UNLABELLED: We enrolled 65 to 75 year-old community-dwelling women and measured muscle power, strength, physical activity using accelerometry and tibial bone strength using peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT). Muscle power contributed 6.6% of the variance in the bone strength-strain index and 8.9% in the section modulus after accounting for age, height, weight, and physical activity; moderate to vigorous physical activity was related to muscle power in the lower extremity. INTRODUCTION: Muscle power is associated with DXA measurements of bone mass, but it is not known whether muscle power is associated with bone strength. There are no reports of investigations that have tested the effect of muscle power on bone compartments using advanced imaging. METHODS: We enrolled 74 community-dwelling women aged 65-75 years. We measured muscle power and strength of leg extension using Keiser air-pressure resistance equipment. All participants wore a waist-mounted Actigraph accelerometer to record physical activity. We used peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) to measure tibial mid-shaft (50% of the site) bone strength (strength-strain index, section modulus). We used Pearson correlations and multi-level linear regression to investigate the associations between muscle and bone. RESULTS: Muscle power contributed 6.6% (p = 0.007) of the variance in the bone strength-strain index and 8.9% (p = 0.001) the variance in the section modulus in older women after accounting for age, height, weight, and physical activity. Moderate to vigorous physical activity was significantly related to muscle power in the lower extremity (r = 0.260; p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Muscle power significantly contributed to the variance in estimated bone strength. Whether power training will prove to be a more effective stimulus for bone strength than conventional strength training will require further studies.
UNLABELLED: We enrolled 65 to 75 year-old community-dwelling women and measured muscle power, strength, physical activity using accelerometry and tibial bone strength using peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT). Muscle power contributed 6.6% of the variance in the bone strength-strain index and 8.9% in the section modulus after accounting for age, height, weight, and physical activity; moderate to vigorous physical activity was related to muscle power in the lower extremity. INTRODUCTION: Muscle power is associated with DXA measurements of bone mass, but it is not known whether muscle power is associated with bone strength. There are no reports of investigations that have tested the effect of muscle power on bone compartments using advanced imaging. METHODS: We enrolled 74 community-dwelling women aged 65-75 years. We measured muscle power and strength of leg extension using Keiser air-pressure resistance equipment. All participants wore a waist-mounted Actigraph accelerometer to record physical activity. We used peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) to measure tibial mid-shaft (50% of the site) bone strength (strength-strain index, section modulus). We used Pearson correlations and multi-level linear regression to investigate the associations between muscle and bone. RESULTS: Muscle power contributed 6.6% (p = 0.007) of the variance in the bone strength-strain index and 8.9% (p = 0.001) the variance in the section modulus in older women after accounting for age, height, weight, and physical activity. Moderate to vigorous physical activity was significantly related to muscle power in the lower extremity (r = 0.260; p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Muscle power significantly contributed to the variance in estimated bone strength. Whether power training will prove to be a more effective stimulus for bone strength than conventional strength training will require further studies.
Authors: Dennis H Sullivan; Paula K Roberson; Larry E Johnson; Osama Bishara; William J Evans; Eugene S Smith; J Allen Price Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Roger A Fielding; Nathan K LeBrasseur; Anthony Cuoco; Jonathan Bean; Kelly Mizer; Maria A Fiatarone Singh Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Henrik G Ahlborg; Olof Johnell; Charles H Turner; Gunnar Rannevik; Magnus K Karlsson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-07-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Didier Chalhoub; Robert Boudreau; Susan Greenspan; Anne B Newman; Joseph Zmuda; Andrew W Frank-Wilson; Nayana Nagaraj; Andrew R Hoffman; Nancy E Lane; Marcia L Stefanick; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Tien Dam; Peggy M Cawthon; Eric S Orwoll; Jane A Cauley Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: K Crockett; C M Arnold; J P Farthing; P D Chilibeck; J D Johnston; B Bath; A D G Baxter-Jones; S A Kontulainen Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Julie M Cousins; Moira A Petit; Misti L Paudel; Brent C Taylor; Julie M Hughes; Jane A Cauley; Joseph M Zmuda; Peggy M Cawthon; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: Bone Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: A K O Wong; P M Cawthon; K W Peters; S R Cummings; C L Gordon; Y Sheu; K Ensrud; M Petit; J M Zmuda; E Orwoll; J Cauley Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.041
Authors: Sarah A Hardcastle; Celia L Gregson; Jörn Rittweger; Nicola Crabtree; Kate Ward; Jon H Tobias Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 5.958