Research: Explosive Strength and Sprint Running
A new study has been published in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (reference).
The study looked at 6 weeks of Whole Body Vibration training and it’s impact on sprint performance and explosive strength.
Conclusions:
WBV training period of 6 wk, through the muscle contractions it provokes, produced significant positive changes is selected kinematical characteristics of sprint running (step length, step rate and running velocity) and selected explosive strength characteristics (jump height, total number of jumps performed in a period of 30 s) in non experienced sprinters.
The research used a Power Plate machine and 24 young healthy volunteers.
19 Comments
I would consider this study invalid for a number of reasons. Least of them being the generic terms used to discribe the platform used.
If this was attached to an engineers report of the platform , it would at least of made a good starting point.
As the unit they used may have an error rating of +23% > -41% from Fq and Amplitudes shown on outside panel.
- Peter
March 17th, 2007Dr. Gioigos Paradisis, author of the study was kind enough to respond to my question about the sprint training in the warmup for the WBV training group.
“”THIS 6 X 30 M IS PART OF THE WARM UP, THE INTENSITY IS LESS THAN 70% OF
MAXIMUM SPEED AND IS THE STANDARDISED PROSEDURE.”" I agree it is good some studies are being done. But with such random units I dont know how it can be translated to specific evolutionary training for track events such as sprinting.
Or you risk endorsing everything that vibrates. The last thing you want to do is waste someones valuable training time.
I believe the Therapy/Recovery side to Vibration Training can be used by every athlete to help with a consistant upward season. No time off with injury should support this theory alone.
Then comes ” Base Fitness/Conditioning” that can be done all year round to keep your fitness at a level that a sudden build-up to an event should not give reason for concern.
But actual performance enhancement “just” due to Vibration Training is in another league all of its own.
John Weatherly….
Here is an interesting question you may want to ponder and ask in your own way on CP.
If Mark Minters legal statement is correct. About the quality of the unit not being of consequence to the outcome of any research.
Does ScottH from Power Plate agree with this statement which would mean athletes can use a $300 machine instead of spending thousands on their machine. And get the same results ?
- John Weatherly
August 14th, 2008Thanks for the info Lloyd. I haven’t heard anything from Scott H. of Power Plate on my most recent posts. I’ll definitely keep this in mind as a question to ask though.
- John Weatherly
August 14th, 2008Lloyd,
I just tried to go on both the CP and AP sites and both of them are down. As you know, they mentioned before they kicked you off the site (heh,heh!)that they will be relaunching the site and doing other work on it. So, perhaps this is why neither the CP or AP sites are up right now.
Its back up again.
I wonder if they will keep all the old conversations about Power Plate when they change formats , or if they will use it as an excuse to wipe them.
- John Weatherly
August 15th, 2008I bet they wipe out your comments and anything related to Power Plate and ethical problems. Just a guess. We’ll have to wait and see. Power Plate is a “sponsor” of theirs so it wouldn’t surprise me if they deleted anything negative about Power Plate even if this happens to be true. We’ll see how honest and “transparent” they are on that site.
It doesnt matter. The damage to ScottHs and Power Plates reputation has been done. Over 1800 visits.
No one was asking questions just watching the fight.
They came out looking like the dodgy , never a straight answer company they are , and banning me just made them look more guilty.
Job done.
- John Weatherly
August 18th, 2008Well, at the end of last week, I went on the forum at http://www.coreperformance.com and asked specific questions to Scott Hopson, Director of Education for Power Plate. I just tried to go on http://www.coreperformance.com today (Aug 18) and it is down. Surprise, surprise! I wonder if this is because they will be relaunching the site or due to Scott not wanting to answer my questions? If it’s the latter, they certainly are the “dodgy and never a straight answer” company that Lloyd described above.
- John Weatherly
August 18th, 2008Actually, http://www.coreperformance.com is up (Aug 18) - only the forum where I asked the questions of Scott Hopson is down. We’ll see if they put the forum back up with my questions to Scott or not?
- John Weatherly
August 20th, 2008I have to hand it to Ace et al. who are redoing the site http://www.coreperformance.com. They have a new look and so far have not deleted questions about vibration on the forum. This tells me something and we’ll really see when they relaunch the site in the fall. If they keep it open and transparent (but not allowing personal attacks etc.) like they say they are going to do - my hat’s off to them! Kudos to Ace, the gang at coreperformance.com, and Mark Verstegen et al. so far!
Now, if Scott H., Director of Educaiton for Power Plate, would respond to questions?
I think Scott thinks that by trying to ignore or claim its not relevent it will all go away.
It wont, and the main point of him trying to put himself out there as an expert whose opinion is valid and can be trusted will be questioned if he wont answer straight questions about faulty equipment and hence invalid tests being released by the company he represents.
This is the main question he needs to answer before he can move forward and get some respect from readers….
If the true science of Vibration Training , the positives and negatives can not be discussed due to business “conflict of interests” then why is he on a forum ?
I have contacted David Bazzett-Jones to ask him about the opposite statements given by Scott and what David said on here.
Someone is not telling the truth.
If he admits there was a problem but it has been addressed and corrected for future tests , that would at least be moving forward on the issue.
But if they deny there was one , but engineering tests show otherwise , it means they are still faulty , Right?
Its either fixed or its not. They cant have it both ways.
Anyway I want to explore this statement by Scott Hopson ….
“Amplitude is everything….it is gold dust,”
He said this at a IHRSA conference in front of hundreds of trainers and coaches. So John can you put that statement up on CP and ask Scott to clarify it first.
We will then tests it .
- John Weatherly
August 23rd, 2008I just posted a question about amplitude for Scott H. on the forum at http://www.coreperformance.com. We’ll see what he says. He did answer some things. He said he was at an international conference on vibration in Chicago that was run/hosted by Power Plate. How come you weren’t there Lloyd?
This Ace who oversees coreperformance.com said I was starting to repeat myself with my questions to Scott - that they had been answered. Scott did admit the Marco Cardinale stuff was true but - and maybe I’m missing something - he never did answer the questions about equipment reliability and this negating research results. Did I miss this? Did Scott answer questions about equipment reliability testing?
No he did not answer the question , not mine or yours , just did his usual….
” I cant comment because ……”
He did say first off he would be concerned if that has happened, but as soon as we mentioned it was his company that did it , he clammed up.
Sorry but Scott Hopson is brought and paid for.
I really dont like this kind of thing…
Dr. Marco Cardinale doing a satellite symposium for the European College of Sports Science.
The title of his talk is:
“Vibration in strength training: does it work?”This is my problem…
The guy has only ever used a couple of test units that I would not rate as studio models let alone sports models. That is not good science.
More from Scott Hopson
Director of Power Plate Education and Research“If you increase amplitude you will add more load…period. If you add more load (intensity) then it is for sure a higher intensity session. Would you feel it more? yes.”
Ok , finally a clear and precise statement from Power Plates top educator, words like “period” and “yes” are a welcome change from ” Im confused ”
So according to Power Plate higher is harder, now please read the reports below…..
Aleshia Turner
Personal Trainer
(BSpLS); REPS; MBA certified; Ironman competitor; Previous NZ Rowing Training Squad member; Regional Netballer RepresentativeAs a Personal Trainer, I was recently asked to assess the Perceived Exertion level of two unbranded Vibration Machines. These were the settings and position of both machines…
Both machines were set at 40Hz
One set at 0.7 mm
One set at 4mm
A 110 degree static squat was help for 60 sec. on each platform.
The PE of both levels were: 3/10 for the 4mm machine and 9/10 for the 0.7mm machine.
4mm Unit = I would use this for a beginner and someone that was un-trained maybe looking to start easy and progress further after a couple of weeks of regular training. This way they can progress to the harder level found in the 0.7mm.
As Progression is a very important component of exercise and working towards gaining results, whether it be fat loss or fitness. I believe that this level would also be beneficial for rehabilitation of injury in the earlier stages; once again before progressing to the higher, more strenuous level.0.7mm Unit = I felt a big difference immediately by being on this machine compared to the 4mm. It was much more strenuous and therefore more suited for the later stages of training - or as a progression from the 4mm Unit.
This Unit would be beneficial for the more elite or experienced athletes - and of course not just athletes, anyone who is serious about losing FAT and toning up effectively and time efficiently.
Even as a Personal Trainer myself, I would choose to use this 0.7mm Unit for my training as a more effective option (and to save time) instead of spending the extra time I would need doing weight training.Teneka Hyndman
Personal Trainer
Les Mills World of Fitness
Specialist in: Injury rehabilitation , Core training ,Strength training ,Test of Perceived Exertion of 2 Vibration Training devices.
Both machines were set at 40Hz
One set at 0.7 mm
One set at 4mm
A 110 degree static squat was held for 60 sec. on each platform.
(1) What was the Perceived Exertion level on both units ?
- 4mm machine took very little effort to maintain the static squat, I perceived it to be 2/10 difficulty (not difficult at all).
- 0.7mm machine took a lot more effort… It actually felt more challenging the longer you stayed on the machine. I perceived this machine to be 7/10 difficulty (challenging).(2) How does this equate into your understanding as a personal trainer into results for clients ?
.
- 4mm machine felt like it was “shaking my fat” and did not feel like a workout at all.
- 0.7mm machine felt like it was stimulating my muscles, and as time elapsed, the intensity within my muscles increased, making the exercise a challenging workout.Clients would definitely benefit from the 0.7mm machine - more so than the 4mm - as muscles need to be challenged in order for strengthening to occur, or gains in muscle hypertrophy.
Is it my imagination or does that not say the opposite of Scotts Hopsons highly educated opinion ?
Of course I should add that the 0.7mm unit was a specially designed sports model , but according to Power Plate the construction of the machine makes no difference. At least that what they tell athletes.
It would appear that either those trainers know nothing about training and PE , or Power Plate are still lying to the athletic community.
March 14th, 2007
Interesting study. Of note is that the experimental group performed sprint training while the control group did not. I thought the results would speak stronger if this part of the program had been omitted from the WBV’s group training! How can you differentiate the impact of vibration training from the sprint training, in sprint performance increases?
“”The WBV training group was trained for six
weeks, 3 times a week, with at least 1 day of rest between
two sessions, after completion of a standardised 20-min
warm-up of a 10 min run, 5 min stretching exercise, and 6
× 30 m progressive sprints;”"