Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The BPAQ: a bone-specific physical activity assessment instrument

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Osteoporosis International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Summary

A newly developed bone-specific physical activity questionnaire (BPAQ) was compared with other common measures of physical activity for its ability to predict parameters of bone strength in healthy, young adults. The BPAQ predicted indices of bone strength at clinically relevant sites in both men and women, while other measures did not.

Introduction

Only certain types of physical activity (PA) are notably osteogenic. Most methods to quantify levels of PA fail to account for bone relevant loading. Our aim was to examine the ability of several methods of PA assessment and a new bone-specific measure to predict parameters of bone strength in healthy adults.

Methods

We recruited 40 men and women (mean age 24.5). Subjects completed the modifiable activity questionnaire, Bouchard 3-day activity record, a recently published bone loading history questionnaire (BLHQ), and wore a pedometer for 14 days. We also administered our bone-specific physical activity questionnaire (BPAQ). Calcaneal broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) (QUS-2, Quidel) and densitometric measures (XR-36, Norland) were examined. Multiple regression and correlation analyses were performed on the data.

Results

The current activity component of BPAQ was a significant predictor of variance in femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), lumbar spine BMD, and whole body BMD (R2 = 0.36–0.68, p < 0.01) for men, while the past activity component of BPAQ predicted calcaneal BUA (R2 = 0.48, p = 0.001) for women.

Conclusions

The BPAQ predicted indices of bone strength at skeletal sites at risk of osteoporotic fracture while other PA measurement tools did not.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rubin CT (1984) Skeletal strain and the functional significance of bone architecture. Calcif Tissue Int 36(Suppl 1):S11–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rubin CT, Lanyon LE (1985) Regulation of bone mass by mechanical strain magnitude. Calcif Tissue Int 37:411–417

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Connor JA, Lanyon LE, MacFie H (1982) The influence of strain rate on adaptive bone remodelling. J Biomech 15:767–781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Turner CH, Owan I, Takano Y (1995) Mechanotransduction in bone: Role of strain rate. Am J Physiol 269:E438–442

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kannus P, Haapasalo H, Sankelo M et al (1995) Effect of starting age of physical activity on bone mass in the dominant arm of tennis and squash players. Ann Intern Med 123:27–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Burr DB, Milgrom C, Fyhrie D et al (1996) In vivo measurement of human tibial strains during vigorous activity. Bone 18:405–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ekenman I, Halvorsen K, Westblad P et al (1998) Local bone deformation at two predominant sites for stress fractures of the tibia: An in vivo study. Foot Ankle Int 19:479–484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lanyon LE, Hampson WG, Goodship AE et al (1975) Bone deformation recorded in vivo from strain gauges attached to the human tibial shaft. Acta Orthop Scand 46:256–268

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Milgrom C, Miligram M, Simkin A et al (2001) A home exercise program for tibial bone strengthening based on in vivo strain measurements. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 80:433–438

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Milgrom C, Radeva-Petrova DR, Finestone A et al (2007) The effect of muscle fatigue on in vivo tibial strains. J Biomech 40:845–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Milgrom C, Finestone A, Levi Y et al (2000) Do high impact exercises produce higher tibial strains than running? Br J Sports Med 34:195–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hurrion PD, Dyson R, Hale T (2000) Simultaneous measurement of back and front foot ground reaction forces during the same delivery stride of the fast-medium bowler. J Sports Sci 18:993–997

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Perttunen JO, Kyrolainen H, Komi PV et al (2000) Biomechanical loading in the triple jump. J Sports Sci 18:363–370

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Salci Y, Kentel BB, Heycan C et al (2004) Comparison of landing maneuvers between male and female college volleyball players. Clin Biomech 19:622–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dolan SH, Williams DP, Ainsworth BE et al (2006) Development and reproducibility of the bone loading history questionnaire. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38:1121–1131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Turner CH, Robling AG (2003) Designing exercise regimens to increase bone strength. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 31:45–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Turner CH, Robling AG (2005) Exercises for improving bone strength. Br J Sports Med 39:188–189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Snow CM, Williams DP, LaRiviere J et al (2001) Bone gains and losses follow seasonal training and detraining in gymnasts. Calcif Tissue Int 69:7–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kriska AM, Bennett PH (1992) An epidemiological perspective of the relationship between physical activity and NIDDM: from activity assessment to intervention. Diabetes Metab Rev 8:355–372

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bouchard C, Tremblay A, Leblanc C et al (1983) A method to assess energy expenditure in children and adults. Am J Clin Nutr 37:461–467

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pluijm SM, Graafmans WC, Bouter LM et al. (1999) Ultrasound measurements for the prediction of osteoporotic fractures in elderly people. 9:550–556

  22. Prins SH, Jorgensen HL, Jorgensen LV et al. (1998) The role of quantitative ultrasound in the assessment of bone: a review. 18:3–17

  23. Wuster C, Hadji P (2001) Use of quantitative ultrasound densitometry (QUS) in male osteoporosis. 69:225–228

  24. Sievanen H, Kannus P, Nieminen V et al (1996) Estimation of various mechanical characteristics of human bones using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry: Methodology and precision. Bone 18:17S–27S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Peterman MM, Hamel AJ, Cavanagh PR et al (2001) In vitro modeling of human tibial strains during exercise in micro-gravity. J Biomech 34:693–698

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McKay H, Tsang G, Heinonen A et al (2005) Ground reaction forces associated with an effective elementary school based jumping intervention. Br J Sports Med 39:10–14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Hert J, Liskova M, Landa J (1971) Reaction of bone to mechanical stimuli. Part 1. Continuous and intermittent loading of tibia in rabbit. Folia Morphol 19:290–300

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Umemura Y, Ishiko T, Yamauchi T et al (1997) Five jumps per day increase bone mass and breaking force in rats. J Bone Miner Res 12:1480–1485

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Robling AG, Burr DB, Turner CH (2001) Recovery periods restore mechanosensitivity to dynamically loaded bone. J Exp Biol 204:3389–3399

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Robling AG, Hinant FM, Burr DB et al (2002) Shorter, more frequent mechanical loading sessions enhance bone mass. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34:196–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Robling AG, Hinant FM, Burr DB et al (2002) Improved bone structure and strength after long-term mechanical loading is greatest if loading is separated into short bouts. J Bone Miner Res 17:1545–1554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Frederick EC, Determan JJ, Whittlesey SN et al (2006) Biomechanics of skateboarding: Kinetics of the Ollie. J Appl Biomech 22:33–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kellis E, Katis A, Vrabas IS (2006) Effects of an intermittent exercise fatigue protocol on biomechanics of soccer kick performance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 16:334–344

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Otago L (2004) Kinetic analysis of landings in netball: is a footwork rule change required to decrease ACL injuries? J Sci Med Sport 7:85–95

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Taaffe DR, Snow Harter C, Connolly DA et al (1995) Differential effects of swimming versus weight-bearing activity on bone mineral status of eumenorrheic athletes. J Bone Miner Res 10:586–593

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bass S, Delmas PD, Pearce G et al (1999) The differing tempo of growth in bone size, mass, and density in girls is region-specific. J Clin Invest 104:795–804

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Bradney M, Karlsson MK, Duan Y et al (2000) Heterogeneity in the growth of the axial and appendicular skeleton in boys: Implications for the pathogenesis of bone fragility in men. J Bone Miner Res 15:1871–1878

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr Rod Barrett and Dr Justin Kavanagh in the data collection phase of the project. There were no external funding sources for this project.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Gold Coast, QLD, 4222, Australia

    B. K. Weeks & B. R. Beck

Authors
  1. B. K. Weeks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. R. Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. R. Beck.

Appendices

Appendix A

Appendix B

Algorithms used to analyse BPAQ responses

Current BPAQ (cBPAQ) algorithm:

cBPAQ = [R + 0.2R(n-1)] x a

R = effective load stimulus (derived from GRF testing)

n = frequency of participation (per week)

a = age weighting factor

(age weightings: <10 yrs = 1.2; 10–15 yrs = 1.5; 15–35 yrs = 1.1; >35 yrs = 1.0)

Past BPAQ (pBPAQ) algorithm:

pBPAQ = R x y x a

 = effective load stimulus (derived from GRF testing)

y = years of participation

a = age weighting factor

(age weightings: <15 yrs = 0.25; >15 yrs 0.10)

Appendix C

Table 6

Table 6 Effective load ratings assigned to common sports and activities from GRF measures of fundamental actions observed in each sport/activity
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weeks, B.K., Beck, B.R. The BPAQ: a bone-specific physical activity assessment instrument. Osteoporos Int 19, 1567–1577 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-008-0606-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-008-0606-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation