AJCN North Carolina Research Campus
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chumlea, W. C.
Right arrow Articles by Siervogel, R. M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chumlea, W. C.
Right arrow Articles by Siervogel, R. M
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Chumlea, W. C.
Right arrow Articles by Siervogel, R. M
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 75, No. 6, 1012-1016, June 2002
© 2002 American Society for Clinical Nutrition

ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION

Relations between frame size and body composition and bone mineral status1,2,3

William Cameron Chumlea, Wayne Wisemandle, Shumei S Guo and Roger M Siervogel

1 From the Lifespan Health Research Center, Department of Community Health, Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, OH.

Background: Frame size is a description of the supportive structure of the skeleton that is used to adjust for skeletal mass and size in measures of body composition and weight.

Objective: Data from the Fels Longitudinal Study were used to investigate the relation between bicristal, elbow, knee, biacromial, and wrist breadths and measures of total body fat (TBF), fat-free mass (FFM), bone mineral content (BMC), and bone mineral density (BMD) from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Design: The sample consisted of cross-sectional data from 224 white men and 277 white women aged 23–65 y. Multiple regressions were conducted with stature-adjusted measures of body composition and bone mineral status as dependent variables and age and frame size as independent variables.

Results: Frame-size measures were significantly and positively associated with all body-composition and bone mineral measures in bivariate analyses. In both men and women, the significant models explained more of the variance in measures of TBF (R2 = 0.51 and 0.66, respectively) and FFM (R2 = 0.35 and 0.39, respectively) than in measures of BMC (R2 = 0.18 and 0.23, respectively) and BMD (R2 = 0.08 and 0.18, respectively). Bicristal, knee, and wrist breadths were associated with TBF, and biacromial, knee, and wrist breadths were positively associated with FFM. Biacromial breadth was positively associated with BMC and BMD.

Conclusions: Frame size was more closely associated with TBF and FFM than with BMC and BMD. The association between frame size and body composition seems to be more structural than substantive. The relations between frame size and BMC and BMD are weak and apparently not related to body composition.

Key Words: Frame size • bone mineral content • bone mineral density • body composition • total body fat • fat-free mass • Fels Longitudinal Study






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by The American Society for Nutrition