Effect of resistance training with vibration and compression on the formation of muscle and bone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this study we investigated the effects of resistance training with vibration in combination with leg compression to restrict blood flow on strength, muscle oxygenation, muscle mass, and bone formation. METHODS: Twelve participants were tested before and after 12 weeks of resistance training with application of vibration (VIBRA; 1-2 mm, 30 Hz) to both legs and compression (∼35 mm Hg, VIBRA+COMP) to only 1 leg. RESULTS: VIBRA+COMP and VIBRA improved 1 repetition maximum (1-RM), increased the number of repetitions preceding muscle exhaustion, enhanced cortical bone mass, and lowered the mass and fat fraction in the thigh, with no changes in total muscle mass. The mass of cancellous bone decreased to a similar extent after VIBRA and VIBRA+COMP. DISCUSSION: Resistance training with VIBRA+COMP and VIBRA improved 1-RM, increased the number of repetitions preceding muscular exhaustion, and enhanced formation of cortical bone, with no alteration of muscle mass. Muscle Nerve 56: 1137-1142, 2017.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".