Prunes and bone density in older men over one year
What it found
In 59 older men, eating 50 g or 100 g of prunes daily for a year did not improve total or lower spine bone density beyond what calcium and vitamin D alone achieved.
Some bone and inflammation markers differed between groups, but these did not translate into measurable bone benefits.
What they found
Studies in people
Bone density unchanged
There were no significant changes in total bone mineral density or lumbar spine bone mineral density over the year, and no differences between the prune groups and the control group.
Bone markers mixed
Osteoprotegerin decreased in all groups, but the drop was greater in the control group than in either prune group. Tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b increased in all groups, but the rise was significantly smaller in the 100 g prune group than in the control group. Sclerostin increased over time in all groups with no difference between groups.
Inflammation marker
C-reactive protein was significantly higher in the control group than in the 50 g prune group at all time points, but there was no significant change over time and no difference for the 100 g group.
Other measurements
Systolic blood pressure decreased over time in all groups, including the control. Resting heart rate decreased only in the 50 g prune group. Physical activity, sleep, and dietary intake did not change significantly.
What the authors conclude
“Overall, prune supplementation, regardless of dosing, did not increase total or lumbar BMD or aid in maintaining bone density beyond the levels achieved by Ca++ and vitamin D 3 supplementation in older men susceptible to, or with, osteopenia”
Also in their conclusions
- They conclude that one year of prune supplementation did not increase total or lumbar spine bone mineral density or help maintain bone density beyond what calcium and vitamin D3 supplementation achieved in older men with osteopenia.
- They state that the between-group differences in osteoprotegerin and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b did not correspond to detectable changes in bone mineral density and should be considered exploratory rather than directly indicative of clinical bone benefit.
- They call for further larger-scale and longer-duration studies in this population to fully assess the effect of prune supplementation on bone density and biomarkers of inflammation and bone metabolism.
How it was done
Male bone health is under-researched, and about 53.4 million U.S. adults aged 50 or older have low bone mass. The authors wanted to test whether prunes, which are high in antioxidants, could help older men with low bone density.
They randomly assigned 59 men aged 55 to 80 with a negative T-score down to -2.5 SD below the mean to eat 100 g prunes, 50 g prunes, or no prunes daily for one year. All groups also took a multivitamin with 450 mg calcium and 800 IU vitamin D3. Bone density scans and blood samples were taken at the start and at 3, 6, and 12 months.
What it can’t tell you
- The study was small and had unequal group sizes, so it may have missed small effects.
- The control group took a multivitamin with calcium and vitamin D, so the study cannot show what would happen with prunes alone compared to no supplement at all.
- The results apply to older men with low bone density and may not apply to other groups.
Who paid
- Funding
- Funded by USDA-NIFA (from the PubMed record).
- Conflicts
- The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- Authors work at
- Florida State University, USA; University of Nevada Las Vegas, USA; West Virginia University, USA
The paper
- Title
- Prune Consumption and Bone Health in Older Men: A One-Year Randomized Controlled Trial
- Type
- Randomised controlled trial
- Evidence
- Studies in people
- Summarised from
- Full text
- Licence
- CC BY. Words in quotation marks are the authors’; the rest is our summary.
- Cite
- Ormsbee LT, Akhavan NS, Munoz J, et al (2026). Prune Consumption and Bone Health in Older Men: A One-Year Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients. doi:10.3390/nu18121854Free full textPubMed 42356242DOI
Summary written 30 Sep 2026. Check it against the paper before it changes what you eat. How we summarise papers · Report an error