Does body size account for gender differences in femur bone density and geometry?

A. C. Looker, T. J. Beck, Eric Orwoll

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

105 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The extent to which greater bone strength in men is caused by proportionately greater bone mass versus bigger bone size is not clear, primarily because the larger overall body size of men has made direct comparisons of skeletal measures difficult. We examined gender differences in femur neck (FN) areal bone mineral density (BMD) values collected from 5623 non-Hispanic whites aged 20 + years in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994) before and after correction for measured height and weight. We supplemented the conventional areal BMD data (Hologic QDR 1000) with measurements of areal BMD and geometric properties (subperiosteal width, section modulus, and cortical thickness) made at narrow "cross-sectional" regions traversing the FN and the proximal shaft using a structural analysis program. Before body size adjustment, men had significantly higher values than women for all variables at the three measurement sites (p <0.0001). Adjustment for body size reduced the differences between the sexes for all variables but had a greater effect on BMD (1-8% higher in men) than on geometry (5-17% higher in men). When examined by age, the sex discrepancy was significantly greater in the older group for all variables except subperiosteal widths. We conclude that although body size difference may account for most of the areal BMD difference between men and women, male bones are still bigger in ways that suggest greater bone strength. These differences may contribute importantly to lower fracture risk in men.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1291-1299
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Bone and Mineral Research
Volume16
Issue number7
StatePublished - 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Body Size
Bone Density
Femur
Bone and Bones
Nutrition Surveys
Femur Neck
Sex Characteristics
Weights and Measures

Keywords

  • Body size
  • Bone mass
  • Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
  • Hip structural geometry
  • Sex differences

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Does body size account for gender differences in femur bone density and geometry? / Looker, A. C.; Beck, T. J.; Orwoll, Eric.

In: Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Vol. 16, No. 7, 2001, p. 1291-1299.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{124a34ada41942f6a755b21be21923d6,
title = "Does body size account for gender differences in femur bone density and geometry?",
abstract = "The extent to which greater bone strength in men is caused by proportionately greater bone mass versus bigger bone size is not clear, primarily because the larger overall body size of men has made direct comparisons of skeletal measures difficult. We examined gender differences in femur neck (FN) areal bone mineral density (BMD) values collected from 5623 non-Hispanic whites aged 20 + years in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994) before and after correction for measured height and weight. We supplemented the conventional areal BMD data (Hologic QDR 1000) with measurements of areal BMD and geometric properties (subperiosteal width, section modulus, and cortical thickness) made at narrow {"}cross-sectional{"} regions traversing the FN and the proximal shaft using a structural analysis program. Before body size adjustment, men had significantly higher values than women for all variables at the three measurement sites (p <0.0001). Adjustment for body size reduced the differences between the sexes for all variables but had a greater effect on BMD (1-8{\%} higher in men) than on geometry (5-17{\%} higher in men). When examined by age, the sex discrepancy was significantly greater in the older group for all variables except subperiosteal widths. We conclude that although body size difference may account for most of the areal BMD difference between men and women, male bones are still bigger in ways that suggest greater bone strength. These differences may contribute importantly to lower fracture risk in men.",
keywords = "Body size, Bone mass, Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, Hip structural geometry, Sex differences",
author = "Looker, {A. C.} and Beck, {T. J.} and Eric Orwoll",
year = "2001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "1291--1299",
journal = "Journal of Bone and Mineral Research",
issn = "0884-0431",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does body size account for gender differences in femur bone density and geometry?

AU - Looker, A. C.

AU - Beck, T. J.

AU - Orwoll, Eric

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - The extent to which greater bone strength in men is caused by proportionately greater bone mass versus bigger bone size is not clear, primarily because the larger overall body size of men has made direct comparisons of skeletal measures difficult. We examined gender differences in femur neck (FN) areal bone mineral density (BMD) values collected from 5623 non-Hispanic whites aged 20 + years in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994) before and after correction for measured height and weight. We supplemented the conventional areal BMD data (Hologic QDR 1000) with measurements of areal BMD and geometric properties (subperiosteal width, section modulus, and cortical thickness) made at narrow "cross-sectional" regions traversing the FN and the proximal shaft using a structural analysis program. Before body size adjustment, men had significantly higher values than women for all variables at the three measurement sites (p <0.0001). Adjustment for body size reduced the differences between the sexes for all variables but had a greater effect on BMD (1-8% higher in men) than on geometry (5-17% higher in men). When examined by age, the sex discrepancy was significantly greater in the older group for all variables except subperiosteal widths. We conclude that although body size difference may account for most of the areal BMD difference between men and women, male bones are still bigger in ways that suggest greater bone strength. These differences may contribute importantly to lower fracture risk in men.

AB - The extent to which greater bone strength in men is caused by proportionately greater bone mass versus bigger bone size is not clear, primarily because the larger overall body size of men has made direct comparisons of skeletal measures difficult. We examined gender differences in femur neck (FN) areal bone mineral density (BMD) values collected from 5623 non-Hispanic whites aged 20 + years in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994) before and after correction for measured height and weight. We supplemented the conventional areal BMD data (Hologic QDR 1000) with measurements of areal BMD and geometric properties (subperiosteal width, section modulus, and cortical thickness) made at narrow "cross-sectional" regions traversing the FN and the proximal shaft using a structural analysis program. Before body size adjustment, men had significantly higher values than women for all variables at the three measurement sites (p <0.0001). Adjustment for body size reduced the differences between the sexes for all variables but had a greater effect on BMD (1-8% higher in men) than on geometry (5-17% higher in men). When examined by age, the sex discrepancy was significantly greater in the older group for all variables except subperiosteal widths. We conclude that although body size difference may account for most of the areal BMD difference between men and women, male bones are still bigger in ways that suggest greater bone strength. These differences may contribute importantly to lower fracture risk in men.

KW - Body size

KW - Bone mass

KW - Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

KW - Hip structural geometry

KW - Sex differences

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034977508&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034977508&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11450705

AN - SCOPUS:0034977508

VL - 16

SP - 1291

EP - 1299

JO - Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

JF - Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

SN - 0884-0431

IS - 7

ER -