Does reduced skeletal loading account for age-related bone loss?

L. Joseph Melton, B. Lawrence Riggs, Sara J. Achenbach, Shreyasee Amin, Jon J. Camp, Peggy A. Rouleau, Richard A. Robb, Ann L Oberg, Sundeep Khosla

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A leading theory suggests that decreasing activity and muscle mass is the main cause of age-related bone loss. However, in a population-based study of 375 women and 325 men (age, 21-97 years), we failed to find a close correspondence between these variables and changes in bone strength with aging. Introduction: It has been suggested that bone strength is homeostatically adapted to habitual skeletal loading conditions and that bone loss could, therefore, result simply from age-related reductions in physical activity and muscle mass, but this notion has not been explored in detail. Materials and Methods: In a stratified random sample of Rochester, MN, women and men 21-97 years of age, indices of bone strength, flexural rigidity (EI), and axial rigidity (EA) were estimated from central QCT measurements at the femoral neck and lumbar spine and pQCT measurements at the ultradistal radius, whereas habitual skeletal loading was assessed using lean body mass, total skeletal muscle mass (TSM), body weight, and physical activity. Using regression analysis, we tested the hypothesis (Ho) that bone strength per unit load did not vary with age. Results and Conclusions: In these cross-sectional data, the null hypothesis of no age-related change was rejected in 72% of the strength-to-load ratios tested. For example, the ratio of femoral neck EI to TSM increased by 0.19%/year in women (p = 0.008) and by 0.49%/year in men (p < 0.001). There was no close correspondence between changes in habitual load and changes in bone strength, nor any consistent pattern. Moreover, interindividual variation in the strength-to-load ratios was substantial. These data suggest that the notion of reduced skeletal loading as the primary basis for age-related bone loss is oversimplified.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1847-1855
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Bone and Mineral Research
Volume21
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2006

Fingerprint

Osteoporosis
Bone and Bones
Femur Neck
Skeletal Muscle
Exercise
Muscles
Spine
Body Weight
Regression Analysis
Population

Keywords

  • Aging
  • Bone strength
  • Epidemiology
  • Homeostasis
  • Muscle mass

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Does reduced skeletal loading account for age-related bone loss? / Melton, L. Joseph; Riggs, B. Lawrence; Achenbach, Sara J.; Amin, Shreyasee; Camp, Jon J.; Rouleau, Peggy A.; Robb, Richard A.; Oberg, Ann L; Khosla, Sundeep.

In: Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Vol. 21, No. 12, 12.2006, p. 1847-1855.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Melton, LJ, Riggs, BL, Achenbach, SJ, Amin, S, Camp, JJ, Rouleau, PA, Robb, RA, Oberg, AL & Khosla, S 2006, 'Does reduced skeletal loading account for age-related bone loss?', Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1847-1855. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.060908
Melton, L. Joseph ; Riggs, B. Lawrence ; Achenbach, Sara J. ; Amin, Shreyasee ; Camp, Jon J. ; Rouleau, Peggy A. ; Robb, Richard A. ; Oberg, Ann L ; Khosla, Sundeep. / Does reduced skeletal loading account for age-related bone loss?. In: Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. 2006 ; Vol. 21, No. 12. pp. 1847-1855.
@article{8894e4580e9a47a5bf76eff05bf79897,
title = "Does reduced skeletal loading account for age-related bone loss?",
abstract = "A leading theory suggests that decreasing activity and muscle mass is the main cause of age-related bone loss. However, in a population-based study of 375 women and 325 men (age, 21-97 years), we failed to find a close correspondence between these variables and changes in bone strength with aging. Introduction: It has been suggested that bone strength is homeostatically adapted to habitual skeletal loading conditions and that bone loss could, therefore, result simply from age-related reductions in physical activity and muscle mass, but this notion has not been explored in detail. Materials and Methods: In a stratified random sample of Rochester, MN, women and men 21-97 years of age, indices of bone strength, flexural rigidity (EI), and axial rigidity (EA) were estimated from central QCT measurements at the femoral neck and lumbar spine and pQCT measurements at the ultradistal radius, whereas habitual skeletal loading was assessed using lean body mass, total skeletal muscle mass (TSM), body weight, and physical activity. Using regression analysis, we tested the hypothesis (Ho) that bone strength per unit load did not vary with age. Results and Conclusions: In these cross-sectional data, the null hypothesis of no age-related change was rejected in 72{\%} of the strength-to-load ratios tested. For example, the ratio of femoral neck EI to TSM increased by 0.19{\%}/year in women (p = 0.008) and by 0.49{\%}/year in men (p < 0.001). There was no close correspondence between changes in habitual load and changes in bone strength, nor any consistent pattern. Moreover, interindividual variation in the strength-to-load ratios was substantial. These data suggest that the notion of reduced skeletal loading as the primary basis for age-related bone loss is oversimplified.",
keywords = "Aging, Bone strength, Epidemiology, Homeostasis, Muscle mass",
author = "Melton, {L. Joseph} and Riggs, {B. Lawrence} and Achenbach, {Sara J.} and Shreyasee Amin and Camp, {Jon J.} and Rouleau, {Peggy A.} and Robb, {Richard A.} and Oberg, {Ann L} and Sundeep Khosla",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1359/jbmr.060908",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "1847--1855",
journal = "Journal of Bone and Mineral Research",
issn = "0884-0431",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does reduced skeletal loading account for age-related bone loss?

AU - Melton, L. Joseph

AU - Riggs, B. Lawrence

AU - Achenbach, Sara J.

AU - Amin, Shreyasee

AU - Camp, Jon J.

AU - Rouleau, Peggy A.

AU - Robb, Richard A.

AU - Oberg, Ann L

AU - Khosla, Sundeep

PY - 2006/12

Y1 - 2006/12

N2 - A leading theory suggests that decreasing activity and muscle mass is the main cause of age-related bone loss. However, in a population-based study of 375 women and 325 men (age, 21-97 years), we failed to find a close correspondence between these variables and changes in bone strength with aging. Introduction: It has been suggested that bone strength is homeostatically adapted to habitual skeletal loading conditions and that bone loss could, therefore, result simply from age-related reductions in physical activity and muscle mass, but this notion has not been explored in detail. Materials and Methods: In a stratified random sample of Rochester, MN, women and men 21-97 years of age, indices of bone strength, flexural rigidity (EI), and axial rigidity (EA) were estimated from central QCT measurements at the femoral neck and lumbar spine and pQCT measurements at the ultradistal radius, whereas habitual skeletal loading was assessed using lean body mass, total skeletal muscle mass (TSM), body weight, and physical activity. Using regression analysis, we tested the hypothesis (Ho) that bone strength per unit load did not vary with age. Results and Conclusions: In these cross-sectional data, the null hypothesis of no age-related change was rejected in 72% of the strength-to-load ratios tested. For example, the ratio of femoral neck EI to TSM increased by 0.19%/year in women (p = 0.008) and by 0.49%/year in men (p < 0.001). There was no close correspondence between changes in habitual load and changes in bone strength, nor any consistent pattern. Moreover, interindividual variation in the strength-to-load ratios was substantial. These data suggest that the notion of reduced skeletal loading as the primary basis for age-related bone loss is oversimplified.

AB - A leading theory suggests that decreasing activity and muscle mass is the main cause of age-related bone loss. However, in a population-based study of 375 women and 325 men (age, 21-97 years), we failed to find a close correspondence between these variables and changes in bone strength with aging. Introduction: It has been suggested that bone strength is homeostatically adapted to habitual skeletal loading conditions and that bone loss could, therefore, result simply from age-related reductions in physical activity and muscle mass, but this notion has not been explored in detail. Materials and Methods: In a stratified random sample of Rochester, MN, women and men 21-97 years of age, indices of bone strength, flexural rigidity (EI), and axial rigidity (EA) were estimated from central QCT measurements at the femoral neck and lumbar spine and pQCT measurements at the ultradistal radius, whereas habitual skeletal loading was assessed using lean body mass, total skeletal muscle mass (TSM), body weight, and physical activity. Using regression analysis, we tested the hypothesis (Ho) that bone strength per unit load did not vary with age. Results and Conclusions: In these cross-sectional data, the null hypothesis of no age-related change was rejected in 72% of the strength-to-load ratios tested. For example, the ratio of femoral neck EI to TSM increased by 0.19%/year in women (p = 0.008) and by 0.49%/year in men (p < 0.001). There was no close correspondence between changes in habitual load and changes in bone strength, nor any consistent pattern. Moreover, interindividual variation in the strength-to-load ratios was substantial. These data suggest that the notion of reduced skeletal loading as the primary basis for age-related bone loss is oversimplified.

KW - Aging

KW - Bone strength

KW - Epidemiology

KW - Homeostasis

KW - Muscle mass

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845221262&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845221262&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1359/jbmr.060908

DO - 10.1359/jbmr.060908

M3 - Article

C2 - 17002566

AN - SCOPUS:33845221262

VL - 21

SP - 1847

EP - 1855

JO - Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

JF - Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

SN - 0884-0431

IS - 12

ER -