CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Bone health and osteoporosis researchMuscle metabolism and nutritionNutrition and Health Studies

High protein consumption in trained women: bad to the bone?

Open access
Antonio, Jose, Ellerbroek, Anya, Evans, Cassandra, Silver, Tobin, Peacock, Corey A.·2018·Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
DOI 10.1186/s12970-018-0210-6PMC PMC5793405
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background It has been posited that the consumption of extra protein (> 0.8 g/kg/d) may be deleterious to bone mineral content. However, there is no direct evidence to show that consuming a high-protein diet results in a demineralization of the skeleton. Thus, the primary endpoint of this randomized controlled trial was to determine if a high-protein diet affected various parameters of whole body and lumbar bone mineral content in exercise-trained women.Methods Twenty-four women volunteered for this 6-month investigation (n = 12 control, n = 12 high-protein). The control group was instructed to consume their habitual diet; however, the high-protein group was instructed to consume ≥2.2 g of protein per kilogram body weight daily (g/kg/d). Body composition was assessed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Subjects were instructed to keep a food diary via the mobile app MyFitnessPal®. Exercise or activity level was not controlled. Subjects were asked to maintain their current levels of exercise.Results During the 6-month treatment period, there was a significant difference in protein intake between the control and high-protein groups (mean±SD; control: 1.5±0.3, high-protein: 2.8±1.1 g/kg/d); however, there were no differences in the consumption total calories, carbohydrate or fat. Whole body bone mineral density did not change in the control (pre: 1.22±0.08, post: 1.22±0.09 g/cm2) or high-protein group (pre: 1.25±0.11, post: 1.24±0.10 g/cm2). Similarly, lumbar bone mineral density did not change in the control (pre: 1.08±0.16, post: 1.05±0.13 g/cm2) or high-protein group (pre: 1.07±0.11, post: 1.08±0.12 g/cm2). In addition, there were no changes in whole body or lumbar T-Scores in either group. Furthermore, there were no changes in fat mass or lean body mass.Conclusion Despite an 87% higher protein intake (high-protein versus control), 6 months of a high-protein diet had no effect on whole body bone mineral density, lumbar bone mineral density, T-scores, lean body mass or fat mass.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12970-018-0210-6

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In some populations, as much as a 60% increase from habitual protein intake may be needed to support skeletal muscle hypertrophy in female athletes.

    “a review by Bosse and Dixon suggests that in some populations as much as a 60% increase from habitual protein intake may be needed to support this goal [237]”

    From International society of sports nutrition position stand: nutritional concerns of the female athlete (2023) · cites this paper as [237]

    The Discussion reports that the high-protein group consumed 87% more protein than controls, but evaluates bone health, not how much protein is needed for muscle hypertrophy. The References name a review by Bosse and Dixon, but our copy does not report the claimed 60% increase or attribute that figure to the review. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Antonio, J., Ellerbroek, A., Evans, C., Silver, T., & Peacock, C. A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Health and Human PerformanceNova Southeastern University 3401 South University Drive 33328 Davie FL USA
  • Nova Southeastern University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-01-05
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
6-6
ISSN
1550-2783 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12970-018-0210-6
PMC
PMC5793405
OpenAlex
W2804745384
Cited by
26
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 5
FWCI
3.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutrition and Health Studies
Keywords
high-protein diet, bone mineral density, bone mineral content, protein intake, lumbar spine, body composition, lean body mass, fat mass, T-score, dietary protein
MeSH terms
Diet, High-Protein, Adult, Body Composition, Dietary Proteins, Female, Humans, Exercise, Absorptiometry, Photon, Bone Density, Athletes, Sports Nutritional Physiological Phenomena

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review