Kathleen F Janz1, Elena M Letuchy, Trudy L Burns, Shelby L Francis, Steven M Levy. 1. 1Department of Health and Human Physiology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Iowa, Ames, IA;2Department of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Ames, IA; and 3Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Ames, IA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess association between lower body muscle power and bone strength as well as the mediating effect of muscle cross-sectional area (MCSA) on that association. METHODS: Participants (141 males and 162 females) were approximately 17 yr. Muscle power was predicted using vertical jump and the Sayers equation. Using peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), bone strength indices were obtained at two locations of the tibia, corresponding to primary stressors acting upon each site: bone strength index for compression (BSI) at the distal 4% site; density-weighted polar section modulus strength-strain index (SSIp) and cortical bone area (CoA) at the 66% midshaft site for torsion. Muscle cross-sectional area was measured at the 66% site. Pearson bivariate and partial correlation coefficients were estimated to quantify the strength of the associations among variables. Direct and indirect mediation model effects were estimated, and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals were constructed to test the causal hypothesis. Height and maturity were examined as covariates. RESULTS: Pearson correlation coefficients among muscle power, MCSA, and bone strength were statistically significant (P < 0.01) and ranged from r = 0.54 to r = 0.78. After adjustment for covariates, associations were reduced (r = 0.37 to 0.69) (P < 0.01). Mediation models for males for BSI, SSIp, and CoA accounted for 38%, 66%, and 54% of the variance in bone strength, respectively. Models for females for BSI, SSIp, and CoA accounted for 46%, 77%, and 66% of the variance, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found strong and consistent associations as well as direct and indirect pathways, among muscle power, MCSA, and tibia strength. These results support the use of muscle power as a component of health-related fitness in bone health interventions for older adolescents.
PURPOSE: To assess association between lower body muscle power and bone strength as well as the mediating effect of muscle cross-sectional area (MCSA) on that association. METHODS:Participants (141 males and 162 females) were approximately 17 yr. Muscle power was predicted using vertical jump and the Sayers equation. Using peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), bone strength indices were obtained at two locations of the tibia, corresponding to primary stressors acting upon each site: bone strength index for compression (BSI) at the distal 4% site; density-weighted polar section modulus strength-strain index (SSIp) and cortical bone area (CoA) at the 66% midshaft site for torsion. Muscle cross-sectional area was measured at the 66% site. Pearson bivariate and partial correlation coefficients were estimated to quantify the strength of the associations among variables. Direct and indirect mediation model effects were estimated, and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals were constructed to test the causal hypothesis. Height and maturity were examined as covariates. RESULTS: Pearson correlation coefficients among muscle power, MCSA, and bone strength were statistically significant (P < 0.01) and ranged from r = 0.54 to r = 0.78. After adjustment for covariates, associations were reduced (r = 0.37 to 0.69) (P < 0.01). Mediation models for males for BSI, SSIp, and CoA accounted for 38%, 66%, and 54% of the variance in bone strength, respectively. Models for females for BSI, SSIp, and CoA accounted for 46%, 77%, and 66% of the variance, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found strong and consistent associations as well as direct and indirect pathways, among muscle power, MCSA, and tibia strength. These results support the use of muscle power as a component of health-related fitness in bone health interventions for older adolescents.
Authors: John S Leard; Melissa A Cirillo; Eugene Katsnelson; Deena A Kimiatek; Tim W Miller; Kenan Trebincevic; Juan C Garbalosa Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Amanda L Lorbergs; Jonathan P Farthing; Adam D G Baxter-Jones; Saija A Kontulainen Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: Kathleen F Janz; Julie M Eichenberger Gilmore; Steven M Levy; Elena M Letuchy; Trudy L Burns; Thomas J Beck Journal: Bone Date: 2007-05-10 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Vina P S Tan; Heather M Macdonald; SoJung Kim; Lindsay Nettlefold; Leigh Gabel; Maureen C Ashe; Heather A McKay Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Ryan C Ward; Kathleen F Janz; Elena M Letuchy; Clayton Peterson; Steven M Levy Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Hugo J W Fung; Angela M Cheung; Sunita Mathur; Eva Szabo; Andy K O Wong Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 1.864
Authors: Alejandro Gómez-Bruton; Jorge Marín-Puyalto; Borja Muñiz-Pardos; Gabriel Lozano-Berges; Cristina Cadenas-Sanchez; Angel Matute-Llorente; Alba Gómez-Cabello; Luis A Moreno; Alex Gonzalez-Agüero; Jose A Casajus; Germán Vicente-Rodríguez Journal: Sports Health Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 3.843
Authors: Jianfeng Jin; Astrid D Bakker; Gang Wu; Jenneke Klein-Nulend; Richard T Jaspers Journal: Curr Osteoporos Rep Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 5.096
Authors: Vanessa R Yingling; Dimitri A Castro; Justin T Duong; Fiorella J Malpartida; Justin R Usher; Jenny O Journal: PeerJ Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Izabella A Ludwa; Kevin Mongeon; Malcolm Sanderson; Luis Gracia Marco; Panagiota Klentrou Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 3.390