4.3 Article

Relative contribution of body composition to bone mineral density at different sites in men and women of South Korea

期刊

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL METABOLISM
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 165-171

出版社

SPRINGER TOKYO
DOI: 10.1007/s00774-006-0747-3

关键词

bone mineral density; body composition; men and women

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [전06A1115] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the relative contribution of body composition to bone mineral density (BMD) at various sites in 1406 Korean rural men and women, aged 19-80 years, from July to August 2004. The BMD was measured at peripheral (distal forearm and calcaneus) and central (lumbar spine at L1-L4, femoral neck, trochanter, and Ward's triangle) using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. In multivariate analyses, the linear regression models were adjusted for relevant covariates. In premenopausal women, only lean mass had a significant positive correlation with BMD at all sites. In postmenopausal women, fat mass was significantly positively correlated with BMD at all sites, except the Ward's triangle; fat mass was the only determinant of BMD at the lumbar, distal forearm, and calcaneus sites, whereas both lean and fat mass contributed to BMD at the hip, with the effect of lean mass being slightly greater than that of fat mass. In younger men, lean mass had a significant positive contribution to BMD at all sites, whereas fat mass appeared to contribute negatively to BMD at all sites, except the calcaneus. In older men, lean mass made a significant positive contribution to the BMD at all sites; fat mass also made a significant positive contribution to the BMD at the forearm and calcaneus. These data indicate that in the Korean rural population, lean mass may be an important determinant of the BMD, whereas fat mass may contribute positively to BMD only in postmenopausal women and older men.

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

4.3
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