Effects of Ibuprofen and Resistance Training on Bone and Muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".