REGIONAL BODY COMPOSITION AND MUSCLE STRENGTH ARE RELATED TO BONE MINERAL CONTENT IN ELDERLY

Siqueira, Leandro Oliveira Da Cruz; Machado, César Fernandes; Siminato, Astor Reis; Sancassani, Andrei; Santos, Luiz Gustavo Almeida dos; Gomes, Larissa Aparecida Takehana; Zago, Anderson Saranz; Pessôa Filho, Dalton Muller

doi:10.1590/1517-869220182405182694

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article, Orthopedic • Rev Bras Med Esporte 24 (5) • Sep-Oct 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-869220182405182694 copy

REGIONAL BODY COMPOSITION AND MUSCLE STRENGTH ARE RELATED TO BONE MINERAL CONTENT IN ELDERLY

COMPOSIÇÃO CORPORAL REGIONAL E FORÇA MUSCULAR SE RELACIONAM COM O CONTEÚDO MINERAL ÓSSEO EM IDOSOS

COMPOSICIÓN REGIONAL Y FUERZA MUSCULAR SI RELACIONAN CON ÉL CONTENIDO MINERAL ÓSEO DE MAYORES

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Introduction:

The increase, or maintenance, of lean body mass and muscle strength are major determinants of functional independence in the elderly, since they are associated with bone remodeling, and therefore with a reduced risk of falls and fractures. However, the regional relationship between lean body mass/strength and bone mineral content (BMC) has not sufficient theoretical support.

Objective:

To analyze whether regional body composition and muscle strength are factors potentially related to BMC.

Methods:

Ten older men (63.3±6.4 years, 169.4±6.8 cm and 79.3±10.5 kg) underwent body composition assessments using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to obtain regional and whole-body lean mass and BMC measures. The subjects also underwent the one-repetition maximum (1RM) test involving flat bench press, 45° leg press, arm curl and knee extension. Regional/whole-body composition and 1RM values were correlated to BMC using Pearson's coefficient (r). The level of significance for the correlations was p ≤0.05, the confidence interval was 95% (Z₁-a_/2=1.96), and the sample power was 80% (1-b).

Results:

The flat bench press 1RM was related to BMC in the left (r=0.764) and right (r=0.748) arms, while the 45° leg press 1RM was associated with BMC in the left (r=0.677) and right (r=0.714) legs and trunk (r=0.810), with sample power of 77.7%, 66.8%, 12.7%, 40.4% and 97.0%, respectively. Whole-body BMC was related to abdominal skinfold (r=0.819), lean mass of left arm (r=0.834), left (r=0.845) and right (r=0.868) legs, and whole-body lean mass (r=0.787), with sample power of 98.4%, 99.6%, 99.9%, 100.0% and 90.1%, respectively.

Conclusion:

The results supported regional lean body mass as a parameter related to BMC, with potential similar to that consistently reported for whole-body lean mass. Results also suggested that muscle strength plays an important role in improving or maintaining regional and whole-body BMC. Level of Evidence II; Development of diagnostic criteria in consecutive patients (with “gold” benchmark standard applied).

Keywords:
Muscle strength; Body composition; Bone density; Aged

	Site	Mean±SD	SEE	Range
Lean tissue (kg)	Arm L	2.9±0.4	0.13	(2.2-3.8)
	Arm R	3.0±0.4	0.12	(2.2-3.6)
	Trunk	25.9±2.6	0.87	(20.9-29.8)
	Leg L	8.5±1.1	0.37	(6.9-10.4)
	Leg RD	8.2±1.0	0.33	(6.6-10.1)
% Fat	Arm L	29.4±6.8	2.2	(21.0-40.6)
	Arm R	31.2±6.6	2.1	(22.7-41.9)
	Trunk	32.8±7.0	2.2	(23.3-42.7)
	Leg L	28.4±7.9	2.5	(19.4-42.7)
	Leg RD	30.3±8.8	2.8	(19.9-44.4)
Total Mass (kg)	Arm L	4.4±0.5	0.16	(3.7-5.4)
	Arm R	4.6±0.6	0.19	(3.9-5.7)
	Trunk	39.8±5.9	1.85	(2.8-4.8)
	Leg L	12.6±1.9	0.60	(9.3-15.9)
	Leg RD	12.5±1.7	0.54	(9.4-15.5)

BMC	LM	Arm L	Arm R	Leg L	Leg R	Trunk
Arm R		0.733^* * p ≤ 0.05;	0.886^ p ≤ 0.01.	0.736^* * p ≤ 0.05;	0.724^* * p ≤ 0.05;	–––––
	95%IC	(0.85-0.95)	(0.71-0.96)	(0.35-0.95)	(0.25-0.94)
Arm L		0.946^ p ≤ 0.01.	0.767^ p ≤ 0.01.	0.744^* * p ≤ 0.05;	0.752^* * p ≤ 0.05;	0.697^* * p ≤ 0.05;
	95%IC	(0.65-0.99)	(0.21-0.96	(0.34-0.95)	(0.15-0.97)	(0.27-0.94)
Leg R		0.748^* * p ≤ 0.05;	0.793^ p ≤ 0.01.	0.864^ p ≤ 0.01.	0.894^ p ≤ 0.01.	0.737^* * p ≤ 0.05;
	95%IC	(0.49-0.93)	(0.43-0.96	(0.69-0.97)	(0.75-0.98)	(0.31-0.92)
Leg L		0.753^* * p ≤ 0.05;	0.738^* * p ≤ 0.05;	0.912^ p ≤ 0.01.	0.953^ p ≤ 0.01.	0.817^ p ≤ 0.01.
	95%IC	(0.25-0.95)	(0.27-0.95	(0.77-0.98)	(0.89-0.99)	(0.35-0.96)
Torso		0.827^ p ≤ 0.01.	–––––	0.674^* * p ≤ 0.05;	0.726^* * p ≤ 0.05;	–––––
	95%IC	(0.38-0.97)		(0.21-0.93)	(0.25-0.94)
Whole-body		0.834^ p ≤ 0.01.	0.755^* * p ≤ 0.05;	0.845^ p ≤ 0.01.	0.868^ p ≤ 0.01.	0.682^* * p ≤ 0.05;
	95%IC	(0.64-0.96)	(0.35-0.95)	(0.57-0.96)	(0.61-0.98)	(0.15-0.91)

Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina do Exercício e do Esporte Av. Brigadeiro Luís Antônio, 278, 6º and., 01318-901 São Paulo SP, Tel.: +55 11 3106-7544, Fax: +55 11 3106-8611 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: atharbme@uol.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence: Dalton Muller Pessôa Filho Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Department of Physical Education. Av. Eng. Luiz Edmundo Carrijo Coube, 14-01, Vargem Limpa, Bauru, SP, Brazil. 17033-360. dmpf@fc.unesp.br