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 didnt 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.
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!
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.
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 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. 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.)
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).
As 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.
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 we used a Power Plate, 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).
WBV skeptic, Sal Marinello, just posted a report on his trial on SOLOFLEX. Read:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/08/07/060206.php
TC
reduce body fat by vibration.
Sal 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
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
How important is Fq range ?
anna
What about if you are based in Europe (Ireland) and you are looking for a home unit that will only be used by two people 3 times a week for training mostly. Would you have a favourite then? I do want a solid machine that won’t break on me in a few months. I want a proper piece of equipment and I’m willing to spend some money on it. In your opinion, what would be the best machine to get?
Hi Marielle,
As you are in Ireland, I would suggest you FITVIBE or VIBROGYM.
TC
if i use magnet to generate the power to provide the high frequency with working frequency which is 40-50, how much power of the magnet i need? and if i have the energy saver, so how much power i need for lasting 12 hours to provide the sound frequency?