Adrian Sayers1, Jonathan H Tobias. 1. Academic Rheumatology, Avon Orthopaedic Centre, Southmead Hospital, Bristol BS10 5NB, United Kingdom.
Abstract
CONTEXT: It is unclear whether fat mass (FM) and lean mass (LM) differ in the way they influence cortical bone development in boys and girls. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the contributions of total body FM and LM to parameters related to cortical bone mass and geometry. DESIGN/ SETTING: We conducted a longitudinal birth cohort study, the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4005 boys and girls (mean age, 15.5 yr) participated in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured cortical bone mass, cortical bone mineral content (BMC(C)), cortical bone mineral density, periosteal circumference (PC), and endosteal circumference by tibial peripheral quantitative computed tomography. RESULTS: LM had a similar positive association with BMC(C) in boys and girls [regression coefficients with 95% confidence interval (CI); P for gender interactions: boys/girls, 0.952 (0.908, 0.997); P = 0.85]. However, the mechanisms by which LM influenced bone mass differed according to gender because LM was positively associated with PC more strongly in girls [boys, 0.579 (0.522, 0.635); girls, 0.799 (0.722, 0.875); P < 0.0001], but was only associated with cortical bone mineral density in boys [boys, 0.443 (0.382, 0.505); girls, 0.014 (-0.070, 0.097); P < 0.0001]. There was a stronger positive association between FM and BMC(C) in girls [boys, 0.227 (0.185, 0.269); girls, 0.355 (0.319, 0.392); P < 0.0001]. This reflected both a greater positive association of FM with PC in girls [boys, 0.213 (0.174, 0.253); girls, 0.312 (0.278, 0.347); P = 0.0002], and a stronger negative association with endosteal circumference(PC) [boys, -0.059 (-0.096, 0.021); girls, -0.181 (-0.215, -0.146); P < 0.0001]. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas LM stimulates the accrual of cortical bone mass to a similar extent in boys and girls, FM is a stronger stimulus for accrual of cortical bone mass in girls, reflecting a greater tendency in females for FM to stimulate periosteal growth and suppress endosteal expansion.
CONTEXT: It is unclear whether fat mass (FM) and lean mass (LM) differ in the way they influence cortical bone development in boys and girls. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the contributions of total body FM and LM to parameters related to cortical bone mass and geometry. DESIGN/ SETTING: We conducted a longitudinal birth cohort study, the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4005 boys and girls (mean age, 15.5 yr) participated in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured cortical bone mass, cortical bone mineral content (BMC(C)), cortical bone mineral density, periosteal circumference (PC), and endosteal circumference by tibial peripheral quantitative computed tomography. RESULTS: LM had a similar positive association with BMC(C) in boys and girls [regression coefficients with 95% confidence interval (CI); P for gender interactions: boys/girls, 0.952 (0.908, 0.997); P = 0.85]. However, the mechanisms by which LM influenced bone mass differed according to gender because LM was positively associated with PC more strongly in girls [boys, 0.579 (0.522, 0.635); girls, 0.799 (0.722, 0.875); P < 0.0001], but was only associated with cortical bone mineral density in boys [boys, 0.443 (0.382, 0.505); girls, 0.014 (-0.070, 0.097); P < 0.0001]. There was a stronger positive association between FM and BMC(C) in girls [boys, 0.227 (0.185, 0.269); girls, 0.355 (0.319, 0.392); P < 0.0001]. This reflected both a greater positive association of FM with PC in girls [boys, 0.213 (0.174, 0.253); girls, 0.312 (0.278, 0.347); P = 0.0002], and a stronger negative association with endosteal circumference(PC) [boys, -0.059 (-0.096, 0.021); girls, -0.181 (-0.215, -0.146); P < 0.0001]. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas LM stimulates the accrual of cortical bone mass to a similar extent in boys and girls, FM is a stronger stimulus for accrual of cortical bone mass in girls, reflecting a greater tendency in females for FM to stimulate periosteal growth and suppress endosteal expansion.
Authors: W Högler; C J R Blimkie; C T Cowell; A F Kemp; J Briody; P Wiebe; N Farpour-Lambert; C S Duncan; H J Woodhead Journal: Bone Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Moira A Petit; Thomas J Beck; Justine Shults; Babette S Zemel; Bethany J Foster; Mary B Leonard Journal: Bone Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: K O Klein; K A Larmore; E de Lancey; J M Brown; R V Considine; S G Hassink Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Howard E Wey; Teresa L Binkley; Tianna M Beare; Christine L Wey; Bonny L Specker Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-10-06 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Maya Styner; Gabriel M Pagnotti; Cody McGrath; Xin Wu; Buer Sen; Gunes Uzer; Zhihui Xie; Xiaopeng Zong; Martin A Styner; Clinton T Rubin; Janet Rubin Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: L Gracia-Marco; F B Ortega; D Jiménez-Pavón; G Rodríguez; M J Castillo; G Vicente-Rodríguez; L A Moreno Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Kelly Wilkinson; Dimitris Vlachopoulos; Panagiota Klentrou; Esther Ubago-Guisado; Augusto César Ferreira De Moraes; Alan R Barker; Craig A Williams; Luis A Moreno; Luis Gracia-Marco Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Mary B Leonard; Babette S Zemel; Brian H Wrotniak; Sarah B Klieger; Justine Shults; Virginia A Stallings; Nicolas Stettler Journal: Bone Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 4.398