Addition of Whole-Body Vibration to Static Semi-Squat Exercise Has Minimal Affect on Selected Cardiovascular Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, whole-body vibration (WBV) exercise has been promoted as a new training modality. However, limited data are available on the cardiovascular (CV) effects of WBV leading to apprehensiveness when prescribing WBV training to individuals with CV risks. PURPOSE: To assess the effects of an acute bout of vertical WBV exercise on heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), femoral artery blood flow (BF), and ankle area skin temperature (TEMP). METHODS: Male subjects (n=8) participated in a seated experimental protocol (age=25±3 years, height=178±6 cm, mass=80±10 kg; mean+SD), i.e., feet flat on the WBV platform (knees at 90° flexion). Another 8 males participated in two static semi-squat experimental protocols (age=25±3 years, height=177±7 cm, mass=84±12 kg), i.e., maintained a static semi-squat position (knees at 120° flexion); one with and one without exposure to WBV. All experimental protocols involved 1 min exercise exposure separated by 1 min rest, repeated 15 times (WBV was a vertical vibration stimulus with a frequency of 45 Hz and an amplitude of 4 mm, WAVE™). HR, MAP, BF (Doppler) and TEMP were examined at baseline, after 4, 8, and 12 min of vibration, and at 0.5, 2, 5, and 10 min recovery. RESULTS: Seated Protocol - No significant effects were found over baseline. Static Semi-Squat Protocol - Static semi-squat exercise increased MAP (~10-15 mmHg; p<0.05) but not HR, BF or TEMP. Static semi-squat exercise with WBV had no further effect on HR or MAP but did increase BF (158.73 cm/s; p<0.05) and TEMP (3.1°C; p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The addition of WBV to static semi-squat exercise did not affect HR or MAP but did increase BF and TEMP significantly. This suggests that WBV is not a significant additive stress on the CV system in healthy young men. Further investigation of the increase in BF is warranted for possible exercise warm-up and/or rehabilitation benefits. Supported in part by Wave Manufacturing Inc., Windsor, Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".