Cited by 310Bone health and osteoporosis researchMuscle metabolism and nutritionNutrition and Health in Aging

Dietary protein and bone health: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Darling, Andrea L, Millward, D Joe, Torgerson, David J, Hewitt, Catherine E, Lanham-New, Susan A·2009·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background There has been a resurgence of interest in the controversial relation between dietary protein and bone health. Objective This article reports on the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the relation between protein and bone health in healthy human adults. Design The MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2007) and EMBASE (1974 to July 2008) databases were electronically searched for all relevant studies of healthy adults; studies of calcium excretion or calcium balance were excluded. Results In cross-sectional surveys, all pooled r values for the relation between protein intake and bone mineral density (BMD) or bone mineral content at the main clinically relevant sites were significant and positive; protein intake explained 1-2% of BMD. A meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials indicated a significant positive influence of all protein supplementation on lumbar spine BMD but showed no association with relative risk of hip fractures. No significant effects were identified for soy protein or milk basic protein on lumbar spine BMD. Conclusions A small positive effect of protein supplementation on lumbar spine BMD in randomized placebo-controlled trials supports the positive association between protein intake and bone health found in cross-sectional surveys. However, these results were not supported by cohort study findings for hip fracture risk. Any effects found were small and had 95% CIs that were close to zero. Therefore, there is a small benefit of protein on bone health, but the benefit may not necessarily translate into reduced fracture risk in the long term.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27799

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Darling, A. L., Millward, D. J., Torgerson, D. J., Hewitt, C. E., & Lanham-New, S. A.
Affiliations
University of Surrey (GB)
Corresponding author
Darling, Andrea L
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-12
Volume
90
Issue
6
Pages
1674-1692
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2167366583
Cited by
310
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 19
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
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 › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
Keywords
dietary protein, bone health, bone mineral density, protein supplementation, hip fracture risk, lumbar spine, soy protein, milk protein, healthy adults
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Dietary Proteins, Humans, Risk, Bone Density, Fractures, Bone

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