Article

Association Between Lean Mass, Fat Mass, and Bone Mineral Density: A Meta-analysis

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (Impact Factor: 6.31). 01/2014; 99(1):30-8. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2013-3190
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Context: Body weight is the most important anthropometric determinant of bone mineral density (BMD). Body weight is mainly made up of lean mass (LM) and fat mass (FM), and which component is more important to BMD has been a controversial issue. Objective: This study sought to compare the magnitude of association between LM, FM, and BMD by using a meta-analytic approach. Data Source: Using an electronic and manual search, we identified 44 studies that had examined the correlation between LM, FM, and BMD between 1989 and 2013. These studies involved 20 226 men and women (4966 men and 15 260 women) aged between 18 and 92 years. We extracted the correlations between LM, FM, and BMD at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and whole body. The synthesis of correlation coefficients was done by the random-effects meta-analysis model. Results: The overall correlation between LM and femoral neck BMD (FNBMD) was 0.39 (95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.43), which was significantly higher than the correlation between FM and FNBMD (0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.33). The effect of LM on FNBMD in men (r = 0.43) was greater than that in women (r = 0.38). In premenopausal women, the effect of LM on BMD was greater than the effect of FM (r = 0.45 vs r = 0.30); however, in postmenopausal women, the effects of LM and FM on BMD were comparable (r = 0.33 vs r = 0.31). Conclusion: LM exerts a greater effect on BMD than FM in men and women combined. This finding underlines the concept that physical activity is an important component in the prevention of bone loss and osteoporosis in the population.

1 Follower
 · 
70 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are differences in bone health between ethnic groups in both men and in women. Variations in body size and composition are likely to contribute to reported differences. Most studies report ethnic differences in areal bone mineral density (aBMD), which do not consistently parallel ethnic patterns in fracture rates. This suggests that other parameters beside aBMD should be considered when determining fracture risk between and within populations, including other aspects of bone strength: bone structure and microarchitecture, as well as muscle strength (mass, force generation, anatomy) and fat mass. We review what is known about differences in bone-densitometry-derived outcomes between ethnic groups and the extent to which they account for the differences in fracture risk. Studies are included that were published primarily between 1994 and 2014. A "one size fits all approach" should definitely not be used to understand better ethnic differences in fracture risk.
    Frontiers in Endocrinology 03/2015; 6:24. DOI:10.3389/fendo.2015.00024
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Low BMI is a risk factor for osteoporosis, but it is not clear if relationships between BMI, lean mass (LM), fat mass (FM) and BMD are consistent across different levels of BMI. We studied 1929 Caucasian participants (1014 females) aged 45–66 years in the Busselton Healthy Ageing Study in Western Australia. Body composition and BMD of total body, lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck were measured using DXA. From generalized additive models, the positive relationships between BMI and BMD were weaker at high BMI, particularly at the spine and in males. In the entire cohort, adjusting for relevant covariates, LM and FM were significant predictors of all BMD measures in both genders. In men, analysis by tertiles of BMI showed that LM and FM (in kg) were positively associated with BMD (in mg/cm2) in tertile 1 except for LM and spine BMD (LM β: 5.18–6.80, FM β: 3.38–9.24, all P < 0.05), but not in the middle or upper tertiles (LM β: − 3.12–3.07, FM β: − 4.75–1.82, P > 0.05). In women, LM was positively associated with BMD in each tertile of BMI, except for spine BMD in the upper tertile, with regression coefficients lower in the upper tertile (β: 5.16–9.95, 5.76–9.56 and 2.80–5.78, respectively, all P < 0.05). FM was positively associated with total body, spine and total hip BMD in women in BMI tertile 1 (β: 2.86–6.68, P < 0.05); these associations were weaker or absent in the middle and upper tertiles. In conclusion, in middle-aged adults the positive relationships between lean or fat mass with BMD among those with higher BMI are absent in males and weaker in females.
    Bone 05/2015; 74. DOI:10.1016/j.bone.2015.01.015 · 4.46 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background We investigated whether Body Mass Index (BMI) at 11 years old has a direct effect on bone mass at age 18 operating through alterations to bone growth and development, or whether the association is mediated by concurrent BMI, fat mass (FM), and fat free mass (FFM). Methods Path analysis was used to explore the association between BMI at age 11 and whole-body bone mineral content (BMC) and bone mineral density (BMD) assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at age 18 in a prospective birth cohort study comprising 3,307 adolescents; we also evaluated the degree to which this association was mediated by BMI, FM (kg) and FFM (kg) assessed by plethysmography (BOD POD) at age 18. Results We found a positive association between BMI at age 11 and BMC (males [β = 179.7 g, 95% CI 161.4; 198.0]; females [β = 179.9 g, 95% CI 165.3; 194.6]) and BMD (males [β = 0.030 g/cm2, 95% CI 0.024; 0.035]; females [β = 0.029 g/cm2, 95% CI 0.025; 0.033]) at age 18. This association was largely mediated by BMI and FFM at age 18 in both female and male adolescents. FM at age 18 was not an important mediator. Conclusions Concurrent BMI and FFM were the main mediators of the association between BMC/BMD in late adolescence and BMI in early adolescence. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0529-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 03/2015; 16. DOI:10.1186/s12891-015-0529-y · 1.90 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
39 Downloads
Available from
Jun 27, 2014