A 2-yr Randomized Controlled Trial on Creatine Supplementation during Exercise for Postmenopausal Bone Health.

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.

Effects of Ibuprofen and Resistance Training on Bone and Muscle: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Older Women.

INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: Resistance training with ibuprofen supplementation may improve musculoskeletal health in postmenopausal women. The study purpose was to determine the efficacy of resistance training and ibuprofen supplementation on bone and muscle properties in postmenopausal women. METHODS: Participants (n = 90, 65.3 ± 4.9 yr) were randomly assigned to: supervised resistance training or stretching (placebo-exercise) with postexercise ibuprofen (400 mg) or placebo supplementation for 3 d·wk (9 months). Baseline and postintervention measurements included distal and shaft scans of the forearm and lower leg using peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Distal site outcomes included cross-sectional area, content, and density for total and trabecular bone, as well as estimated bone strength in compression. Shaft site outcomes included total bone area; cortical bone area, content, and density; estimated bone strength in torsion; and muscle area and density. RESULTS: Exercise-supplement-time interactions for total bone content at the distal radius (P = 0.009) and cortical density at the radius shaft (P = 0.038) were significant. Resistance training with ibuprofen decreased total bone content (-1.5%) at the distal radius in comparison to the resistance training (0.6%; P = 0.032) and ibuprofen alone (0.5%; P = 0.050). Change in cortical density at the radius shaft differed between the stretching with placebo and ibuprofen supplementation groups (-1.8% vs 1.1%; P = 0.050). Resistance training preserved muscle density in the lower leg more so than stretching (-3.1% vs -5.4%; P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Ibuprofen consumed immediately after resistance training had a deleterious effect on bone mineral content at the distal radius, whereas resistance training or ibuprofen supplementation individually prevented bone loss. Resistance training prevented muscle density decline in the lower leg.

Effects of low-dose ibuprofen supplementation and resistance training on bone and muscle in postmenopausal women: A randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of nine months of exercise training and ibuprofen supplementation (given immeditately after exercise sessions) on bone and muscle in postmenopausal women. METHODS: In a double-blind randomized trial, participants (females: n = 90, mean age 64.8, SD 4.3 years) were assigned (computer generated, double blind) to receive supervised resistance training or stretching 3 days/week, and ibuprofen (400 mg, post-exercise) or placebo (i.e. 4 groups) for 9 months. In this proof-of-concept study the sample size was halved from required 200 identified via 90% power calculation. Baseline and post-intervention testing included: Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total body areal bone mineral density (aBMD); geometry of proximal femur; total body lean tissue and fat mass; predicted 1-repetition maximum muscle strength testing (1RM; biceps curl, hack squat). RESULTS: Exercise training or ibuprofen supplementation had no effects on aBMD of the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total body. There was a significant exercise × supplement × time interaction for aBMD of Ward's region of the femoral neck (p = 0.015) with post hoc comparison showing a 6% decrease for stretching with placebo vs. a 3% increase for stretching with ibuprofen (p = 0.017). Resistance training increased biceps curl and hack squat strength vs. stretching (22% vs. 4% and 114% vs. 12%, respectively) (p < 0.01) and decreased percent body fat compared to stretching (2% vs. 0%) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ibuprofen supplementation provided some benefits to bone when taken independent of exercise training in postmenopausal women. This study provides evidence towards a novel, easily accessible stimulus for enhancing bone health [i.e. ibuprofen].

Final report on the safety assessment of sodium sulfite, potassium sulfite, ammonium sulfite, sodium bisulfite, ammonium bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite and potassium metabisulfite.

Sodium Sulfite, Ammonium Sulfite, Sodium Bisulfite, Potassium Bisulfite, Ammonium Bisulfite, Sodium Metabisulfite, and Potassium Metabisulfite are inorganic salts that function as reducing agents in cosmetic formulations. All except Sodium Metabisulfite also function as hair-waving/straightening agents. In addition, Sodium Sulfite, Potassium Sulfite, Sodium Bisulfite, and Sodium Metabisulfite function as antioxidants. Although Ammonium Sulfite is not in current use, the others are widely used in hair care products. Sulfites that enter mammals via ingestion, inhalation, or injection are metabolized by sulfite oxidase to sulfate. In oral-dose animal toxicity studies, hyperplastic changes in the gastric mucosa were the most common findings at high doses. Ammonium Sulfite aerosol had an acute LC(50) of >400 mg/m(3) in guinea pigs. A single exposure to low concentrations of a Sodium Sulfite fine aerosol produced dose-related changes in the lung capacity parameters of guinea pigs. A 3-day exposure of rats to a Sodium Sulfite fine aerosol produced mild pulmonary edema and irritation of the tracheal epithelium. Severe epithelial changes were observed in dogs exposed for 290 days to 1 mg/m(3) of a Sodium Metabisulfite fine aerosol. These fine aerosols contained fine respirable particle sizes that are not found in cosmetic aerosols or pump sprays. None of the cosmetic product types, however, in which these ingredients are used are aerosolized. Sodium Bisulfite (tested at 38%) and Sodium Metabisulfite (undiluted) were not irritants to rabbits following occlusive exposures. Sodium Metabisulfite (tested at 50%) was irritating to guinea pigs following repeated exposure. In rats, Sodium Sulfite heptahydrate at large doses (up to 3.3 g/kg) produced fetal toxicity but not teratogenicity. Sodium Bisulfite, Sodium Metabisulfite, and Potassium Metabisulfite were not teratogenic for mice, rats, hamsters, or rabbits at doses up to 160 mg/kg. Generally, Sodium Sulfite, Sodium Metabisulfite, and Potassium Metabisulfite were negative in mutagenicity studies. Sodium Bisulfite produced both positive and negative results. Clinical oral and ocular-exposure studies reported no adverse effects. Sodium Sulfite was not irritating or sensitizing in clinical tests. These ingredients, however, may produce positive reactions in dermatologic patients under patch test. In evaluating the positive genotoxicity data found with Sodium Bisulfite, the equilibrium chemistry of sulfurous acid, sulfur dioxide, bisulfite, sulfite, and metabisulfite was considered. This information, however, suggests that some bisulfite may have been present in genotoxicity tests involving the other ingredients and vice versa. On that basis, the genotoxicity data did not give a clear, consistent picture. In cosmetics, however, the bisulfite form is used at very low concentrations (0.03% to 0.7%) in most products except wave sets. In wave sets, the pH ranges from 8 to 9 where the sulfite form would predominate. Skin penetration would be low due to the highly charged nature of these particles and any sulfite that did penetrate would be converted to sulfate by the enzyme sulfate oxidase. As used in cosmetics, therefore, these ingredients would not present a genotoxicity risk. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel concluded that Sodium Sulfite, Potassium Sulfite, Ammonium Sulfite, Sodium Bisulfite, Ammonium Bisulfite, Sodium Metabisulfite, and Potassium Metabisulfite are safe as used in cosmetic formulations.