2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.03.149
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Long-term leisure time physical activity and properties of bone: A twin study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

6
10
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
6
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further, the extra mineral mass was distributed somewhat uniformly across bone cross sections, increasing bone strength in all directions. In contrast, long‐term exercise seems to increase bone mineral mass in the anteroposterior axis of a body weight–loaded bone but not on the mediolateral axis 31. Our findings thus support the view that estrogen and loading have independent effects on bone 32…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…Further, the extra mineral mass was distributed somewhat uniformly across bone cross sections, increasing bone strength in all directions. In contrast, long‐term exercise seems to increase bone mineral mass in the anteroposterior axis of a body weight–loaded bone but not on the mediolateral axis 31. Our findings thus support the view that estrogen and loading have independent effects on bone 32…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…Although the tibia is a common stress fracture site in athletes, tibial diaphysis strength has been ignored in previous pQCT research involving amenorrheic and eumenorrheic athletes. In a monozygotic twin study, it was found that regular physical activity resulted in an increase in BMD in the epiphysis of the tibia only . This is similar to the larger BMD in the epiphysis, but not diaphysis, in the athletes than controls in our study and supports the notion that bone adaptations to exercise may be site‐specific .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Also, as the trends between active and inactive co-twins usually were rather similar among DZ and MZ pairs, our findings seem not to be explained by sequence level genetic differences between co-twins. The carefully documented discordance in physical activity between co-twins was further confirmed by the differences in the co-twins tibial bone properties [30]. Related to the gene expression studies lack of protein-level analyses is a limitation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%