Premium
Bone Bending Stiffness and BMD in trained Cyclists, Runners and Untrained Men
Author(s) -
Liang Michael T.C.,
Lewis Kevin M,
Spalding Thomas W.,
Bassin Stan L,
Arnaud Sara B.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.22.2_supplement.131
Subject(s) - medicine , heel , bone mineral , tibia , analysis of variance , orthodontics , anatomy , osteoporosis
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of weight bearing (runners) and non‐weight bearing (cyclists) endurance exercise on measurements of areal bone mineral density (BMD) and bone bending stiffness. METHODS: Mechanical Response Tissue Analyzer (MRTA) was used to non‐invasively measure bone bending stiffness (EI, N•m2) of the left ulnar (EI‐U) and left tibia (EI‐T). A DXA (PIXI GE Lunar) was used to scan the left heel (BMD‐H) and left wrist (BMD‐W). EI and BMD were measured in 29 male subjects (23.8±4.8y): 12 cyclists (CYC), 10 runners (RUN), and 7 untrained controls (CON). Data were analyzed using a one‐way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). RESULTS: Results revealed a significant difference between groups (p< 0.05). Univariate ANOVAs show significant (p<0.05) differences between CYC and CON for BMD‐heel (0.63±0.02 vs. 0.56±0.03 g/cm2), EI‐tibia (304±29 vs. 246±39 N•m2), and EI‐ulnas (63.3±5.7 vs. 43.1±7.7 N•m2) and between CYC and RUN for BMD‐wrist (0.57±0.02 vs. 0.52±0.02 g/cm2). When RUN was compared to CON significant differences were found for BMD‐heel (0.66±0.03 vs. 0.56±0.03 g/cm2), EI‐tibia (333±32 vs. 246±39 N•m2), and EI‐ulnas (59.2±6.3 vs. 43.1±7.7 N•m2). CONCLUSION: Both CYC and RUN show greater heel BMD and tibial and ulnas EI than the CON. Low statistical power may prohibit us from detecting significant differences between the CYC and RUN.