Bone mineral content has stronger association with lean mass than fat mass among Indian urban adolescents

Abstract

Introduction: There are conflicting reports on the relationship of Lean Mass (LM) and Fat Mass (FM) with Bone Mineral Content (BMC). Given the high prevalence of Vitamin D deficiency in India, we planned the study to evaluate the relationship between LM and FM with BMC in Indian children and adolescents. The objective of the study was to evaluate the relationship of BMC with LM and FM. Materials and Methods: Total and regional BMC, LM and FM using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and pubertal staging were assessed in 1403 children and adolescents (boys [B]: 826; girls [G]: 577). BMC index, BMC/LM and BMC/FM ratio, were calculated. Results: The age ranged from 5 to 18 years, with a mean age of 13.2 ± 2.7 years. BMC adjusted for height (BMC index and BMC/height ratio) was comparable in both genders. There was no difference in total BMC between genders in the prepubertal group but were higher in more advanced stages of pubertal maturation. The correlation of total as well as regional BMC was stronger for LM (B: Total BMC - 0.880, trunk - 0.715, leg - 0.894, arm - 0.891; G: Total BMC - 0.827, leg - 0.846, arm - 0.815 (all value indicate r² , P < 0.0001 for all) when compared with FM (B: Total BMC - 0.776, trunk - 0.676, leg - 0.772, arm - 0.728; G: Total BMC - 0.781, leg - 0.741, arm - 0.689; all P < 0.0001) except at trunk BMC (LM - 0.682 vs. FM - 0.721; all P < 0.0001), even after controlling for age, height, pubertal stage and biochemical parameters. Conclusions: BMC had a stronger positive correlation with LM than FM.8 years, with a mean age of 13.2 ± 2.7 years. BMC adjusted for height (BMC index and BMC/height ratio) was comparable in both genders. There was no difference in total BMC between genders in the prepubertal group but were higher in more advanced stages of pubertal maturation. The correlation of total as well as regional BMC was stronger for LM (B: Total BMC - 0.880, trunk - 0.715, leg - 0.894, arm - 0.891; G: Total BMC - 0.827, leg - 0.846, arm - 0.815 (all value indicate r (2), P < 0.0001 for all) when compared with FM (B: Total BMC - 0.776, trunk - 0.676, leg - 0.772, arm - 0.728; G: Total BMC - 0.781, leg - 0.741, arm - 0.689; all P < 0.0001) except at trunk BMC (LM - 0.682 vs. FM - 0.721; all P < 0.0001), even after controlling for age, height, pubertal stage and biochemical parameters. Conclusions: BMC had a stronger positive correlation with LM than FM.