| Literature DB >> 27017002 |
Igor Hideki Ito1, Alessandra Madia Mantovani2, Ricardo Ribeiro Agostinete3, Paulo Costa Junior3, Edner Fernando Zanuto3, Diego Giulliano Destro Christofaro3, Luis Pedro Ribeiro4, Rômulo Araújo Fernandes3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship between martial arts practice (judo, karate and kung-fu) and bone mineral density in adolescents.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescentes; Adolescents; Artes marciais; Bone mineral density; Densidade mineral óssea; Martial arts
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27017002 PMCID: PMC4917273 DOI: 10.1016/j.rpped.2015.09.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Paul Pediatr ISSN: 0103-0582
General characteristics of the adolescents stratified by practice of martial arts (n=137).
| Variables | Control group (n=90) | Martial arts group (n=47) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Age (years) | 11.93 (0.90) | 12.36 (1.01) | 0.020 |
| Weight (kg) | 49.50 (11.36) | 54.78 (15.52) | 0.026 |
| Stature (cm) | 155.67 (7.73) | 158.43 (11.31) | 0.165 |
| % body fatness | 27.62 (12.43) | 27.59 (12.56) | 0.808 |
| Fat free mass (kg) | 32.43 (5.47) | 35.35 (9.70) | 0.065 |
| Maturity offset | -2.67 (0.72) | -2.26 (0.94) | 0.012 |
|
| |||
| Arms | 0.68 (0.06) | 0.76 (0.19) | 0.007 |
| Legs | 1.08 (0.10) | 1.18 (0.23) | 0.015 |
| Trunk | 0.83 (0.07) | 0.88 (0.09) | 0.002 |
| Pelvis | 1.11 (0.97) | 1.07 (0.13) | 0.790 |
| Spine | 0.89 (0.11) | 0.95 (0.12) | 0.002 |
| Whole body | 1.01 (0.07) | 1.04 (0.09) | 0.010 |
SD, Standard deviation.Fisher's exact test with p-value=0.020.
Age at peak height velocity.
Analysis of covariance estimated means of bone mineral density in adolescents according to control and martial arts (n=137).
| Variables | Control (n=90) | Judo (n=17) | Karate (n=14) | Kung-fu (n=16) | ANCOVA | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SE) |
| Eta-squared | Effect size | |||||
| Arms (g/cm2) | 0.695 (0.01) | 0.771 (0.02) | 0.695 (0.03) | 0.735 (0.03) | 0.042 | 0.063 | Medium | |
| Legs (g/cm2) | 1.105 (0.01) | 1.173 (0.03) | 1.139 (0.04) | 1.150 (0.04) | 0.264 | 0.031 | Small | |
| Trunk (g/cm2) | 0.845 (0.01) | 0.841 (0.01) | 0.863 (0.02) | 0.876 (0.01) | 0.243 | 0.032 | Small | |
| Pelvis (g/cm2) | 1.122 (0.08) | 1.028 (0.20) | 1.098 (0.24) | 1.089 (0.23) | 0.979 | 0.001 | Trivial | |
| Spine (g/cm2) | 0.904 (0.01) | 0.897 (0.02) | 0.944 (0.02) | 0.963 (0.02) | 0.083 | 0.051 | Small | |
| Whole body (g/cm2) | 1.021 (0.01) | 1.009 (0.01) | 1.033 (0.02) | 1.049 (0.02) | 0.292 | 0.029 | Small | |
ANCOVA, analysis if covariance controlled by sex, age, fat free mass and somatic maturation; SE, Standard error.
p-value<0.05 compared to the control group.
Slope comparisons of the relationship between fat free mass and bone mineral density in adolescents of different martial arts (n=138).
| Bone mineral density (g/cm2) | Control (n=90) | Judo (n=17) | Karate (n=14) | Kung-fu (n=16) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FFM (kg) | FFM (kg) | FFM (kg) | FFM (kg) | |
| β (β 95%CI) | β (β 95%CI) | β (β 95%CI) | β (β 95%CI) | |
| Arms (g/cm2) |
| 0.005 (-0.069 to 0.080) | 0.010 (-0.001 to 0.020) | 0.004 (-0.002 to 0.010) |
| Versus control | - |
|
|
|
| Legs (g/cm2) |
| 0.010 (-0.085 to 0.105) |
| 0.003 (-0.003 to 0.009) |
| Versus control | - |
|
|
|
| Trunk (g/cm2) |
|
|
| 0.001 (-0.003 to 0.005) |
| Versus control | - |
|
|
|
| Pelvis (g/cm2) | 0.022 (-0.026 to 0.070) |
|
| 0.001 (-0.006 to 0.005) |
| Versus control | - |
|
|
|
| Spine (g/cm2) |
|
|
| -0.001 (-0.008 to 0.007) |
| Versus control | - | p-value=0.065 |
|
|
| Whole body (g/cm2) |
| 0.016 (-0.001 to 0.032) |
| 0.002 (-0.003 to 0.008) |
| Versus control | - |
|
|
|
FFM, fat free mass.
Model adjusted by sex, age and somatic maturation. Bold indicates p-value significant and positive correlation between fat free mass and bone mineral density.
Partial correlation between bone mineral density and weekly training load in adolescents of different martial arts (n=138).
| Bone mineral density (g/cm2) | Control versus Judo(n=108) | Control versus Karate(n=104) | Control versus Kung-Fu(n=106) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| Arms |
| 0.018 (-0.175 to 0.210) |
|
| Legs |
| 0.144 (-0.050 to 0.328) | 0.185 (-0.006 to 0.363) |
| Trunk | 0.012 (-0.177 to 0.201) | 0.124 (-0.070 to 0.309) | 0.171 (-0.020 to 0.350) |
| Pelvis | -0.018 (-0.206 to 0.172) | -0.008 (-0.200 to 0.185) | -0.013 (-0.203 to 0.178) |
| Spine | -0.009 (-0.198 to 0.180) | 0.165 (-0.028 to 0.347) |
|
| Whole body | -0.071 (-0.257 to 0.120) | 0.065 (-0.129 to 0.254) | 0.149 (-0.043 to 0.330) |
Model adjusted by sex, age, somatic maturation and fat free mass. Bold indicates a positive correlation between BMW and weekly training load.