A recent study published in the journal Nutrients found that daily prune consumption over 12 months did not improve bone mineral density more than standard calcium and vitamin D3 supplementation in older men with osteopenia, according to a June 11 report.
Researchers assessed the effects of one year of prune supplementation on bone health among men aged 55 to 80 with low bone mass. Participants were randomized into three groups: one consumed 50 grams of prunes daily, another consumed 100 grams, and a control group received a multivitamin without prunes. All participants also received daily supplements of vitamin D3 and elemental calcium throughout the study period.
Measurements included fasting blood samples, anthropometrics, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans for whole-body and lumbar spine bone mineral density, dietary intake records, physical activity assessments, sleep questionnaires, blood pressure readings, resting heart rate measurements, C-reactive protein levels, and several bone biomarkers such as osteocalcin and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b.
The results showed no significant differences between groups in total or lumbar spine bone mineral density after one year. While some secondary biomarkers shifted—such as a greater decrease in osteoprotegerin among controls compared to prune groups—these changes did not correspond to improvements in measured bone density. The study concluded that “one-year prune supplementation did not improve lumbar spine or total BMD in older males,” and “supplementation did not help maintain bone density beyond levels attainable with vitamin D3 and elemental calcium.”
Limitations noted by researchers included the small sample size (62 enrolled; 59 completed), group imbalances at baseline regarding weight and body mass index among controls versus prune groups, COVID-19-related disruptions during the study period, exclusion criteria limiting participants mostly to relatively healthy individuals without major chronic diseases or diverse backgrounds, possible unmeasured confounding factors due to self-reported compliance data instead of objective measures of intake adherence, broad eligibility range for T-scores including those who may not have met strict osteopenia criteria at enrollment, and lack of a true placebo arm without any supplementation.
The authors stated that further research with larger sample sizes and longer duration is needed to better understand whether prunes can impact male bone health.
