Critics Demand Retraction of OsteoStrong Study on Bone Health

A recent study claiming that the OsteoStrong exercise program effectively strengthens bones in post-menopausal women has sparked significant controversy among health researchers. The study, published in the *Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism* (JCEM) in February 2025, has been described by experts as 'misleading' and 'flawed' in its design and methodology, prompting calls for its retraction.

The OsteoStrong program, which employs four specialized devices to facilitate brief, high-intensity exercises, purportedly enhances bone density in individuals diagnosed with osteoporosis. According to the study, a cohort of 147 post-menopausal women was divided into groups: one group participated in the OsteoStrong regimen while the other did not, with subsets receiving bone-strengthening medication. The researchers claimed that those engaging in the OsteoStrong program exhibited improved bone density compared to the control group, and that the exercise program augmented the effects of prescribed medications.

However, critics have raised serious concerns regarding the study's validity. Robin Daly, a researcher specializing in exercise and aging at Deakin University, emphasized that the research's design lacked a coherent statistical plan and failed to adequately address potential biases. He stated, 'The claims of the study are totally misleading. They are not supported by the data.' Moreover, the study did not secure ethical approval, nor was it registered in advance—practices that are essential for ensuring research integrity and transparency.

Lora Giangregoria, a bone researcher at the University of Waterloo, echoed these sentiments, expressing worry that the study could mislead patients about the effectiveness of the OsteoStrong program. In a letter to the journal, she and Daly called for retraction due to the serious methodological flaws they observed.

Criticism extends beyond the research community. The Endocrine Society, which oversees the publication of JCEM, acknowledged the shortcomings in the study's design and confirmed that the authors have been instructed to revise and resubmit a corrected version. The society's statement noted, 'We recognize the shortcomings in the research's design and analyses as reported in the online accepted manuscript.'

Chris Maher, director of the University of Sydney Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, emphasized that the study does not provide credible evidence of the OsteoStrong program's efficacy. He pointed to the lack of ethical clearance and registration, stating, 'It therefore does not conform to the Declaration of Helsinki, so it has no standing in medical science and should never have been published.'

Despite the backlash, the OsteoStrong corporation, which operates numerous fitness centers worldwide, continues to promote the program. Perry Eckert, managing director of OsteoStrong Australia, cited unpublished research that reportedly demonstrated 'significant improvement' in bone mineral density among a separate group of post-menopausal women undergoing the program.

Experts generally agree on the importance of exercise in maintaining bone health, particularly for older adults, yet they stress that exercise alone is unlikely to reverse the bone density loss associated with menopause. Dr. Shoshana Sztal-Mazer, an endocrinologist at Alfred Health in Melbourne, noted that while the principles behind OsteoStrong may be sound, the evidence supporting its claims is far from robust. 'Exercise is critical for holistic care, but claims for a 10-minute-a-week program need to be substantiated by rigorous studies,' she said.

This controversy underscores the necessity for high standards in clinical research, especially when it concerns treatments for vulnerable populations such as post-menopausal women. As the situation develops, the implications for both OsteoStrong and its participants remain uncertain, highlighting the critical need for transparency and rigor in health-related studies.