Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T14:40:39.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Muscle Dissatisfaction and Muscle-Enhancing Substance Use: A Population-Based Twin Study in Young Adult Men

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2012

Anu Raevuori ,
Anna Keski-Rahkonen ,
Richard J. Rose ,
Aila Rissanen  and
Jaakko Kaprio
Anu Raevuori*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Finland. [email protected]
Anna Keski-Rahkonen
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Finland; Obesity Research Unit, Department of Psychiatry, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland; Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University, United States of America.
Richard J. Rose
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America.
Aila Rissanen
Affiliation:
Obesity Research Unit, Department of Psychiatry, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland.
Jaakko Kaprio
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Finland; Department of Mental Health, National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, Finland.
*
*Address for correspondence: Dr. Anu Raevuori, Department of Public Health, PO Box 41, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland.

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the population-based FinnTwin16 study, proportions of genetic and environmental factors contributing to muscle dissatisfaction and muscle-enhancing substance use were assessed in 319 pairs of twin brothers: 141 monozygotic (MZ) and 178 dizygotic (DZ) pairs. In addition there were 86 twin individuals from pairs in which only one co-twin responded. Of all respondents, 30% experienced high muscle dissatisfaction. The corresponding proportion of muscle-enhancing substance use was 10%. The subjects were similar in age (23.8 years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 23.76–23.84), body mass index (23.7, 95% CI 23.5–23.9), and waist circumference (84.5 cm, 95% CI 83.7–85.2), independent of their muscle dissatisfaction or muscle-enhancing substance use status and independent of their zygosity. The MZ polychoric correlation for muscle dissatisfaction was .39 (95% CI .17–.58) and .27 for DZ pairs (95% CI .07–.46). The MZ tetrachoric correlation for muscle-enhancing substance use was .65 (95% CI .28–.87) and .56 for DZ pairs (95% CI .26–.78). The AE model, where additive genetic factors (A) accounted for 42% (95% CI .23–.59) and unique environmental factors (E) 58% (95% CI .41–.77) of the liability, provided the best fit for muscle dissatisfaction. The CE model, where common environmental factors (C) accounted for 60% (95% CI .37–.77) and unique environmental factors (E) 40% (95% CI .23–.63) of the liability, provided the best fit for muscle-enhancing substance use. Both genetic and unique (nonfamilial) environmental factors are involved in muscle dissatisfaction in the population. Nongenetic factors (both familial and non-familial) appear to best explain the use of muscle-enhancing substances.

Type
Articles
Information
Twin Research and Human Genetics , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , 01 June 2006 , pp. 431 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006