Osteogenic Loading Under the Microscope: What the New Study Really Says

A new paper on OsteoStrong/osteogenic loading just dropped—and social media is buzzing. Is this finally the nail in the coffin, or just another study with design problems? If you’re an OsteoStrong member (current, former, or curious), or you’ve been eyeing osteogenic loading as a shortcut to stronger bones, here’s a clear, level-headed breakdown of what the research actually shows—and how to use that information in your bone-health plan.

Quick refresher: what is osteogenic loading?

In one line: Osteogenic loading uses simulated impact—pressing against a fixed position at near-maximal effort—to deliver a bone-building signal that mimics (but doesn’t require) jumping or heavy lifting.

How it works (in practice): On OsteoStrong’s Spectrum devices, you press from specific joint angles (e.g., ~40° knee bend for the lower body) to achieve a target “growth trigger,” typically expressed as multiples of your bodyweight (e.g., ~4.2× for legs, ~2.5× for posture/upper body). The promise is simple: get over that threshold, trigger the right mechanosensitive pathways, and nudge bone remodeling in your favor—without learning to squat twice your bodyweight.

Why people like it:

• Time-efficient (sessions are often 10–15 minutes).
  
  
• Perceived as safer or more approachable than heavy free weights.
  
  
• Early, small studies and clinical anecdotes looked promising.
  
  

The “bad RCT” from earlier this year (why it didn’t change much)

An earlier randomized study resurfaced interest in osteogenic loading—then drew heavy criticism. Two issues stand out:

• Self-selection bias: Participants could choose their group (intervention, drug, or control). That violates a core RCT principle and opens the door to major bias.
  
  
• Uncontrolled confounders: Hormone therapy (HRT) and other key variables weren’t controlled. Oddly, the control group outperformed the intervention and drug groups—an outcome that screams “design problem,” not definitive evidence.
  
  

Bottom line: that paper was too messy to change clinical practice.

The new study (Sept 20, 2025, Bone): what actually happened

Title: Feasibility, safety and efficacy of OsteoStrong in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density: a pilot study.

Design at a glance:

• Population: 44 postmenopausal women (mean age ~61); 73% with osteopenia, 27% with osteoporosis.
  
  
• Intervention: 8 months; 1 OsteoStrong session/week (10–15 minutes) on four Spectrum devices; brief whole body vibration (~2 minutes pre/post).
  
  
• No control group: This is a pilot study, not an RCT.
  
  
• Screening: Tight inclusion criteria; HRT excluded; minimum protein/vitamin D criteria initially attempted, then loosened to enroll enough participants.
  
  
• Completion & adherence: 38 completed; only 6/44 completed all 34 sessions; median attendance ~23/34.
  
  
• Adverse events: A few events; two possibly device-related (worsening CRPS; sacroiliac strain). No serious device-related events reported.
  
  

Outcomes measured:

• DEXA: No significant changes at lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck. Some tiny ups/downs—not clinically meaningful.
  
  
• TBS (trabecular bone score): Decreased ~1.8% (statistically significant).
  
  
• QCT (CT-based metrics): Several trabecular/cortical measures declined; most changes were within least significant change (LSC)—i.e., could be within measurement noise. Distal radius (upper limb) changes exceeded LSC and were significant.
  
  
• Finite element analysis (strength proxy): No change.
  
  
• Bone turnover markers: CTX averaged 571 → 606 (high bone resorption range); P1NP ~70 → 72 (minimal change). Ratio (formation:resorption) trended slightly worse, but not meaningfully.
  
  
• Function/body comp: Small functional gains; body composition unchanged.
  
  

Growth triggers:
Many participants hit device-specific growth triggers (e.g., 30 lower-body; 32 postural; 31 core; only 9 upper-body). Hitting growth triggers did not translate into measurable bone gains versus those who didn’t hit them.

What the results mean (and don’t mean)

1) No control group changes the story.
Without a matched control, we can’t say OsteoStrong was worse than “doing nothing,” because we don’t know what “nothing” would have done in this cohort over 8 months. In postmenopausal, non-HRT women with higher resorption (CTX 500–600s), maintenance of DEXA over 8 months might actually be a quiet win relative to natural decline. But we can’t prove that from this paper.

2) TBS and some CT metrics trended down.
TBS moving down is not what osteogenic loading advocates would hope to see—especially in a study meant to isolate the intervention. That said, most CT changes were within LSC (i.e., indistinguishable from noise), except at the distal radius.

3) Adherence and exposure likely mattered.
Only 6 participants completed all sessions; average attendance left a lot on the table. In addition, the protocol started conservatively (e.g., ~50% “perceived max” for frailer participants). If you never approach or frequently surpass growth triggers in a progressive, well-tolerated way, the bone signal may be too small.

4) The cohort may not have been “primed” to build.
Excluding HRT likely left participants in a higher resorption state (as the CTX values suggest). Vitamin D insufficiency in a subset and initially low protein intakes (until criteria were loosened) further reduce the odds of seeing a robust remodeling response.

5) Funding/COIs were disclosed.
Yes, OsteoStrong partially funded; the authors disclosed potential conflicts. That doesn’t invalidate the results; it means read carefully (which we did).

So…should you keep (or start) osteogenic loading?

My stance hasn’t changed: osteogenic loading remains a tool—not a silver bullet. This pilot shows no clear bone-density benefit over 8 months in tightly screened, non-HRT postmenopausal women with modest adherence. It also shows low serious risk and some functional gains.

If you’re deciding for yourself, use this checklist:

• Context first: Are your hormones optimized (especially estrogen/progesterone when appropriate; androgens/DHEA as indicated)? Is vitamin D replete? Is protein ≥1.0–1.2 g/kg/day (or per your clinician)? If these aren’t in place, your “bone building” ceiling is already lower.
  
  
• Training foundation: Are you doing progressive resistance training 3–4×/week and an impact/simulated impact protocol that you can safely progress? If not, start here.
  
  
• Expectations & cost: Sessions are short but not free. If you enjoy it, tolerate it, and can afford it, consider it a supplemental stimulus—not the main course.
  
  
• Progress audit (3–12 months): Track BTMs (CTX, P1NP), strength, and—when timing is right—DEXA/REMS/TBS. If nothing moves and you’re consistent elsewhere, reallocate time/money.
  
  

Where does research need to go?

• True RCTs with control groups and adequate duration (≥12 months).
  
  
• Stratified cohorts: HRT vs non-HRT; sufficient vs insufficient protein/Vit D; frail vs robust; prior training vs untrained.
  
  
• Dose/exposure clarity: Progression schemes, adherence thresholds, and “effective dose” to consistently cross growth triggers.
  
  
• Meaningful endpoints: DEXA + TBS/REMS + BTMs + functional strength.
  
  
• Head-to-head comparisons: Osteogenic loading vs well-designed resistance/impact programs.
  
  

Until then, treat osteogenic loading like a specialty accessory: useful for some, insufficient on its own.

Practical takeaways

• Don’t abandon the fundamentals. Progressive resistance + appropriate impact, dialed-in nutrition (protein, minerals, Vitamins D/K), and hormone optimization still move the needle the most.
  
  
• Osteogenic loading can stay—if it fits. If you enjoy it, tolerate it, and it nudges you to train consistently, keep it in your stack while you monitor objective markers.
  
  

Measure what matters. Use BTMs to see short-term directionality, and imaging at sensible intervals to confirm you’re trending right.

Medical Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for personalized medical advice. Always consult your qualified healthcare professional before starting or changing any exercise, nutrition, supplement, or hormone plan, especially if you have osteoporosis, prior fractures, or other medical conditions.