4.3 Article

Past and current weight change and women: the Nord-Trondelag Health forearm bone loss in middle-aged Study, Norway

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/gme.0b013e3181a6cbb1

关键词

Body weight changes; Postmenopausal bone loss; Cohort studies; Densitometry; Forearm; Menopause

资金

  1. Norwegian Women's Public Health Association
  2. Research Council of Norway
  3. Association of Health and Rehabilitation
  4. SINTEF Health
  5. Gythfeldt Legacy
  6. Eckbo Legacy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between bone loss and weight change before and concurrently to the assessment of forearm bone loss over 4.6 years in a population-based cohort of middle-aged women followed for more than 15 years. Methods: Among 8,856 women aged 45 to 60 years attending the first Nord-Trondelag Health Study study, Norway (1984-1986), a 35% random sample was invited for forearm densitometry at Nord-Trondelag Health Study 2 (1995-1997), and 2,188 women (78%) attended. After an average period of 4.6 years, they were subsequently invited for follow-up densitometry in 200 1, and 1,421 women (67.8%) met. Weight and height were measured on all three occasions. Results: During the total period of observation since baseline (15.5 y), the mean weight had increased by 3.4 kg, mostly in the youngest women. Weight loss had an accelerating and weight gain a decelerating effect on bone loss, and this was observed both for weight change occurring before the bone mineral density follow-up and for concurrent weight change. The relationship between prior weight gain or loss and bone loss seemed to persist, independent of the weight change observed during the period of bone loss assessment. Conclusions: Despite no mechanical impact of body weight on the forearm, weight loss in midlife women seems to be associated with a long-lasting negative effect on bone and vice versa for weight gain. This is presumably explained by humoral factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据