Trowman R, Dumville JC, Hahn S, Torgerson DJ. A systematic review of the effects of calcium supplementation on body weight. Br J Nutr 95, 1033-1038

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.
British Journal Of Nutrition (Impact Factor: 3.45). 07/2006; 95(6):1033-8. DOI: 10.1079/BJN20051727
Source: PubMed


Animal studies and epidemiological studies have suggested that Ca supplementation (with Ca supplements or dairy products) may be associated with weight loss in human adults. We aimed to assess whether any association was present by reviewing relevant randomized controlled trials in human subjects. The study was a systematic review and subsequent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that used Ca supplementation as an intervention in persons 18 or more years of age, and that reported body weight as a final outcome. A total of thirteen randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. There was no association between the increased consumption of either Ca supplements or dairy products and weight loss after adjusting for differences in baseline weights between the control and intervention groups (P=0.19 and 0.85, respectively). We therefore concluded that Ca supplementation has no statistically significant association with a reduction in body weight.

Download full-text


Available from: David Torgerson,
  • Source
    • "Ideally, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be used to inform clinical practice [1]. However, there is good evidence to suggest that some RCTs in systematic reviews may be biased because of insecure allocation concealment [2e8]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: There is evidence to suggest that component randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within systematic reviews may be biased. It is important that these reviews are identified to prevent erroneous conclusions influencing health care policies and decisions. Purpose: To assess the likelihood of bias in trials in 12 meta-analyses. Design: A review of 12 systematic reviews. Data Sources: Twelve recently published systematic reviews with 503 component randomized trials, published in the British Medical Journal, The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Annals of Internal Medicine before May 2012. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion if they included only RCTs. We obtained the full text for the component RCTs of the 12 systematic reviews (in English only). We extracted summary data on age, number of participants in each treatment group, and the method of allocation concealment for each RCT. Data Synthesis: Five of the 12 meta-analyses exhibited heterogeneity in age differences (I-2 > 0.30), when there should have been none. In two meta-analyses, the age of the intervention group was significantly greater than that of the control group. Inadequate allocation concealment was a statistically significant predictor of heterogeneity in one trial as observed by a metaregression. Conclusions: Most of the sample of recent meta-analyses showed that there were signs of imbalance and/or heterogeneity in ages between treatment groups, when there should have been none. Systematic reviewers might consider using the techniques described here to assess the validity of their findings.
    Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 06/2014; 67(9). DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.007 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Three systematic reviews, of these two high quality (18, 46, 47) and two randomized clinical trials (37, 48) with body weight and/or obesity as an outcome, were included in this review (Evidence Table 5). No consistent effect was found. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Calcium (Ca) is an essential nutrient for the human body. Despite lively research, there is uncertainty about Ca requirements in terms of desirable health outcomes including an upper intake level above which the potential for harm increases. The aim was to conduct a review to update requirements and desirable or harmful health effects of Ca on the current scientific evidence. We searched Medline and Swemed from January 2000 to December 2011 and included all systematic reviews that reported Ca supplementation or usual Ca intake on health outcomes. Meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials and cohort studies were included in the second search between May 2009 and March 2011 and an additional search covering studies till the end of 2011. This review concentrated on studies reporting independent effects of Ca, although a few recent trials report sole effects of Ca on health outcomes, most trials use Ca in combination with vitamin D vs. placebo. In total, we reviewed 38 studies addressing the effects of Ca on bone, pregnancy-related outcomes, cancers, cardiovascular outcomes, obesity, and mortality. There was a lot of heterogeneity in the study protocols, which made it difficult to draw any strong conclusions. According to the literature, high Ca intake seems to have a small positive effect on bone mineral content (BMC) or bone mineral density (BMD) in children and postmenopausal women. We did not find any consistent evidence on the effects of Ca on bone health in premenopausal women or men. Also, the evidence that Ca supplementation reduces fracture incidence is scarce and inconsistent. Maternal diet may influence the peak bone mass of offspring but more studies are required. There was no overall effect of Ca intake on cancers. Ca was associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer and a slightly increased risk of prostate cancer in two of the three studies. No associations were found with other cancers. We found no consistent association between cardiovascular outcomes and Ca intake except for blood pressure. A small decrease of 2-4 mmHg in systolic blood pressure was found in pregnant and in hypertensive subjects with Ca supplementation. Reviewed studies did not show consistent evidence relating Ca intake to either mortality or obesity. Based on this evidence, there is no need to change the Nordic recommendations for Ca intake. However, due to heterogeneity in the studies it is difficult to interpret the results and provide single summary statement.
    Food & Nutrition Research 05/2013; 57. DOI:10.3402/fnr.v57i0.21082 · 1.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Further, it has been suggested that high calcium intake may influence body weight through increases in fecal fat excretion, fat oxidation, and thermogenesis [69, 70]. However, a recent meta-analysis of childhood calcium supplementation studies reports no significant association between supplementation and any measure of weight or body composition [71], which is supported by the findings of a similar review in adults [72]. Thus, while there is some evidence for plausible mechanisms linking reduced calcium with increased adiposity, the lack of evidence linking calcium intake with changes in actual measures of body composition suggests that reductions in calcium intake do not represent an important cause of the Canadian childhood obesity epidemic. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As a group, Canadian children and youth are heavier than at any time in the recent past. However, to date there has been no critical examination of the factors which are likely to have contributed to these deleterious trends. A review of the evidence suggests that there is robust evidence supporting the role of reduced sleep, increased sedentary time, increased consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, and secular increases in adult obesity as contributing factors to the current epidemic of childhood obesity. There is moderate evidence that these trends are related to changes in either total energy intake or physical activity, while there is very little evidence supporting the role of maternal age, breastfeeding, exposure to endocrine disrupters, or inadequate calcium intake. These findings suggest that targeting sleep, sedentary time, and sugar-sweetened beverage intake in Canadian children and youth may help to prevent future weight gain at the population level.
    12/2011; 2011:917684. DOI:10.5402/2011/917684
Show more