CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 536Bone health and osteoporosis researchNutrition and Health in AgingNutritional Studies and Diet

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Dietary Protein on Bone Loss in Elderly Men and Women: The Framingham Osteoporosis Study

Hannan, Marian T., Tucker, Katherine L., Dawson-Hughes, Bess, Cupples, L. Adrienne, Felson, David T., Kiel, Douglas P.·2000·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
DOI 10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.12.2504
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Few studies have evaluated protein intake and bone loss in elders. Excess protein may be associated with negative calcium balance, whereas low protein intake has been associated with fracture. We examined the relation between baseline dietary protein and subsequent 4-year change in bone mineral density (BMD) for 391 women and 224 men from the population-based Framingham Osteoporosis Study. BMD (g/cm2) was assessed in 1988-1989 and in 1992-1993 at the femur, spine, and radius. Usual dietary protein intake was determined using a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and expressed as percent of energy from protein intake. BMD loss over 4 years was regressed on percent protein intake, simultaneously adjusting for other baseline factors: age, weight, height, weight change, total energy intake, smoking, alcohol intake, caffeine, physical activity, calcium intake, and, for women, current estrogen use. Effects of animal protein on bone loss also were examined. Mean age at baseline (±SD) of 615 participants was 75 years (±4.4; range, 68-91 years). Mean protein intake was 68 g/day (±24.0; range, 14-175 g/day), and mean percent of energy from protein was 16% (±3.4; range, 7-30%). Proportional protein intakes were similar for men and women. Lower protein intake was significantly related to bone loss at femoral and spine sites (p ≤ 0.04) with effects similar to 10 lb of weight. Persons in the lowest quartile of protein intake showed the greatest bone loss. Similar to the overall protein effect, lower percent animal protein also was significantly related to bone loss at femoral and spine BMD sites (all p < 0.01) but not the radial shaft (p = 0.23). Even after controlling for known confounders including weight loss, women and men with relatively lower protein intake had increased bone loss, suggesting that protein intake is important in maintaining bone or minimizing bone loss in elderly persons. Further, higher intake of animal protein does not appear to affect the skeleton adversely in this elderly population.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.12.2504

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 59 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Willett, 1990, Nutritional Epidemiology Monographs in Epidemiology & Biostatistics
  2. McDowell, 1994, Advance data from Vital and Health Statistics 255

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–536 of 536

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hannan, M. T., Tucker, K. L., Dawson-Hughes, B., Cupples, L. A., Felson, D. T., & Kiel, D. P.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Tufts University (US)
  • Jean Mayer United States Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Hannan, Marian T.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2000-12-01
Volume
15
Issue
12
Pages
2504-2512
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
DOI
10.1359/jbmr.2000.15.12.2504
OpenAlex
W2087658867
Cited by
536
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 14
FWCI
19.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Arthritis Foundation
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (AR-20613, R01 AR/AG 41398, P60AR020613)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
dietary protein, bone loss, bone mineral density, older adults, animal protein, calcium balance, osteoporosis, sex differences, femoral bone, radial bone
MeSH terms
Adult, Dietary Proteins, Female, Femur, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Osteoporosis, Surveys and Questionnaires, Radius, Spine, Time Factors, Absorptiometry, Photon, Bone Density, Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal

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