4.6 Article

Lean mass as a total mediator of the influence of muscular fitness on bone health in schoolchildren: a mediation analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
卷 33, 期 8, 页码 817-830

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2014.964750

关键词

bone mineral density; bone mineral content; muscular strength; body composition; children

资金

  1. Ministry of Education and Science of the Junta of Communities of Castilla-La Mancha [PII1I09-0259-9898, POII10-0208-5325]
  2. Fondo de Investigaci.n Sanitaria [PI081297]
  3. Research Network on Preventative Activities and Health Promotion [RD06/0018/0038]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This report aims to analyse the independent association of lean mass and muscle fitness with bone mineral content (BMC) and bone mineral density (BMD), and to examine whether the relationship between muscle fitness and bone health is mediated by lean mass. Body composition (by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)), muscle fitness, physical activity, age and height were measured in 132 schoolchildren (62 boys, aged 8-11years). Analysis of covariance tested differences in bone-related variables by lean mass and muscle fitness, controlling for different sets of confounders. Linear regression models fitted for mediation analyses examined whether the association between muscle fitness and bone mass was mediated by lean mass. Children with good performance in handgrip and standing long jump had better and worse bone health, respectively. These differences disappeared after controlling for lean mass. Children with high lean mass had higher values in all bone-related variables. In addition, the relationship between muscle fitness and bone mass was fully mediated by lean mass. In conclusion, the relationship between upper-limbs muscle fitness and bone health seems to be dependent on lean mass but not on muscle fitness. Schoolchildren with high lean mass have more BMC and BMD in all regions. Lean mass mediates the association between muscle fitness and bone mass.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据