To the Editor: We agree with Dr. Seeman that exercise during growth increases bone mass better than that in adulthood, and in fact, we were the first to show this with the baseline cross-sectional study of our Finnish female tennis players.1 The current 5-year follow-up of these players examined the effect of reduced training (not complete cessation of training) on exercise-induced bone gain.2 This separation is important because many physically active young people tend to maintain their activities at a reduced fitness level throughout their lives without complete retirement. Dr. Seeman noted that the bone mineral content (BMC) changes in the playing and nonplaying arms were not addressed in out paper. This is not correct because our statistical model (analysis of variance [ANOVA] with repeated measurements) used the absolute BMC values of both arms at both study points as the basis of the analysis, and the absolute BMC values can be found in Table 2 of our paper.2 Relative changes (%) were obtained through a log-transformation of the original variables in the analysis, and by using the antilog-transformation, the description of the results of the analysis was then given in percentages—for easy reading. The results showed indisputably that the exercise-induced bone gain was well maintained in the playing arm of the players during the 5-year follow-up despite decreased training; therefore, the title of our paper was—and still is—correct. Considering the length of the follow-up, we agree that 5 years is too short a period for final conclusions, but our study is one of the longest follow-up periods of a prospective exercise-cohort, and therefore, of salient value. Many other treatment modalities of bone do not provide any long-term follow-up data at all. Will the benefits of a bone intervention be eroded 30 to 50 years after the intervention? No study examining exercise, calcium, vitamin D, or a bone-specific drug has been able to show the long-term effects of such an intervention. In other words, little is known about what happens to bone and fracture risk when the intervention is stopped. The cross-sectional comparison of soccer players by Karlsson and colleagues3 did not provide a basis from which to estimate true secular trends in bone mass, and it was clearly too small to estimate the fracture risks in former players and controls and has therefore been criticized.4, 5 In general, the epidemiological evidence is strong and consistent for physical activity in prevention of osteoporotic fractures,6-11 which has led to exercise receiving a key position in recent recommendations for prevention of osteoporosis, falls, and fractures, such as the recent position statement of the Australian and New Zealand Bone and Mineral Society.12 Concerning our male player peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) study,13 these players underwent the pQCT measurements only once (at the 4-year follow-up), and thus it is impossible to say when and how the changes in the medullary area occurred (during the active years or the less active subsequent period). In the current female player study, the pQCT data were available at the 5-year follow-up point only, and thus the changes in bone size and volumetric density by time could not be assessed. Nevertheless, any benefit in bone size obtained during growth probably does not disappear—a large bone is likely to be a strong bone. With regard to the compliance issue, we see that compliance in any bone intervention is likely to be as problematic as that in exercise studies. It is true that complete cessation of exercise or any other intervention is likely to erode the bone benefit (whether achieved during growth or later on), whereas our current prospective follow-up shows that exercise-induced bone mass in the playing arm of the female racquet sports players can be well maintained with decreased training. We agree with Dr. Seeman that randomized trials are optimal to evaluate whether the reduced level of exercise maintains benefits obtained during growth. However, such trials with long enough follow-ups may never show up, and thus, carefully performed prospective cohort follow-ups are pertinent to receive the best possible answer to this ultimate question. The final answer of whether intense physical activity in growing years, followed by reduced but not stopped activity in adulthood, decreases the risk of fractures later in life may never been available, but the consistent evidence from the previous epidemiological studies and our current follow-ups speaks strongly for it. Moreover, of all the methods of fracture prevention, regular physical activity is the only one that provides other considerable health-related benefits.14 For these reasons, regular exercise can be recommended for both younger and older people.
Read full abstract