A 2-yr Randomized Controlled Trial on Creatine Supplementation during Exercise for Postmenopausal Bone Health
Chilibeck PD, Candow DG, Gordon JJ, Duff WRD, Mason R, Shaw K, Taylor-Gjevre R, Nair B, Zello GA
Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 24 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Randomized controlled trial (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Government
- CIHR
- Grants
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (130235)
Based on 2 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2023-05-05 · Med Sci Sports Exerc · vol. 55 · issue 10 · pp. 1750–1760
- Publisher
- Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
- Cited
- 36 citations · more than 96% of similar papers · 4.6× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 49 works
- Access
- Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Research areas
- Muscle metabolism and nutrition · Bone health and osteoporosis research · Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
- Keywords
- Creatine, Randomized controlled trial, Bone health, Physical therapy, Medicine, Postmenopausal women, Internal medicine, Physical medicine and rehabilitation, Osteoporosis, Bone mineral
- MeSH
- femur neck, humans, osteoporosis, postmenopausal, creatine, double-blind method, postmenopause, bone density, dietary supplements, middle aged, female
9 authors
From CA
- Philip David Chilibeck · correspondingUniversity of Saskatchewan
- Darren Glenn CandowUniversity of Regina
- Julianne J. GordonUniversity of Saskatchewan
- WHITNEY R. D. DUFFUniversity of Saskatchewan
- Riley MasonUniversity of Saskatchewan
- Keely A. ShawUniversity of Saskatchewan
Abstract
Purpose
Our purpose was to examine the effects of 2 yr of creatine monohydrate supplementation and exercise on bone health in postmenopausal women.
Methods
Two hundred and thirty-seven postmenopausal women (mean age, 59 yr) were randomized to receive creatine (0.14 g·kg -1 ·d -1 ) or placebo during a resistance training (3 d·wk -1 ) and walking (6 d·wk -1 ) program for 2 yr. Our primary outcome was the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), with lumbar spine BMD and proximal femur geometric properties as the secondary outcomes.
Results
Compared with placebo, creatine supplementation had no effect on BMD of the femoral neck (creatine: 0.725 ± 0.110 to 0.712 ± 0.100 g·cm -2 ; placebo: 0.721 ± 0.102 to 0.706 ± 0.097 g·cm -2 ), total hip (creatine: 0.879 ± 0.118 to 0.872 ± 0.114 g·cm -2 ; placebo: 0.881 ± 0.111 to 0.873 ± 0.109 g·cm -2 ), or lumbar spine (creatine: 0.932 ± 0.133 to 0.925 ± 0.131 g·cm -2 ; placebo: 0.923 ± 0.145 to 0.915 ± 0.143 g·cm -2 ). Creatine significantly maintained section modulus (1.35 ± 0.29 to 1.34 ± 0.26 vs 1.34 ± 0.25 to 1.28 ± 0.23 cm 3 (placebo), P = 0.0011), predictive of bone bending strength, and buckling ratio (10.8 ± 2.6 to 11.1 ± 2.2 vs 11.0 ± 2.6 to 11.6 ± 2.7 (placebo), P = 0.011), predictive of reduced cortical bending under compressive loads, at the narrow part of the femoral neck. Creatine reduced walking time over 80 m (48.6 ± 5.6 to 47.1 ± 5.4 vs 48.3 ± 4.5 to 48.2 ± 4.9 s (placebo), P = 0.0008) but had no effect on muscular strength (i.e., one-repetition maximum) during bench press (32.1 ± 12.7 to 42.6 ± 14.1 vs 30.6 ± 10.9 to 41.4 ± 14 kg (placebo)) and hack squat (57.6 ± 21.6 to 84.4 ± 28.1 vs 56.6 ± 24.0 to 82.7 ± 25.0 kg (placebo)). In the subanalysis of valid completers, creatine increased lean tissue mass compared with placebo (40.8 ± 5.7 to 43.1 ± 5.9 vs 40.4 ± 5.3 to 42.0 ± 5.2 kg (placebo), P = 0.046).
Conclusions
Two years of creatine supplementation and exercise in postmenopausal women had no effect on BMD; yet, it improved some bone geometric properties at the proximal femur.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC-ND).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.