Osteoporosis International

, Volume 14, Issue 11, pp 941–949

Hip section modulus, a measure of bending resistance, is more strongly related to reported physical activity than BMD

  • S. Kaptoge
  • N. Dalzell
  • R. W. Jakes
  • N. Wareham
  • N. E. Day
  • K. T. Khaw
  • T. J. Beck
  • N. Loveridge
  • J. Reeve
Original Article

Abstract

We hypothesized that measures of physical activity would have a closer relationship with section modulus (SM), an indicator of bending resistance, than with bone mineral density (BMD) because physical activity might expand the bony envelope, which tends to reduce BMD for a constant bone mineral content. Four hundred twenty-three men and 436 women (mean age 72 years, SD =3) were recruited from a prospective population-based cohort study to a study of hip bone loss. Hip BMD was measured on two occasions 2–5 years apart (mean 2.7, DXA-Hologic 1,000 W). Hip structural analysis (HSA) software was used to calculate SM and BMD from the DXA scans on three narrow regions: the narrow neck (NN), intertrochanter (IT) and shaft (S). A physical activity and lifestyle questionnaire was administered at baseline. Multivariate repeated measures analysis of variance was used to model the associations between personal attributes (weight, height, age), physical activity and lifestyle variables with SM, cross-sectional area (CSA), sub-periosteal diameter (PD) and BMD. Men and women were analysed together after tests for interactions with gender, which were found not to be significant. In all regions female gender was associated with having lower values of all outcomes, and body weight was positively associated with all outcomes, i.e., SM, CSA, PD and BMD (P<0.0001). Sub-periosteal diameter was positively associated with reported lifetime physical activity (IT and S, P<0.0001). There was a significant decline of BMD with age at the NN and S regions (P<0.026), and the PD increased with age (NN and S, P<0.019). Previous fracture history was associated with having lower values of BMD, SM and CSA (except for S; P<0.022). Both section modulus and CSA were positively associated with heavy physical activity after age 50 years in all regions (P<0.019), whereas NN BMD was the only BMD associate of heavy physical activity after 50 (P=0.036). Time spent per week on recreational activities classified as no impact activity was positively associated with BMD, CSA and SM (multivariate P<0.016). In conclusion, proximal femur diameter is associated positively with reported life-long physical activity. If this is mediated through a loading related effect on sub-periosteal expansion, BMD would be an unsatisfactory outcome measure in physical activity studies since it is inversely related to projected bone area. SM in contrast was associated with several measures of recent physical activity and relates more directly to the bending experienced by the proximal femur in response to a given load. These data are consistent with an effect of mechanical loading to regulate bone strength through an anabolic effect maximal in the subperiosteal cortex, where the highest loading-related strains are experienced.

Keywords

Bone mineral density Bone strength EPIC-Norfolk study Physical activity Section modulus 

References

  1. 1.
    Bolotin HH, Sievänen H (2001) Inaccuracies inherent in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in vivo bone mineral density can seriously mislead diagnostic/prognostic interpretations of patient-specific bone fragility. J Bone Miner Res 16:799–805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carter DR, Bouxsein ML, Marcus R (1992) New approaches for interpreting projected bone densitometry data. J Bone Miner Res 7:137–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seeman E (1997) From density to structure: growing up and growing old on the surfaces of bone. J Bone Miner Res 12:509–521PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCreadie BR, Goldstein SA (2000) Biomechanics of fracture: is bone mineral density sufficient to assess risk? J Bone Miner Res 15:2305–2308PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beck TJ, Looker AC, Ruff CB, Sievanen H, Wahner HW (2000) Structural trends in the ageing femoral neck and proximal shaft: analysis of the third national health and nutrition examination survey dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry data. J Bone Miner Res 15:2297–2304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck TJ, Oreskovic TL, Stone KL, Ruff CB, Ensrud K, Nevitt MC, et al (2001) Structural adaptation to changing skeletal load in the progression toward hip fragility: the study of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 16:1108–1119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heaney RP, Barger-Lux MJ, Davies KM, A. RR, Johnson ML, Gong G (1997) Bone dimensional change with age: interactions of genetic, hormonal, and body size variables. Osteoporos Int 7:426–431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beck TJ, Stone KL, Oreskovic TL, Hochberg MC, Nevitt MC, Genant HK, et al (2001) Effects of current and discontinued estrogen replacement therapy on hip structural geometry: the study of osteoporotic fractures. J Bone Miner Res 16:2103–2110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaptoge SK, Dalzell N, Loveridge N, Beck TJ, Khaw K-T, Reeve J (2003) Effects of gender, anthropometric variables and aging on the evolution of hip strength in men and women aged over 65. Bone 32:561–570Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yoshikawa T, Turner CH, Peacock M, Slemenda CW, Weaver CM, Teegarden D, et al (1994) Geometric structure of the femoral neck measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res 9:1053–1064PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beck TJ, Ruff CB, Warren KE, Scott WW, Gopala U (1990) Predicting femoral neck strength from bone mineral data: A structural approach. Invest Radiol 25:6–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mourtada F, Beck T, Hauser D, Ruff C, Bao G (1996) Curved beam model of the proximal femur for estimating stress using dual x-ray absorptiometry derived structural geometry. J Orthop Res 14:483–492PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Day N, Oakes S, Luben R, Khaw K-T, Bingham S, Welch A, et al (1999) EPIC in Norfolk: study design and characteristics of the cohort. Br J Cancer 80 [Suppl 1]:95–103Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jakes R, Khaw K-T, Day N, Bingham S, Welch A, Oakes S, et al (2001) Patterns of physical activity and ultrasound attenuation by heel bone among Norfolk cohort of European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC Norfolk): population based study. BMJ 322:140–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wareham NJ, Jakes RW, Rennie KL, Mitchell J, Hennings S, Day NE (2002) Validity and repeatability of the EPIC-Norfolk physical activity questionnaire. Int J Epidemiol 31:168–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matthis C, Weber U, O'Neill TW, Raspe H (1998) The European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study Group. Health impact associated with vertebral deformities: results from the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study. Osteoporos Int 8:364–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lunt M, Masaryk P, Scheidt-Nave C, Nijs J, Poor G, Pols H, et al (2001) The effects of lifestyle, dietary dairy intake and diabetes on bone density and vertebral deformity prevalence: The EVOS study. Osteoporos Int 12:688–698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O'Neill TW, Cooper C, Cannata JB, Diaz Lopez JB, Hoszowski K, Johnell O, et al (1994) Reproducibility of a questionnaire on risk factors for osteoporosis in a multicentre prevalence survey: the European Vertebral Osteoporosis Study. Int J Epidemiol 23:559–565Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nelson HD, Morris CD, Kraemer DF, Mahon S, Carney C, Nygren PM, et al (2001) Osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: diagnosis and monitoring. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 28 (Prepared by the Oregon Health and Science University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract no. 290–97–0018). AHRQ Publication no. 01-E032. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. January 2001Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lunt M, Felsenberg D, Adams J, Benevolenskaya L, Cannata J, Dequeker J, et al (1997) Population-based geographic variations in DXA bone density in Europe: the EVOS study. Osteoporos Int 7:175–189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Looker AC, Beck TJ, Orwoll ES (2001) Does body size account for gender differences in femur bone density and geometry? J Bone Miner Res 16:1291–1299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lanyon L, Skerry T (2001) Postmenopausal osteoporosis as a failure of bone's adaptation to functional loading: a hypothesis. J Bone Miner Res 16:1937–1947PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petit MA, McKay HA, MacKelvie KJ, Heinonen A, Khan KM, Beck TJ (2002) A randomized school-based jumping intervention confers site and maturity-specific benefits on bone structural properties in girls: a hip structural analysis study. J Bone Miner Res 17:363–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seeman E (2002) An exercise in geometry. J Bone Miner Res 17:373–380PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wolff I, Croonenborg J, Kemper HC, Kostense PJ, Twisk JW (1999) The effects of exercise training programs on bone mass: a meta-analysis of published controlled trials in pre- and postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 9:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Uusi-Rasi K, Sievanen H, Pasanen M, Oja P, Vuori I (2002) Associations of calcium intake and physical activity with bone density and size in premenopausal and postmenopausal women: A peripheral quantitative computed tomography study. J Bone Miner Res 17:544–552PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haapasalo H, Kontulainen S, Sievanen H, Kannus P, Jarvinen M, Vuori I (2000) Exercise-induced bone gain is due to enlargement in bone size without a change in volumetric bone density: a peripheral quantitative computed tomography study of the upper arms of male tennis players. Bone 27:351–357Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lloyd T, Beck TJ, Lin HM, Tulchinsky M, Eggli DF, Oreskovic TL, et al (2002) Modifiable determinants of bone status in young women. Bone 30:416–421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bradney M, Pearce G, Naughton G, Sullivan C, Bass S, Beck T, et al (1998) Moderate exercise during growth in prepubertal boys: changes in bone mass, size, volumetric density and bone strength: a controlled prospective study. J Bone Miner Res 13:1814–1821PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bell K, Loveridge N, Power J, Garrahan N, Meggitt B, Reeve J (1999) Regional differences in cortical porosity in the fractured femoral neck. Bone 24:57–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Crabtree N, Loveridge N, Parker M, Rushton N, Power J, Bell KL, et al (2001) Intracapsular hip fracture and the region-specific loss of cortical bone: analysis by peripheral quantitative computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res 16:1318–1328PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schoenau E, Neu CM, Beck B, Manz F, Rauch F (2002) Bone mineral content per muscle cross-sectional area as an index of the functional muscle-bone unit. J Bone Miner Res 17:1095–1101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Noble BS, Peet N, Stevens HY, Brabbs A, Mosley JR, Reilly GC, et al (2003) Mechanical loading: biphasic osteocyte survival and targeting of osteoclasts for bone destruction in rat cortical bone. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 284:C934–C943PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Kaptoge
    • 1
  • N. Dalzell
    • 1
  • R. W. Jakes
    • 2
  • N. Wareham
    • 2
  • N. E. Day
    • 1
  • K. T. Khaw
    • 3
  • T. J. Beck
    • 4
  • N. Loveridge
    • 1
  • J. Reeve
    • 1
  1. 1.Strangeways Research LaboratoryCambridge UniversityCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Institute of Public HealthCambridge UniversityCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Clinical Gerontology UnitCambridge UniversityCambridgeUK
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyThe Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations