Bennell K L, Malcolm S A, Khan K M, Thomas S A, Reid S J, Brukner P D, Ebeling P R, Wark J D
School of Physiotherapy, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Bone. 1997 May;20(5):477-84. doi: 10.1016/s8756-3282(97)00026-4.
Strain magnitude may be more important than the number of loading cycles in controlling bone adaptation to loading. To test this hypothesis, we performed a 12 month longitudinal cohort study comparing bone mass and bone turnover in elite and subelite track and field athletes and less active controls. The cohort comprised 50 power athletes (sprinters, jumpers, hurdlers, multievent athletes; 23 women, 27 men), 61 endurance athletes (middle-distance runners, distance runners; 30 women, 31 men), and 55 nonathlete controls (28 women, 27 men) aged 17-26 years. Total bone mineral content (BMC), regional bone mineral density (BMD), and soft tissue composition were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Bone turnover was assessed by serum osteocalcin (human immunoradiometric assay) indicative of bone formation, and urinary pyridinium crosslinks (high-performance liquid chromatography) indicative of bone resorption. Questionnaires quantified menstrual, dietary and physical activity characteristics. Baseline results showed that power athletes had higher regional BMD at lower limb, lumbar spine, and upper limb sites compared with controls (p < 0.05). Endurance athletes had higher BMD than controls in lower limb sites only (p < 0.05). Maximal differences in BMD between athletes and controls were noted at sites loaded by exercise. Male and female power athletes had greater bone density at the lumbar spine than endurance athletes. Over the 12 months, both athletes and controls showed modest but significant increases in total body BMC and femur BMD (p < 0.001). Changes in bone density were independent of exercise status except at the lumbar spine. At this site, power athletes gained significantly more bone density than the other groups. Levels of bone formation were not elevated in athletes and levels of bone turnover were not predictive of subsequent changes in bone mass. Our results provide further support for the concept that bone response to mechanical loading depends upon the bone site and the mode of exercise.
在控制骨骼对负荷的适应性方面,应变幅度可能比负荷循环次数更为重要。为验证这一假设,我们开展了一项为期12个月的纵向队列研究,比较了精英和次精英田径运动员以及活动较少的对照组的骨量和骨转换情况。该队列包括50名力量型运动员(短跑运动员、跳远运动员、跨栏运动员、多项全能运动员;23名女性,27名男性)、61名耐力型运动员(中长跑运动员、长跑运动员;30名女性,31名男性)以及55名非运动员对照组(28名女性,27名男性),年龄在17 - 26岁之间。通过双能X线吸收法测量全身骨矿物质含量(BMC)、局部骨密度(BMD)和软组织成分。通过血清骨钙素(人免疫放射分析)评估骨形成,血清骨钙素可指示骨形成情况;通过尿吡啶交联物(高效液相色谱法)评估骨吸收,尿吡啶交联物可指示骨吸收情况。通过问卷对月经、饮食和身体活动特征进行量化。基线结果显示,与对照组相比,力量型运动员在下肢、腰椎和上肢部位的局部骨密度更高(p < 0.05)。耐力型运动员仅在下肢部位的骨密度高于对照组(p < 0.05)。运动员和对照组之间骨密度的最大差异出现在运动负荷部位。男性和女性力量型运动员腰椎的骨密度高于耐力型运动员。在12个月期间,运动员和对照组的全身BMC和股骨BMD均有适度但显著的增加(p < 0.001)。骨密度的变化与运动状态无关,但腰椎部位除外。在该部位,力量型运动员获得的骨密度显著高于其他组。运动员的骨形成水平未升高,骨转换水平也不能预测随后的骨量变化。我们的结果进一步支持了以下概念:骨骼对机械负荷的反应取决于骨骼部位和运动方式。