In this study, the researchers posited this minute improvement in vertical jump could have been due to other, non-WBV training related factors.
Also, the Appalachian State study found that WBV training did not increase any other performance variable. And while the Hypergravity folks didn't site this study, this lukewarm-at-best news didn’t prevent the Power Plate people from using this Appalachian State Study as “proof” that WBV can improve athletic performance.
Let’s move on to the next piece of “research” provided for us on the Hypergravity site, a little piece titled Vibrations and their applications in sport. A review. This is nothing more than a paragraph that summarizes the concept of WBV, makes no mention at all about any sports applications of WBV, and the summary is authored by the person who conducted most of the research he was summarizing.
The best line in this summary is the conclusion, in which the author writes, “The intensity and duration of vibration used in Vibration Training dramatically exceed the standards for occupational vibration established by the International Organization for Standardization.” The IOS is the world’s largest developer of standards.
This means the intensity of the vibrations used in this kind of “training” would not be recommended in the workplace. So one could make the case that even if WBV training did do something, to get these purported benefits a person would have to be exposed to potentially dangerous/injurious levels of vibration. Sounds great to me!
Now onto the link titled, Will WBV training help increase the range of motion of the hamstring? Of course, the author of this study concludes WBV should be recommended to athletes who want to increase their range of motion, but if you look at the study there are some glaring inconsistencies.
Question: What is a WBV training study that includes glaring inconsistencies and design flaws? If you’re a WBV huckster, the answer is “Part of our marketing materials!” Anyway, back to our show.
The problem with this study is that while both groups studied engaged in an active form of flexibility training -- the contract-release method — the WBV training group, immediately before performing each stretching exercise, assumed a 90 degree squat on the vibration platform for 30 seconds while the control group did nothing.
A properly designed study would have four groups — a group that squats on the platform prior to each stretch, a group that does nothing prior to each stretch, a group that assumes a static 90 degree squat on a non-vibrating surface, and a group that performs some type of low-intensity dynamic movement such as jumping jacks or body weight squats on a non-vibrating surface for 30 seconds.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Vic
They're just preying on the fact that many people will do anything to avoid REAL exercise and are forever looking for that magic bullet shortcut.
Not that it's an excuse for trying to rip people off...
Vic
2 - Derek Daniel
Finally! Sal that is some good honest to goodness deconstruction of B.S
WBV has one clear cut winner in all of this. The Galilleo/Vibraflex system. The research is solid, peer reviewed, and independent.
This device seems to be the research reason why WBV is picking up speed and the others are just "jumping on the bandwagon". I bought one for my studio and have had good results with clients over the past 4 months.
3 - Derek Daniel
oh yeah here is their link www.vibraflex.com
4 - sal m
derek:
it doesn't matter what company makes this type of machine, as they are all junk.
as a matter of fact, the flawed study that i mention above in which 50 post-menopausal who were taking Fosomax used WBV, involved the Gallileo contraption.
what possible good result could you have acheived in a 4 month period?
5 - Derek Daniel
Sal: I hear ya but dont throw the baby out with the bath water. i agree it is not the "be all end all" but there is substantial research besides what you mentioned. I followed nearly the same path you did but found a researcher at the NSCA conference who was more of a skeptic than I was and he turned me on to the differences. Trust me I am with you on the BS side of research methods but do a little re-digging on this one and you may be pleasantly surprised. Check the site biblio....it is either www.vibraflex.com or Galileo, I cant spell it.
trust me b4 I dropped 10k I read every one of those studies and got on myself.
I found this blog by total accident...I am glad. nice work
6 - Joan Bias
I tried one of these machines and it vibrated my wallet right out of my pocket and then vibrated hundreds of dollars out of the wallet!
Some stupid people will do anything to avoid getting off the fucking couch and putting down the Doritos. Here's a bestselling, surefire fitness plan: Move more, eat less. That'll be $5000.
7 - Derek Daniel
Don't except bull but don't be closed minded either.
Here is what I came up with during an exhaustive review of WBV.
There are two schools of thought:
1. Straight up and Down motion at speeds(htz) above 30 (power plate, hypergravity, Vibrogym)
2. teeter tooter (balance board) movement at speeds 1-30 htz. (Vibraflex, GAllieo)
The theory behind the two are distinct.
1. PP, etc... it seems tried to elicit a tetonic response
2. Vibraflex, Gallileo, tried to elicit the involuntary stretch reflex (think patella tap) which has been verifed to fire maximally on average at about 20-27 htz (EMG verified).
The planes of motions are also important. I could not figure it out why they just did not choose a motion and apply the different htz but I found out it boils down to a patent. The balance board motion was patented and so no one could copy the Vibraflex/galielo group. OK so my next challenge was seperating all of the research into garbage and decent stuff. Once you seperate the two motions and speeds it becomes lopsided. The Galileo/Vibraflex kills,except for a couple of research docs which I thought were not set up very well(the bone density one Sal mentions was one of three) the rest stood up well. Good researchers, good programs, decent methods for this Galilleo group. The PP was also putting their competitors research on their site and hoping/praying that no one would see that they were espousing the benefits of the research on a device that was not theirs....not a good way to get me to trust them. They have taken it off since and the list is way smaller but still I wanted to see for myself.
Then I got on each one. I liked the PP except the eye pressure made me nervous and they kept making me bend way down into a 90 degree squat, it was weird, why could I not just slightly bend without pain? next was the Vibraflex, it was intense but still somehow felt good, it was a strange feeling. I could not find any detailed commentary in the research on how the subjects described the feeling, not hard enough science I suppose. Anyways, I asked the Vibraflex rep and he had absolutely no good answer as to why it felt different. This is where the researcher at the NSCA last yr got me interested. The teeter tooter (balance board motion) is the natural ambulatory motion, one hip hiking one dropping, etc... The combination of the reflex firing and the natural motion makes the Vibraflex work. It made sense now. I consider it a motor recruitment and circulation tool and so it will be an important PART of my program for my athletes and clients. Not the only part but I have to say I like it way more than I thought I would. The way I see it is that the motor recruitment/neural component is the least understood, most difficult to measure, and so it does require more research as to the mechanism and truly may be awhile before we understand it fully or we may never understand it fully...but it is here to stay. i sent my athletes into pre season with vastly improved reaction times and they were setting personal bests all summer. I also tried it with the "civilians" and they had both positive acute responses and have maintained improvements throughout....hey you all have the benefit of a lot of soul searching because I really wanted to buy a new power rack and a woodway treadmill...
8 - sal m
all the techno-jargon does is purposely confuse/intimidate people to cover for the fact that there is not a shred of research to justify the use of the extremely costly WBV gadgets in place of traditional and proven methods of exercise.
feel free to provide links to any research data that you feel proves that WBV is effective.
9 - Derek Daniel
Sal: the "techno jargon" you mention is basic physiology, you seem to have formed an opinion upon the understanding of that same basic science so you at least owe it to yourself and the blog to counter the argument with some more facts...that is the definition of debate. As I said I think you have good points about the Powerplate being garbage and a few of the studies being weak but this technology has potential and if you disagree by saying there is not a "shred of research" and there is, well then you become the BS. I will try to find the link and send it to you. I only have the hard copies that i printed.
10 - Derek Daniel
it is on the Vibraflex site www.vibraflex.com
I will try to find the exact link for research on the page and outline which studies impressed me
11 - sal m
in an effort to clarify, i think wbv is garbage. the different machines are just different brands of garbage.
the techno-jargon used in the marketing materials is not basic physiology, but irrelevant science that is being severely misapplied misrepresented.
and it is more than just a few bad studies; all of the studies that have been provided by proponents of wbv are demonstrably flawed.
12 - Derek Daniel
Sal: Regardless of your opinion of WBV, I did my due deligence and if you challenge my understanding of the science you had better bring your textbooks to the blog for the next week. Your blanket statements and summaries make you sound like a "bad talk radio" caller.
13 - Derek Daniel
Significant results in a study done by Univ of Miami School of medicine: Researcher was the former Strength Coach of the University of Miami and went on to be the Director of the Miami Project for paralysis (christopher Reeve Project for Paralysis) I would guess he would not buy garbage...
14 - Derek Daniel
I have some patients which I thought would benefit from the pelvic wall strength improvements. Here is a study which showed significant improvement. This German has extremely forward health care philosophy's so I thought this was a very good study.
15 - Derek Daniel
Although this was a postmenoposal research study it confirmed my thoughts on the neural mechanism being the key to the WBV Vibraflex due to summary notes stating that it had a concurrent increase in power and velocity but a neutral effect on force. I realized the neural component was also where I could improve movement patterns for my pro athletes with past injuries which inhibited their movements vis a vis, apprehension, etc..
16 - Derek Daniel
This study was interesting because I wondered about the long range benefits. I was convinced of the acute benefits and this study sealed the deal on my long term considerations. I still cannot understand why in the short term strength decreased and after 6 months bone density increased but nevertheless the results were significant and i dont pretend to know everything.
17 - Derek Daniel
Sal: digest all of those studies and perhaps we can continue a science based discussion on how all WBV is not the same and that although the powerplate and some of the other BS platforms are garbage the one I spent my "hard earned" money on, Vibraflex, has enough research to convince the people who actually know what the hell we are doing to buy it....or just tell everyone the world is flat and fire comes from a firegod....
18 - sal m
derek:
the study that you provide the link to on the orthometrix site doesn't involve a control group, but looks at one group of 20 people all standing on the vibration gadget, and then some measurements were taken.
i don't care who the authors are, a flawed study is a flawed study.
this is just another case of another flawed study conducted by people that have an agenda, just like in the study involving hamstring flexibility that was provided by the hypergravity people.
if this study that you provide for us was legit there would have been other groups involved. since you obviously didn't read the entire critque above i suggest that you familiarize yourself with the concept of control groups.
and since you seem to think that this study proves the efficacy of WBV why don't you explain for us why the increased knee torque experienced by subjects in this study is so earthshattering.
furthermore, you haven't told us what kind of success that you've acheived in 4 months with equipment that costs many thousands of dollars, and why this "success" is better than anything that could be accomplished with other, proven, non-equipment based, less-expensive options.
19 - sal m
and the study on WBV and it's affect on stress incontinence is flawed in that in all three groups, wbv training was used in conjunction with other modes of treatment. given this feature of the study there is no way to make the assumption, as the researchers do in this case, that WBV had any role in improving a person's continence.
20 - Derek Daniel
Sal: You are way off base on assumptions
First off this is INDEPENDENT research!!! Researchers must disclose if they are sponsored. Think GATORADE studies sponsored by GATORADE. You better not have ever had a a gatorade if you are serious about that philosophy of yours. THE GROUP I CHOOSE, VIBRAFLEX, ARE NOT SPONSORING ANYTHING. No plot to take over the world one platform at a time, just a bunch of four eyed researchers trying to stay employed by their respective universities.
Second assumption: These are research subjects, they fill out questionaires. To qualify for any Stress incontinence study you have to have been diagnosed and treated with P.T. And so the study was done in conjunction with P.T. READ THE STUDY
THird Assumption: No one is saying that ALL YOU NEED IS WBV. JUst like no one says ALL YOU NEED ARE PLYO's or ALL YOU NEED IS TO STRETCH. I began this blog agreeing with you on this important point but you are going overboard. Research studies must eliminate certain outside variables and include others. Would a person with stress incontinence be told all they need is WBV? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Should they be told to use it in conjunction with a carefully constructed P.T program, YES, IF THEY HAVE RESEARCH. SEE ABOVE....AGAIN
Fourth Assumption:
Four months are not enough time to get improvement. THis is just nuts. First off most of the research studies that have changed the entire Strength and CONditioning field and PT field are 8-12 week studies. Quick math...12 weeks=3months<4 months= there goes another one of your increasingly wild assumptions.The seminole periodization studies were 12 weeks so where the strength studies, creatine studies. Entire collegiate programs and Pro programs with brilliant coaches who have dedicated their careers to understanding human performance are shaped by studies which are 3 months long. OF COURSE 4 MONTHS IS AN ACCEPTABLE TIME FRAME FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF EFFICACY. I will post some results if I need to but I can say anything, why not read what the research says....and I have 6 other studies to still send you.
Fifth assumption= Percent increases dont matter.You obviously do not train athletes where half a step is = to millions of dollars. Do you care if your running back runs a 4.9 instead of a 4.5? Why do you care? that is only a .4 difference? The entire field of study of strength and conditioning examines how to get incremental consistent improvement so that is why increased knee torque results are important.
Again just listen to what I am saying. All WBV is not the same. There is a superior device, the Vibraflex. you were exposed to the shit side of WBV and now you are being exposed to the up side.
I hope for a better response....
21 - Derek Daniel
Research study done by the NYU school of medicine and the Rusk institute,arguably one of the top 10 research facilities (Spinal cord) in the U.S
Small group due to limitations on spinal cord injury subjects but results promising enough to be published.
http://www.orthometrix.net/downloads/article-10.pdf
22 - Derek Daniel
Bosco was considered one of the best researchers in Human performance. He CLEARLY supports the Vibraflex in this study (26htz) and then goes on to conservatively say it is not a "substitute" but an promising "addition". He shows significant results.
23 - sal m
once again, a study that focuses on the infirm...the results of this study in no way translate to any member of the general population that does not have a spinal cord injury.
the results of this study in no way justify the use of WBV with members of the general population and does not show that WBV can deliver any of the benefits provided by traditional modes of exercise. when you consider that these gadgets can cost upwards of $10,000, WBV training is a loser for 99.99% of the population.
it's great if WBV provides some benefits for those people who are unfortunate enough to have severely compromised nervous systems and are paralyzed as a result of a spinal cord injury. but the reality is that WBV is useless otherwise, but this data does not pertain to the general population.
and rather than parrot the line of the WBV industry why haven't you shared your success stories with us?
24 - Derek Daniel
Bosco uses your control group exactly as you want in this study. NO STRENGTH TRAINING vs. JUST VIBRAFLEX WBV and the group is active as they were a italian univ team.
Also, I hope you are reading these studies correctly. When u see a .07 that does not mean .07 inches that is the statistical variance from standard deviation.
25 - sal m
i don't care who bosco is, the study referenced in the above link compares vertical jump performance between two groups; one group that was subjected to WBV and the control group that did nothing. in the study the author writes that it was expected that the control group would show no improvement in jump performance because itis understood that inactivity cannot improve performance. this is axiomatic.
the data from this study is comparing apples and oranges.
given that all of your studies come from the same web site - the site of a WBV huckster - it is not surprising that all of these studies are so spectacularly flawed that their conclusions are rendered irrelevant.
furthermore, all of these studies are short term and involve people who have never been exposed to WBV training before. these studies do not expose subjects to chronic WBVs because A)it's unsafe and B) there is no long-term, continual benefit from WBV. and there is never a control group that engages in dynamic exercise in these studies because this group would show more improvement - at less cost - than the WBV group.
and again, please share with us your WBV success stories.