|
|
||||||||
1 Osteoporosis Research Center, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska 68131; and 2 North Carolina Wesleyan College, Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27804
| |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Increased mechanical loading of bone with
the rat tibia four-point bending device stimulates bone formation on
periosteal and endocortical surfaces. With long-term loading cell
activity diminishes, and it has been reported that early gains in bone size may reverse. This study examined the time course for bone cellular
and structural response after 6, 12, and 18 wk of loading at
1,200-1,700 microstrain (µ
). Bone formation rates, measured by histomorphometry, were compared within groups, between loaded and
contralateral nonloaded tibiae, and between weeks. Formation surface,
mineral apposition rate, and bone formation rate on periosteal and
endocortical surfaces were elevated after 6 wk of loading. By 12 wk of
loading, periosteal and endocortical formation surface and endocortical
mineral apposition rates were elevated. By 18 wk of loading, periosteal
adaptation appeared complete, whereas endocortical mineral apposition
rate remained elevated. No periosteal resorption was observed. Average
thickness of new bone formed, from baseline to collection, was greater
in loaded than nonloaded tibiae by week 6 and was maintained
through week 18. Early increases in bone formation result in
periosteal apposition of new bone that persists after formation ceases.
tibia; adult rat; strain; histology
| |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
GENETIC, HORMONAL, AND NUTRITIONAL factors contribute to bone metabolism, but the daily mechanical loads experienced by bone also determine bone size and shape (6, 10, 14, 19). When new forces or loads alter the normal daily pattern of bone bending or strain, the bone adapts by increasing formation that, in turn, increases mass, size, and moment of inertia to resist the altered bending. The adaptation is seen with exercise training (11, 13, 27, 28, 31, 36-38), external loading (7, 25, 29, 34), and osteotomy (4, 5, 20). The early bone changes associated with mechanical loading include increased mRNA expression, osteoblast number, and bone formation within 5 days after loading (3, 9, 12, 23). Others have shown that the adaptive response also includes the suppression of bone resorption (17, 37).
If mechanical loads regulate bone size, then an increase in loading should result in only a transient acceleration in bone formation. Bone cell activity should increase until the new structure is sufficient to meet the new strength demands. Once adaptation is complete, cell activity should return to nonexercise levels, and the new structure should be maintained. A permanent acceleration of bone formation would overcompensate for a discreet load change. The pattern should resemble muscle training, in which muscle mass and strength plateau until the training level is increased.
Some studies have indirectly shown the waning of bone formation with time (29, 36). The only study that identified a cessation of formation also reported that bone size was reduced from 6 to 14 wk of loading and suggested that the bone consolidated as a final adaptation to loading (34). However, that conclusion was based on cross-sectional data; a method for consolidation was not documented, and osteoclast activation was not observed. Loss of bone area with maturation or time is not commonly associated with growth. A clear understanding of bone cellular and structural adaptations to increased stress is important for the interpretation of serum and bone measures in athlete cross-sectional and exercise-intervention studies.
The purpose of this study was to examine the time course for bone adaptation to controlled, external, mechanical loading in the rat tibia four-point bending device. Our hypothesis was that consistent long-term load application causes a transient increase in bone formation and an incremental gain in periosteal bone that is maintained with continued loading. To test this hypothesis, rats were loaded for up to 18 wk, and tibial formation surface (FS), formation rate, and new bone thickness (newBTh) were compared with contralateral nonloaded tibial values.
| |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The effects of long-term, external mechanical loading were studied in the tibiae of female, retired Sprague-Dawley breeder rats (SASCO, Omaha, NE) (6 mo and 282 ± 30 g). The rats were individually housed in wire cages (20 × 24 × 18 cm), and food and water were available ad libitum. All procedures were approved by the University's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Forty-seven rats were randomized by body weight to four external loading (L) groups. One group was loaded Monday-Wednesday-Friday (M-W-F) for 6 wk (n = 11), whereas three groups were loaded every other day for 6 wk (n = 11), 12 wk (n = 12), or 18 wk (n = 13). Fourteen rats acquired within a week of the loaded rats were maintained as an 18-wk control group. All rats continued unrestricted, weight-bearing activity while in their cages.
An external mechanical load was applied to the lower right leg with a
rat tibia four-point bending device (1, 26). The upper pads in the
loading device were 10.5 mm apart and centered between the lower pads,
which were 22 mm apart. The maximal bending region was between 3.5 and
14 ± 0.5 mm, proximal to the tibia fibular junction (26). Bending
moments of 92 N · mm (32 N) were applied at 2 Hz for
36 cycles to create 1,200 microstrains (µ
) in compression on the
lateral tibial surface and 1,700 µ
in tension on the medial tibial
surface. The left leg was not loaded and served as a contralateral control.
All loaded rats were given an intraperitoneal tetracycline (25 mg/kg) injection 1 day before the experiment to label preexisting bone-forming surfaces. All rats were given an intraperitoneal calcein (Sigma Chemical, St. Louis, 8 mg/kg) injection 11 and 3 days before death. At 6, 12, and 18 wk, rats were anesthetized and killed by intracardiac injection (0.1 ml, FatalPlus, Vortech Pharmaceuticals, Dearborn, MI). The left and right tibiae were then collected, fixed in 70% ethanol, block-stained in Villanueva stain (35), dehydrated in ethanol and acetone, and embedded in methyl methacrylate (2). Cross sections of 120-µm thickness were cut 4-8 mm proximal to the tibia-fibular junction with a low-speed diamond wheel saw (model 2680, South Bay Technology, Temple City, CA) and ground to 80-µm thickness for mounting. Two sections from each tibia were blind coded and analyzed, and their data were averaged.
Periosteal and endocortical surfaces were digitally traced with a microscope, camera lucida, graphics pad, and the BIOQUANT semiautomated image-analysis system II (R&M Biometrics, Nashville, TN). Measurements included cortical area, woven bone area, periosteal and endocortical perimeters, double and single calcein-labeled perimeters, tetracycline-labeled perimeter, and woven bone perimeter. Woven bone was identified by irregular diffuse labeling patterns. Interlabel thickness (IrLTh) was directly measured at equal intervals between all double calcein labels. newBTh was measured between the initial tetracycline label and the current periosteal surface. The length of each unique type of surface was reported as a percent of the total bone surface (BS): single calcein-labeled surface (sLS/BS), double calcein-labeled surface (dLS/BS), and woven bone bearing surface (WoS/BS). Formation surface was the sum of the three unique forming surfaces {FS/BS = [sLS/(2 + dLS + WoS)/BS]}. Mineral apposition rate (MAR) was calculated at all dLS sites as the interlabel thickness divided by interlabel time (IrLTh/8 days). Surface-based bone formation rate was calculated as (MAR × FS)/BS (21). The average MAR (aveMAR) for the duration of the study was calculated at sights with an initial tetracycline label (aveMAR = newBTh/days on study)
Strain (µ
) on the lateral tibial surface during four-point bending
was calculated from a regression equation based on cross-sectional moment of inertia, beam-bending theory, previous in vivo strain gauge measurements, and mechanical testing (1). Two cross sections from
each tibia were traced at ×20, and the moment of inertia about
the anterior-posterior axis was computed with Section (Biomechanics Lab, Creighton University) on a VAX Station 2000 computer. Strain was
calculated and averaged for two sections of the loaded tibia. Measurement of the final moment of inertia was used to estimate strain
after adaptation to loading.
The two 6-wk loading groups (M-W-F and alternate days) were tested with
Student's t-test for differences in response to loading. Because there were no differences between these groups, the groups were
combined to form a single 6-wk loading group. ANOVA Split-Plot Design
(CRUNCH, Crunch Software, Oakland, CA) was applied to the data from all
groups. The split plot design analyzed two factors: 1)
differences between control and loaded tibia within rats for each group
and 2) differences between all treatment groups and the control
group. When the between-group effect was significant, the differences
were tested with Bonferroni post hoc tests. When a significant
interaction occurred (load × week), the loading effect was
calculated as loaded
nonloaded, and differences between weeks
were tested. Differences were considered significant at P < 0.05 for all tests.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The rats of all five groups were similar in size. Initial body weights
averaged 282 ± 30 g and were not different between groups at any
time. Although body weight increased within each group from initial to
final time points, there were no differences in final body weight
(Table 1). Final cross-sectional area and moment of inertia of the tibiae were not different between groups or
between loaded and nonloaded tibia within groups (Table 1). Strains
during loading, estimated from final moment of inertia, were not
different among groups and averaged 1,200 ± 165 (SD) µ
on the
lateral surfaces, 1,680 ± 230 µ
on the medial periosteal surfaces, and 900 ± 125 µ
on the endocortical surfaces.
|
Although the two groups loaded for 6 wk had different daily loading schedules, there were no differences between the groups in labeled surface, FS, MAR, or newBTh. Therefore, these two groups were combined for analysis into a single 6-wk group. Of the 47 rats externally loaded for 6, 12, or 18 wk, one rat from the 12-wk group died due to anesthetic overdose.
Within-group differences due to loading. Loading effects at each time point were determined by examining differences within groups between the loaded and nonloaded contralateral tibiae. The primary response to external loading was organized, compact periosteal and endocortical bone formation. However, small amounts of woven bone were identified on four loaded tibial periosteum. In those four rats, the woven bone perimeter averaged 9.2 ± 3.2% of the total periosteal length and 3.2 ± 1.8% of the total cortical area. Periosteal resorption or remodeling was not seen in the cortical bone at any time after loading.
At 6 wk, the periosteal surface-loaded tibia had greater (P < 0.0007) FS, MAR, and bone formation rate than the contralateral tibia (Table 2). After 12 wk of loading, FS was still greater in loaded than nonloaded legs; however, MAR and bone formation rates were not different due to loading. There were no differences within groups after 18 wk of loading or in the 18-wk control group. newBTh was greater in the loaded than in the nonloaded legs after 6 wk of loading. The difference between legs was not significant at 12 or at 18 wk. The periosteal aveMAR for the duration of study was greater in the loaded legs at 6 wk but not different at 12 or 18 wk.
|
|
Differences between groups with time. The effects of time or aging were examined as differences among groups in formation (collections at 6, 12, and 18 wk) in the nonexternally loaded tibia (Table 2). Periosteal FS and MAR were not different among tibia at 6, 12, or 18 wk. However, bone formation rates averaged over the duration of the study and measured during the final 2 wk were lower in the 18-wk than in the 6-wk group. The total periosteal newBTh was not significantly different among the nonloaded tibia.
Endocortical FS, MAR, and bone formation rates were higher in nonloaded tibia at 6 than at 12 or 18 wk, but there were no differences between the 12- and 18-wk groups (Table 3). The total endocortical newBTh was not different among the nonloaded tibia, but aveMAR was greater at 6 than at 18 wk.Differences in loading effect with time.
The loading effect (loaded
nonloaded) tended to decrease with
time on study. On the periosteal surface, the magnitude of the loading
effect was greater at 6 wk than at 18 wk for FS, and bone formation
rate was greater at 6 wk than at 12 and 18 wk. The differences between
tibiae due to loading did not vary among weeks for MAR, newBTh, or
aveMAR. On the endocortical surface, the magnitude of the loading
effect for bone formation rate was greater at 6 wk than at 18 wk. There
were no differences in the loading effect among weeks for FS, MAR, or
newBTh. The differences in periosteal FS, periosteal bone formation
rate, endocortical MAR, and endocortical bone formation rate between
loaded (right) and nonloaded (left) legs was greater for 6-wk loaded
rats than for the nonloaded control rats. The only 12-wk difference was between endocortical MAR in the loaded and nonloaded controls.
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Bone adapts to external loading at 1,200-1,700 µ
by
transiently increasing formation and increasing periosteal newBTh. The elevated formation seen at 6 wk is consistent with previous 3- to 4-wk
loading studies of this model (16), and the lack of response at 18 wk
is consistent with a previous loading study (34). However, the present
study is unique because it examines cumulative bone gain with loading.
In the previous 14-wk study, the area of newly formed bone
"consolidated" or diminished in size with adaptation (34). In
contrast, this study shows gain in periosteal thickness by week
6 of loading that is maintained through weeks 12 and
18 of loading.
Age-related changes in periosteal formation. The decrease in formation in the loaded legs from week 6 to week 18 potentially reflects both a decrease in loading effect and an age-related decrease in formation. In nonloaded legs, bone formation rate was lower at week 18 than at week 6 of study for both periosteal (70%) and endocortical (94%) surfaces. Although the growth rate at the proximal tibial growth plate is minimal in the 6-mo-old female Sprague-Dawley rat (18), this study shows that diaphyseal expansion slows but continues with aging.
Time course of adaptation to loading. We found that, although the initial increase in formation parameters with loading was transient, the bone mass effect was maintained. The loading response for bone formation rate diminished at least 5-fold on the periosteum and 14-fold on the endocortical surface from week 6 to week 18. The endocortical loading response persisted longer than the periosteal response, as MAR was still elevated in the loaded leg at week 18.
The pattern of initial rapid formation with a return to control levels was confirmed by measures of newBTh. The total periosteal bone formed from day 0 until the bones were collected was greater in loaded than in nonloaded legs at 6 wk and tended to increase with time. Although both loaded and nonloaded legs tended to have greater newBTh at weeks 12 and 18 than at week 6, and the loaded legs tended to remain greater than nonloaded legs, the differences were small and not statistically significant. One explanation for the lack of difference between legs at the later times could be that the differential rates of formation between legs, with time, resulted in high intra-animal variation. Bone adaptation to four-point loading appears to be immediate, with a gradual dissipation of formation and a return to normal control levels. The time course for adaptation to loading at 92 N · mm (1,200 µ
) in the present study is similar
to that observed in a previous study after loading at 120 N · mm (2,000 µ
) (34). Both studies show
increased bone formation and mineralization rate at weeks 3,
6, and 7, decreasing by week 12, and returning to control levels by weeks 14-18. However, the pattern of
response was different between the two studies. At 2,000 µ
,
primarily woven bone was produced, whereas at 1,200 µ
, a more
organized, lamellar-like bone pattern was produced. In the previous
study, it was suggested that between weeks 3 and 14 of
loading at 2,000 µ
, porous woven bone became consolidated, and
cortical area decreased from 180 to 120% of control values. This is in
contrast to our study in which the differences between legs in
periosteal new bone area were similar at weeks 6, 12,
and 18. Our study differs from the previous in that lower
forces were applied to create primarily lamellar bone, and the sample
sizes taken at each time point were greater. We observed no evidence of
remodeling or resorption on the periosteal surface, and the pattern of
new bone appeared similar among groups and between legs and remained
consistent with the initial bone. Our results suggest that bone formed
as a result of moderate loading is maintained with continued loading and does not consolidate or diminish in size.
The observed transient increase in formation followed by a period of
maintenance with continued loading is consistent with previous loading
studies. Although not originally presented in the same context, the
isolated rooster ulna model showed that, when loaded at 2,000 µ
for 36-1,800 cycles/day, ulnar bone mineral content increased 40%
during the first 4 wk of loading and remained stable from week
4 to week 7 of continued loading (29). After ulna osteotomy
in dogs, radial cortical area increased 15-30% within 1-3 mo
after surgery (4, 5). Periosteal formation peaked at 4-6 wk,
returned to normal by 12 wk, and remained normal at 24 wk after
surgery. Exercise studies have also demonstrated transient increases in
bone formation rate and gains in bone mineral content (36-38).
Similar to the imposed loading studies, rats run on treadmills appeared
to have greater stress-related differences in formation after 9 wk of
training than at 16 wk (36). Gains in bone mineral content and bone
mineral density for both cortical and cancellous bone also appeared
greater after 0-9 wk than after 9-16 wk of treadmill running
(37, 38). These previous studies indirectly demonstrate an incremental
gain in bone area.
Consistent with our model, these other skeletal loading models support
two principles of bone adaptation. First, when a unique load with a
defined magnitude (i.e., 92 N · mm, 120 N · mm, or body wt) is repeatedly applied to bone,
adaptation occurs within a discrete period of time, and formation
returns to a steady-state level similar to age-matched controls.
Second, there is an incremental gain in bone size that is maintained
with continued loading. This pattern would support Frost's (15) theory
of skeletal structural adaptations to mechanical usage. Frost suggests
that bone adapts to a normal range of loads, and, when new forces are
outside the adapted window, bone modeling occurs to accommodate these forces.
The strain threshold for initiating modeling in the isolated ulna and
rat tibia four-point bending models has been reported to be more than
1,000 µ
(30, 33). At 6 wk in the present study, the applied loads
created estimated periosteal strains above this loading threshold. When
analyzed separately, the medial surface (higher, tensile, +1,700
µ
) tended to have a greater formation response than the lateral
surface (lower, compressive,
1,200 µ
), but the differences
were not significant. Compared with estimated strains at 6 wk, the
initial strains may have been greater, and strains at 18 wk were ~8%
lower. Strains at 18 wk still appeared to be above the predicted
threshold, despite cessation of formation. This apparent
conflict with Frost's (15) theory could reflect 1) inaccurate
strain prediction after new bone formation with altered geometry or
2) adaptation to the unique load distribution. Further studies
will be needed to determine actual strain after adaptation and to
determine if strain thresholds are dependent on load distribution
(unique vs. normal or adapted). In contrast to the periosteum,
endocortical formation was elevated through 18 wk of loading, despite
strain levels below threshold. These data would suggest that the
endocortical response is not dependent solely on strain magnitude but
reflects total bone stimulation.
Implications for exercise training. External loading and surgical models apply loads that create similar strain magnitudes but different strain distributions from exercise. Although specific details of loading (number of repetitions, strains, forces) are not directly applicable from external loading models to exercise, the models can offer insight on bone adaptation to mechanical loading. The present study suggests that an exercise or training program that maintains the same loads and activities for many years (i.e., marathon running) would stimulate formation only during the initial months of training. It has been recognized for some time that, with muscle strength training, periodization of the resistance program is necessary to alter the loading stimuli and maximize results (8, 22, 24, 32). It seems reasonable that bone would have a similar yet slightly slower response than muscle, and, once the demands of a load have been meet, increased stimuli would be necessary to cause further cellular activation. Therefore, long-term exercise may maintain bone mass at above normal levels with normal levels of cell activity.
In conclusion, external loading in four-point bending at 1,200-1,700 µ
stimulated periosteal lamellar bone formation.
Similar to other long-term bone studies, periosteal formation is
elevated transiently for 6-12 wk and returns to age-matched
control levels by week 18 of loading. After 12 wk of loading,
bone adaptation reached a steady state, with no differences in the
newBTh or MAR. Loading that continued beyond week 12 appeared
to only maintain the current bone status. Because bone adapts rapidly
to a consistent loading pattern, loads should be increased
incrementally with time, perhaps every 6 wk, to continue stimulation of
formation. In designing future loading experiments, bone cell activity
should be examined during the transient period, and mechanical
properties should be examined after adaptation is complete.
| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We thank Rick Hilger, Joel Davies, Hani Tadros, Dwayne Belongia, and Toni Coble for assistance in loading and section preparation.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
This work was supported by National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Grant AR-39221, National Research Service Award AR-08144, and a grant from Health Future Foundation.
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: D. M. Cullen, Osteoporosis Research Center, Creighton Univ., 601 N. 30th St. #4820, Omaha, NE 68131 (E-mail: dcullen{at}creighton.edu).
Received 1 July 1999; accepted in final form 11 January 2000.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
1.
Akhter, MP,
Raab DM,
Turner CH,
Kimmel DB,
and
Recker RR.
Characterization of in vivo strain in the rat tibia during external application of a four-point bending load.
J Biomech
25:
1241-1246,
1992[Web of Science][Medline].
2.
Baron, R,
Vignery A,
Neff L,
Silverglate A,
and
SantaMaria A.
Processing of undecalcified bone specimens for bone histomorphometry.
In: Bone Histomorphometry Techniques, edited by Recker RR.. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 1983, p. 13-36.
3.
Boppart, MD,
Kimmel DB,
Yee JA,
and
Cullen DM.
Time course of osteoblast appearance after in vivo mechanical loading.
Bone
23:
409-415,
1998[Medline].
4.
Burr, DB,
Schaffler MB,
Yang KH,
Lukoschek M,
Kandzari D,
Sivaneri N,
Blaha JD,
and
Raden EL.
The effects of altered strain environment on bone tissue kinetics.
Bone
10:
215-221,
1989[Medline].
5.
Burr, DB,
Shaffler MB,
Yang KH,
Lukoschek M,
Sivaneri N,
Blaha JD,
and
Radin EL.
Skeletal changes in response to altered strain environments: is woven bone a response to elevated strain?
Bone
10:
223-233,
1989[Medline].
6.
Carter, DR.
Mechanical loading history and skeletal biology.
J Biomech
20:
1095-1109,
1987[Web of Science][Medline].
7.
Chambers, TJ,
Evans M,
Gardner TN,
Turner-Smith A,
and
Chow JW.
Induction of bone formation in rat tail vertebrae by mechanical loading.
Bone Miner
20:
167-178,
1993[Web of Science][Medline].
8.
Chargina, A,
Stone M,
Piedmonte J,
O'Bryant H,
Kraemer WJ,
Gambetta V,
Newton H,
Palmeri G,
and
Pfoff D.
Periodization roundtable.
NSCA J
9:
16-27,
1987.
9.
Chow, JWM,
Wilson AJ,
Chambers TJ,
and
Fox SW.
Mechanical loading stimulates bone formation by reactivation of bone lining cells in 13-week-old rats.
J Bone Miner Res
13:
1760-1767,
1998[Web of Science][Medline].
10.
Currey, J.
The Mechanical Adaptations of Bones. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.
11.
Dalsky, GP,
Stocke KS,
Ehsani AA,
Slatopolsky E,
Lee WC,
and
Birge SJ, Jr.
Weight-bearing exercise training and lumbar bone mineral content in postmenopausal women.
Ann Intern Med
108:
824-828,
1988.
12.
Forwood, MR,
Owan I,
Takano Y,
and
Turner CH.
Increased bone formation in rat tibiae after a single short period of dynamic loading in vivo.
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab
270:
E419-E423,
1996
13.
Forwood, MR
and Parker AW. Repetitive loading, in vivo, of the tibiae and femora of rats: effects of repeated bouts of treadmill-running.
Bone Miner
13:
35-46,
1991[Web of Science][Medline].
14.
Frost, HM.
Vital biomechanics: proposed general concepts for skeletal adaptations to mechanical usage.
Calcif Tissue Int
42:
145-156,
1988[Web of Science][Medline].
15.
Frost, HM.
Skeletal structural adaptations to mechanical usage (SATMU). 1. Redefining Wolff's law: the bone modeling problem.
Anat Rec
226:
403-413,
1990[Medline].
16.
Hagino, H
, Raab DM, Kimmel DB, Akhter MP, and Recker RR. The effects of ovariectomy on bone response to in vivo external loading.
J Bone Miner Res
8:
347-357,
1993[Web of Science][Medline].
17.
Hillam, RA,
and
Skerry TM.
Inhibition of bone resorption and stimulation of formation by mechanical loading of the modeling rat ulna in vivo.
J Bone Miner Res
10:
683-689,
1995[Web of Science][Medline].
18.
Kimmel, DB.
Quantitative histologic changes in the proximal tibial growth cartilage of aged female rats.
Cells Materials
1:
11-18,
1991.
19.
Lanyon, LE.
Functional strain in bone tissue as an objective and controlling stimulus for adaptive bone remodeling.
J Biomech
20:
1083-1093,
1987[Web of Science][Medline].
20.
Lanyon, LE,
and
Bourn S.
The influence of mechanical function on the development and remodeling of the tibia. An experimental study in sheep.
J Bone Joint Surg
61:
263-273,
1979
21.
Parfitt, AM,
Drezner MK,
Glorieux FH,
Kanis JA,
Malluche H,
Meunier PJ,
Ott SM,
and
Recker RR.
Bone histomorphometry: standardization of nomenclature, symbols, and units. Report of the ASBMR Histomorphometry Nomenclature Committee.
J Bone Miner Res
2:
595-610,
1987[Web of Science][Medline].
22.
Pauletto, B.
Let's talk training: periodization-peaking.
NSCA J
8:
30-31,
1986.
23.
Pead, MJ,
Skerry TM,
and
Lanyon LE.
Direct transformation from quiescence to bone formation in the adult periosteum following a single brief period of bone loading.
J Bone Miner Res
3:
647-655,
1988[Web of Science][Medline].
24.
Pedemonte, J.
Historical perspectives on periodization, part 2.
NSCA J
8:
26-29,
1986.
25.
Raab-Cullen, DM,
Akhter MP,
Kimmel DB,
and
Recker RR.
Bone response to alternate day mechanical loading of the rat tibia.
J Bone Miner Res
9:
203-211,
1994[Web of Science][Medline].
26.
Raab-Cullen, DM,
Akhter MP,
Kimmel DB,
and
Recker RR.
Periosteal bone formation stimulated by externally induced bending strains.
J Bone Miner Res
9:
1143-1152,
1994[Web of Science][Medline].
27.
Raab, DM,
Crenshaw TD,
Kimmel DB,
and
Smith EL.
A histomorphometric study of cortical bone activity during increased weight-bearing exercise.
J Bone Miner Res
6:
741-749,
1991[Web of Science][Medline].
28.
Raab, DM,
Smith EL,
Crenshaw TD,
and
Thomas DP.
Bone mechanical properties after exercise training in young and old rats.
J Appl Physiol
68:
130-134,
1990
29.
Rubin, CT,
and
Lanyon LE.
Regulation of bone formation by applied dynamic loads.
J Bone Joint Surg
66:
397-402,
1984
30.
Rubin, CT,
and
Lanyon LE.
Regulation of bone mass by mechanical strain magnitude.
Calcif Tissue Int
37:
411-417,
1985[Web of Science][Medline].
31.
Steinberg, ME,
and
Trueta J.
Effects of activity on bone growth and development in the rat.
Clin Orthop
156:
52-60,
1981.
32.
Stone, MH.
Muscle conditioning and muscle injuries.
Med Sci Sports Exerc
22:
457-461,
1990[Web of Science][Medline].
33.
Turner, CH,
Forwood MR,
Rho JY,
and
Yoshikawa T.
Mechanical thresholds for lamellar and woven bone formation.
J Bone Miner Res
9:
878-897,
1994.
34.
Turner, CH,
Woltman TA,
and
Belongia DA.
Structural changes in rat bone subjected to long-term, in vivo mechanical loading.
Bone
13:
417-422,
1992[Medline].
35.
Villanueva, AR,
and
Lundin KD.
A versatile new mineralized bone stain for simultaneous assessment of tetracycline and osteoid seams.
Stain Tech
64:
129-138,
1989.
36.
Yeh, JK,
Aloia JF,
and
Chen M.
Growth hormone administration potentiates the effect of treadmill exercise on long bone formation but not on the vertebrae in middle-aged rats.
Calcif Tissue Int
54:
38-43,
1994[Web of Science][Medline].
37.
Yeh, JK,
Aloia JF,
Chen M,
Tierney JM,
and
Sprintz S.
Influence of exercise on cancellous bone of the aged female rat.
J Bone Miner Res
8:
1117-1125,
1993[Web of Science][Medline].
38.
Yeh, JK,
Aloia JF,
Tierney JM,
and
Sprintz S.
Effect of treadmill exercise on vertebral and tibial bone mineral content and bone mineral density in the aged adult rat: determined by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry.
Calcif Tissue Int
52:
234-238,
1993[Web of Science][Medline].
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R A Santos-Rocha, C S Oliveira, A P Veloso, M Espanha, and R Dyson Osteogenic index of step exercise depending on choreographic movements, session duration, and stepping rate * COMMENTARY * COMMENTARY Br. J. Sports Med., October 1, 2006; 40(10): 860 - 866. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Umemura, N. Sogo, and A. Honda Effects of intervals between jumps or bouts on osteogenic response to loading J Appl Physiol, October 1, 2002; 93(4): 1345 - 1348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. M. Cullen, R. T. Smith, and M. P. Akhter Bone-loading response varies with strain magnitude and cycle number J Appl Physiol, November 1, 2001; 91(5): 1971 - 1976. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |