## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Men**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Women**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Non-Obese**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Obese**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Non-Obese**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Obese**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(N = 208)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\(p\)**} \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(N = 190)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(N = 80)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(N = 296)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(N = 208)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\(p\)**} \\ \hline  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & \\ \hline
**Age (y)** & 22.15 & 2.44 & 22.43 & 2.34 & 0.313  & 21.02 & 2.11 & 21.60 & 2.27 & 0.003  \\ \hline
**Weight (kg)** & 74.27 & 10.50 & 87.79 & 16.29 & \textless{}0.001  & 55.36 & 6.54 & 68.60 & 12.18 & \textless{}0.001  \\ \hline
**Height (cm)** & 180.87 & 7.34 & 180.28 & 7.28 & 0.546  & 167.02 & 6.14 & 166.24 & 5.99 & 0.158  \\ \hline
**BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\))** & 22.66 & 2.49 & 26.88 & 4.16 & \textless{}0.001  & 19.80 & 1.90 & 24.73 & 3.87 & \textless{}0.001  \\ \hline
**WHR** & 0.80 & 0.05 & 0.82 & 0.05 & \textless{}0.001  & 0.73 & 0.05 & 0.74 & 0.06 & \textless{}0.001  \\ \hline
**FBF (\%)** & 13.5 & 3.62 & 25.9 & 5.52 & \textless{}0.001  & 22.2 & 3.75 & 34.5 & 5.20 & \textless{}0.001  \\ \hline
**FM (kg)** & 10.12 & 3.34 & 23.37 & 9.94 & \textless{}0.001  & 12.39 & 2.95 & 24.11 & 7.85 & \textless{}0.001  \\ \hline
**FM arm (\%)** & 66.64 & 32.11 & 255.70 & 229.61 & \textless{}0.001  & 79.53 & 19.24 & 184.15 & 87.58 & \textless{}0.001  \\ \hline
**FM arm (kg)** & 0.43 & 0.21 & 1.67 & 1.51 & \textless{}0.001  & 0.80 & 0.20 & 1.83 & 0.89 & \textless{}0.001  \\ \hline
**FM trunk (\%)** & 109.98 & 44.50 & 267.85 & 94.23 & \textless{}0.001  & 101.56 & 29.38 & 211.85 & 67.14 & \textless{}0.001  \\ \hline
**FM trunk (kg)** & 5.03 & 2.10 & 12.23 & 4.54 & \textless{}0.001  & 5.72 & 1.70 & 11.83 & 3.82 & \textless{}0.001  \\ \hline
**FMI** & 3.09 & 0.99 & 7.15 & 2.89 & \textless{}0.001  & 4.44 & 1.03 & 8.71 & 2.73 & \textless{}0.001  \\ \hline
**FFMI (kg)** & 63.88 & 8.80 & 63.94 & 8.76 & 0.958  & 42.84 & 4.81 & 44.09 & 6.15 & 0.009  \\ \hline
**FFMI** & 19.56 & 2.00 & 19.75 & 1.80 & 0.477  & 15.35 The correlation analysis documented in Figure 2 revealed a significant positive correlation between SOS and the following parameters in non-obese men: LBM (kg; r = 0.15, \(p\) = 0.043), LBM in the trunk, FFM (r = 0.18, \(p\) = 0.015; kg), SMM (r = 0.17, \(p\) = 0.017; kg), BCM, BMI, FM (r = 0.19, \(p\) = 0.007; kg), FM in the trunk, FM in the arm (r = 0.15, \(p\) = 0.038; kg; r = 0.14, \(p\) = 0.048; %), visceral FM (r = 0.24, \(p\) < 0.001; cm\({}^{2}\)), FMI, body weight and height; this indicates that higher values of the above body composition variables are associated with better bone tissue quality. However, no significant correlation was observed between SOS and BC parameters in obese men. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that, with the exception of LBM % at the trunk, LBM % at the arm, FFMI, SMM (kg), BCM (kg), phase angle (\({}^{\circ}\)) and weight (kg), the correlation coefficient was negative in obese men; this means that lower values of these body composition parameters are associated with higher SOS values and thus better bone quality; specifically, the correlation between SOS and BMI (r = \(-\)0.05; kg/m\({}^{2}\)), WHR (r = \(-\)0.15), FM (r = \(-\)0.05; kg), FM in the trunk(r = \(-\)0.05; % and kg), FM in the arm (r = \(-\)0.05; kg; r = \(-\)0.06; %), PBF (r = \(-\)0.06; %), FMI (r = \(-\)0.03), FFM (r = \(-\)0.03; kg) and visceral FM (r = \(-\)0.07; cm\({}^{2}\)). Similarly, in non-obese women, significant positive correlations were observed between SOS and FM in the trunk, arm (r = 0.12, \(p\) = 0.032; %), PBF (r = 0.13, \(p\) = 0.023; %), and FMI, suggesting that higher values of FM-associated parameters were found in women with higher SOS.