Whole-body vibration training: Do the strengthening effects persist in seniors?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose:To determine if the strengthening effects gained from 16 sessions of either whole-body vibration (WBV) or resistance (RES) training persisted for seniors after a 4 week retention period. Participants: 46 community dwelling seniors (mean age = 73.13 years; 27 males, 19 females). Procedures: Baseline measures (T1) were taken after the completion of the training protocol. Measures included fitness testing, a physical abilities questionnaire, and an interview. Retention testing (T2) took place after a 4 week interval where participants engaged in normal daily activities. Statistical analyses: 2 (condition: WBV vs. RES) x 2 (activity level: high vs. low) x 2 (time: T1 vs. T2) mixed factorial ANOVAs were performed on each dependent measure. Results: Performance on the chair stand test was better for participants who engaged in RES training, and for those who were highly active. No significant findings were revealed in the remaining fitness testing measures. The questionnaire indicated that participants perceived walking half a mile less difficult at T2 than at T1. Nearly all self-reported physical ability measures were perceived to be less difficult for highly active participants. Conclusion: Strengthening effects acquired through WBV or RES training were maintained in seniors after 4 weeks of normal daily activities, with little effect of condition or activity level. However, activity level influenced the perception of one's physical abilities.Acknowledgments: Ontario Graduate Scholarship
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".