Skip to main content
Download PDF

Physical fitness components are bone mineral density predictors in adulthood: cross-sectional study

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 25, Article number: 714 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Health-related physical fitness (HRPF) attributes are considered important markers beneficial to various health outcomes. However, the literature is divergent regarding HRPF and bone health in adulthood, especially due to the end of the second and beginning of the third decades of life when the peak bone mass period occurs.

Objective

To analyze which HRPF variables are areal bone mineral density (aBMD) predictors in adult males and females.

Methods

This study evaluated 137 healthy young adults aged 18–25 years (50% males). Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was used to estimate fat mass and lean mass and aBMD, hand grip strength test, sit-ups test, flexibility test, lower limb muscle strength and 20-meter run were used to evaluate physical fitness. Multiple linear regression using the backward method was used to analyze bone mineral density predictors by sex.

Results

HRPF indicators showed correlations from R = 0.28 in the right femoral neck aBMD to R = 0.61 in the upper limbs aBMD in males; in females, correlations from R = 0.27 in total body aBMD to R = 0.68 in the lower limbs aBMD were found. In males, body mass and HRPF indicators were aBMD predictors with HRPF indicators explaining variance from R²=0.214 in the lumbar spine to R²=0.497 in the upper limbs, and in females, with the exception of the lumbar spine, variance from R²=0.237 in the right femoral neck aBMD to R²=0.442 in the lower limbs aBMD was found.

Conclusion

Health-related physical fitness components were able to predict aBMD in different anatomical regions in young adults, especially muscle strength and cardiorespiratory fitness indicators for males, while only lean mass and fat mass for females.

Peer Review reports

Background

Osteoporosis is a systemic and silent disease characterized by low bone mineral density, bone tissue microarchitecture deterioration and reduced bone strength, which can cause increased bone fragility in adults and older adults [1, 2]. It is estimated that around 20% of the world’s population has bone fragility after the age of 50 years [3, 4], making osteoporosis a serious public health problem [5,6,7,8].

There are several non-modifiable risk factors such as ethnicity, age, sex, early menopause, genetic factors and modifiable factors such as diet, alcohol and tobacco abuse and physical activity, which are important determinants for bone mass accumulation and maintenance or increase in areal bone mineral density (aBMD) [9, 10]. In addition, studies have shown that the mechanical adaptations arising from the practice of physical activity and exercise are capable of optimizing bone mass gains until gain peak is reached, mainly by the interaction between bone and muscle through muscle contraction [10,11,12].

In this way, the practice of physical activity and exercise contributes to peak bone mass [10]. Furthermore, these exposures have the potential to maintain or improve a variety of health-related physical fitness (HRPF) attributes such as strength, flexibility, cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and body composition [13], which in turn are considered important health markers due to their positive association with various health outcomes [14,15,16].

However, information in literature regarding associations between bone health indicators and HRPF points to a certain divergence in the adult population, since studies have observed positive associations between HRPF indicators such as body composition [17,18,19], strength [17, 20,21,22], CRF [23,24,25] and flexibility [24] and others showing no associations with body composition [26], strength [18] and CRF [27], not considering physical fitness components in isolation [21,22,23, 26,27,28,29,30].

Therefore, during adulthood, especially during the end of the second and beginning of the third decades of life, which is the period characterized by peak bone mass [31], prediction studies can bring important additional information on the relationship between bone health and health-related HRPF indicators. It should be noted that the practice of physical activity and exercise can increase bone mass, which is crucial to prevent bone diseases such as osteoporosis and fragility, especially in stages of life in which peak bone mass is relevant. Thus, the present study aims to analyze which HRPF variables are aBMD predictors in adult males and females. It was hypothesized that subjects with higher HRPF indicators have higher aBMD, especially in bone regions with greater body weight support.

Methods

Study design

This cross-sectional study is the result of part of the database of a longitudinal study entitled “Physical fitness and practice of sports in childhood and adolescence and biological and behavioral risk factors in adulthood: a 15-year longitudinal study”. Initially, students aged 7–10 years were recruited from a school located in the city of Londrina (Paraná, Brazil), with mixed longitudinal design, annually followed between 2002 and 2006 (baseline). The follow-up occurred in 2016, and after the entire process of screening and searching for individuals, a final sample of 137 adults was evaluated and described in previous studies [32].

Participants and sample size

This study had final sample of 137 healthy young adults that conducted bone densitometry (DXA) measurement, on which (50% males), aged 22.3 ± 1.7 years, an explanatory power of 0.85 was obtained (f2 = 0.20; 1-β = 0.85; α = 0.05). This sample obtained explanatory power of 0.85 (f2 = 0.20; 1-β = 0.85; α = 0.05). The study was conducted in accordance with the National Health Council resolution (466/2012) and was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the local university (Proc. 1.340.735/2015). All participants signed an informed consent form. As inclusion criteria, young adults should (i) not be injured or physically limited (e.g., asthma); (ii) have completed the same muscular fitness indicators battery in addition to dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and the frequent use of medication to treat any disease that could interfere with the study variables was adopted as exclusion criterion.

Anthropometry

Anthropometry was assessed according to procedures described by Gordon, Chumlea and Roche [33]. Body mass was measured on a digital platform scale with precision of 0.05 kg. Harpenden portable stadiometer with 0.1 cm precision was used to measure height. Subsequently, body mass index (BMI) was calculated and expressed in kg/m2.

Dual energy X-Ray absorptiometry (DXA)

DXA was used to estimate fat mass (FM) and lean mass (LM) in kilograms and aBMD in g/cm². Participants were positioned on the table in supine position with body aligned along with the central axis. A single certified technician performed scans using DXA (Lunar DPX-MD+, GE Lunar Corporation, 726 Heartland Trail, Madison, WI 53717 − 1915 USA). Data were obtained using the software recommended by the manufacturer (Software: enCORE version 4.00.145). Scans allowed body composition and aBMD calculations for total body, lumbar spine (L1-L4), upper limbs, lower limbs, right femoral neck. The equipment was previously calibrated according to the manufacturer. Full body scan was performed with participants in supine position and aligned, holding still for approximately 15 to 20 min. For the lumbar region, individuals were also positioned in dorsal decubitus, with legs placed on a block forming a 90-degree angle in relation to the table, with the intention of straightening the lumbar spine. For the proximal femur examination, for keeping participant positioned in dorsal decubitus, a triangular support was used to immobilize the lower limbs after internal rotation and adequate positioning of the femur, in order to capture the femoral neck region of interest.

Physical fitness

Considering the proposed objectives and for the HRPF assessment, three muscular strength/endurance tests were used, the abdominal muscle endurance test (Sit-ups test), the upper limb strength test (Hand grip strength test) and lower limb strength (Lower limb muscle strength test); flexibility test (sit-and-reach test) and cardiorespiratory endurance test (20 m Shuttle-run test).

The hand grip strength test (HS), which measures strength, was performed according to procedures described by Soares, Sessa [34], using Jamar Hydraulic Dynamometer (Sammons and Preston Scientific Industries Inc.) with precision of 1 kgf. Three measurements were performed in the dominant hand and the best score was used for analysis. Sit-ups test to assess abdominal muscle endurance, required a mat and a stopwatch. With participants in dorsal decubitus, hips and knees flexed, feet soles facing the ground, arms crossing the thorax, hands supported on shoulders, the evaluator was holding the feet of participants who were instructed to perform the maximum number of trunk elevation including a contact of the forearms with the thighs and return to the initial position, the test was performed only once for a period of 60 s and the total number of repetitions was used in the analyses. With participants in the supine position, hips and knees flexed, feet soles facing the ground, arms crossed on the chest, hands resting on the shoulders, the evaluator held the feet of participants who were instructed to perform the maximum number of trunk elevations, including contact of the forearms with the thighs and return to the starting position, the test was performed only once for a period of 60 s and the total number of repetitions was used in the analyses.

The total number of repetitions performed on a single trial was recorded. Lower limb muscle strength (LLMS) was determined using isokinetic dynamometer, resulting from reciprocal concentric muscle actions of knee flexion and extension performed on a calibrated dynamometer (Biodex System 3, Shirley, NY, USA) at angular speed of 60º∙s− 1. Subjects performed a 10-minutes warm-up of light jogging and 1 min of static stretching of hamstring and quadriceps muscles, and the equipment was adjusted for each subject following the manufacturer’s guidelines. A series of three measurements was performed and the highest knee flexion and extension value of the right leg was used for the average value, expressed in Nm. For flexibility, the sit-and-reach test (SR) was used to measure forward trunk flexion, which consists of the individual in a sitting position trying to reach with the hands the greatest possible distance in relation to the initial position. Individuals were instructed to perform the test three times and the greatest distance measured in centimeters (cm) was used for analysis [35]. As an indicator of cardiorespiratory fitness, the 20 m Shuttle-run test was performed [36]. To estimate oxygen uptake (VO2max) in milliliters of oxygen consumed per kilogram of body mass per minute (ml/kg/min), the equation proposed by the authors of the test was used: VO2max = − 24.4 + 6.0 (speed in km/h achieved in the test).

Data quality control

Regarding data quality control, the muscular fitness indicators of 25 randomly selected young adults (six females), after an interval of 7 days, were analyzed. Intraclass correlation coefficients for intra-observer reliability were: body mass (ICC = 0.99), height (ICC = 0.99), HS (ICC = 0.98), sit-ups (ICC = 0.90) and VO2max (ICC = 0.98).

Statistical analysis

Data are described as mean and standard deviation. The Shapiro-Wilk test was applied to evaluate data normality. Descriptive statistics of the sample were summarized in Table 1, and the independent t-test was used for comparison between sexes. Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient [37] was applied to observe the relationship between body size and HRPF with aBMD by sex, adjusted for chronological age. Multiple linear regression using the backward method was used to analyze aBMD predictors by sex and adjusted for chronological age. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25.0. The significance level adopted was 5%.

Results

Table 1 presents body size, HRPF and aBMD descriptive data of different areas by sex. In the body size indicators, males presented greater body mass (20.7%), height (6.7%), body mass index (9%) and lean mass (33.8%); in HRPF indicators, only HS presented difference in favor of males (41.8%). In aBMD indicators, only lumbar spine did not present any difference between males and females (p = 0.162).

Table 1 – Descriptive statistics and comparisons between males and females
Full size table

Table 2 presents correlations between body size, physical fitness and aBMD stratified by sex. For males, aBMD indicators showed weak to moderate positive correlations with body composition (R = 0.26 to 0.57) and HRPF (R = 0.28 to 0.62), except for FM and flexibility (P > 0.05). In females, aBMD indicators showed weak to moderate positive correlations with body composition (R = 0.25 to 0.68) and HRPF (R = 0.27 to 0.47), except for flexibility and VO2max (P > 0.05), and the sit-up test, which showed moderate negative relationship with right femoral neck (R = -0.33).

Table 2 – Correlation of body size and physical fitness and areal bone mineral density indicators by sex
Full size table

Table 3 presents body size and HRPF aBMD predictors stratified by sex. In males, body mass and HRPF indicators were aBMD predictors. Total body aBMD was predicted by body mass, LLMS extension and VO2max (R² = 0.547), upper limb aBMD by body mass, HS, LLMS extension and the sit-up test (R² = 0.571), and lower limbs aBMD by LLMS extension and VO2max (R² = 0.370) and right femoral neck aBMD was predicted by LLMS extension and VO2max (R² = 0.254). Lumbar spine aBMD was only estimated by VO2max fitness indicator (R² = 0.283). In females, only FM and LM body size indicators presented total body (R² = 0.476), upper limbs (R² = 0.465) and lower limbs aBMD as predictor (R² = 0.517). Body mass was predictive only of right femoral neck (R² = 0.294).

Table 3 – Significant areal bone mineral density predictors stratified by sex
Full size table

Discussion

The aim of this study was to analyze which health-related fitness variables are aBMD predictors in adulthood. The main finding was that in males, HRPF indicators such as body mass, muscular strength (LLMS and HS), resistance (sit-ups) and CRF were able to predict aBMD in different anatomical regions. While for females, only body composition indicators, lean mass and fat mass, were the main aBMD predictors. These results suggest that different HRPF components predict aBMD distinctly in both sexes.

In the case of males, positive associations between aBMD in different anatomical regions were also found in other studies with muscle strength and endurance [21, 24], body mass [38], and CRF [24, 38]. Muscle strength, especially LLMS extension, seem to be the most predictive aBMD components in all body regions, with the exception of the lumbar spine. Since it is a movement that primarily uses the quadriceps femoral muscle, which originates above and below the quadriceps joint, LLMS appears to play an indirect role in different anatomical regions [39]. In relation to sit-ups, unexpectedly it was shown to be associated with aBMD upper limbs. This fact may be related, em partes, to the interaction between bone and muscle, which through mechanical stimuli generated by muscle contraction would provide greater aBMD in males [40]. Regarding CRF, although a limited number of studies were identified with the age range of the present study, similar results were observed in the literature [38, 41]. Regarding abdominal exercises, it was unexpectedly associated with upper limbs aBMD. This fact may be related, at least in part, to the interaction between bone and muscle, which through mechanical stimuli generated by muscle contraction would provide greater aBMD in males [40]. Regarding CRF, although a limited number of studies with the age group of the present study were identified, similar results were observed in literature [38, 41]. In addition, Lee, Kim and Kang [23] observed that high CRF was able to attenuate BMD loss and reduce the risk of low BMD in adults over the age of 50 years.

The association between LLMS, HS, sit-ups and CRF with aBMD in different anatomical regions, are in agreement with the mechanotransduction hypothesis that through osteocytes respond to forces at cellular levels with signals that are relayed throughout the bone tissue network through gap junction channels and by the release of chemical messengers that act on neighboring cells [42, 43]. The association between LLMS, HS, sit-ups and CRF with aBMD in different anatomical regions is in accordance with the mechanotransduction hypothesis, which, through osteocytes, respond to forces at cellular levels with signals that are retransmitted throughout the bone tissue network, through gap junction channels and by the release of chemical messengers that act on neighboring cells.

Regarding females, muscle strength and resistance, flexibility and CRF indicators were not aBMD predictors. These results differ from other cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. For example, in a sample of Iranian women, positive associations were found between upper and lower limb strength with lumbar spine and femoral neck aBMD [20]. A 20-year longitudinal study indicated that muscle strength was aBMD predictor in different anatomical regions between adolescence and adulthood [44]. Similarly, Bailey et al. [45] observed that muscle strength and body composition were aBMD predictors in regions such as femoral neck, upper neck, lower neck, and trochanter. In fact, muscle strength and endurance indicators appear to play an important role in bone health; in some ways, the divergent results found for females appear to be related to insufficient mechanical stimuli in the sample, which may not reach the thresholds necessary to generate aBMD gains [46].

In the case of CRF, the literature has pointed to divergences between results, with studies showing association with lumbar spine and femoral neck aBMD [47] and in other anatomical regions [38]. In contrast, Tucker et al. [48] pointed out that high CRF is not enough to protect females from losing hip aBMD over time, regardless of age and menopausal status.

On the other hand, LM, FM and body mass were able to predict aBMD in different anatomical body regions. This result is similar to other studies that showed positive associations between LM [28, 29, 49] and FM [29]. Possible explanations for associations between aBMD and fat mass and LM may be related with physiological and mechanical factors. Physiological factors are related to FM, which through leptin secretion and the indirect effect of insulin could increase the action of osteoblasts and reduce osteoclasts [50, 51]. Regarding mechanical factors, the mechanosensation and transduction theory would explain the association of LM with aBMD, since bone tissue deformation caused by muscle action would generate hydrostatic and fluid flow changes in bone tissues, activating the action of osteocytes and the signaling of osteoclasts and osteoblasts [52]. However, the positive association between FM and aBMD in females should be analyzed with caution, since studies have pointed out the negative effect of FM on aBMD in obese individuals [28, 53], mainly via low-grade chronic inflammation processes, increasing cytokine concentrations and osteoclast activity [53, 54].

HRPF appears to influence bone mass gain differently in males and females. A possible explanation could be the hormonal differences between sexes that occur from adolescence. In males, testosterone promotes an increase in muscle mass and consequently in muscle strength and endurance, while in females, estrogen affects the location and amount of body fat. In addition, estrogen inhibits bone modeling, directly affecting osteoblastic activity and bone repair [55]. Due to this difference, females would need a mechanical stimulus with longer duration and greater intensity to obtain bone response similar to that of males [21, 56].

This study has advanced in analyzing various HRPF components (body composition, muscle strength and endurance, flexibility and cardiorespiratory fitness) in young adults of both sexes, especially in this age group, as a shortage of studies has been identified for this age range, furthermore, analyzing aBMD of various anatomical body regions and body composition by DXA and LLMS estimation by isokinetic dynamometer, especially in this age group, as a shortage of studies including this age group was observed, in addition, it analyzed aBMD of several anatomical regions of the body and body composition through DXA and the estimation of LLMS through isokinetic dynamometer.

Limitations include the cross-sectional design that does not establish a cause-effect relationship, lack of control of information on physical activity, diet, and consumption of alcoholic beverages, tobacco and hormones. Thus, future studies should carry out longitudinal analyses, taking into account possible confounding factors for a better understanding of the different HRPF indicators in adulthood.

Conclusion

Health-related physical fitness components were able to predict aBMD in different anatomical regions in young adults, especially muscle strength and CRF indicators in males, while only lean mass and fat mass in females.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

HRPF Health:

related physical fitness

aBMD:

Areal bone mineral density

DXA:

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

CRF:

Cardiorespiratory fitness

BMI:

Body mass index

FM:

Fat mass

LM:

Lean mass

HS:

Handgrip strengths

LLMS:

Lower limb muscle strength

References

  1. Kanis JA, Melton LJ, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N. The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res. 2009;9(8):1137–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tu KN, Lie JD, Wan CKV, Cameron M, Austel AG, Nguyen JK, Van K, Hyun D. Osteoporosis: a review of Treatment options. Pharm Ther. 2018;43(2):92–104.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Salari N, Ghasemi H, Mohammadi L, Behzadi M, hasan, Rabieenia E, Shohaimi S et al. The global prevalence of osteoporosis in the world: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021;16(1).

  4. Xiao PL, Cui AY, Hsu CJ, Peng R, Jiang N, Xu XH et al. Global, regional prevalence, and risk factors of osteoporosis according to the World Health Organization diagnostic criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33.

  5. Aziziyeh R, Amin M, Habib M, Garcia Perlaza J, Szafranski K, McTavish RK, et al. The burden of osteoporosis in four latin American countries: Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina. J Med Econ. 2019;22(7):638–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marinho BCG, Guerra LP, Drummond JB, Silva BC, Soares MMS. The burden of osteoporosis in Brazil. Arquivos Brasileiros De Endocrinologia Metabologia. 2014;58(5):434–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Morales-Torres J, Gutiérrez-Ureña S. The burden of osteoporosis in Latin America. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(8).

  8. Si L, Winzenberg TM, Jiang Q, Chen M, Palmer AJ. Projection of osteoporosis-related fractures and costs in China: 2010–2050. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26(7):1929–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Heaney RP, Abrams S, Dawson-Hughes B, Looker A, Looker A, Marcus R, et al. Peak Bone Mass Osteoporos Int. 2001;11(12):985–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Weaver CM, Gordon CM, Janz KF, Kalkwarf HJ, Lappe JM, Lewis R, et al. Erratum to: the National Osteoporosis Foundation’s position statement on peak bone mass development and lifestyle factors: a systematic review and implementation recommendations. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(4):1387–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Frost HM. Bone’s mechanostat: a 2003 update. Anat Rec. 2003;275A(2):1081–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Takahiro T, Katsuyasu K, Namiraa D, Tamaki J, Masayuki I, Kitagawa J, et al. Muscle strength is associated with bone health independently of muscle mass in postmenopausal women: the Japanese population-based osteoporosis study. J Bone Miner Metab. 2017;37(1):53–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. PubMed. 1985;100(2):126–31.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Akaike A, Suzuki D, Okuyama S, Kudo Y, Shimizu H, Takanashi S et al. Associations between physical physique/fitness in children and bone development during puberty: a 4-year longitudinal study. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1).

  15. López-Gil JF, Cavero-Redondo I, Sánchez-López M, Martínez-Hortelano JA, Berlanga-Macias C, Soriano-Cano A, et al. The moderating role of physical fitness in the relationship between sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and adiposity in schoolchildren. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):18630.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Moradell A, Gómez-Cabello A, Gómez-Bruton A, Muniz-Pardos B, Puyalto JM, Matute-Llorente A et al. Associations between Physical Fitness, Bone Mass, and Structure in Older People. BioMed Research International. 2020; 2020:1–8.

  17. Guimarães BR, Pimenta LD, Massini DA, Santos D, dos, Siqueira LO da, Simionato C et al. AR,. Muscular strength and regional lean mass influence bone mineral health among young females. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte. 2018;24(3):186–91.

  18. Ma C, Pan F, Laslett LL, Wu F, Nguyen HH, Winzenberg T et al. Associations between body composition, physical activity, and diet and radial bone microarchitecture in older adults: a 10-year population-based study. Archives Osteoporos. 2022;18(1).

  19. Zhu K, Briffa K, Smith A, Mountain J, Briggs AM, Lye S, et al. Gender differences in the relationships between lean body mass, fat mass and peak bone mass in young adults. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25(5):1563–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Arazi H, Eghbali E. The relationship between second-to-fourth digit ratio (2D:4D), muscle strength and body composition to bone mineral density in young women. Kinesiology. 2019;51(2):238–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen F, Su Q, Tu Y, Zhang J, Chen X, Zhao T, et al. Maximal muscle strength and body composition are associated with bone mineral density in Chinese adult males. Medicine. 2020;99(6):e19050.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Wu Z, Camargo CA, Reid IR, Beros A, Sluyter JD, Waayer D, et al. What factors modify the effect of monthly bolus dose vitamin D supplementation on 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations? J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2020;201:105687.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee I, Kim J, Kang H. Cardiorespiratory Fitness is inversely Associated with risk of low bone Mineral Density in older Korean men. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):7907.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhao X, Hu F. Relationship between physical fitness, Anthropometric Measurement, and Bone Health in Adult men. Clin Nurs Res. 2021;105477382110609.

  25. Hu M, Kong Z, Sun S, Zou L, Shi Q, Chow BC, et al. Interval training causes the same exercise enjoyment as moderate-intensity training to improve cardiorespiratory fitness and body composition in young Chinese women with elevated BMI. J Sports Sci. 2021;39(15):1677–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sutter T, Toumi H, Valery A, El Hage R, Pinti A, Lespessailles E. Relationships between muscle mass, strength and regional bone mineral density in young men. Mogi M, editor. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(3):e0213681.

  27. Kunutsor SK, Mäkikallio TH, Ari Voutilainen, Blom AW, Savonen K, Laukkanen JA. Cardiorespiratory fitness is not associated with fracture risk in middle-aged men. Eur J Clin Invest. 2020;50(12).

  28. Bierhals IO, dos Santos Vaz J, Bielemann RM, de Mola CL, Barros FC, Gonçalves H et al. Associations between body mass index, body composition and bone density in young adults: findings from a southern Brazilian cohort. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1).

  29. Kęska A, Lutosławska G, Bertrandt J, Sobczak M. Relationships between bone mineral density and new indices of body composition in young, sedentary men and women. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2018;25(1):23–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kopiczko A, Łopuszańska-Dawid M, Gryko K. Bone mineral density in young adults: the influence of vitamin D status, biochemical indicators, physical activity and body composition. Archives Osteoporos. 2020;15(1).

  31. Zhu X, Zheng H. Factors influencing peak bone mass gain. Front Med. 2020;15(1):53–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Blasquez Shigaki G, Barbosa CCL, Batista MB, Romanzini CLP, Gonçalves EM, Serassuelo Junior H et al. Tracking of health-related physical fitness between childhood and adulthood. Am J Hum Biology. 2019;32(4).

  33. Gordon CC, Chumlea WC, Roche AF. Anthropometric standatzation reference manual. Lohman TG. Anthropometric standardization reference manual. Ill.: Human Kinetics Books;: Champaign; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Soares S, Sessa M. Medidas De força muscular. Matsudo VKR. Testes em ciências do esporte. São Caetano do Sul: Celafiscs,; 2001.

  35. Osness WH, Adrian M, Clark B, Hoeger W, Raab D, Wiswell R. Functional fitness assessment for adults over 60 years (A field-based assessment): Published test protocols. American Alliance of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. Reston, VA, U. S. A. 1990; 1–24.

  36. Léger LA, Mercier D, Gadoury C, Lambert J. The multistage 20 metre shuttle run test for aerobic fitness. J Sports Sci. 1988;6(2):93–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012 Sep;24(3):67–71.

  38. El Hage R, Zakhem E, Theunynck D, Gautier Zunquin, Bedran F, Amer Sebaaly, et al. Maximal oxygen consumption and bone Mineral Density in a group of young Lebanese adults. J Clin Densitometry. 2014 Apr-Jun;17(2):320–4.

  39. Matsui Y, Takemura M, Harada A, Ando F, Shimokata H. Effects of knee extensor muscle strength on the incidence of osteopenia and osteoporosis after 6 years. J Bone Mineral Metabolism 2014 Oct 32:550–5.

  40. Avin KG, Bloomfield SA, Gross TS, Warden SJ. Biomechanical aspects of the muscle-bone Interaction. Curr Osteoporos Rep [Internet]. 2014;13(1):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Schwarz P, Jorgensen N, Nielsen B, Laursen AS, Linnberg A, Aadahl M. Muscle strength, power and cardiorespiratory fitness are associated with bone mineral density in men aged 31–60 years. Scand J Public Health. 2014;42:773–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kringelbach T, Aslan D, Novak I, Schwarz P, et al. UTP induced ATP release is a fine-tuned signalling pathway in osteocytes. Purinergic Signal. 2014;10:337–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Jorgensen NR, Henriksen z, Brot C, et al. Human osteoblastic cells propagate intercellular calcium signals by two different mechanisms. J Bone Min Res. 2000;15:1024–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Barnekow-Bergkvist M, Hedberg G, Pettersson U, Lorentzon R. Relationships between physical activity and physical capacity in adolescent females and bone mass in adulthood. Scandinavian J Med Sci Sports 2006 Aug 16:447–55.

  45. Bailey CA, Brooke-Wavell K. Association of body composition and muscle function with hip geometry and BMD in premenopausal women. Ann Hum Biol. 2010;37(4):524–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Robling AG, Daly RM, Fucks RK, Burr DB. Mechanical Adaptation. Basic and Applied Bone Biology, 2nd. 2019 Jan 1.

  47. Arazi H, Eghbali E. The relationship of maximal oxygen consumption to bone mineral density in Iranian young women. Am J Hum Biology. 2018;30(5):e23172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tucker LA, Nokes NR, Bailey BW, Lecheminant JD. Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Hip Bone Mineral density in women: a 6-Year prospective study. Percept Mot Skills. 2014;119(2):333–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Nguyen HG, Pham MTD, Ho-Pham LT, Nguyen TV. Lean mass and peak bone mineral density. Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2020;6(4):212–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Iwamoto J, Shimamura C, Takeda T, Abe H, Ichimura S, Sato Y, et al. Effects of treadmill exercise on bone mass, bone metabolism, and calciotropic hormones in young growing rats. J Bone Miner Metab. 2004;22(1):26–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Reid IR, Baldock PA, Cornish J. Effects of Leptin on the skeleton. Endocr Rev. 2018;39(6):938–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Klein-Nulend J, Bacabac R, Bakker A. Mechanical loading and how it affects bone cells: the role of the osteocyte cytoskeleton in maintaining our skeleton. Eur Cells Mater. 2012;24:278–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Garvey ME, Shi L, Gona PN, Troped PJ, Camhi SM. Age, sex, and Race/Ethnicity associations between Fat Mass and lean Mass with Bone Mineral density: NHANES Data. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(23):12606.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Faienza MF, D’Amato G, Chiarito M, Colaianni G, Colucci S, Grano M et al. Mechanisms involved in Childhood obesity-related bone fragility. Front Endocrinol. 2019;10.

  55. Allen MR, Burr DB. Bone Growth, Modeling, and Remodeling. Basic and Applied Bone Biology, 2nd. 2019;85–100.

  56. Almstedt HC, Canepa JA, Ramirez D, Shoepe TC. Changes in bone mineral density in response to 24 weeks of resistance training in college-age men and women. J Strength Conditioning Res. 2011;25:1098–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). Enio Ricardo vaz Ronque is supported by CNPq, for the research productivity grant; and for the doctorate grants awarded to Julio Cesar da Costa and Mileny Caroline Menezes de Freitas.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/ or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Physcal Activity and Health, Center for Physical Education and Sports, Londrina State University - UEL, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil

    Julio Cesar da Costa, Mileny Caroline Menezes de Freitas & Enio Ricardo Vaz Ronque

  2. Department of Humanities, Federal Technological University of Paraná – UTFPR, Apucarana, Paraná, Brazil

    Cynthia Correa Lopes Barbosa

  3. Departamento de Ciencias de la Actividad Física, Universidad Católica del Maule, Talca, Chile

    Ana Belém Guzmán, Rossana Gómez-Campos & Marco Cossio-Bolaños

  4. Núcleo de Investigación en Ciencias de la Motricidad Humana, Universidad Adventista de Chile, Chillán, Chile

    Luis Felipe Castelli Correia de Campos

Authors
  1. Julio Cesar da Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mileny Caroline Menezes de Freitas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cynthia Correa Lopes Barbosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ana Belém Guzmán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luis Felipe Castelli Correia de Campos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rossana Gómez-Campos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marco Cossio-Bolaños
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Enio Ricardo Vaz Ronque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: JCC and MCMF. Data curation: JCC and CCLB. Formal analysis: JCC, RGC and MCB. Writing – original draft. JCC, MCMF, ABG and LFCCC. Writing – review & editing: ERVR. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mileny Caroline Menezes de Freitas.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in accordance with the National Health Council resolution (466/2012) and was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of of State University of Londrina, Paraná, Brazil (Proc. 1.340.735/2015). All participants signed an informed consent form.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

da Costa, J.C., de Freitas, M.C.M., Barbosa, C.C.L. et al. Physical fitness components are bone mineral density predictors in adulthood: cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 714 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07801-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07801-7

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us