4.3 Article

Correlations between insulin sensitivity and bone mineral density in non-diabetic men

Journal

DIABETIC MEDICINE
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 124-129

Publisher

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2000.00234.x

Keywords

body composition; bone mineral density; cardiovascular disease; glucose metabolism; insulin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To investigate relationships between bone mineral density (BMD), insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity, controlling for body composition, in view of data suggesting that hypoglycaemia leads to decreased osteoblast proliferation and a negative calcium balance and that insulin stimulates osteoblast differentiation and collagen synthesis, with no clear evidence if this response in impaired in insulin resistance. Methods Femur and whole body (WB) BMD was measured in 55 male patients with ischaemic heart disease and 40 healthy men, using a Hologic QDR-2000 densitometer, Insulin sensitivity (S-i) was estimated as the rate of glucose disappearance divided by the area under the insulin curve during an intravenous glucose tolerance test. Results Insulin and C-peptide levels were not correlated with BMD, but S-i was a significant: predictor of femur (log, r = 0.35) and WB BMD (log r = 0.29, both P < 0.01), even after controlling for weight: and age. Fat mass (FM) was a predictor of BMD (femur: r = 0.33 P < 0.01, WB: r = 0.43 P < 0.001). In the femur the association with FM disappeared when log(S-i) was entered in the regression. Lean body mass (LBM) contributed significantly to BMD (r = 0.50 and r = 0.66, both P < 0.001). Conclusions These results are compatible with a direct influence of lean body mass on bone, while the impact of fat mass may consist of insulin resistance with increased insulin exposure of bone. It is hypothesized that patients with insulin resistance in the metabolic pathway do not exhibit resistance to the skeletal actions of insulin.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available