A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Forearm and tibial bone measures of distance- and sprint-trained master cyclists. | LitMetric

Forearm and tibial bone measures of distance- and sprint-trained master cyclists.

Med Sci Sports Exerc

Institute for Biomedical Research into Human Movement and Health, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Published: March 2009

Purpose: Cycling is very popular; however, it is often believed to be associated with below average bone mass. This study compared bone measures of sprint- and distance-trained cyclists competing at World Master Track Championships, along with sedentary controls (30-82 yr), and examined the associations of bone measures with age.

Methods: Radius and tibia epiphyseal and shaft bone mineral density (BMD), bone mineral content (BMC), and cross-sectional area along with shaft polar moment of resistance (RPol) and endocortical/periosteal circumferences were assessed by peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Intergroup differences were assessed by ANOVA and age relationships by correlation analyses.

Results: Sprint cyclists had the largest bone shafts and bone strength surrogates; the difference in diaphyseal BMC, area, and RPol compared with controls being >or=10% in the tibia and >or=8% in the radius (P < 0.01). Distance cyclists versus control group differences were smaller (tibia: approximately 4-10%; radius: <2%), reaching statistical significance only for tibial BMC and area (P < 0.05). Generally, epiphyseal bone measures showed no group differences. In the radius, age correlations were negative for both the sprinters' and the controls' diaphyseal and the sprinters' epiphyseal BMD; they were positive for the controls' diaphyseal endocortical and periosteal circumferences (P < 0.05). In the cyclists' tibiae, neither epiphyseal nor diaphyseal bone measures were correlated with age.

Conclusions: Sprint cyclists and to a lesser extent distance cyclists had greater tibia and radius bone strength surrogates than the controls, with tibial bone measures being well preserved with age in all groups. This suggests that competition-based cycling and the associated training regime is beneficial in preserving average or above-average bone strength surrogates into old age in men.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818a0ec8DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bone measures
12
bone
8
bone mineral
8
forearm tibial
4
tibial bone
4
measures distance-
4
distance- sprint-trained
4
sprint-trained master
4
cyclists
4
master cyclists
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!