Advertisement

Archives of Osteoporosis

, 13:31 | Cite as

Physical activity, but not sedentary time, influences bone strength in late adolescence

  • Vina PS. Tan
  • Heather M. Macdonald
  • Leigh Gabel
  • Heather A. McKayEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

Physical activity is essential for optimal bone strength accrual, but we know little about interactions between physical activity, sedentary time, and bone outcomes in older adolescents. Physical activity (by accelerometer and self-report) positively predicted bone strength and the distal and midshaft tibia in 15-year-old boys and girls. Lean body mass mediated the relationship between physical activity and bone strength in adolescents.

Purpose

To examine the influence of physical activity (PA) and sedentary time on bone strength, structure, and density in older adolescents.

Methods

We used peripheral quantitative computed tomography to estimate bone strength at the distal tibia (8% site; bone strength index, BSI) and tibial midshaft (50% site; polar strength strain index, SSIp) in adolescent boys (n = 86; 15.3 ± 0.4 years) and girls (n = 106; 15.3 ± 0.4 years). Using accelerometers (GT1M, Actigraph), we measured moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPAAccel), vigorous PA (VPAAccel), and sedentary time in addition to self-reported MVPA (MVPAPAQ-A) and impact PA (ImpactPAPAQ-A). We examined relations between PA and sedentary time and bone outcomes, adjusting for ethnicity, maturity, tibial length, and total body lean mass.

Results

At the distal tibia, MVPAAccel and VPAAccel positively predicted BSI (explained 6–7% of the variance, p < 0.05). After adjusting for lean mass, only VPAAccel explained residual variance in BSI. At the tibial midshaft, MVPAAccel, but not VPAAccel, positively predicted SSIp (explained 3% of the variance, p = 0.01). Lean mass attenuated this association. MVPAPAQ-A and ImpactPAPAQ-A also positively predicted BSI and SSIp (explained 2–4% of the variance, p < 0.05), but only ImpactPAPAQ-A explained residual variance in BSI after accounting for lean mass. Sedentary time did not independently predict bone strength at either site.

Conclusion

Greater tibial bone strength in active adolescents is mediated, in part, by lean mass. Despite spending most of their day in sedentary pursuits, adolescents’ bone strength was not negatively influenced by sedentary time.

Keywords

Bone strength Sedentary Accelerometry pQCT Adolescent 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the HPSS Bone Health Study participants and their families along with the support of teachers and principals from participating schools. Our heartfelt gratitude to the main HPSS research team, from both UBC and UVIC, for their teamwork, recruitment efforts, and overall research management; to the Bone Health Study team—SoJung Kim and Paul Drexler for their dedicated and quality data collection efforts; Douglas Race, for accelerometer data management and participant scheduling; and especially to Dr. Danmei Liu for supervising and training bone imaging technicians and for her invaluable input in image acquisition and processing.

Funding

This study was funded by a Catalyst Grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (227967). The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Compliance with ethical standards

The University of British Columbia’s Clinical and Behavioural Research Ethics Boards (H10-01917), University of Victoria’s Human Research Ethics Board (10-168), and participating school districts approved all study procedures.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

11657_2018_441_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb)
11657_2018_441_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 15 kb)
11657_2018_441_MOESM3_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 15 kb)
11657_2018_441_MOESM4_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 4 (DOCX 14 kb)
11657_2018_441_MOESM5_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 5 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Baxter-Jones ADG, Faulkner RA, Forwood MR, Mirwald RL, Bailey DA (2011) Bone mineral accrual from 8 to 30 years of age: an estimation of peak bone mass. J Bone Miner Res 26:1729–1739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailey DA, McKay HA, Mirwald RL, Crocker PR, Faulkner RA (1999) A six-year longitudinal study of the relationship of physical activity to bone mineral accrual in growing children: the University of Saskatchewan Bone Mineral Accrual Study. J Bone Miner Res 14:1672–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tan VPS, Macdonald HM, Kim S, Nettlefold L, Gabel L, Ashe MC, McKay HA (2014) Influence of physical activity on bone strength in children and adolescents: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. J Bone Miner Res 29:2161–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Meulen MC, Ashford MW, Kiratli BJ, Bachrach LK, Carter DR (1996) Determinants of femoral geometry and structure during adolescent growth. J Orthop Res 14:22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van der Meulen MC, Moro M, Kiratli BJ, Marcus R, Bachrach LK (2000) Mechanobiology of femoral neck structure during adolescence. J Rehabil Res Dev 37:201–208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sayers A, Mattocks C, Deere K, Ness A, Riddoch C, Tobias JH (2011) Habitual levels of vigorous, but not moderate or light, physical activity is positively related to cortical bone mass in adolescents. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96:E793–E802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McKay H, Liu D, Egeli D, Boyd S, Burrows M (2011) Physical activity positively predicts bone architecture and bone strength in adolescent males and females. Acta Paediatr 100:97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janz KF, Letuchy EM, Burns TL, Eichenberger Gilmore JM, Torner JC, Levy SM (2014) Objectively measured physical activity trajectories predict adolescent bone strength: Iowa bone development study. Br J Sports Med 48:1032–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U, Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group (2012) Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet 380:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colley RC, Garriguet D, Janssen I, Craig CL, Clarke J, Tremblay MS (2011) Physical activity of Canadian children and youth: accelerometer results from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian health measures survey. Health Rep 22:15–23Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gabel L, McKay HA, Nettlefold L, Race D, Macdonald HM (2015) Bone architecture and strength in the growing skeleton: the role of sedentary time. Med Sci Sports Exerc 47:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gabel L, Macdonald HM, Nettlefold L, McKay HA (2017) Physical activity, sedentary time, and bone strength from childhood to early adulthood: a mixed longitudinal HR-pQCT study. J Bone Miner Res 32:1525–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chastin SFM, Mandrichenko O, Helbostadt JL, Skelton DA (2014) Associations between objectively-measured sedentary behaviour and physical activity with bone mineral density in adults and older adults, the NHANES study. Bone 64:254–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gracia-Marco L, Rey-Lopez JP, Santaliestra-Pasías AM, Jiménez-Pavón D, Díaz LE, Moreno LA, Vicente-Rodríguez G (2012) Sedentary behaviours and its association with bone mass in adolescents: the HELENA cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 12:1–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Binkley TL, Specker BL (2016) The negative effect of sitting time on bone is mediated by lean mass in pubertal children. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 16:18–23PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frost HM (1987) Bone "mass" and the “mechanostat”: a proposal. Anat Rec 219:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Janz KF, Gilmore JME, Levy SM, Letuchy EM, Burns TL, Beck TJ (2007) Physical activity and femoral neck bone strength during childhood: the Iowa bone development study. Bone 41:216–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Erlandson MC, Kontulainen SA, Baxter-Jones ADG (2011) Precompetitive and recreational gymnasts have greater bone density, mass, and estimated strength at the distal radius in young childhood. Osteoporos Int 22:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wharf Higgins J, Naylor PJ, Bellows Riecken K, Gibbons S, Rhodes R, Sulz L, McKay H (2014) One, two, three strikes and You're out? Examining youth physical activity in the context of the health promoting secondary schools model and teacher job action. Educ Health 32:110–117Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moore SA, McKay HA, Macdonald H, Nettlefold L, Baxter-Jones ADJ, Cameron N, Brasher PM (2015) Enhancing a somatic maturity prediction model. Med Sci Sports Exerc 47:1755–1764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koo MM, Rohan TE (1997) Accuracy of short-term recall of age at menarche. Ann Hum Biol 24:61–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barr SI (1994) Associations of social and demographic variables with calcium intakes of high school students. J Am Diet Assoc 94:260–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Evenson KR, Catellier DJ, Gill K, Ondrak KS, McMurray RG (2008) Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. J Sports Sci 26:1557–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kowalski KC, Crocker P, Faulkner RA (1997) Validation of the physical activity questionnaire for older children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 9:174–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burrows M, Liu D, Ahamed Y et al (2008) High-resolution peripheral QCT imaging of bone micro-structure in adolescents. Osteoporos Int 21:515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Burr DB, Milgrom C, Fyhrie D, Forwood M, Nyska M, Finestone A, Hoshaw S, Salag E, Simkin A (1996) In vivo measurement of human tibial strains during vigorous activity. Bone 18:405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kontulainen SA, Johnston JD, Liu D, Leung C, Oxland TR, McKay HA (2008) Strength indices from pQCT imaging predict up to 85% of variance in bone failure properties at tibial epiphysis and diaphysis. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 8:401–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schiessl H, Ferretti JL, Tysarczyk-Niemeyer G, Willnecker J (1995) Noninvasive bone strength index as analyzed by peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT). In: Schönau E (ed) Paediatric osteology: new developments in diagnostics and therapy. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 141–114Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kirby J, Tibbins C, Callens C, Lang B, Thorogood M, Tigbe W, Robertson W (2012) Young People's views on accelerometer use in physical activity research: findings from a user involvement investigation. ISRN Obes 2012:948504PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, Masse LC, Tilert T, McDowell M (2008) Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Scott JJ, Rowlands AV, Cliff DP, Morgan PJ, Plotnikoff RC, Lubans DR (2017) Comparability and feasibility of wrist- and hip-worn accelerometers in free-living adolescents. J Sci Med Sport 20:1101–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rowlands AV, Stiles VH (2012) Journal of biomechanics. J Biomech 45:448–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Macdonald H, Kontulainen S, Petit M, Janssen P, McKay H (2006) Bone strength and its determinants in pre- and early pubertal boys and girls. Bone 39:598–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Forwood MR, Baxter-Jones AD, Beck TJ, Mirwald RL, Howard A, Bailey DA (2006) Physical activity and strength of the femoral neck during the adolescent growth spurt: a longitudinal analysis. Bone 38:576–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zerwekh JE, Ruml LA, Gottschalk F, Pak CY (1998) The effects of twelve weeks of bed rest on bone histology, biochemical markers of bone turnover, and calcium homeostasis in eleven normal subjects. J Bone Miner Res 13:1594–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eveleth PB, Tanner JM (1990) Worldwide variation in human growth. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vina PS. Tan
    • 1
  • Heather M. Macdonald
    • 2
    • 3
  • Leigh Gabel
    • 3
    • 4
  • Heather A. McKay
    • 2
    • 3
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Health Sciences, Health CampusUniversiti Sains MalaysiaKubang KerianMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Family Practice, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Centre for Hip Health and MobilityVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteVancouverCanada
  4. 4.McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint HealthUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  5. 5.Department of Orthopedics, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations