Ana Torres-Costoso1, Purificación López-Muñoz1, Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno2,3, Celia Álvarez-Bueno4, Iván Cavero-Redondo4. 1. Faculty of Physiotherapy and Nursing, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain. 2. Health and Social Research Center (CESS), Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Ed/ Melchor Cano, C/Santa Teresa Jornet s/n, 16071, Cuenca, Spain. Vicente.Martinez@uclm.es. 3. Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Talca, Chile. Vicente.Martinez@uclm.es. 4. Health and Social Research Center (CESS), Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Ed/ Melchor Cano, C/Santa Teresa Jornet s/n, 16071, Cuenca, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a major worldwide health concern. The acquisition of bone mass during growth decreases the risk of osteoporosis later in life. Muscular strength is an important and modifiable factor to improve bone development in this period. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to summarize the relationship between muscular strength and bone health. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from studies addressing this association from childhood to young adulthood were systematically searched. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to compute pooled estimates of effect size and respective 95% CI. The meta-analyses were conducted separately for upper limbs or lower limbs muscular strength and for bone regions. Additionally, a regression model was used to estimate the influence of determinants such as age, lean mass, fat mass, height, weight and cardiorespiratory fitness in this association. RESULTS: Thirty-nine published studies were included in the systematic review. The pooled effect size for the association of upper limbs muscular strength with upper limbs, spine and total body BMD ranged from 0.70 to 1.07 and with upper limbs, spine and total body BMC ranged from 1.84 to 1.30. The pooled effect size for the association of lower limbs muscular strength with lower limbs, spine and total body BMD ranged from 0.54 to 0.88 and with lower limbs, spine and total body BMC ranged between 0.81 and 0.71. All reported pooled effect size estimates were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis supports that muscular strength should be considered as a useful skeletal health marker during development and a target outcome for interventions aimed at improving bone health.
BACKGROUND:Osteoporosis is a major worldwide health concern. The acquisition of bone mass during growth decreases the risk of osteoporosis later in life. Muscular strength is an important and modifiable factor to improve bone development in this period. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to summarize the relationship between muscular strength and bone health. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from studies addressing this association from childhood to young adulthood were systematically searched. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to compute pooled estimates of effect size and respective 95% CI. The meta-analyses were conducted separately for upper limbs or lower limbs muscular strength and for bone regions. Additionally, a regression model was used to estimate the influence of determinants such as age, lean mass, fat mass, height, weight and cardiorespiratory fitness in this association. RESULTS: Thirty-nine published studies were included in the systematic review. The pooled effect size for the association of upper limbs muscular strength with upper limbs, spine and total body BMD ranged from 0.70 to 1.07 and with upper limbs, spine and total body BMC ranged from 1.84 to 1.30. The pooled effect size for the association of lower limbs muscular strength with lower limbs, spine and total body BMD ranged from 0.54 to 0.88 and with lower limbs, spine and total body BMC ranged between 0.81 and 0.71. All reported pooled effect size estimates were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis supports that muscular strength should be considered as a useful skeletal health marker during development and a target outcome for interventions aimed at improving bone health.
Authors: Matias Noll; Carolina Rodrigues Mendonça; Ana Paula Dos Santos Rodrigues; Alexandre Aparecido de Almeida; Priscilla Rayanne E Silva Noll Journal: Transl Pediatr Date: 2021-01
Authors: Bruna Thamyres Ciccotti Saraiva; Ricardo Ribeiro Agostinete; Ismael Forte Freitas Júnior; Daniel Eduardo Rodrigues de Sousa; Luis Alberto Gobbo; William Rodrigues Tebar; Diego Giulliano Destro Christofaro Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Kai-Li Deng; Wan-Yu Yang; Jin-Li Hou; Hui Li; Hao Feng; Su-Mei Xiao Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Hassane Zouhal; Abdel Jalil Berro; Sarah Kazwini; Ayoub Saeidi; Ayyappan Jayavel; Cain C T Clark; Anthony C Hackney; Trisha A VanDusseldorp; Abderraouf Ben Abderrahman; Rawad El Hage Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 4.566