USA and Canada’s #1 Vibration Machine Physical Fitness and Performance Effect of four-month vertical whole body vibration on performance and balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
a 4-month whole body vibration-intervention on muscle performance and body balance in young, healthy, nonathletic adults. Methods: Fifty-six volunteers (21 men and 35 women, aged 19–38 yr) were randomized to either the vibration group or control group. The vibration-intervention consisted of a 4-month whole body vibration training (4 min·d1, 3–5 times a week) employed by standing on a vertically vibrating platform. Five performance tests (vertical jump, isometric extension strength of the lower extremities, grip strength, shuttle run, and postural sway on a stability platform) were performed initially and at 2 and 4 months. Results: Four-month vibration intervention induced an 8.5 % (95 % CI, 3.7–13.5%, P 0.001) net improvement in the jump height. Lower-limb extension strength increased after the 2-month vibration-intervention resulting in a 3.7 % (95 % CI, 0.3–7.2%, P 0.034) net benefit for the vibration. This benefit, however, diminished by the end of the 4-month intervention. In the grip strength, shuttle run, or balance tests, the vibration-intervention showed no effect. Conclusion: The 4-month whole body vibration-intervention enhanced jumping power in young adults, suggesting neuromuscular adaptation to the vibration stimulus. On the other hand, the vibration-intervention showed no effect on dynamic or static balance of the subjects. Future studies should focus on comparing the performance-enhancing effects of a
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".