4.5 Article

Maximal muscle strength and body composition are associated with bone mineral density in chinese adult males

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 99, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019050

Keywords

body composition; bone mineral density; Chinese male adults; maximal muscle strength

Funding

  1. Zhejiang Provincial Health Bureau Science Foundation of China [2018KY017]
  2. Hangzhou Bureau of Science Technology Foundation [20171226Y167]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The relationship between maximal muscle strength (MMS) and bone mineral density (BMD) in males remains unclear. Therefore, the aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the association of MMS, using 3 fundamental compound exercises, and body composition with BMD in Chinese male adults. One hundred forty-seven Chinese male adults aged 20 to 47 years were recruited. Total and regional BMD and body composition were measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Measurements of MMS included bench press, deadlift, and squat 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Bench press, deadlift, squat 1RM, fat mass (FM), and lean mass (LM) had a significant positive association with BMD. Intriguingly, squat 1RM was found to have a stronger association than bench press or deadlift 1RM, whereas bench press 1RM was found as the strongest determinant of BMD at the forearm sites. Furthermore, LM was found to be stronger related with BMD than FM. Our findings identify LM, FM and MMS are positively associated with BMD and squat may serve as a simple, most efficient strategy to optimize peak total body BMD, while bench press fit best for forearm BMD. Our results validate the benefits of MMS training in males and underscores site-specific effects on BMD levels. These findings emphasize the need for prospective studies to investigate the maximum therapeutic potential and sex specific modifiers of MMS training.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available