the femur was -1.2 (which is a little bad, but not terrible for a 40 year-old) and the lumbar spine was -1.9 (which is very bad for my age). but, that's a big difference. why is my spine so much worse than my hip?
at first, i thought that it was actually worse than stated because they used female references. as male bone density peaks at a higher rate, i'd have to have even worse scores if they used a male sigma.
but, it turns out that the calculation has to do with the area measured, and women should have wider hips than men. so, while men may be expected to have higher bone density, women are also expected to have wider hips. what that means is that if you plug my numbers into the formula then you end up with a density divided by a much smaller frame than i actually have. that is, a woman my age, height and weight would be expected to have much wider hips than i have, so i would be a very narrow-hipped woman, which would suggest a problem, and that might have exaggerated the results; a cis-woman with my hip size, compared to my age and height, would have either been estrogen-deficient as a teenager, or be suffering from severe osteoporosis.
that said, my body shape would also be unusual for a man my age - hormone therapy has made my hips wider than most men and narrower than most women. i'm actually moderately hour-glassed in a dress - most comparable to a thin, tall, lanky woman.
it may be hard to get a good reading for that reason.
so, i'm going to call them in the morning and ask for the full test results, analyzed via both sexes. they don't give you absolute numbers, it's just a standard deviation. and, i may find that this is not as severe as it looks.
i've never broken a bone and don't feel as though my bones are particularly weak.