help button home button Endocrine Society JCEM JCEM Call for Nominations for EIC
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, doi:10.1210/jc.2006-0794
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
92/1/143    most recent
Author Manuscript (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a related Letter to the Editor
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Copyright Permission
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Janicka, A.
Right arrow Articles by Gilsanz, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Janicka, A.
Right arrow Articles by Gilsanz, V.
Related Collections
Right arrow Calcium and Bone Metabolism
Right arrow Metabolism
Right arrow Pediatric Endocrinology
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 92, No. 1 143-147
Copyright © 2007 by The Endocrine Society

Fat Mass Is Not Beneficial to Bone in Adolescents and Young Adults

Agnieszka Janicka, Tishya A. L. Wren, Monique M. Sanchez, Frederick Dorey, Paul S. Kim, Steven D. Mittelman and Vicente Gilsanz

Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90027

Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Vicente Gilsanz, M.D., Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, Department of Radiology, MS #81, 4650 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90027. E-mail: vgilsanz{at}chla.usc.edu.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Subjects and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Context: Although muscle mass is beneficial to bone, studies on the effect of fat mass on bone have yielded conflicting results.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the relations between lean and fat mass and bone structure.

Design: This study was cross-sectional.

Setting: The study was conducted in a general community.

Subjects: Subjects included 300 healthy sexually mature adolescents and young adults (150 males and 150 females) between the ages of 13 and 21 yr.

Main Outcome Measure: We investigated the relation between dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measures of total body fat and lean mass and bone values obtained with DXA (legs and lumbar spine bone mineral density and bone mineral content) and computed tomography (CT) (cross-sectional and cortical bone areas of the femurs and cross-sectional area and cancellous bone density of the vertebrae).

Results: Simple and multiple linear regression analyses showed significant positive relations between DXA lean mass and all CT and DXA measures of bone in the axial and appendicular skeletons (all P < 0.005). In contrast, whereas Pearson correlations between DXA measures of fat mass and bone parameters were generally positive, multiple regression analyses showed that fat mass, after accounting for lean mass, trunk height/leg length, had a negative, or no, correlation with CT and DXA values for bone.

Conclusions: Our findings provide compelling evidence that, despite increased mechanical loading and independent of lean mass, adipose tissue is not beneficial to bone structure.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Subjects and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
INCREASED FAT DURING adolescence is a major public health concern, is associated with the metabolic syndrome, and is a risk factor for many common adult conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, and cancer (1, 2, 3). However, most, but not all, studies examining the possible relations between fat mass and bone mass have found a positive association between these two tissues, regardless of age (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Indeed, available data suggest that increased fat enhances bone mass and may protect against osteoporosis in both children and adults (9, 10, 11, 12). This positive fat–bone relation is credited not only to stresses from mechanical loading but also to the metabolic effects of bone–active hormones secreted or regulated by adipocytes (13). Leptin, a satiety-regulating hormone that is produced by adipocytes, increases the proliferation and differentiation of osteoblasts in adult patients (14). Additionally, aromatization of androgen to estrogen by fatty tissue results in reduced osteoclast activity and possibly increased bone mass in children (13). In contrast, two studies in females from childhood to young adulthood reported fat mass to be negatively associated with bone mass (8, 15).

Discrepancies in the results from previous studies assessing the relation between fat and bone may be related to differences in the cohorts studied and to the use of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to simultaneously obtain fat and bone measures. Although DXA allows for accurate determinations of body fat and lean mass, DXA bone values are influenced by the amount and distribution of fatty tissues around the bone (16). In this investigation, the potentially confounding effects of age, pubertal stage, gender, and ethnicity were controlled by only enrolling white sexually mature males and females. Additionally, to account for the possible influence of soft tissues on bone measurements, the effects of fat and lean mass on bone were assessed by both DXA and computed tomography (CT).


   Subjects and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Subjects

The institutional review board for clinical investigations at Childrens Hospital Los Angeles approved the investigational protocol, and informed consent was obtained from all parents and/or subjects. A total of 300 healthy white teenagers and young adults (150 males and 150 females) between the ages of 13 and 21 yr were recruited from schools of Los Angeles County and enrolled in this study.

Study subjects had no known diagnosis of any chronic illness; no history of medical disorders resulting in a period of illness that interrupted their usual physical activity and/or nutritional status for more than 1 month in the 2 yr before enrollment; no intake of any medications, vitamin preparations, or calcium supplements within the previous 6 months; and no hospitalization since birth.

All eligible participants underwent a physical examination by a pediatrician. Measurements of weight were obtained to the nearest 0.1 kg using the Scale-Tronix (Scale-Tronix, Inc., Wheaton, IL), and measurements of height and trunk height were obtained to the nearest 0.1 cm using the Harpenden stadiometer (Holtain Ltd., Crymmych, Wales). For the purposes of this study, leg length was defined as the difference between total height and trunk height. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight (kg) divided by height squared (m2). Tanner stage of sexual development was assessed based on breast development in females and testicular size in males (17); only subjects who had achieved sexual maturity (Tanner V) were included in this study. Skeletal maturation was assessed by the method of Greulich and Pyle (18) from radiographs of the left hand and wrist, and those in whom skeletal age differed from chronological age by more than 2 yr were excluded from further evaluation.

Fat, lean, and bone measurements

Measurements of fat and lean mass of the total body and bone mineral content (BMC) and bone mineral density (BMD) of the first three lumbar vertebrae were obtained using a fan-beam DXA densitometer (Delphi W; Hologic, Inc., Waltham, MA) in array mode and were analyzed with the manufacturer’s software. The coefficients of variation for these DXA measurements have been reported to range from 0.7–1.7% (19, 20). The time required for the procedure was approximately 6 min and the radiation exposure was negligible.

On the same day and by the same technologist, CT bone measurements using the same scanner (CT Highlite Advantage; General Electric Co., Milwaukee, WI) and the same mineral reference phantom (CT-T bone densitometry package; General Electric Co.) were obtained. For this study, in the appendicular skeleton, measurements of cross-sectional area (CSA) and cortical bone area (CBA) were acquired at the midshafts of the femurs. In the axial skeleton, measurements of CSA and cancellous bone density (CBD) were obtained at the midportions of the first three lumbar vertebral bodies. Measurements of CBD in the axial skeleton represent the tissue density of bone and are the correlates of measures of CBA in the appendicular skeleton. The coefficients of variation for these CT measurements in young adults are between 0.6 and 1.5% (19). The time required for this procedure was approximately 10 min, and the effective radiation dose was approximately 8 mrem (21).

Power calculations and statistical analysis

Previous studies indicate that weight explains approximately 80% of the variance in the cross-sectional dimensions at the midshaft of the femur after age, pubertal status, gender, and ethnicity are taken into account (22). Based on these data, 150 males and 150 females were deemed sufficient to allow the detection of a 2% variance with a greater than 80% power. The data were analyzed using simple linear regression and multivariate analyses.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Age, anthropometric parameters, DXA measures, and CT values in females and males are described in Table 1Go. Vertebral CSA and BMC, femoral CSA and CBA, legs BMC and BMD, height, and total lean mass were significantly higher in males (P < 0.0001), whereas measurements of total body fat were higher in females (P < 0.0001). Based on current age- and gender-specific Centers for Disease Control reference standards, the BMI of 24% of the females and of 19% of the males was between the 85th and 95th percentiles, and of 12% of the females and of 15% of the males was greater than the 95th percentile.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Age, anthropometric characteristics, and bone, lean, and fat measurements in 150 females and 150 males

 
Overall, moderate correlations were observed between lean and fat mass (r = 0.71 and 0.49 for females and males, respectively; both P < 0.0001). However, in subjects with BMI values greater than the 95th percentile, the associations were weaker or not significant [r = 0.52 (P = 0.019) and 0.25 (P = 0.25) for females and males, respectively].

Measures of bone by CT and DXA were significantly correlated (r between 0.28 and 0.89; Table 2Go). Regardless of technique, simple linear regressions demonstrated positive associations between measures for bone and values for lean mass in both males and females, with the weakest between CT measures of CBD and lean mass (Figs. 1Go and 2Go and Table 3Go). In females, measures of fat mass also correlated with all DXA and CT bone parameters, whereas, in males, these relations were weaker or nonexistent (Figs. 1Go and 2Go and Table 3Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2. Correlation coefficients for DXA and CT bone measurements

 

Figure 1
View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIG. 1. Relations between total lean mass and vertebral CSA (upper line), femoral CSA (middle line), and CBA (lower line) in 150 females (A) and 150 males (B), and between total fat and vertebral CSA (upper line), femoral CSA (middle line), and CBA (lower line) in 150 females (C) and 150 males (D).

 

Figure 2
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIG. 2. Relations between vertebral CBD and lean mass (A) and fat mass (B) in 150 females (thin lines) and 150 males (thick lines).

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 3. Correlation coefficients for DXA bone measurements with lean and fat mass

 
Multiple regression analysis of the independent effects of lean and fat mass on bone obtained after adjusting for leg length or truncal height confirmed the strong positive effect of lean mass on all bone parameters (Tables 4Go and 5Go). In contrast, fat mass had a negative, or no, relation to measures of bone. In males, all DXA measurements and CT measures of vertebral CBD and femoral CBA were negatively related to fat mass, whereas the CSAs of the vertebral body and the femur did not enter into the model. In females, there were no associations between bone and fat determinations, with the exception of a negative relation between DXA leg BMD and fat mass.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 4. Multiple linear regressions showing the simultaneous effects of lean and fat mass after adjusting for leg length/truncal height on CT bone measurements in the appendicular and axial skeletons of 150 females and 150 males

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 5. Multiple linear regressions showing the simultaneous effects of lean and fat mass after adjusting for leg length/truncal height on DXA bone measurements in the appendicular and axial skeletons of 150 females and 150 males

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
The findings of this study corroborate previous studies indicating that, regardless of age or gender, lean mass has a strong positive influence on bone mass in the appendicular and axial skeletons (23, 24, 25). In contrast, we found that, after taking lean mass into account, measures of body fat had an inverse, or no, relation with parameters related to the structure and strength of bone. These findings are consistent with previous reports showing fat mass to be negatively associated with bone mass (8, 26) and those suggesting that bone strength is primarily determined by dynamic loads from muscle force, not static loads, such as fat mass (25). They, however, disagree with the contention for a beneficial effect of fat mass on bone and investigations, suggesting that fat mass is an even stronger predictor than lean mass of bone density (4, 7, 27).

Overall, analyses using fat mass revealed that the negative contribution of adipose tissue offset its potential benefit as a mechanical load. The basis for the negative effect of fat on bone observed in this study is unknown. However, adipose tissue, once considered a metabolically passive fuel depot for energy substrate and insulation, has recently become apparent as a metabolically active tissue. It secretes multiple proteins (collectively called adipokines) into circulation, which play important roles in the modulation of various biological functions. Further studies are needed to elucidate the role of adipokines and other adipose-modulated biochemical signals as potential mediators of bone structure.

Regardless of the mechanisms involved in the fat-bone association, a link between these tissues is suggested by recent studies demonstrating that osteoblasts and adipocytes originate from the same mesenchymal stem cells. These stem cells, through alternative activation of reciprocal transcriptional programs, differentiate into either cell lineage in a mutually exclusive way (28). In bone marrow, this could lead to a reciprocal relation between fat and bone, depending on the local milieu. The balance between osteoblast and adipocyte differentiation could be disrupted by environmental factors; decreased bone formation accompanied by increased adipogenesis occurs with immobility, whereas the opposite is associated with increased weight-bearing exercise (29).

The relatively large number of well-characterized subjects and the use of two techniques for the accurate and independent assessment of the contributions of lean and fat tissues on bone structure are major strengths of this study. Contrary to our notion that discrepancies among previous investigations were a reflection of the influence of soft tissues on DXA bone determinations, we found similar results regardless of the technique used. There are several limitations in this study, including its cross-sectional design and the inability to extrapolate our findings to other racial groups or elderly subjects. Future studies are needed to determine whether the deleterious effects of fat on vertebral and femoral bone in young healthy white subjects can be extended to other cohorts.

In conclusion, the pervasive negative health consequences of obesity involve many organ systems and medical subspecialties, as well as a large proportion of the population. However, despite the dire repercussions of obesity, the traditional paradigm suggests that adiposity is beneficial to the skeleton and could protect against osteoporosis. Our findings challenge this widely held view and provide compelling evidence that despite increased mechanical loading, adipose tissue is not beneficial to bone structure in young men and women.


   Footnotes
 
This work was supported by the Department of the Army (Grant DAMD17-01-1-0817) and the National Institutes of Health (Grants N01-HD0333, 1R01 AR-052744, 2R01 EB000298, and 1R21 AR51564).

First Published Online October 17, 2006

Abbreviations: BMC, Bone mineral content; BMD, bone mineral density; BMI, body mass index; CBA, cortical bone area; CBD, cancellous bone density; CSA, cross-sectional area; CT, computed tomography; DXA, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Received April 12, 2006.

Accepted October 5, 2006.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Freedman DS, Khan LK, Dietz WH, Srinivasan SR, Berenson GS 2001 Relationship of childhood obesity to coronary heart disease risk factors in adulthood: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Pediatrics 108:712–718[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Gascon F, Valle M, Martos R, Zafra M, Morales R, Castano MA 2004 Childhood obesity and hormonal abnormalities associated with cancer risk. Eur J Cancer Prev 13:193–197[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Weiss R, Dziura J, Burgert TS, Tamborlane WV, Taksali SE, Yeckel CW, Allen K, Lopes M, Savoye M, Morrison J, Sherwin RS, Caprio S 2004 Obesity and the metabolic syndrome in children and adolescents. N Engl J Med 350:2362–2374[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Khosla S, Atkinson EJ, Riggs BL, Melton 3rd LJ 1996 Relationship between body composition and bone mass in women. J Bone Miner Res 11:857–863[Medline]
  5. MacInnis RJ, Cassar C, Nowson CA, Paton LM, Flicker L, Hopper JL, Larkins RG, Wark JD 2003 Determinants of bone density in 30- to 65-year-old women: a co-twin study. J Bone Miner Res 18:1650–1656[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Pluijm SM, Visser M, Smit JH, Popp-Snijders C, Roos JC, Lips P 2001 Determinants of bone mineral density in older men and women: body composition as mediator. J Bone Miner Res 16:2142–2151[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Reid IR 2002 Relationships among body mass, its components, and bone. Bone 31:547–555[Medline]
  8. Weiler HA, Janzen L, Green K, Grabowski J, Seshia MM, Yuen KC 2000 Percent body fat and bone mass in healthy Canadian females 10 to 19 years of age. Bone 27:203–207[Medline]
  9. Clark EM, Ness AR, Tobias JH 2006 Adipose tissue stimulates bone growth in prepubertal children. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91:2534–2541[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Albala C, Yanez M, Devoto E, Sostin C, Zeballos L, Santos JL 1996 Obesity as a protective factor for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 20:1027–1032[Medline]
  11. Kontogianni MD, Dafni UG, Routsias JG, Skopouli FN 2004 Blood leptin and adiponectin as possible mediators of the relation between fat mass and BMD in perimenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res 19:546–551[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Reid IR, Plank LD, Evans MC 1992 Fat mass is an important determinant of whole body bone density in premenopausal women but not in men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 75:779–782[Abstract]
  13. Klein KO, Larmore KA, de Lancey E, Brown JM, Considine RV, Hassink SG 1998 Effect of obesity on estradiol level, and its relationship to leptin, bone maturation, and bone mineral density in children. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 83:3469–3475[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Yamauchi M, Sugimoto T, Yamaguchi T, Nakaoka D, Kanzawa M, Yano S, Ozuru R, Sugishita T, Chihara K 2001 Plasma leptin concentrations are associated with bone mineral density and the presence of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 55:341–347[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Lazcano-Ponce E, Tamayo J, Cruz-Valdez A, Diaz R, Hernandez B, Del Cueto R, Hernandez-Avila M 2003 Peak bone mineral area density and determinants among females aged 9 to 24 years in Mexico. Osteoporos Int 14:539–547[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Hangartner TN 1990 Influence of fat on bone measurements with dual-energy absorptiometry. Bone Miner 9:71–78[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Tanner JM 1978 Physical growth and development. In: Forfar JO, Arnell CC, eds. Textbook of pediatrics. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 249–303
  18. Greulich WW, Pyle SI 1959 Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of the hand and wrist. 2nd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press
  19. Hangartner TN, Gilsanz V 1996 Evaluation of cortical bone by computed tomography. J Bone Miner Res 11:1518–1525[Medline]
  20. Mora S, Bachrach L, Gilsanz V 2003 Noninvasive techniques for bone mass measurement. In: Glorieux FH, Pettifor JM, Juppner H, eds. Pediatric bone: biology and diseases. San Diego: Academic Press; 303–324
  21. Kalender WA 1992 Effective dose values in bone mineral measurements by photon absorptiometry and computed tomography. Osteoporos Int 2:82–87[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Moro M, van der Meulen MCH, Kiratli BJ, Marcus R, Bachrach LK, Carter DR 1996 Body mass is the primary determinant of midfemoral bone acquisition during adolescent growth. Bone Miner 19:519–526
  23. Wang MC, Bachrach LK, Van Loan M, Hudes M, Flegal KM, Crawford PB 2005 The relative contributions of lean tissue mass and fat mass to bone density in young women. Bone 37:474–481[Medline]
  24. Crabtree NJ, Kibirige MS, Fordham JN, Banks LM, Muntoni F, Chinn D, Boivin CM, Shaw NJ 2004 The relationship between lean body mass and bone mineral content in paediatric health and disease. Bone 35:965–972[Medline]
  25. Petit MA, Beck TJ, Shults J, Zemel BS, Foster BJ, Leonard MB 2005 Proximal femur bone geometry is appropriately adapted to lean mass in overweight children and adolescents. Bone 36:568–576[Medline]
  26. Young D, Hopper JL, Macinnis RJ, Nowson CA, Hoang NH, Wark JD 2001 Changes in body composition as determinants of longitudinal changes in bone mineral measures in 8 to 26-year-old female twins. Osteoporos Int 12:506–515[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Aloia AF, Vaswani A, Ma R, Flaster E 1995 To what extent is bone mass determined by fat-free or fat mass? Am J Clin Nutr 61:1110–1114[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Hong JH, Hwang ES, McManus MT, Amsterdam A, Tian Y, Kalmukova R, Mueller E, Benjamin T, Spiegelman BM, Sharp PA, Hopkins N, Yaffe MB 2005 TAZ, a transcriptional modulator of mesenchymal stem cell differentiation. Science 309:1074–1078[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Welten DC, Kemper HC, Post GB, Van Mechelen W, Twisk J, Lips P, Teule GJ 1994 Weight-bearing activity during youth is a more important factor for peak bone mass than calcium intake. J Bone Miner Res 9:1089–1096[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
N. Di Iorgi, M. Rosol, S. D. Mittelman, and V. Gilsanz
Reciprocal Relation between Marrow Adiposity and the Amount of Bone in the Axial and Appendicular Skeleton of Young Adults
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., June 1, 2008; 93(6): 2281 - 2286.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
E. J Waugh, J. Polivy, R. Ridout, and G. A Hawker
A prospective investigation of the relations among cognitive dietary restraint, subclinical ovulatory disturbances, physical activity, and bone mass in healthy young women
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, December 1, 2007; 86(6): 1791 - 1801.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
92/1/143    most recent
Author Manuscript (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a related Letter to the Editor
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Copyright Permission
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Janicka, A.
Right arrow Articles by Gilsanz, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Janicka, A.
Right arrow Articles by Gilsanz, V.
Related Collections
Right arrow Calcium and Bone Metabolism
Right arrow Metabolism
Right arrow Pediatric Endocrinology

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Endocrinology Endocrine Reviews J. Clin. End. & Metab.
Molecular Endocrinology Recent Prog. Horm. Res. All Endocrine Journals