↓ Skip to main content

Progressive High-Intensity Resistance Training and Bone Mineral Density Changes Among Premenopausal Women

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
Title
Progressive High-Intensity Resistance Training and Bone Mineral Density Changes Among Premenopausal Women
Published in
Sports Medicine, October 2012
DOI 10.2165/00007256-200636080-00005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marrissa Martyn-St James, Sean Carroll

Abstract

Regular weight-bearing physical activity has been widely recommended for adult women and may be beneficial in preserving bone mineral density (BMD). However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of resistance training on BMD in premenopausal women. Novel systematic review and meta-analysis evidence is presented on the effects of progressive high-intensity resistance training on BMD in premenopausal women. Structured computer searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, SportDiscus and Evidence Based Medicine Reviews Multifile were undertaken along with hand-searching of key journals and reference lists to locate relevant studies published up to September 2004. Criteria for included studies were published controlled studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of progressive, high-intensity resistance training studies on BMD in premenopausal women. Two authors reached consensus on all included and excluded studies. Study outcomes for analysis were radiographic BMD assessment from first follow-up at lumbar spine and femoral neck. Primary outcomes for analysis were absolute changes in BMD g/cm(2) at lumbar spine and femoral neck. Relative changes (percentage change) in BMD at lumbar spine were also assessed. Data were extracted from studies including study design, participant characteristics and treatment mode, intensity and duration, using electronic data extraction forms. Where necessary, relevant information was obtained by contacting study authors. Methodological quality of studies was assessed using a well recognised three-question instrument designed to assess bias. Informal assessment for small sample study effects and potential bias was undertaken through visual inspection of funnel plots. The weighted mean difference method (inverse of the variances) was used for combining study group estimates. Quantification of the effect of heterogeneity among study outcomes was assessed using the I(2) statistic. Random effects and fixed-effect models were applied according to observed study heterogeneity. Comparisons resulting in I(2) > 50.0% were considered heterogeneous. Where heterogeneity was observed, a random effects model was applied. Pooled estimates of effect were calculated using the Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager (RevMan) 4.2.1 software.High-intensity progressive resistance training was shown to be efficacious in increasing absolute BMD at the lumbar spine (p < 0.00001) but not the femoral neck (p = 0.78) in premenopausal women. The weighted mean difference (WMD) using a fixed-effect model for six controlled trials investigating the lumbar spine BMD change was 0.014 g/cm(2) (95% CI 0.009, 0.019; p < 0.00001). The relative BMD change for this site was 0.98% (WMD [random effects], 95% CI 0.49, 3.91%; p = 0.04). In contrast, studies evaluating femoral neck BMD changes showed no significant BMD change (WMD [fixed effect], 0.001 g/cm(2) 95% CI -0.006, 0.008; p = 0.78). Funnel plot inspection of lumbar spine effects indicated that smaller studies demonstrated larger treatment effects. An asymmetry towards studies with positive BMD outcomes was also noted. The methodological quality score of all included studies was low and no study presented a valid intention-to-treat accounting for participant drop-out (attrition). As such, the modest overall treatment effects for resistance training on BMD among premenopausal women observed in this review may be biased and should be interpreted with caution. It is concluded that further RCTs of resistance training of sufficiently long duration and providing optimum type, intensity and volume of loading, with intention-to-treat analysis are now required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 102 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 26 24%
Unknown 16 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 29 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 18 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,660,035
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,906
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,575
of 202,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#417
of 979 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 202,129 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 979 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.