H Lu1, X Fu, X Ma, Z Wu, W He, Z Wang, D B Allison, S B Heymsfield, S Zhu. 1. Obesity and Body Composition Research Center, Zhejiang University School of Public Health, 388 Yu-hang-tang Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310058, China.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We examined ethnic difference in the association of body fat and trunk fat with bone mineral density (BMD) among Chinese, white, and black subjects. We found that, with greater body and trunk fat, both white and black subjects were more likely to have a low BMD than Chinese subjects. INTRODUCTION: Ethnic differences in body fat, abdominal fat distribution, and BMD have been found in previous studies between Chinese and white subjects. However, the associations of body fat and abdominal fat distribution with BMD have not been studied, and whether the ethnic differences have an effect on these associations is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated 1,147 subjects aged ≥ 18 years (805 Chinese, 193 whites, and 149 blacks). Percent body fat (%BF), percent trunk fat (%TF), and total and regional BMD including that of head, arm, leg, trunk, rib, spine, and pelvis were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Linear regression models were developed to test the association of ethnicity, %BF, and interaction between ethnicity and %BF with BMD. The models were repeated again, replacing %BF with %TF. RESULTS: Chinese subjects showed lower BMD in total and most regions compared with black and white subjects; however, these differences were eliminated between Chinese and whites within both sexes and between Chinese and black men when age, weight, height, and %BF were added. %BF and %TF were negatively associated with most regional body BMD. The interactions between %BF, %TF, and ethnicity were found in most regional body BMD among Chinese, white, and black subjects for both men and women. CONCLUSION: Both %BF and %TF have negative associations with BMD. With greater accumulation of %BF and %TF, both white and black subjects may experience a higher risk of low BMD than Chinese subjects.
UNLABELLED: We examined ethnic difference in the association of body fat and trunk fat with bone mineral density (BMD) among Chinese, white, and black subjects. We found that, with greater body and trunk fat, both white and black subjects were more likely to have a low BMD than Chinese subjects. INTRODUCTION: Ethnic differences in body fat, abdominal fat distribution, and BMD have been found in previous studies between Chinese and white subjects. However, the associations of body fat and abdominal fat distribution with BMD have not been studied, and whether the ethnic differences have an effect on these associations is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated 1,147 subjects aged ≥ 18 years (805 Chinese, 193 whites, and 149 blacks). Percent body fat (%BF), percent trunk fat (%TF), and total and regional BMD including that of head, arm, leg, trunk, rib, spine, and pelvis were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Linear regression models were developed to test the association of ethnicity, %BF, and interaction between ethnicity and %BF with BMD. The models were repeated again, replacing %BF with %TF. RESULTS: Chinese subjects showed lower BMD in total and most regions compared with black and white subjects; however, these differences were eliminated between Chinese and whites within both sexes and between Chinese and black men when age, weight, height, and %BF were added. %BF and %TF were negatively associated with most regional body BMD. The interactions between %BF, %TF, and ethnicity were found in most regional body BMD among Chinese, white, and black subjects for both men and women. CONCLUSION: Both %BF and %TF have negative associations with BMD. With greater accumulation of %BF and %TF, both white and black subjects may experience a higher risk of low BMD than Chinese subjects.
Authors: Yi-Hsiang Hsu; Scott A Venners; Henry A Terwedow; Yan Feng; Tianhua Niu; Zhiping Li; Nan Laird; Joseph D Brain; Steve R Cummings; Mary L Bouxsein; Cliff J Rosen; Xiping Xu Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: C J Kim; K W Oh; E J Rhee; K H Kim; S K Jo; C H Jung; J C Won; C Y Park; W Y Lee; S W Park; S W Kim Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2008-10-20 Impact factor: 3.478
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: Scott A Lear; Karin H Humphries; Simi Kohli; Arun Chockalingam; Jiri J Frohlich; C Laird Birmingham Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Janet M Pritchard; Lora M Giangregorio; Stephanie A Atkinson; Karen A Beattie; Dean Inglis; George Ioannidis; Zubin Punthakee; J D Adachi; Alexandra Papaioannou Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Z Chen; M T Salam; R Karim; C M Toledo-Corral; R M Watanabe; A H Xiang; T A Buchanan; R Habre; T M Bastain; F Lurmann; M Taher; J P Wilson; E Trigo; F D Gilliland Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-02-13 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: W Shen; J Chen; M Gantz; M Punyanitya; S B Heymsfield; D Gallagher; J Albu; E Engelson; D Kotler; X Pi-Sunyer; S Shapses Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Won Kim; Sun G Chung; Keewon Kim; Han Gil Seo; Byung-Mo Oh; Youbin Yi; Min Joo Kim Journal: J Bone Miner Metab Date: 2013-12-29 Impact factor: 2.626
Authors: K Zhu; K Briffa; A Smith; J Mountain; A M Briggs; S Lye; C Pennell; L Straker; J P Walsh Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Wei He; Sha Zhang; Aihua Song; Min Yang; Jingjing Jiao; David B Allison; Steven B Heymsfield; Shankuan Zhu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 3.240