Ground-reaction Force Versus Joint-reaction Force Exercise On The Bone Response To Exercise In Older Veterans

Older Veterans may be at greater risk for osteoporotic fracture than non-Veterans and exercise is recommended to improve bone health. Prior research found that ground-reaction force exercise (GRF; jumping, walking) results in greater improvements in areal bone mineral density (aBMD) than joint-reaction force exercise (JRF; weightlifting, rowing), but it is unclear how different types of exercise influence volumetric BMD (vBMD) or estimates of bone strength. PURPOSE: The goal of this pilot study was to determine the magnitude of effect of GRF or JRF exercise on vBMD and bone strength at the hip and lumbar spine. METHODS: Eighteen older Veterans (68.4 ± 4 y; 13 men, 5 women) were randomized to 26 weeks of GRF (N = 8) or JRF (N = 10) exercise. Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) scans of the hip and lumbar spine at baseline and post-intervention were analyzed to determine changes in vBMD and bone strength using finite element analysis (FEA). Within-group changes were evaluated by paired t tests. RESULTS: Results are mean and (95% CI). vBMD non-significantly increased at L2 (GRF: 3.1 mg/cm3 (-4.4, 10.5 mg/cm3); JRF: 1.9 mg/cm3 (-1.9, 5.7 mg/cm3)) and the femoral neck (GRF: 5.6 mg/cm3 (-19.9, 28.2 mg/cm3); JRF: 2.9 mg/cm3, 95% CI: -2.5, 8.2 mg/cm3)) for both groups but was increased at L1 for GRF only (GRF: 2.3 mg/cm3 (-2.2, 6.8 mg/cm3); JRF: -0.3 mg/cm3 (-3.6, 3.0 mg/cm3)). Both groups had increases in estimates of bone strength for the FEA hip stance (GRF: 521.1 N (-317.2, 1359.6 N); JRF: 217 N (27.42, 408.4 N)) and hip fall (GRF: 564.9 N (-497.2, 1627.0 N); JRF: 596.4 N (149.0, 1343.9 N)) models. CONCLUSIONS: Both GRF and JRF exercise training may improve vBMD and estimates of bone strength in older Veterans. This pilot failed to meet recruitment targets (N = 50) and is under-powered for within- and between-group comparisons; results are instead intended to inform future studies. Future research should incorporate additional analyses (e.g., statistical shape modeling) and explore any potential sex differences. VA Eastern Colorado GRECC, UM1 TR004399

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2024-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0001053044.17366.d4
Primary Topic
Health and Well-being Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ground-reaction Force Versus Joint-reaction Force Exercise On The Bone Response To Exercise In Older Veterans

Sarah J. Wherry, Toby Wellington, Wendy M. Kohrt
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Health and Well-being Studies
article

Ground-reaction Force Versus Joint-reaction Force Exercise On The Bone Response To Exercise In Older Veterans

Sarah J. Wherry, Toby Wellington, Wendy M. Kohrt
article en

Abstract

Older Veterans may be at greater risk for osteoporotic fracture than non-Veterans and exercise is recommended to improve bone health. Prior research found that ground-reaction force exercise (GRF; jumping, walking) results in greater improvements in areal bone mineral density (aBMD) than joint-reaction force exercise (JRF; weightlifting, rowing), but it is unclear how different types of exercise influence volumetric BMD (vBMD) or estimates of bone strength. PURPOSE: The goal of this pilot study was to determine the magnitude of effect of GRF or JRF exercise on vBMD and bone strength at the hip and lumbar spine. METHODS: Eighteen older Veterans (68.4 ± 4 y; 13 men, 5 women) were randomized to 26 weeks of GRF (N = 8) or JRF (N = 10) exercise. Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) scans of the hip and lumbar spine at baseline and post-intervention were analyzed to determine changes in vBMD and bone strength using finite element analysis (FEA). Within-group changes were evaluated by paired t tests. RESULTS: Results are mean and (95% CI). vBMD non-significantly increased at L2 (GRF: 3.1 mg/cm3 (-4.4, 10.5 mg/cm3); JRF: 1.9 mg/cm3 (-1.9, 5.7 mg/cm3)) and the femoral neck (GRF: 5.6 mg/cm3 (-19.9, 28.2 mg/cm3); JRF: 2.9 mg/cm3, 95% CI: -2.5, 8.2 mg/cm3)) for both groups but was increased at L1 for GRF only (GRF: 2.3 mg/cm3 (-2.2, 6.8 mg/cm3); JRF: -0.3 mg/cm3 (-3.6, 3.0 mg/cm3)). Both groups had increases in estimates of bone strength for the FEA hip stance (GRF: 521.1 N (-317.2, 1359.6 N); JRF: 217 N (27.42, 408.4 N)) and hip fall (GRF: 564.9 N (-497.2, 1627.0 N); JRF: 596.4 N (149.0, 1343.9 N)) models. CONCLUSIONS: Both GRF and JRF exercise training may improve vBMD and estimates of bone strength in older Veterans. This pilot failed to meet recruitment targets (N = 50) and is under-powered for within- and between-group comparisons; results are instead intended to inform future studies. Future research should incorporate additional analyses (e.g., statistical shape modeling) and explore any potential sex differences. VA Eastern Colorado GRECC, UM1 TR004399

Medicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseVol. 56(10S)
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Health and Well-being Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.