mechanical stress and bone form, however, did not occur until the 19th century. For example, during the mid-1800s it was suggested that the trabecular arrangement of cancellous bone was ideally suited to withstand compressive and tensile forces (Murray, 1936). This theory, called the trajectorial theory of bone architecture, met with some resistance in the scientific community, particularly from Triepel(1904), who strenuously objected on the following bases: (1) bone trabeculae do not intersect at right angles as in Fairbairn cranes; (2) bone, unlike metal, is not a homogeneous material; and (3) stresses in living bones are extremely complex and had been inadequately represented by proponents of the trajectorial theory.In spite of opposition, this theory held great appeal for bone biologists of the period (e.g., Gebhardt, 1905; Benninghoff, 1925). At this time, the trajectorial theory was extended to include the internal architecture of bone with the course of osteons believed to represent continuation of stress trajectories into cortical bone. A new technique, called split-lines, was developed to demonstrate these internal trajecto-0 1985 Alan R. Liss, Inc.