4.4 Article

Soft tissues, areal bone mineral density and hip geometry estimates in active young boys: the PRO-BONE study

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 117, Issue 4, Pages 833-842

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-017-3568-2

Keywords

Adolescents; Bone health; Hip structural analysis; Body composition; Fat mass; Lean mass

Funding

  1. European Union [PCIG13-GA-2013-618496]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Soft tissues, such as fat mass (FM) and lean mass (LM), play an important role in bone development but this is poorly understood in highly active youths. The objective of this study was to determine whether FM or LM is a stronger predictor of areal bone mineral density (aBMD) and hip geometry estimates in a group of physically active boys after adjusting for height, chronological age, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), FM, and LM. Methods Participants included 121 boys (13.1 +/- 1.0 years) from the PRO-BONE study. Bone mineral content (BMC) and aBMD were measured at total body, femoral neck and lumbar spine using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and hip structural analysis was used to estimate bone geometry at the femoral neck. Body composition was assessed using DXA. The relationships of FM and LM with bone outcomes were analysed using simple and multiple linear regression analyses. Results Pearson correlation coefficients showed that total body (less head) aBMD was significantly correlated with LM but not FM. Multiple linear regression analyses showed that FM, after accounting for height, age, MVPA and LM had no significant relationship with aBMD or hip geometry estimates, except for arms aBMD. By contrast, there were positive associations between LM and most aBMD and hip geometry estimates, after accounting height, age, MVPA and FM. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that LM, and not FM, is the stronger predictor of aBMD and hip geometry estimates in physically active boys.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available