Talk:Whole-body vibration/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move

Wikipedia could benefit from a move of much content in the article on "Whole-body vibration", into the article "Vibration training". 81.227.151.159 (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 2007-12-31 Wellfare - to experience good ride quality.

Cleanup

Very, very odd article. Needs serious clean up. The use of the word "remember" in particular is disturbing. Not very encyclopedic. But hey, can't be arsed doing anything about it. 202.89.169.22 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, someone also tagged this with 'wikify'. I'm not sure about whether it deserves an article or if it should be merged. I am glad that the title itself is lowercase, but the article's writing is all uppercase and seems like it's selling a product. I'll try to fix it up by removing this. Tyciol (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This whole article reads like an ad for the industry.--66.92.12.26 (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of translating a patent for a device employing the principle of Whole Body Vibration and was very grateful to find this very informative article. Please do not delete, it may be helpful to others!--Ithunn (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Someone please format the Vibration-is-life picture. 15:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Wellfare - to experience good ride quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellfare - to experience good ride quality (talk • contribs)

Training effects references

Both the short and long term sections have a bunch of oddly listed references. We don't need to list info about them in the midst of the paragraph so can we please encapsulate them into reference tags? I tried doing this and my brain died for the moment. Tyciol (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it really work??

I have done some checking on the web and several seem to feel that it is hype. As one said "If standing on a vibrating platform offered real health benefits, subway riders would be the healthiest lot on the planet. If vibrations were the key to being fit, you’d never see a fat jackhammer operator."

I am not qualified to answer this but I will leave some links for others that might be able to answer better

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/08/30/221211.php http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=7825516&log$=activity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reargun (talk • contribs) 01:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There also seems to be some contradictions. Halfway through the article, the author provides quotes from references that vibration training is comparable to regular training for sprint athletes. In otherwords, there is no additional effect gained from vibration training. This directly contradicts the phrasing earlier on in the article which focuses on rationale of why it works, unfounded anecdotes around Russian cosmonauts, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.131.34 (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read them carefully motivated by personal interest. The first hyperlink leads to an article for a research which has nothing to do with this matter and the second lead to a heavily pov writer who things that is kicking out a myth, but without any referneces. Just bla bla. I'm not sure that are usefull in any way. Sorry! --Kalogeropoulos (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This research is very interesting. A NASA study (See "Good Vibrations" here: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast02nov_1/ ) discusses the vibration frequency of muscle tissue during workloads as being in the 10-100Hz range. Vibration studies on Turkeys used a 90Hz vibration table and studies on humans are being done in the 30Hz range. It is thought that the natural stimulus for bone growth is in the vibrations associated with the contractions of muscle tissue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.142.151.109 (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article does not seem to present a NPOV. It is very rare for a technique like this to be accepted unanimously, and to have excited no opposition, so there needs to be a balanced presentation. It also needs to be made clear whether this is fringe, or generally accepted--with some sourced material. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is not enough research done. I'm not sure yet, but presentation is not balanced you are right--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it really works. What most people don't understand is that exercise is still involved while using a vibration plate. Its not as simple as just standing there. A full body workout will consist of active dips, squats, lunges, planks, shoulder presses, and push ups. A good circuit training style workout on a vibration plate will leave you sore and tired. Ultimately these platforms enhance muscle recruitment during exercise. It is also important to note that this can be used for warm up before resistance exercise and used as a warm down to prevent muscle sorness.

Exercises vary from platform type to platform type. Vertical platforms force less ovement into the body at very high speeds. The faster vibration allows a user to perform fast movements on a vertical platform and still feel the effects of the vibration. Pivotal platforms however feel much more muscularly engaging becasue they force more movement into the body at a lower frequency. Fast motions are restricted on pivotal platforms because a user can match the frequency of the platform and eliminate the effective vibration.

In regards to research. Galileo is created by a medical device company called Orthometrix. They have performed extensive research over the last decade. Powerplate and WAVE have also produced credible research. Medvibe is currently in the middle of a research program with the University of Arizona. All study participants are being tracked over 12 weeks DXA scans, Biodex, and Iso-Kinetic strength tests. Results will be available in the summer of 2010.

-Jon Hyams- Medvibe

Not sure if this is relevant, but this article concerns me. http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/Factsheets/MSH_FS_6_ManualTasks.pdf 168.252.233.190 (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC) That article has nothing to do with whole body vibration as an exercise. It is about using heavy machinery and other devices. Why would anyone even bring that up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.246.118 (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusing with the established WBV definition in the International standard ISO 2631-1

The term Whole-Body Vibration (WBV) is coined in the ISO 2631-1 standard and is also used in the EU legislative Directive 2002/44/EC, where there is both an Action Value and an Exposure limit for WBV. This article should preferably be re-titled as "Vibration training". The article titled Whole-body vibration should only cover WBV as described in the ISO 2631-1. Wellfare - to experience good ride quality (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In principle I totally agree - however please keep in mind that in about 150 publications listed in pubmed the generally used term unfortunately is "Whole Body Vibration (WBV)" and not "Vibration Training". Hence I propose to put in the section again that clarifies, that there is in fact a multiple usage of the term WBV (until about a year ago that was at the top of the article but unfortunately it was removed). Leo013 (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2009 (CET)

Whole Body Vibration - Topic versus Brand Names of Companies

Pages titled Galileo_(vibration_training) and Power-Plate are subtle advertisements for Vibration Machine Brands. They are Not Neutral - It's my opinion they should be merged with this General Article or Deleted Di Heap (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole article seems to have been highjacked by marketers and is fragmented

recent changes are simply marketing by some companies to lean the article to their type of machine. The two main types - pivotal and lineal - have differing actions and are used in different ways. There needs to be balance and clean up - probably a re-write Di Heap (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it to me too. I am working through some clean-up for it. Many of the links seem to be copied from marketing pages. If I find that enough of these are slanted or misquoted, I am considering some wholesale deletions. Rjmail (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Risks

There is no mention of the risks of using such methods. Whilst I am sure they may be beneficial for some people, if however you have existing issues, old fractures, other problems with joints etc, vibration can be dangerous. I know, I bought and used a lateral motion machine and it screwed up an already loose knee that I did not know was a mess, causing me agony. Personally I regretted it, a lot. This whole article is one big advert, it is blatantly biased and completely omits potential risks.Brianpotter32 (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hazards and benefits of vibrations

Risks and benefits of whole body vibration training in older people

May Build Strength—or Pose Risk

[1]

Vibration Exposure and Biodynamic Responses during Whole-Body Vibration Training RPSM (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Cautionary comment

It is and has been widely known by industry and the medical community, that whole body vibration whether hand, arm or or general WBV, especially continuous CWBV, causes medical harm to the human body. It can cause neuropathies or aggrevate existing conditions. it can cause long term lower back disorders, emotional amplifications, loss of coordination, numbness, pain in feet and legs, hands and arms and many documented conditions that would seem to dispute the claimed benefits of this advertised machine. Check the WEB site "EFFECTS OF WHOLE BODY VIBRATIONS ON THE HUMAN BODY". This advertisement does not sound encyclopedic. wkrage - February 27, 2012 - 11:20 A.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.254.184 (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Distinguishing between WBV training vs. WBV as an occupational health/safety hazard

In line with earlier comments made by Wellfare - to experience good ride quality (talk in 2010 and [Special:Contributions/98.249.254.184|98.249.254.184]], I'm doing some work to clarify the difference between these two usages of "whole body vibration" (as well as to clean up & fix the article in other ways). I've already added some stuff to the lede, & will do more over the next few days. Cheers. — Yksin (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff. There seems to be a huge difference between therapeutic use of a controlled vibration machine vs a violent overstimulation using huge amplitudes for extended periods of time (work day) on the human body. If you swung weights around wildly for an 8 hour day you would suffer damage also. This doesn't mean weight lifting is bad for you. Thre is a difference. NASA is doing some studies using this therapy for astronauts in space. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Stress + rest = progress. Neither parameter can be eliminated. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)