Introduction The primary aim of the proposed study is to examine the efficacy of an 8-month supervised, high-intensity progressive resistance training and impact loading programme in comparison with a supervised machine-based isometric exercise training programme using the bioDensity system in older men with low bone mass. We will also determine the safety and acceptability of each exercise training mode. Intervention group responses will be compared with those of a self-selected, non-randomised control sample of sex-matched and age-matched men who will follow their usual lifestyle activities for 8 months.
Methods and analysis Apparently healthy men over 50 years with low bone mass, screened for medical conditions and medications known to adversely affect bone health, will be recruited. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to 8 months of either exercise programme with block randomisation based on presence or absence of osteoporosis medications. A twice-weekly, 30-minute, supervised exercise programme will be conducted for both groups. The primary outcome will be change in femoral neck areal bone mineral density determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Secondary outcomes, assessed at baseline and 8 months, will include: DXA-derived whole-body, bilateral proximal femur and lumbar spine areal bone mineral density; proximal femur bone geometry and volumetric density extracted using three-dimensional hip analysis software; anthropometry; body composition; kyphosis; vertebral fracture assessment; physical function; safety (adverse events and injuries); and compliance. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses will be conducted.
Discussion Whether a high-intensity, low-repetition progressive resistance training and impact loading programme or a machine-based isometric exercise programme can improve determinants of fracture risk, without causing injury, has not been examined in men. Determination of the efficacy, safety and acceptability of such programmes will facilitate formulation of future exercise guidelines for older men with low bone mass at risk of fragility fracture, a group who have previously been under-represented.
Ethics and dissemination Participant confidentiality will be maintained with publication of results. The study has been granted ethical approval from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Protocol number AHS/07/14/HREC).
Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (www.anzctr.org.au)ANZCTR12616000344493; Pre-results.
- isometric exercise
- resistance training.
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors Conception and design of the study: ATH, BKW, SLW, BRB. Obtained the equipment award brokered by Osteoporosis Australia: BRB. Manuscript preparation and editing the final paper for submission: ATH, BKW, SLW, BRB. Preparation of information sheets, consent forms and case report forms: ATH, BKW, SLW, BRB. Participant recruitment and data collection: ATH. Principal investigator: BRB.
Funding This work was supported by Performance Health Systems (Northbrook, IL, USA) with the supply and installation of the bioDensity system through an equipment award (no grant number available) brokered by Osteoporosis Australia (Glebe, NSW, Australia).
Disclaimer The funding sources have no role in the design of this study and will not have any role during its execution, analyses, interpretation of the data or decision to submit the results.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Detail has been removed from this case description/these case descriptions to ensure anonymity. The editors and reviewers have seen the detailed information available and are satisfied that the information backs up the case the authors are making.
Ethics approval Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Correction notice This paper has been amended since it was published Online First. Owing to a scripting error, some of the publisher names in the references were replaced with 'BMJ Publishing Group'. This only affected the full text version, not the PDF. We have since corrected theseerrors and the correct publishers have been inserted into the references.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.