• exercise; growth and development; bone strength; rigidity

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Exercise during growth results in biologically important increases in bone mass. Growth in bone width and cortical thickness before puberty occurs by greater periosteal (outer surface) apposition than by endocortical (inner surface) resorption. During puberty, estrogen production inhibits periosteal apposition but stimulates the acquisition of bone on the endocortical surface.⁽¹⁾

It has been proposed that exercise will enhance formation at the surfaces of bone undergoing bone apposition.⁽²⁾ Because apposition of bone on the periosteal surface is a more effective means of increasing the bending and torsional strength of bone than acquisition of bone on the inner surface,⁽³⁾ exercise regimens may be more effective when undertaken at a time when the growth of bone is dominated by periosteal rather than endocortical growth.

Exercise has been reported to enhance periosteal expansion in young animals and endocortical contraction in mature animals. Thus, to determine whether the effects of exercise depend on the maturational stage of the region exposed to loading as well as the intensity and duration of the loading, we tested the following hypotheses: (i) loading of bone during tennis playing will result in increased cortical area of the playing humerus because of periosteal expansion with no endocortical apposition in the pre- and peripubertal years; (ii) during the postpubertal years, loading will increase cortical area by endocortical apposition with less contribution from periosteal apposition; and (iii) the exercise-induced increase in cortical area and bending strength of the humerus will be caused by greater periosteal apposition with little or no contribution from endocortical bone acquisition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects

Bone geometry, mass, and strength

Statistical analysis

RESULTS

Growth itself, as reflected by structural changes in the nonloaded arm, resulted in a 14% increase in cortical area of the mid- and distal humerus from the pre- to peripubertal years because of greater periosteal expansion than medullary expansion (Table 2 and Fig. 2). Cortical area of the mid- and distal humerus were both ∼20% greater in the postpubertal players than in the peripubertal players (Table 2and Fig. 2). At the midhumerus, this was the result of periosteal expansion alone, whereas at the distal humerus, medullary contraction contributed to the larger cortical area.

Table Table 2.. Cross-Sectional Analyses of the Change in Cortical, Periosteal, and Medullary Bone Areas and the Second Polar Moment of Area (Ip) in the Nonloaded Humerus With Advancing Maturation (Mean ± SEM)

The effect of loading was reflected in the side-to-side trait differences. BMC and resistance to torsion (I_P) of the humerus were 11–14% greater in the loaded arm than in the nonloaded arm in the prepubertal players (both p < 0.01) and did not increase further in peri- or postpubertal players despite longer duration of loading (Tables 1 and 3). The higher BMC was the result of a 7–11% greater cortical area in the prepubertal players, which was the result of greater periosteal expansion than medullary expansion at the midhumerus but greater periosteal expansion alone at the distal humerus (Table 3 and Fig. 3). Loading during the peri- to postpubertal years resulted in medullary contraction at both sites; however, this did not lead to a significant increase in the side-to-side difference in cortical area (Table 3 and Fig.3).

Table Table 3.. Average Bone Areas of the Mid- and Distal Regions of the Humeral Shaft in the Loaded and Nonloaded Humerus of Pre-, Peri-, and Postpubertal Female Tennis Players (Mean ± SEM)

Similar observations were made in the 37 girls followed during the 12 months of follow-up. In particular, cortical area at the distal site increased 4% more in the loaded arm than in the nonloaded arm in the postpubertal players because of contraction of medullary area (2%,p < 0.05) and increased periosteal expansion (2%, NS).

DISCUSSION

Growth in the external size of a long bone, its cortical thickness, and the distribution of cortical bone about the neutral axis are determined by the absolute and relative behavior of the periosteal and endocortical bone surfaces along the length of the bone.^{(5, 6)} Before puberty, periosteal apposition accounts for most of the increase in cortical area. Endocortical resorption creates an enlarging marrow cavity and partly offsets the increase in cortical area produced by periosteal apposition. The net result is an enlarged cortical area located further from the neutral axis, which has the effect of increasing its resistance to bending.⁽³⁾ Late in puberty, periosteal apposition continues with a contribution from endocortical apposition⁽⁷⁾; particularly at the distal humerus, where, in this study, the increase in cortical area was the result of equal contributions from periosteal and endocortical apposition.

In addition to surface specificity, growth is also region specific with more rapid maturation of distal regions than proximal regions. Distal segments of the appendicular skeleton mature before the proximal segments.^(1,7,8) The longitudinal data indicate that when the subjects were older, endocortical contraction was detected at the midhumerus but not at the distal humerus.

Loading magnifies the structural changes produced during growth and this was detected by comparing the trait differences in the loaded and nonloaded arms. The data suggest that during growth the effect of exercise, like the effect of risk factors, is determined not only by the intensity of exercise or severity of illness, but also by the timing of exposure.^{(7, 9)} Before puberty, loading magnified periosteal apposition. During the postpubertal period, loading magnified the effect of endocortical apposition, which makes an important contribution to cortical thickness in females. Indeed, endocortical apposition accounted for most of the greater side-to-side difference attained in the postpubertal years.

Most of the structural changes occurred early in the prepubertal years because adaptive changes in response to loading were sufficient to reduce the strains in bone that may lead to microdamage if not decreased.^{(10, 11)} The only additional benefit achieved from tennis training later in puberty was contraction of the medullary cavity, which did not confer any additional increase in the structural rigidity of the bone. Similar effects have been reported in soccer players in whom increased duration of training beyond 6 h/week had no benefit on bone mass.⁽¹²⁾ To further modify bone mass or architecture, other components of loading other than duration (i.e., magnitude or strain patterns) would have to increase, as reported in elite gymnasts.⁽¹³⁾

Heterogeneity in the response to loading has been reported in several studies.^(14–17) The relative contributions of periosteal and endocortical modeling and remodeling varies along the whole length of a limb.⁽¹⁸⁾ Local loading will modify each part of the geometry of the bone in accordance with the imposed load. In racquet sports, the greater humeral cortical area of the loaded versus the nonloaded arm is the result of both greater periosteal expansion and greater endocortical contraction; for instance, the relative contributions of periosteal expansion and endocortical contraction to the greater cortical thickness in the loaded arm than in the nonloaded arm in a study by Haapasalo et al. were 75:25 at the proximal humerus and 10:90 at both mid- and distal humerus.⁽¹⁵⁾ In the study by Jones et al., the respective relative contributions of greater periosteal expansion and greater endosteal contraction to the greater cortical thickness were 60:40 in the anteroposterior dimension and 80:20 in the mediolateral dimension in male and female tennis players.⁽¹⁶⁾

Thus, loading affects both the periosteal and the endocortical surfaces but the magnitude of the effects vary according to whether the surface is anterior, posterior, medial, or lateral and according to whether the region is proximal, central, or distal along the bone’s length. Measurements of bone geometry in two dimensions using densitometry or X-rays cannot adequately describe this heterogeneity. Bone is not a cylinder with a circular perimeter and the assumption that loading will produce homogenous changes is flawed.

In conclusion, loading before puberty increases bone size and its resistance to bending. After puberty, loading increases the acquisition of bone on the endocortical surface with little benefit in the bone’s resistance to bending. Growth and the effects of loading were surface specific and varied along the length of the bone depending on the maturation of the region as well as the intensity and direction of loading. Increasing the bone’s resistance to bending and torsion is achieved by modifying the shape and mass of bone but not necessarily its density.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank radiographers Amanda Hunt and Glenn Rush for their technical assistance. They also thank the players and their parents for their time given to this study. This study was funded by grants from the Australian Research Council Grant and the School of Health Sciences, Deakin University.

• 1. Garn S 1970 The Earlier Gain and Later Loss of Cortical Bone. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, IL, USA.
• 2. Ruff CB, Walker A, Trinkaus E 1994 Postcranial Robusticity in Homo. III: Ontogeny. Am J Phys Anthrop 93: 35–54.
• 3. Turner CH, Burr DB 1993 Basic biomechanical measurements of bone: A tutorial. Bone 14: 595–608.
• 4. Woodhead HJ, Kemp AF, Blimkie CJR, Briddy JN, Duncan CS, Thompson M, Lam A, Howman-Giles R, Cowell CT 2001Measurement of midfemoral shaft geometry: Repeatability and accuracy using magnetic resonance imaging and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Bone Miner Res 16: 2251–2259.
• 5. Seeman E 2002 An exercise in geometry. J Bone Miner Res 17: 373–380.
• 6. Seeman E 2001 Clinical review 137: Sexual dimorphism in skeletal size, density, and strength. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86:4576–4584.
• 7. Bass S, Delmas PD, Pearce G, Hendrich E, Tabensky A, Seeman E 1999 The differing tempo of growth in bone size, mass and density in girls is region-specific. J Clin Invest 104: 795–804.
• 8. Preece MA, Hendrich I 1981 Mathematical modelling of individual growth curves. Br Med Bull 37: 247–252.
• 9. Seeman E, Karlsson M, Duan Y 2000 On exposure to anorexia nervosa, the temporal variation in axial and appendicular skeletal development predisposes to site-specific deficits in bone size and density: A cross-sectional study. J Bone Miner Res 15:2259–2265.
• 10. Frost H 1987 The mechanostat: A proposed pathogenic mechanism of osteoporosis and the bone mass effects of mechanical and nonmechanical agents. Bone Miner 2: 73–86.
• 11. Lanyon LE 1987 Functional strain in bone tissue as an objective and controlling stimulus for adaptive remodelling. J Biomech 20:1083–1093.
• 12. Karlsson MK, Magnusson H, Karlsson C, Seeman E 2001 The duration of exercise as a regulator of bone mass. Bone 28:128–132.
• 13. Bass S, Pearce G, Bradney M, Hendrick E, Delmas P, Harding A, Seeman E 1998 Exercise before puberty may confer residual benefits in bone density in adulthood: Studies in active prepubertal and retired female gymnasts. J Bone Miner Res 13: 500–507.
• 14. Haapasalo H, Sievanen H, Kannus P, Heinonen A, Oja P, Vuori I 1996 Dimensions and estimated mechanical characteristics of the humerus after long-term tennis loading. J Bone Miner Res 11: 864–872.
• 15. Haapasalo H, Kontulainen S, Sievanen H, Kannus P, Jarvinen M, Vuori I 2000 Exercise-induced bone gain is due to enlargement in bone size without a change in volumetric bone density: A peripheral quantitative computed tomography study of the upper arms of male tennis players. Bone 27: 351–357.
• 16. Jones HH, Priest JD, Hayes WC, Tichenor CC, Nagel DA 1977 Humeral hypertrophy in response to exercise. J Bone Joint Surg Am 59A: 204–208.
• 17. Huddleston A, Rockwell D, Kulund DN, Harrison B 1980 Bone mass in lifetime tennis athletes. JAMA 244: 1107–1109.
• 18. Hsieh YF, Robling AG, Ambrosius WT, Burr DB, Turner CH 2001 Mechanical loading of diaphyseal bone in vivo: The strain threshold for an osteogenic response varies with location. J Bone Miner Res 16: 2291–2297.