4.7 Article

African Americans, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and osteoporosis: a paradox

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 88, 期 2, 页码 545S-550S

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL NUTRITION
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/88.2.545S

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Aging, National Institutes of Health [RO1 AG15325]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

African Americans have lower serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations and a lower risk of fragility fractures than do other populations. I review the evidence on factors other than vitamin D that might explain this paradox and the calcium economy in different life stages. Researchers are actively trying to explain this genetically programmed advantage. Factors that could protect African Americans against fracture include their higher peak bone mass, increased obesity rates, greater muscle mass, lower bone turnover rates, and advantageous femur geometry. In addition, bone histomorphometry in young adults shows longer periods of bone formation. Although African Americans fall as frequently as do whites, the direction of their falls and their manner of breaking falls could protect them from fractures. African American girls accrue more calcium than do white girls during adolescence as the result of increased calcium absorption and superior renal calcium conservation. In adulthood, higher parathyroid hormone concentrations do not result in increased bone loss in African Americans because of their skeletal resistance to parathyroid hormone, and their superior renal conservation of calcium persists. These advantages diminish in the elderly, in whom further increases in parathyroid hormone result in increased bone turnover and bone loss. Ultimately, I explain the paradox by multiple factors associated with fracture risk and calcium economy in African Americans. Despite African Americans' reduced risk of osteoporotic fractures, such fractures remain an important public health problem for this population that vitamin D intervention studies have not addressed.

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

4.7
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