SoloFlex: Weight Loss Claims Untrue
US independent consumer testing magazine Consumer Reports took the SoloFlex for a test drive and was not impressed.
Take a pass. There was no significant increase in calories burned when standing on the vibrating board. Most users who did more than stand said the WBV didn’t enhance their workout. Some panelists said the board was too small–a few actually fell off. Some also complained of headaches, blurry vision, or back pain
How They Tested
Six people stood on the device for 5 minutes, at medium and high vibration, while a metabolic gas analyzer gauged the calories they burned (our measure of “a good workout”). Six other people performed three Pilates sessions on the board, two with vibration and one without. And we had three experts in the science of human movement assess the studies Soloflex cites to support its claims.
The Response From SoloFlex
Soloflex does not make weight-loss claims for our WBV Platform nor do we suggest that it replace regular exercise except for those who cannot exercise because of physical limitations. […]
It takes weeks to see the benefits of any type of exercise program. Consumer Reports magazine should do their homework before publishing such nonsense. Supermarket tabloid reporting may be good for increasing circulation for magazines that do not accept advertising but it does not serve consumers. (source)
Reality Check
Spending 5 minutes to test a piece of fitness equipment is pathetic. It’s a bit like doing a set of dumbbell arm curls, then immediately testing for a strength increase… because there is no apparent gain the dumbbells must not work.
On the flip side - and WBV marketing literature that claims instant weight loss benefits is foolish and misleading. The same must surely be said for cardiovascular gains.
SoloFlex claims their vibrating board will “enhance Pilates, Tai Chi, Yoga and all types of stretching, freebody exercises and weight training” - which is so vague as to be almost meaningless.
44 Comments
This is the first I’ve heard of this workout device, or of vibration training. I’m always open to learning new things; thanks for both the “vibration training” information, and the review of the Soloflex vibrating board.
To further explain the point I made about the uselessness of using a ” metabolic gas analyzer ” during an anaerobic ( anaerobic means “burn without oxygen” ) exercice is this …
The by-product of burning oxygen during aerobic exercise is CO2. This is what they were testing for but anaerobic activity doesn’t use oxygen for movement.
Example….
If they hooked up a metabolic gas analyser to a 100m sprinter , get him on the blocks , bang goes the gun , he runs very fast down the track , crosses the line . One problem the Analyzer will show he hasn’t burnt any energy during his run.
If you leave it on him for about 20secs after the run it will start to give a reading , but it will still be quite low.
Tell the sprinter he hasn’t exercised properly and he’s a slacker , see how fast you get punched.
Exercise is not one simple thing , it comes in many forms and is sometimes harder to understand than most health industry people admit.
Anerobic - ( to burn energy without oxygen )
For those of you into bio/chem the equation below is what the sprinter actually does.
Anerobic exercise uses processes that require another electron acceptor to replace oxygen correct .
Combine that with using the glycolytic pathways and the presence of prokaryotes you have energy without Oxygen.
C6 H12 O6 –> 2C3 H6 O3 + 2 ATP
( Energy released is about 120kJ per mole Glucose )
Important to note: In no way does this let Soloflex of the hook. Their machines is about as Anaerobic as me scratching my ass.
- Harvey
July 10th, 2007Lloyd
It is yet another example of exercise physiology researchers only seeing the world through their ‘endurance-based’ tinted spectacles.
I remember reading (and still do)researchers who endlessly tried testing the effects of creatine supplementation on endurance athletes! shock horror no significant improvements for them! - clearly showing no understanding of energy systems or what it takes to train the body in a specific way!
The same is and will probaly always happen with WBV, particulary in the UK as even now - when you look at an Exercise Physiology module outline on most sport and exercise science degree and masters degree courses you will see that it is dominated by cardio-pulmonary based content and virtually no neuromuscalr content!
- David M. Bazett-Jones
July 12th, 2007Lloyd & Harvey,
Sorry to rain on your parade against researchers and academics. I must speak up and correct your comments. Please note that I am an academic and a WBV researcher in the field of biomechanics and rehabilitation; however, I also have average knowledge of exercise physiology and feel qualified to address this. I am also not affiliated with any WBV manufacturer and I have experienced many myself.
First, it seems the words “metabolic gas analyzer” are a very poor description of what was done in this “study” if we use that term very loosely. This could me a number of tests, but most likely a test of energy expenditure called open-circuit spirometry. Rest assured that this is an appropriate test.
Also, the discussion of anaerobic vs aerobic is not valid. Anaerobic activity (using glucose in the ATP-PC system) is utilized typically for 1-5 seconds with intense exercise and is followed by glycolysis for exercise up to about 45 seconds. It is estimated that intense exercise lasting 60 seconds utilizes 70% anaerobic and 30% aerobic and increases to 50/50 at about 2 minutes. Given that these individuals did the exercises for 5 minutes straight, with no rest, aerobic tests would absolutely be accurate. Even if rest were allowed, these measures still hold given the discussion above.
What disturbs me the most is that the first and most expansive criticism of this article was directed at the individuals doing the investigation and how it was done. While you (Lloyd) are always on your soap-box regarding marketing, I would have expected more of the criticism to be at Soloflex. It just caught me by surprise. From my view, Soloflex is the worst company out there for unethical practices considering there unit is only an off-set motor strapped to a step-board. This is the biggest rip-off of any company in the industry, and then they have the nerve to cite vibration studies on platforms other than their own or even closely related (which pretty much all manufactures are doing). I am very disappointed by this discussion of the Soloflex article thus far.
There is also an obvious misunderstanding of research here (which is very common elsewhere). Research is very difficult and takes a long time. That is the system that research exists in and we must accept it. I did a study in fall of 2005 and am still working to get it published. It showed an increase in vertical jump and my provide insight into the mechanism(s) of WBV. Please note that contrary to whatever is said on this site, the mechanism(s) are not even partially understood. Lloyd’s theories are very provocative and interesting but none of them have been proven by research. Doctors don’t perform surgery based on theories (at least I wouldn’t let one that does near me!) and we shouldn’t blindly accept theories in regard to WBV. And, ironically, WBV would not be where it is today without the research showing that it improves strength (among other things). Please don’t bash researchers when they are a big reason many individuals who comment on this site have jobs. Please do not make assumptions and comments about a group (i.e. researchers/academics) based on a few individuals who have made comments without understanding what they were talking about. As irony would have it, I have read comments on this site that were accepted as truth but are only theories. I would hope the atmosphere improves here so that more constructive discussion can take place.
Your friendly academic,
David(Please do not take my comments personally, as they are only a reaction to the comments made already.)
Fair call David except for a few problems that has manifested itself in companies like Soloflex.
(1) No researcher to date has improved the technology directly involved in building a machine . Research is useless without development.
(2) I have yet to see an engineers report released along with a study so repeated outcomes can be achieved . The basis of all good research is being able to repeat the results. Ask yourself why this has not been done and how much damage to our industry could have been avoided if this simple scientific rule had been followed from day one.
All Universities have engineering departments so testing would have been dead easy. The fact is the researchers didn’t know how important the construction of the unit would effect an outcome. Doesn’t this in itself show a massive lack of understanding , so why would I take them seriously ?
The outcome on consumers … companies like Soloflex can use research unedited to flog their products.
(3) The fact researchers still act upon the assumtion that our relatively new ( in evolutionary terms ) voluntary reflex system runs by the exact same system as our involuntary reflex system is a glaring example of how a limited outlook can halt development. This also explains why so many companies have built dud machines. Trust me they are not all cheap fraudsters, some wanted good units but were not given the full picture by past researhers.
Note : I have built an entire company on my theories , writing equations to match the physics in my theories and then building the machines to replicate that exact function . I will leave it up to history to see if I am right.
Your comment on operations…
You may want to consider this , every operation done was once just someones theory. The operation is just the theory put into practice. In fact every invention you personally use in life was once someone elses theory.
Innovation is what seperates an inventor from an academic.
David…
Here is maybe a constructive line to follow.
On your study you did in 2005 was the unit independently tested by an engineer or was the specs supplied by the manufacturor ?
Eg…Were you supplied with the inherent slippage % of the motors so you could account for them in your figures ? This is just the tip of the iceberg of info that should have been given to you to base a theoretical line with.
The reason I ask you this is to give you an opportunity to show other readers how hard a researchers task becomes if they are blindsided by a lack of real time info from whoever built the unit .
I am relying on your honesty here.
- David M. Bazett-Jones
July 13th, 2007Lloyd,
In response:
1) I believe this statement is inherently incorrect; research is the cause of development. Essentially, you have done your own research when you use your machines in the field and this has influenced your development of your own machines and training programs. However, all of this has not been backed up but independent research. Has the technology improved? I would say yes, at least in the companies that have produced quality products. As research demonstrates an improved understanding of WBV, the technology can be developed to improve the equipment.
Yes, the equipment must first be of some baseline quality to elicit results. However, how can you tell if it is working if you do not know what you are looking for? Nonetheless, these two factors must work hand-in-hand to improve WBV equipment and research.2) Yes, the repeatability is necessary in quality research and is all too often overlooked. This is especially true in some of the initial WBV research. That is why I believe that research should be very descriptive the settings that they are using. In addition, the vibration acceleration *should* be measured independent of the manufacturer’s report (my idealism). Also, product testing must be done by independent laboratories to give both the research community and consumers the knowledge to be able to choose quality machines that will give consistent results. We can only learn from our past mistakes. This is not isolated to the WBV field (many have died in medical studies).
As far as having “engineering reports” done on machines, I would argue that it is the ethical responsibility of the manufacturer to do this testing and report the results. The blame is not on the researchers but the manufactures. Research done at universities is already very cumbersome. What are the standard items that need to be in a engineering report? Slippage %? Is this even an engineering term? I am a fair amount of exposure to engineering and I have never heard this term. Also, no one knows for sure which variable is the most important; amplitude, frequency, acceleration (g-force), etc. How can we be expected to understand the importance of construction (above common sense) when we don’t have an understanding of the mechanism(s). An example of this would be stretching; based on theory we thought stretching helped performance when the truth is that it hurts strength & power performance because we lack understanding of its mechanism. Trust me when I say that researchers are also interested in the advancement of knowledge in regard to WBV. I believe that WBV will be around for a very long time and aid in the treatment of many disorders/diseases. This is a gradual process and everyone must be patient.
3) I must clarify that there is no such thing as a voluntary reflex. The definition of a reflex is “noting or pertaining to an involuntary response to a stimulus (dictionary.com).” I think you will find a lack of understanding common among the manufacturers in the fitness industry (e.g. cheap treadmills vs good ones). But this is the responsibility of the manufactures and not of the researchers. Also, I agree with your unwillingness to sell to individuals. I do not think these machines present the same risk as a treadmill since over-exposure can cause a multitude of negative effects (the industrial vibration field has established this very well). However, that is not my decision and I will work with the world of WBV in the state it is in. I agree that there as some very good machines out there and that there are some very bad ones. As these things go, the good ones stick around and the bad ones go bankrupt.
As far as your theories and equations, I am not knocking them. I am actually very interested to hear them and see them and analyze them. I only want to improve WBV. My only reservation is that equations do not mean proof that those equations are correct. If you are confident, why leave it up to history to see if you are right? Why not work with a/some researcher(s) to see if you are correct. Keeping these to yourself does not advance the general knowledge of WBV.
My comment on doctors performing surgery was only to show that we should put as much trust in WBV research as we do in medical research (since they are becoming intertwined). Every idea and theory must be proven (via research), even when it begins as theory (at least for inventions that may effect humans). And actually, many inventors are also academics and researchers since innovation is a very profitable aspect of research (example in WBV is Bosco developing the NEMES).
- David M. Bazett-Jones
July 13th, 2007As far as my study in 2005, we only measured the accelerations (which were different than the manufacturer’s claimed accelerations). This was done without an individual standing on the plate. However, since we used healthy individuals who were of average weight, we feel that this is not necessary to justify our results. The law of averages will prevail in this situation since we had 44 participants (very good power).
I don’t believe that it is solely the researcher’s task to be the watchdog of manufacturers. But I do agree that the manufacturers should provide all specifications to consumers if requested. I also feel that there are some researchers (myself included) that would like to perform product testing so that consumers can be informed of the true specs.
All that being said, I think Lloyd knows much about the unit that we used since it was a Power Plate Next Generation. We are currently in the stages of testing it for consistency in its vibration and to see how much compression the plate can take before it becomes ineffective. Since I know Lloyd will jump all over that fact that we used a Power Plate (which in my eyes reduces his credibility since he is overly biased against them), I will say that I do feel that it has some flaws but since it is the most recognized platform available, it must be tested. I am in no way married to Power Plate; they were just the only manufacturer that would give me a plate 3 years ago (the industry has literally exploded since then). I am actually willing to provide my lab as a testing center for WBV equipment for any manufacturer that wants to have the product independently tested. Or, if anyone else want vibration research performed on their machine, we are planning studies at 3 different sites across the US. We will test all machines before using and will only use what we feel are the most consistent in quality. (Sorry to market my lab but I am very interested in this stuff).
- Wayne Campbell
July 13th, 2007David
Lloyd has good justification to be Anti Power Plates. Thier continued unethical behaviour is a threat to this industry regardless of what you want to call it.
As you will see from reading this site Power Plate have a long running list of unethical business behaviour. I applaud Lloyds stand against them.
Wayne
Settle down KG , yes this is going to get good….
My points will be simple and hard to dispute but I am sure David in the spirit of this forum will try. I will leave the theory of “how” Vibration Training works till later.
(1) Why was a repeat of the vertical jump height test done ? I have read dozens of these . Are you aware the core of our industry is trying to cure obesity and help the elderly move better. Not make them jump higher.
Remember ,you tested young already healthy athletes ?
(2) Please name in which exact area has the technology improved due to a universities research. I have yet to see a single report that helped me build a better unit or design a safer program.
(3) You mention the ethical responsability of the manufacturor but you voluntarily work with PowerPlate ? Knowing full well your work will probably be picked apart and used for marketing if any positive results are found, whilst burying any negative reports. This fact about PowerPlate was well known by 2005. It was all over the net.
Note: I have seen the documents PowerPlate make researchers sign before they can start tests. Researcher like Dr. Marco Cardinal have refused to sign such documents in the past because of these concerns.
What are you going to do when this happens to you ?.
(4) In the “process” of testing the Plate for inconsistency. This only takes half an hour max and should have been done before any tests were carried out. Note: the test you did was “unloaded” but you are trying to test what happens when you put someone on it ?
Are you aware…
A change of only 3hz can effect an outcome dramatically.
eg…. “Slippage” is how much actual speed is lost between the motors and the Fq inverter ( 2-5%). Some of this is inherent in motors but made much worse by a load and can vary in speed according to the design. Most units will lose about 2hz just in slippage alone.
And again this is only one variable that has to be accounted for.
I am sorry David but I have to say this. Even if your tests show an outcome at a certain speed at a certain amplitude etc… because you had no idea what the Plate was actually doing in Physics terms your results will be impossable to duplicate so will be invalid.
Just like the reports released to date , they will be used very effectively to baffle the public with bullshit by marketers .
Now to make things clear. I am not having a go at you David, in fact the point of this is to help you understand what you are up against as a researcher ( unethical manufacturors , unethical marketers , public perception etc.. ) so if we ever do meet , which I am sure is a fate accompli by now , we are heading in the same direction.
When we do meet I pledge to give you “everything” you need to do your job effectively.
- David M. Bazett-Jones
July 17th, 2007Answering all parts of the discussion. Sorry it is so detailed but I feel that things have been left out.
(0) “My points will be simple and hard to dispute but I am sure David in the spirit of this forum will try.”
It seems that you are not open to debate and have already concluded that you know everything about WBV, manufacturing the machines, understanding the mechanisms, etc. While I know that you are not willing to have a proper debate (e.g. both sides can acknowledge when the other is correct or has a valid position), I am hoping that the others will benefit from these comments.
(1a) “Why was a repeat of the vertical jump height test done? I have read dozens of these. Are you aware the core of our industry is trying to cure obesity and help the elderly move better. Not make them jump higher.”
A vertical jump test is simple and most people can do it. In research, we must try to get rid of as many variables as we can that we cannot account for. This is VERY hard. So, we use a simple test. In addition, when you want to understand something, you need to look at it in its simplest form (e.g. cancer researchers look at cells instead of first pumping chemicals into patients). Since we are trying to gain insight into the mechanisms of WBV (how it works), we keep it simple. We cannot truly look at curing obesity and helping the elderly move until we know how it works.
Lastly, vertical jump in the elderly is a very good measure of how well an intervention works. For example, when looking at a fall-prevention intervention, you can use vertical jump. When someone falls, they somehow were not able to react quickly to the stimulus that made them fall. This requires fast-twitch muscle fibers (which go bye-bye as we age) and so does vertical jump. Therefore, looking at vertical jump is directly related to being able to fire those fibers and react to a falling stimulus.
(1b) “Remember ,you tested young already healthy athletes?”
Yes, young, healthy individuals of varying activity levels actually; as measured by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). This means that we had some sedentary people and some athletes. And the law of averages (that when you look at large groups, the group tends toward the middle – this is the basis for statistics in a normal population) shows that they individuals were relatively active (around the middle of the group). And why would we look at unhealthy individuals when we don’t even understand how it works in the normal individual. This is how research is done; healthy first and diseased/disabled later. All drugs go through this process, after sufficient laboratory and animal testing is done.
(2a) “Please name in which exact area has the technology improved due to a universities research. I have yet to see a single report that helped me build a better unit . . .”
I cannot provide an exact area that the technology has improved due to research. My comment was not providing prove or a report that would help you design a better unit. My comment provided a logical argument that both the development of machines and research are inherently connected. While they may not be directly related, each depends on the other. If you truly believe that they are not related, then we should never research differences in the machines or differences in the machines’ effects. Wouldn’t this type of research lead to the advancement of design, regardless of whether it was directly or indirectly?
(2b) “. . . or design a safer program.”
Now this was thrown in new. I would definitely argue that research to date has influenced the programs you have designed. Most of the “training” research has done the half squat or wide squat, two poses you promote. How can you claim that you were not affected by these studies unless you claim you have never read them and have never been exposed to those who have? I know I can’t claim that. Nor can any of us know what a truly safe program consists of since no long-term research has been done. No one knows if WBV training will cause the same injuries as the industrial WBV does 5, 10 or 15 years down the road. Just because it hasn’t so far, doesn’t mean we can claim 100% that it is safe. That is the risk we take when we expose individuals to things we think will benefit them.
(3a) “You mention the ethical responsability of the manufacturor but you voluntarily work with PowerPlate?”
This is ad hominem (a logical fallacy in debate; an attack against the person and not the argument). Just because I worked with Power Plate over 3 years ago (I began my work in 2004) doesn’t mean that it isn’t the ethical responsibility of the manufacturer. This is a generalization and a false one at that.
(3b) “Knowing full well your work will probably be picked apart and used for marketing if any positive results are found, whilst burying any negative reports.”
All manufacturers can use individual reports as marketing and pick it apart. This is not specific to myself or Power Plate. I own the results and will publish them how I like, whether or not Power Plate likes the results or not. That being said, we have two other studies that will be coming out that found limited effect of the Power Plate. And guess what, they will be published.
(3c) “This fact about PowerPlate was well known by 2005. It was all over the net.”
I was not aware of this “fact”. I don’t see how this adds context to this line of debate.
(3d) “Note: I have seen the documents PowerPlate make researchers sign before they can start tests. Researcher like Dr. Marco Cardinal have refused to sign such documents in the past because of these concerns. What are you going to do when this happens to you ?.”
Well, I have never signed such a document, nor will I ever. I would give back the equipment and go our separate ways. And while you are name dropping, why would Dr. Cardinale (not Cardinal) use the Power Plate when he had the NEMES (developed by Dr. Bosco, a great researcher). In addition, he is developing or has developed his own machine. It is pretty established in the research community that these types of agreements should not be signed. At least that was my understanding and I have never been asked to sign one. Check your sources, or maybe things have changed? I can only speak from my own experience.
(4a) “In the ‘process’ of testing the Plate for inconsistency. This only takes half an hour max and should have been done before any tests were carried out.”
In order to do it right, we are taking our time. Our equipment can be complicated and we want to look at more than one time. This is standard in equipment testing, at least for us.
(4b) “Note: the test you did was “unloaded” but you are trying to test what happens when you put someone on it?”
We are testing it loaded and unloaded. Believe it or not, you are not the only one who has wondered if the Power Plate, being made of a softer material than steel, affects the vibration characteristics. Don’t worry, we will be unbiased and eventually will do comparative studies (if you want to put your money where your mouth is and will have your machine involved in the comparison, send me an e-mail at bazetthound@juno.com and we can work out details).
(4c) “Are you aware… A change of only 3hz can effect an outcome dramatically.”
What is the outcome? Where are your results to show this? This is not data, just words. Please elaborate.
(4d) “eg…. ‘Slippage’ is how much actual speed is lost between the motors and the Fq inverter ( 2-5%). Some of this is inherent in motors but made much worse by a load and can vary in speed according to the design. Most units will lose about 2hz just in slippage alone.”
Great, thanks for the detailed info. Now I can look into it!
(5a) “I am sorry David but I have to say this. Even if your tests show an outcome at a certain speed at a certain amplitude etc… because you had no idea what the Plate was actually doing in Physics terms your results will be impossable to duplicate so will be invalid.”
The fact that we did not test the machine while participants were on the platform it is incorrect to say that duplication is impossible or that this study is invalid. Just because a study has limitations (all research do) doesn’t mean that it is invalid. These limitations are cited in the paper and will be accounted for in the future (for all machines that we work with). To date, NO ONE has published this type of data along with their results so the attack of a single study is irrelevant.
(5b) “Just like the reports released to date , they will be used very effectively to baffle the public with bullshit by marketers.”
All research baffles the public. Even you don’t understand it and often disregard it if it doesn’t support your point of view. This is common in the public and is not isolated to the WBV research area.
(6) “Now to make things clear. I am not having a go at you David, in fact the point of this is to help you understand what you are up against as a researcher ( unethical manufacturors , unethical marketers , public perception etc.. ) so if we ever do meet , which I am sure is a fate accompli by now , we are heading in the same direction.”
Agreed, up until your last comment on 7/16, I did not feel personally attacked. However, I understand what I am up against. I do not need a non-researcher to explain this to me. You are very knowledgeable and make some valid arguments, but you are definitely not a researcher. You are a practitioner and a salesman (hopefully in that order). I hope we do meet since I think you will find that we agree on more than it seems.
(7) “When we do meet I pledge to give you ‘everything’ you need to do your job effectively.”
Why not send me “everything I need to do my job” now. I have lots of room in my e-mail and would love to go over your equations and theories. I will even sign a contract that I will not duplicate or share them (or anything else the lawyers want).
(8) “I would dare say that when any research originating from the PowerPlate or other uncalibrated models is peer reviewed they will not pass.”
It will be published. I am guessing by early 2008, it will be published. Please don’t comment when you do not have an understanding of the peer-review or publication process. This does not enhance the discussion.
(9) “As when word gets around that the tests had no true base theoretical line they HAVE to be made invalid. And will not be published.”
Per my previous comments, the tests are valid and, while not perfect, have some good results that can be generalized to all vibration, not specifically Power Plate. And actually, we only mention Power Plate as the device and as the provider of the platform. No endorsements or conflicts of interest.
(10) “I feel sorry for any researchers out there that have just wasted a couple of years. But you all know who to blame.”
Don’t feel sorry for us as nothing is wasted and results can always be used to gain knowledge. As the Thomas Edison (inventor of the light bulb) saying goes, “He did not fail. He found 2000 ways not to make a light bulb!”
And blaming never accomplished anything. We need less of that on this site.
(11) “For your study, you may want to note we recorded a 23% error rating ( unloaded , no-one on it ) on the advertised specs on the very model you used. Please inform us how you are going to account for that high a figure .”
23% error rating does not tell me anything and therefore, I cannot answer the question. Please provide more information. And we will account for many things; you can read it when it is published.
Other items not addressed from previous comments:(12) “What disturbs me the most is that the first and most expansive criticism of this article was directed at the individuals doing the investigation and how it was done. While you (Lloyd) are always on your soap-box regarding marketing, I would have expected more of the criticism to be at Soloflex. It just caught me by surprise. From my view, Soloflex is the worst company out there for unethical practices considering there unit is only an off-set motor strapped to a step-board. This is the biggest rip-off of any company in the industry, and then they have the nerve to cite vibration studies on platforms other than their own or even closely related (which pretty much all manufactures are doing). I am very disappointed by this discussion of the Soloflex article thus far.”
I think it is obvious that Lloyd has a personal vendetta against Power Plate and everything that is said needs to be read with that in mind. I have no idea what Lloyd has experienced besides what I have read on this site; however, his passion for bashing cheap machines is not even close when it is another company other than Power Plate. Why not criticize all cheaply made machines?
A few points David ….
My ” Vendetta” against PowerPlate as you call it is based on this simple premise
” Left to PowerPlates own devices they have the ability to actually destroy everything we are working towards ”
Companies like Soloflex ( along with about 80 other companies ) are small fish to fry ,
PowerPlate is the Shark.
You ask me what I do to halt the smaller fraudsters.
I write entire articles on how the public can pick a good unit from a bad one. What more do you want ?(2) You accuse me of marketing , I do not sell machines to the public and have never tried to on this site. I am sure I will be backed up on this by all long term bloggers.
Yes I do promote my ideas , but it is to effect positive changes and create discussion in our industry . You are having a discussion on this blog as a result of those efforts.
(3) It could be argued you have a greater vested interest in this or any other industry than myself , you make your living from testing other peoples work. As you mentioned Thomas Edison I would like to point out.
” You are not inventing the light bulb you are just testing to see how bright it shines”
I on the other hand I have a very solid profession in my mortuary work. I still do it every night and will continue for as long as I want. My reason for my effort in the field of Vibration Training is simple , I am using the knowledge I have in my head to help people while they are still alive.
The day my “business aspirations” over-ride my sense of science or ethics is the day I give up and go bush.
(4) You state as a “fact” your results will be published . Which does not add up , as you said it was to be peer reviewed first. How could you know the outcome already ?
In the event it is published, I hope it mentions the errors in the platform used and contains recommendations for future research projects.
I stand by my opinion that all Plates involved in studies should be tested “before”. No matter what the brand , and at the beginning of each study.
Note: We found in our tests varying degress of vibration in purchased units in the same batches of serial numbers ( all made at the same time ).
Past research has only in my opinion been of use to me to show the public this technology , in its many forms , has and is been tested.
Conclusion…
I am now suspicious of your research.Eg.. I would have expected more concern from you about possable errors but instead you play it down.
Your referals to vibration plates as simply ” Speed + Amplitude” gives me no comfort in your ability to understand what I am trying to do.You have all the time in the world should you be inclined to change my opinion on this .
- David M. Bazett-Jones
July 18th, 2007Lloyd,
(Corresponding to 12)
My use of the word “vendetta” may have been a bit extreme; however, I used it to show that you are biased against anything Power Plate. For example, your criticism ramped up 10 fold when I mentioned that I did my research on a PPNG. You haven’t even read it and you have it summed up already. That shows me that you are not open-minded. And to me, that is problem given that you are being viewed on this forum as an expert, even if your criticisms of PP are justified. Would you not agree that your perception is clouded by your dislike of PP?
As far as the big fish, small fish argument, that is a perfectly good way to approach it (though Soloflex is not a little fish). And you do provide valuable information regarding choosing a unit.
But what more do I want?
When an article is published by a reputable magazine (e.g. Consumer Reports), don’t analyze the scientific merit beyond your scope of knowledge. Your first comments were that the tests were bad (which was incorrect), then something about a can of beans, and finally about Soloflex ethics. This may have even been acceptable if you hadn’t gone off on the uselessness of the tests on the next comment which resulted in a tangent on researchers. This line of discussion should have been about a very poor WBV device and exaggerated marketing. Know what you don’t know and comment on the things you are qualified to comment on.
(2) Will address this in the correct track (http://www.vibrationtraining.net/glossary-of-terms/comment-page-2/).
(3) Will address this in the correct track (http://www.vibrationtraining.net/glossary-of-terms/comment-page-2/).
(4a) “You state as a “fact” your results will be published . Which does not add up , as you said it was to be peer reviewed first. How could you know the outcome already ?”
This paper has enough scientific merit to warrant publication, of this I am sure. Much worse articles have been published in the past. It is only a matter of probability.
(4b) “In the event it is published, I hope it mentions the errors in the platform used and contains recommendations for future research projects.”
As I had said previously, the limitations of our measurements and the platform are presented in the paper (it is already written, just working on technical things).
(4c) “I stand by my opinion that all Plates involved in studies should be tested “before”. No matter what the brand , and at the beginning of each study.”
I agree that all plates should be tested before (and while, to go above and beyond) they are being used for a research study. I have never contested this. It is inherent in the mechanics that all plates are affected at some point by compression due to mass, it just depends how much compression can be sustained while giving consistent vibrations. I can only wish that I thought of this prior to doing this study. Live and learn. If I had only known you then (comment is not intended to be sarcastic).
(5) “I am now suspicious of your research. Eg.. I would have expected more concern from you about possable errors but instead you play it down.”
You are welcome to think what you like of my research, even after you read it. That is your prerogative.
However, I would suggest that I am more concerned about the errors/limitations of my research than you are. This was years of planning, testing, and analyzing that I put in to this project. I could not account for limitations in the study that I was not aware of at that time. And I am not going to just throw away results that, presented in the appropriate manner, can provide valuable information to other researchers. I can only recognize that there are some limitations to my research (which is a standard practice in research).(6) “Your referals to vibration plates as simply ” Speed + Amplitude” gives me no comfort in your ability to understand what I am trying to do.”
I don’t know where this came from (possible the therapy vs training machine post, http://www.vibrationtraining.net/2006/10/the-difference-between-therapy-and-training-machines, will repost there). Given this comment, I would like to request a much more detailed response to my comment on the above cited “track.”
You have indicated that there are three factors in whether a plate is training or therapy; a) frequency (not speed, btw), b) amplitude, and c) mass being moved. Frequency and amplitude are the two most important factors in vibration, and probably more so the frequency than anything (but this is not known at this time for sure). I believe that “how much mass is being moved” refers to the ability of different machines to withstand different compression loads before it works less efficiently. I really don’t understand, though, why less quality machines would be recommended for therapy. Shouldn’t safer machines be used in therapy? This line of thinking just doesn’t make sense to me.
(7) “You have all the time in the world should you be inclined to change my opinion on this.”
I honestly don’t believe that I will ever change your opinion. I don’t think that you are willing to change your views or listen to others’ points of view. I can only hope that others get something from my comments.
- David M. Bazett-Jones
July 18th, 2007Lloyd,
I must admit that I was disappointed by your response as it did not address many of the points I made. Should I assume you agree with the comments you did not respond to?
David
The only point I need to clarify is this, I think…
The research is up on my website not to pinpoint an exact response from a particular machine or movement , as this is impossable , as those units no longer exist . In fact by the time you release your study the PowerPlate model you used will no longer be available.
It is up so people gain an understanding that “Vibration” in general is not harmful and the effects have been , and continue to be tested.
( I will get my disclaimer changed to reflect that )
Remember , we are in the position of trying to introduce this type of training to the public . Which is a hard task unto itself , let alone covincing people its not going to kill you.
The moment I can refine any research into an easily read format for the public , I will.
No I will not be changing my mind about research done on a faulty unit anytime soon. The problems with PowerPlate have been openly discussed on the net since early 2005 so finding this information or me would have been easy. And yes I would have helped.
Just so you know , the standards I set for myself are.
(1) Nill loss of speed and pressure up to 220kg. -3% or less at 300Kg @ 43hz.
(2) Small Amplitude increase with load up to 220kg -3% or less at 300Kg @ 43hz.
So my theoretical if seen on a graph is basically flat.
- mike Hair
July 23rd, 2007If the academic researchers had half an idea of what results Lloyd Shaw has attained with the clients that go to him, “some of which have never been charged a cent” they would stop wasting money on research that has already been done and spend it on a ticket to Auckland! I’m not saying that research is not good or that Lloyd has the answer to everything, but from what I have seen Lloyd is a good 5 years ahead of anyone else in this industry “Don’t Believe Me?” Time has a way of exposing the truth, as we have just found out with powerplate NZ.
Honestly guys the best $ i ever spent was buying a plane ticket to Auckland to see for myself what Lloyd was about.
It almost frustrates me to the point of swearing when some of you so called academics run Lloyd down for what he is doing to fight obesity and desease.Alot of people accuse Lloyd of promoting WBV for financial gain, where as I wonder how many of you would cut and run after being offered over 1 billion dollars to set up a WBV factory by a very large well known company? One thing I know is Lloyd turned it down flat!!!
You may want to think again before you accuse Lloyd of wrong motivation.
To be academic Mike it was only a % of $1.2B , not the whole lot.
- David M. Bazett-Jones
July 24th, 2007Lloyd,
First of all, I am disappointed that you have not addressed many of my comments. I can only assume that you do not have a counter-argument or you agree with all of the ones that you did not comment on. So, to address the comments you recently made:
1) “No I will not be changing my mind about research done on a faulty unit anytime soon.”
This shows your inherent lack of understanding of research. Just because a bit of research was done on a “faulty unit” doesn’t mean that the research is worthless. You are as bad as Sal in this regard, making generalizations if they support your view. All research is only a very small piece of the puzzle and no single study will answer all of our questions about WBV. That is the nature of research. It must be taken in context of its design, results and limitations. You should reformulate your sentence to “No I will not be changing my mind about research that does not support my views and opinions”.
2) “Just so you know, the standards I set for myself are.”
Well, then why don’t you let me analyze your machines, designs, and theories? I want to learn from the all-knowing Lloyd Shaw. I am open to change my views. Teach me wise one! And let me do my own “engineering reports” on your machine to see if what you say is true.
How are you helping the consumer if you are knowingly allowing research to be done badly (your words, not mine)? Why don’t you help out the stupid academics? Wouldn’t everyone like to see Lloyd work with us?
Or, maybe you can do your own research and we can analyze that when/if you publish it. If all the research is crap, then do some yourself (if you know how).
(All comments not addressed here are addressed in the glossary of terms page comments)
WBV skeptic, Sal Marinello, just posted a report on his trial on SOLOFLEX. Read:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/08/07/060206.php
TC
His only reason for testing that unit is he knows it doesn’t work and is desperatly trying to back up his own uneducated opinion that it ” can’t” work. As he has so clearly stated in about 5 articles.
He wouldnt dare get on a real machine as he would lose all self-respect.
- parisa
August 15th, 2007reduce body fat by vibration.
Lloyd Shaw is a mortician who is trying to perpetuate the myth of WBV training. Here is an excerpt from his site, “Hi, my name is Lloyd Shaw & I am a mortician by trade. I also run a company called VIBRA-TRAIN that specialises in vibration training, a new & fast way to keep fit & healthy.”
Shaw deals with the reality that there is no research to speak to the efficacy of WBV by claiming that people who bring this issue up have an “uneducated opinion.” As a matter of fact, there have been recent studies - to which you link to above - that show that WBV clearly offers no functional benefits to active people.
Rather than deal with this, Shaw claims that people are uneducated by being aware of such research. I suggest that everyone visit Shaw’s Vibra-Train web site, http://www.vibra-train.com/cellulite_explained.html.
This item is a great example of the sloppiness and laziness that permeates the Vibra-Train web site, and what these people will say to sell their point. Most of the research that WBVers try to use as proof of efficacy of their product deals with flawed studies that involve the infirm, diseased or aged, and they try to get the general, non-diseased public to believe these “results” will pertain to them.
With regard to cellulite, there isn’t even any flawed research that could lead any reasonable person to make the assertion that WBV can reduce cellulite. As a matter of fact, Shaw doesn’t include any research whatsoever on his site.
Shaw the mortician and his three or four minions that comment here and every other anti-WBV site are clearly out of their depth. Where researchers from the University of Melbourne to a doctor at the Mayo Clinic have spoken to the WBVs lack of effectiveness, Shaw wants us to believe him, and offers nothing but his word, as a guy trying to sell us something.
My agenda is clear; I don’t want people to waste their time and money on a product that cannot deliver on its promise to get people into shape and do so “fast.”
Rather than spend all this time shouting down those who disagree and point out the obvious flaws with WBV, Shaw and his flock should try to at least clean up their web site. Why would anyone spend thousands and thousands of dollars on this gimmick, when the Vibra-Train folks can’t even find a proof-reader for their site.
- mike Hair
September 5th, 2007Sal..
You seem to be missing three vital points.
1) The results that people get from this type of workout speak for themselves, just look at Lloyds photo http://www.vibrationtraining.net/2007/01/poster-boy.
(A man with an experience is never at the mercy fo a man with an opinion)2) The University and doctor did not have access to Lloyds machines (all is not equal)
3) Since when did a few spelling mistakes affect the outcome of results?
Regards
Mike
Sal..
You….
Sal I understand you have been publically embarrassed by getting basic sciences mixed up ( Vibration = Electric shocks ) and it has also been disclosed you wrote no fewer than 4 blogs on WBV without ever seeing a machine.
You have offered no excuses for this behaviour even though you have been asked multiple times to explain , so our assumption you are lazy and uneducated would seem not be be out of line . Sorry if this reality offends you.
I will go so far as to say your future employment as a teacher or member of any sporting body may be at stake as this becomes more public. Spending so much time convincing everybody I am a fake will impact on your reputation heavily if you are found to be wrong.
The internet is very unforgiving.
Me….
My company on the other hand is results and performance based which seems to be proof enough for the consumer , so my success despite your predictions must be very fraustrating.
Note: I take the time to explain all the “theory” behind what I am trying to do to the public and wrire essays on a regular basis . Anyone is free to pick holes in these theories if they so desire.
- Tom
September 5th, 2007Sal i agree i am out of my depth but it is hard to argue with results our clients are receiving. If it helps change peoples lives for a better quality of life why would you want to destroy that for them ? it speaks volumes about yourself defending a position jus as i am with my statements .Fortunate for me i have seen a 74 year old lady that was on a walking frame for the last 3 years no longer need it to get around and pain free after using our vibra-train studio in one visit. Keeping in mind 3 years of pain and doctors giving her medication to try help i think that in its self a remarkable outcome for both her and WBV. After all a lot of research went in to the drugs she was taking to aleviate her pain?She isn’t an isolated case before we opened we went to NZ and spoke to customers from WBV studios and some of them told us stories of how it help them have a better life. We also have clients other than her who are receiving benefits from WBV otherwise i wouldn’t stick my neck out. Experiance in the field opens ones eyes
- Di Heap
September 5th, 2007Sal,
Greetings and Welcome to Vibration Training.net forums.
You constantly write off personal results of WBV saying these lack proof but relief from pain and overall fitness are hard to argue against. I don’t have the sports qualifications that you have as I trained in other fields but I will continue to promote good quality WBV and stand up against you because I have had such great personal results and have seen results in others including my partner who is a serious endurance runner.
Your comments are welcomed here but you’ll have to come with more than saying that research hasn’t proven that WBV works.
Everybody needs to understand Sals motivation , and it in no way concerns people bettering their lives. Even when he was forced to admit it may help the infirm , he did not recommend it and instead suggested they get off their lazy asses and do some “proper” exercise.
What kind of person does that ?
Simply disgusting Sal.
I also do not believe Sal is stupid enough to think all platforms perform the same function , as he has tried to imply by putting all research results under the term WBV. It would be of a more logical conclusion that he is doing his best to mislead the public to back up his previous statements.
Sal says…
“WBV clearly offers no functional benefits to active people”
His lack of respect for inactive people is why most would consider him “Jock” in the U.S. Which is a term actually used as an insult.
But he would probably consider it a complement.
- Mike Hair
September 6th, 2007I never came upon any of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking….- Albert Einstein -
- Di Heap
September 6th, 2007Sal,
Welcome to Vibration Training.net forums.
You constantly write off personal results of WBV saying these lack proof but relief from pain and overall fitness are hard to argue against. I don’t have the sports qualifications that you have as I trained in other fields but I will continue to promote good quality WBV and stand up against you because I have had such great personal results and have seen results in others including my partner who is a serious endurance runner.
Your comments are welcomed here but you’ll have to come with more than saying that research hasn’t proven that WBV works and that people shouldn’t waste their money on it. Before going to a WBV studio I spent over a year of time and money going to a physiotherapist from whom I received some benefit but even he told me to go elsewhere as he could not fix my injuries or relieve my back and leg pain. I went to an Osteopath and he helped correct my back/glutes but the weakness was ongoing and even with doing daily exercises I did not recover. WBV 95% fixed my core balance and uneven sides/glutes weakness problem within 6 weeks at less cost. Ongoing training is costing quite a lot of money but the benefits are definitely worth it.
Di…
Sal thinks you are lazy. Maybe you should have just picked up some rocks and run around in circles until your balance issues were fixed.
Harden up woman.
I have had a better idea than just pointing out Sals lack of eductation.
I will display his e-mail address in my studios and anyone who wishs to send a progress report on what is happening at Vibra-Train and how it effects them can.
If he indeed stands by his claim that what I am doing cant work he will have no problem calling them liars , stupid or suckers or something along those lines.
This should be very ,very interesting as the consumer whom Sal is trying to protect and Sal both get to communicate directly.
I will report on what is passed back to me. And I will also report if Sal slinks away.
- Anna
January 21st, 2008Lloyd,
Vibrogym Professional v Vibrocoach v Hypergravity Elite Porfessional, can you please confirm how they compare in terms of power ?
vibrogym Professional - voltage: 115/230VA, power consumption: 350W, frequency settings:30/35/40/50Hz, force: 2.1kN/3.9kN
vibrocoach - voltage: 220/240V - 0,55Kw*-50Hz frequency settings: 30-35-40-50Hz, time settings: 30′-45′-60′, Amps: 2mm-4mm,
hypergravity Elite Professional - power: 115VAC 60Hz or 220VAC 50Hz/500W,(what does this or mean), vibration control 10-60Hz, amps: 2-5mm, time settings: up 99 minutes.
regards,
Anna They are all very similar. With the Hypergravity just offering a better Fq range and longer warranty.
- Anna
January 21st, 2008Lloyd,
How important is Fq range ?
anna For standard training , as long as it has 30-50hz that is all you need.
A physio might want a larger range.
- Anna
January 22nd, 2008Lloyd,
In your opinion, which is the best vibrating machine, in terms of being most powerful, most effective in the professional/commercial range, currently in the market place ?
anna
If you mean on the open market ( as other models cant be purchased )….
The Hypergravity Gym-O-Vibe.
But it would only work in certain settings due to its look. But its function and specs has no competition and I believe it will be the benchmark for Gym models .
July 9th, 2007
3 points to make here.
(1) Using a “metabolic gas analyzer” on a piece of equipment that essentially causes anaerobic activity ? If the testers were that uneducated I would take their other opinions with a grain of salt.
(2) Holding a can of baked beans can enhance your Pilates workout.
(3) I have always considered SoloFlex unethical for trying to sell its system based on the effects of Vibration Training when its unit is clearly a Therapy unit at best.