Just a few thoughts:
it's all tissue.
even in naming muscles we give up at some point differentiating different 'structures' and just call it 'smooth muscle'.
it's all tissue; muscles...fascia...when specifically indicating you take them together you refer to myofascia. taking it 'apart' and talking about muscle, then fascia, bone, tendon, ligament. If you are hinted at towards changing the body; muscle being a big part of it; and fascia in turn being a big part of muscle...what's the problem in assuming that, for the time being? (i.e. suspect/subject to reevaluation later..but making it axiomatic at this point?)
all tissue. The bone is a tissue. I just saw a friends presentation at school referring to a paper discussing how bone grows stronger along the specific axis that the body needs it to. This i interpret to refer to the ground path going thru the bone. The point being that the specific vector which bears the weight gets preferentially 'treated' by the body. In that paper it also showed the anisotropic strength #'s for bone going thru different axes and even parallel but off-the-central longitudingal axis (i.e. in femur/etc).
(The following may not be true; but is a point of view:) As the bone is an 'extreme' kind of a living tissue (i.e. no voluntary effort lets you 'bend it', completely inflexible; and muscle is another kind of extreme tissue (i.e. completely responsive to voluntary (and involuntary) effort/intent and completely flexible...maybe fascia is somewhere in the middle of the road. I always try to remember; myofascia is how it it discussed in the 'west' and by osteopaths. *That* is the fundamental unit.
Anyhow; remember this post<:
? What about that for a plausibility argument? Fascia can change; it can provide structural reinforcement; therefore it stands to reason it is plausible that this may be harnessed to change the body for the powers of positive development. I am sure there are better, more and more specific reasons to quote 'fascia'..but at this point the pragmatic person in me yields to the fact that (if I understand correctly:) Dan, Rob and Mike all think that that's involved. I know scientifically that is weak; but that is not the standard here; and no one is selling anything. It is about the current state of understanding. Like Bob pointed out; it is a master's thesis waiting to be explored. We will see it in our lifetimes I think.
Good Luck, sorry for the interruption (/ OT)