Literature DB >> 12396375

Relationship between body composition and bone mineral content in young and elderly women.

G Bedogni1, C Mussi, M Malavolti, A Borghi, M Poli, N Battistini, G Salvioli.   

Abstract

PRIMARY
OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between bone mineral content (BMC), lean tissue mass (LTM) and fat mass (FM) in a large sample of young and elderly women. RESEARCH
DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: BMC, LTM and FM were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in 2009 free-dwelling Caucasian women aged 63 +/- 7 years (mean +/- SD; range: 37-88 years). The majority of women were postmenopausal (96%).
RESULTS: LTM explained 13% more variance of BMC than FM (R(2)(adj) = 0.39 vs 0.26, p < 0.0001) but weight (Wt) explained 5% more variance of BMC than LTM (R(2)(adj) = 0.44, p < 0.0001). The prediction of BMC obtained from LTM and FM (R(2)(adj)= 0.46, p < 0.0001) was only slightly better than that obtained from Wt. After the effects of age, Wt and height (Ht) on BMC were taken into account by multiple regression, the contribution of LTM and FM to BMC was just one-fifth of that of Wt (R(2)(adj) for full models < or =0.56, p < 0.0001). After a further correction for bone area (BA), the contribution of LTM and FM to BMC was just one-tenth of that of BA and not different from that of Wt and Ht on practical grounds (R(2)(adj) for full models = 0.84, p < 0.0001). Thus, after inter-individual differences in age, Wt, Ht (and bone size) are taken into account, the relationship between body composition and BMC is substantially weakened.
CONCLUSIONS: In Caucasian women, (1) LTM is a stronger predictor of BMC than FM, but (2) Wt is a better predictor of BMC than body composition for practical purposes, and (3) Wt and body composition are not able to explain more than 46% of BMC variance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12396375     DOI: 10.1080/03014460210137819

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Hum Biol        ISSN: 0301-4460            Impact factor:   1.533


  7 in total

1.  Relationship between body composition and bone mineral density in healthy young and premenopausal Chinese women.

Authors:  Jian-Min Liu; Hong-Yan Zhao; Guang Ning; Yong-Ju Zhao; Lian-Zhen Zhang; Li-Hao Sun; Man-Yin Xu; Jia-Lun Chen
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-01-16       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  Birth weight is more important for peak bone mineral content than for bone density: the PEAK-25 study of 1,061 young adult women.

Authors:  M Callréus; F McGuigan; K Åkesson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  Hip geometry and its role in fracture: what do we know so far?

Authors:  Rhonda A Brownbill; Jasminka Z Ilich
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 5.096

4.  Relative importance of lean and fat mass on bone mineral density in a group of adolescent girls and boys.

Authors:  Rawad Philippe El Hage; Daniel Courteix; Claude-Laurent Benhamou; Christophe Jacob; Christelle Jaffré
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2008-12-19       Impact factor: 3.078

5.  An investigation into the relationship between soft tissue body composition and bone mineral density in a young adult twin sample.

Authors:  Leonie H Bogl; Antti Latvala; Jaakko Kaprio; Olli Sovijärvi; Aila Rissanen; Kirsi H Pietiläinen
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 6.741

6.  Bone mineral density of adolescent female tennis players and nontennis players.

Authors:  Kevser Ermin; Scott Owens; M Allison Ford; Martha Bass
Journal:  J Osteoporos       Date:  2012-07-01

7.  Dll1 haploinsufficiency in adult mice leads to a complex phenotype affecting metabolic and immunological processes.

Authors:  Isabel Rubio-Aliaga; Gerhard K H Przemeck; Helmut Fuchs; Valérie Gailus-Durner; Thure Adler; Wolfgang Hans; Marion Horsch; Birgit Rathkolb; Jan Rozman; Anja Schrewe; Sibylle Wagner; Sabine M Hoelter; Lore Becker; Thomas Klopstock; Wolfgang Wurst; Eckhard Wolf; Martin Klingenspor; Boris T Ivandic; Dirk H Busch; Johannes Beckers; Martin Hrabé de Angelis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.