Table 1.
Summary of selected studies by vibration plate, with specification of WBV parameters and intervention duration.
| FitVibe® Excel pro (Bilzen, Belgium), Vertical vibration | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Author / Year | Setting | Sample size (at baseline) | Vibration | Study Design | Result | ||||
| Amplitude | Frequency | Duration | Posture | ||||||
| 1 | Artero et al. / 2012 | Department of Medical Physiology, University of Granada, Spain | 23 Physical Education college students recreationally active (21 men and 2 women, aged 21.8±1.5) | 2.5-5 mm | 20-40 Hz | 8 weeks | Standing position on a synchronous (also called vertical) vibrating platform | Controlled Clinical Trial; 2 groups: placebo plus resistance training (PL+RES= 10), whole body vibration plus resistance training (WBV+RES = 13) | Fat Mass (%): WBV+RES Pre: 22.4 ± 5.4 Post: 20.3 ± 5.8 P-value: <0.001 PL+RES Pre: 20.5 ± 5.0 Post: 19.2 ± 6.1 P-value: 0.116 |
| 2 | Rubio-Arias et al. / 2015 | Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences, UCAM, Catholic University San Antonio, Murcia, Spain | 64 healthy young adults (35 men and 29 women aged 18-25 years) | 2-4 mm | 30-45 Hz | 6 weeks | In the first exercise, the subjects remained with one of their legs in front of the other, at a distance of one meter between the support points of the feet (toes) and with the knees semi-flexed at about 110-120°. In the second exercise they remained in the squat position, on their toes, with their feet separated by about 50 cm and the knees flexed at approximately 110-120°. The third position as similar to the second one but stood on one foot. | Single-blind Randomized Controlled Trial; 2 groups: experimental group (EG=38, 19 male & 19 female), control group (CG = 26, 16 males and 10 females) | Fat Mass (%) EG Pre: 23.67 ± 8.33 Post: 22.99 ± 8.10 P-value: 0.151 CG Pre: 21.98±7.07 Post: 21.34±7.77 P-value: 0.295 Inter groups P: 0.073 |
| Galileo® Sport, (Novotec Medical GmbH, Pforzheim, Germany), Side-alternating vibration | |||||||||
| First Author / Year | Setting | Sample size | Vibration | Study Design | Result | ||||
| Amplitude | Frequency | Duration | Posture | ||||||
| 1 | Connolly et al. / 2014 | NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK | 44 women (aged 29-46 years) | 1.5-4 mm | 12-27 Hz | 16 weeks | Stand on the plate with slightly bent knees and heels touching the board and bring their weight over the forefoot. | Randomized Controlled Trial; 3 groups: soccer group (SG = 13), WBV group (VG = 17) and control group (CO = 14) | Fat Mass (%) VG Pre: 38.97 ± 6.93 ∆: 0.36 ± 1.81 CO Pre: 35.49 ± 8.28 ∆: -0.23 ± 2.04 Fat Mass (kg) VG: Pre: 28.92 ± 9.99 ∆ : 0.37 ± 1.92 CO Pre: 24.90 ± 9.90 ∆ : -0.17 ± 1.98 |
| Power Plate® Next Generation (Power Plate North America, Northbrook, IL, USA), Vertical vibration | |||||||||
| First Author / Year | Setting | Sample size | Vibration | Study Design | Result | ||||
| Amplitude | Frequency | Duration | Posture | ||||||
| 1 | Lamont et al. / 2011 | Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi | 30 men, aged 18-30 with at least 6 months of recreational weight training | 2-4 mm 4-6 mm | 50 Hz | 6 weeks | Subjects stood on a WBLFV platform holding an isometric quarter squat position (knee angle 135 ± 5°) with their feet a little wider than shoulder width apart. Foot position was standardized for all subjects. | Randomized Controlled Trial; 3 groups: control (CON=6), resistance training plus vibration (SQTV = 13) and Training only (SQT=11) | Difference for fat mass was not significant, data was not shown (this publication was excluded from the meta-analyses) |
| Power Plate® Next Generation (Power Plate North America, Northbrook, IL, USA), Vertical vibration | |||||||||
| First Author / Year | Setting | Sample size | Vibration | Study Design | Result | ||||
| Amplitude | Frequency | Duration | Posture | ||||||
| 2 | Martinez-Pardo et al. / 2013 | UCAM Research Center for High Performance Sport, Catholic University of San Antonio, Spain | 38 recreationally active subjects (30 men and 8 women aged 21.2±3.3 years) | 2 - 4 mm | 50 Hz | 6 weeks | Uniform vertical oscillations, subjects stood on the platform holding an isometric quarter squat position with the feet shoulder width apart | Quasi-experimental pretest/posttest (randomized); 3 groups: low amplitude (GL=11), high amplitude (GH=16) and control (CG=11) | Fat Mass (%) GH Pre: 18.3 ± 6.8 post: 17.6 ± 7.7 ∆: -0.8 ± 1.7 CG Pre: 20.6 ± 7.6 Post: 21.1 ± 7.3 ∆: 0.6 ± 1.9 Fat Mass (kg) GH Pre: 13.1 ± 5.9 Post =12.6 ± 6.9 ∆: -0.5 ± 1.4 CG Pre: 13.1 ± 4.1 post: 13.8 ± 3.9 ∆: 0.7 ± 1.4 |
| 3 | Martinez-Pardo et al. / 2014 | UCAM Research Center for High Performance Sport, Catholic University of San Antonio, Spain | 41 recreationally active students (32 men and 9 women aged 21.4±3.0 years) | 4 mm | 50 Hz | 6 weeks | Uniform vertical oscillations , Subjects stood on the platform holding an isometric quarter squat position with the feet shoulder-width apart | Quasi-experimental pretest/posttest (matched design); 3 groups: 2 days training (G2 = 16), 3 days training (G3 = 14) and control (CG = 11) | Fat Mass (%) G3 Pre: 20.7 ± 7.3 Post 19.8 ± 7.4 ∆: -0.8 ± 1.9 CG Pre: 20.6 ± 7.6 post: 21.1 ± 7.3 ∆: 0.6 ± 1.9 Fat Mass (kg) G3 Pre: 14.6 ± 4.9 Post 14.2 ± 5.8 ∆: -0.4 ± 1.3 CG Pre: 13.1± 4.1 post: 13.8 ± 3.9 ∆: 0.7 ± 1.4 |
| 4 | Roelants et al. / 2004 | Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium | 40 untrained women (aged 21.3±2.0 years) | 2.5-5 mm | 35-45 Hz | 24 weeks | Unloaded static and dynamic leg and arm exercises (high squat, deep squat, lunge, biceps curl…) | Controlled Trial; 3 groups: vibration (WBV = 13), fitness (FIT = 15) and control (CO = 12) | Fat Mass (%) WBV Pre: 28.3 ± 1.1 Post: 28.6 ± 1.3 CO Pre: 26.8 ± 1.3 Post: 26.5 ± 1.4 |