Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 584

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Jumping Improves Hip and Lumbar Spine Bone Mass in Prepubescent Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Fuchs, Robyn K., Bauer, Jeremy J., Snow, Christine M.·2001·Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

Abstract

Physical activity during childhood is advocated as one strategy for enhancing peak bone mass (bone mineral content [BMC]) as a means to reduce osteoporosis-related fractures. Thus, we investigated the effects of high-intensity jumping on hip and lumbar spine bone mass in children. Eighty-nine prepubescent children between the ages of 5.9 and 9.8 years were randomized into a jumping (n = 25 boys and n = 20 girls) or control group (n = 26 boys and n = 18 girls). Both groups participated in the 7-month exercise intervention during the school day three times per week. The jumping group performed 100, two-footed jumps off 61-cm boxes each session, while the control group performed nonimpact stretching exercises. BMC (g), bone area (BA; cm2), and bone mineral density (BMD; g/cm2) of the left proximal femoral neck and lumbar spine (L1-L4) were assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA; Hologic QDR/4500-A). Peak ground reaction forces were calculated across 100, two-footed jumps from a 61-cm box. In addition, anthropometric characteristics (height, weight, and body fat), physical activity, and dietary calcium intake were assessed. At baseline there were no differences between groups for anthropometric characteristics, dietary calcium intake, or bone variables. After 7 months, jumpers and controls had similar increases in height, weight, and body fat. Using repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA; covariates, initial age and bone values, and changes in height and weight) for BMC, the primary outcome variable, jumpers had significantly greater 7-month changes at the femoral neck and lumbar spine than controls (4.5% and 3.1%, respectively). In repeated measures ANCOVA of secondary outcomes (BMD and BA), BMD at the lumbar spine was significantly greater in jumpers than in controls (2.0%) and approached statistical significance at the femoral neck (1.4%; p = 0.085). For BA, jumpers had significantly greater increases at the femoral neck area than controls (2.9%) but were not different at the spine. Our data indicate that jumping at ground reaction forces of eight times body weight is a safe, effective, and simple method of improving bone mass at the hip and spine in children. This program could be easily incorporated into physical education classes.

Overview

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 · 10.1359/jbmr.2001.16.1.148

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Fuchs, R. K., Bauer, J. J., & Snow, C. M.
Venue
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research
Published
2001-01-01
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
148-156
ISSN
  • 0884-0431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-4681
OpenAlex
W2024276884
Cited by
584
References
2
FWCI
30.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.