4.4 Article

Bone Mineral Density Differences Across Female Olympic Lifters, Power Lifters, and Soccer Players

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003944

关键词

DXA; Olympic lifting; power lifting; recreationally active; soccer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that female Olympic lifters had the highest bone mineral density, followed by power lifters and soccer players, while recreationally active women had lower bone mineral density in comparison.
Jeon, W, Harrison, JM, Stanforth, PR, and Griffin, L. Bone mineral density differences across female Olympic lifters, power lifters, and soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 638-643, 2021-Athletic training improves bone mineral density (BMD) through repeated mechanical loading. The location, intensity, and direction of applied mechanical pressure play an important role in determining BMD, making some sports more advantageous at improving BMD at specific regions. Thirty-seven (10 power lifters [PL], 8 Olympic lifters [OL], 8 soccer players [SP], and 11 recreationally active [RA]) women participated in a cross-sectional study. We measured lumbar spine (L1-L4), femoral neck, total-body BMD, and overall body composition (total fat mass, lean mass, percent body fat) with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. All athletic groups had greater total BMD than RA (p = 0.01 [PL]; p < 0.001 [OL]; p = 0.01 [SP]). Olympic lifters had the highest total BMD than all other athletic groups. Olympic lifters had the significantly greater total BMD than PL (p = 0.018), but there was no difference in total BMD between PL and SP. As compared with RA, OL showed greater BMD at both the total lumbar spine (p = 0.002) and the femoral neck (p = 0.007), whereas PL showed greater BMD only for the total lumbar spine (p = 0.019) and SP showed greater BMD only for the femoral neck (p = 0.002). Olympic-style lifting includes both high-impact and odd-impact loading modalities that are associated with the highest BMD at both the lumbar spine and femoral neck.

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

4.4
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