Cited by 47Bone health and osteoporosis researchNutrition and Health in AgingHIV-related health complications and treatments

Moderate weight loss in obese and overweight men preserves bone quality

Open access
Pop, L Claudia, Sukumar, Deeptha, Tomaino, Katherine, Schlussel, Yvette, Schneider, Stephen H, Gordon, Chris L, Wang, Xiangbing, Shapses, Sue A·2015·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background Weight loss (WL) negatively affects bone mineral density (BMD) in older populations and has specifically been shown in women.Objective In this prospective controlled trial, we examined variables of bone quality and endocrine changes after intentional WL in men.Design Thirty-eight overweight and obese [mean ± SD body mass index (in kg/m²): 31.9 ± 4.4; age: 58 ± 6 y] men were recruited to either WL through caloric restriction or weight maintenance (WM) for 6 mo.Results There was a -7.9 ± 4.4% and +0.2 ± 1.6% change in body weight in the WL and WM groups, respectively. There was a greater increase in femoral neck and total body BMD and bone mineral content (BMC) in the WM group than in the WL group (P-interaction effect < 0.05). In contrast, there was a trend for the tibia cortical thickness and area to decrease more in the WM group than in the WL group (P ≤ 0.08). There was a decrease in the periosteal circumference in both groups over time (P < 0.01) and no statistically significant changes in trabecular bone. Circulating total, free, and bioavailable estradiol decreased in the WL group compared with the WM group, and changes were different between groups (P < 0.05). Serum total and bioavailable testosterone increased in both groups (P < 0.01). Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D increased to a similar extent in both groups (P < 0.05).Conclusions Moderate WL in overweight and obese men did not decrease BMD at any anatomical site or alter cortical and trabecular bone and geometry. Also, despite increased BMD at some sites when maintaining excess body weight, cortical bone showed a trend in the opposite direction.

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 · 10.3945/ajcn.114.088534

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • Calorie restriction has protective effects on bone quality.

    “Furthermore, trabecular geometry, cortical geometry and strength were no different in individuals undergoing intentional weight loss through calorie restriction or weight maintenance for 6 months324, which suggests that calorie restriction has protective effects on bone quality.”
  • Trabecular geometry, cortical geometry and strength did not differ between individuals undergoing intentional weight loss by calorie restriction and those on weight maintenance for six months.

    “Furthermore, trabecular geometry, cortical geometry and strength were no different in individuals undergoing intentional weight loss through calorie restriction or weight maintenance for 6 months324, which suggests that calorie restriction has protective effects on bone quality.”

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

Authors
Pop, L. C., Sukumar, D., Tomaino, K., Schlussel, Y., Schneider, S. H., Gordon, C. L., Wang, X., & Shapses, S. A.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Shapses, Sue A
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
101
Issue
3
Pages
659-667
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100884683
Cited by
47
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5
FWCI
6.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01-AG12161)
  • NJ Agricultural Experiment Station (0153866)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › HIV-related health complications and treatments
Keywords
weight loss, obesity, overweight men, bone quality, bone mineral density, bone mineral content, caloric restriction, weight maintenance, cortical bone, trabecular bone, estradiol, testosterone, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, bone geometry
MeSH terms
Aged, Behavior Therapy, Bone Resorption, Combined Modality Therapy, Diet, Reducing, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, New Jersey, Obesity, Patient Education as Topic, Risk, Tibia, Weight Loss, Absorptiometry, Photon, Bone Density, Body Mass Index, Caloric Restriction, Overweight, Nutritional Sciences

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