Vibration training?..your opinion please
Options
Replies
-
0 -
I always see offers on Groupon for vibration training and keep thinking I might try it - if nothing else maybe the vibrations will help jiggle and distribute my fat more evenly so it's not all around my tummy (joking!).
But seriously, I'm not sure how much it would do for fat loss, muscle toning, etc. but I'm sure that it would help get your blood flowing and certainly couldn't hurt with improving flexibility (my thoughts anyway).0 -
Oh..
*Tip toes away*0 -
I've been a personal trainer on this machine for nearly six years...I have really seen the difference when a larger person comes in, I do them a programme and as long as they do exactly as I tell them, then the results are pretty impressive. I know when I use the machine to max potential I really ache the next day, especially in my legs as I do movement squats, wide stances and lunges. I don't believe though as being a shortie that using the machine alone would have kept me as slim and fit as I have, I will always need to do something extra.
I have also found that doing massages on them before I workout really helps my back problem.
Thanks for your input guys..I was curious to what you thought.
0 -
And to think I clicked on this.............what a setup. ha ha
No set up..a genuine question :bigsmile:0 -
Umm my only thoughts are that I wish I had a big vibrator trainer at home to be in every night :-D I would work out on it alllll the time.0
-
I know vibration has been used in a physio context for years and has been demonstrated to have therapeutic value.
My BS detector, however, goes on high alert when I see banner ads saying that you can get a "60 minute workout in 10 minutes"
And therein always lies the problem--the overgeneralization, distortion, or "misapplication" of a machine or training concept. There are sport-specific benefits for vibration training--esp for throwing and jumping sports--and they can be helpful improving balance/stability in seniors. I'm sure other benefits will be discovered--there are new studies reported monthly.
But some people just can't resist trying to make it a "magic bullet".
Heh heh. You said "magic bullet."0 -
Not every day you meet someone who knows what a sybian is. I'm sure they work way better! haThat happened exactly when one of my clients sat on it...it was really funny, I had to go out of the room as it was obvious what was happening to her....
She didn't stop either
I don't believe for a second they're trying to "tone their butt" or whatever lie that want to peddle. I know exactly whats going on there as you say. I just couldn't believe the girl at the cardiotech shop was doing at peak hour (11am) in a packed shoping centre. There were kids walks past ffs.
Don't get me wrong she was skinny as a twig and obviously very toned and fit but she was basically riding a sybian in packed crowd of people doing their shopping. That is just shameless, absoltutely shameless.
All I could think was "OMFG you dirty little B*****"
It still makes me laugh because I l deathstared her and she grinned at me.
/highfives0 -
There is research that supports that it can increase strength while strength training on it, but IMO it's an expensive way, unless your gym has it, to do it compared to just standard strength training with resistance alone.
I compare it with functional training being touted at about every gym. Functional training advocates keep insisting that it strengthens your core more than just regular lifting when research really hasn't shown that. But for some reason people watching others struggle on unstable surfaces leads them to believe that they are working out harder. To a point they are, but it's mostly with balance. And realistically, unless you're going to walk on unstable surfaces, compete, or deal with an activity or sport that requires lots of balance, for most of the population this type of training won't benefit you anymore than directly training your core with ab exercises or doing compound movements like squats or dead lifts.
Like Azdak stated, there is an application for just about every product or program out there, but they can't be seen as the Magic Bullet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That is a gross misrepresentation of functional training and you know it and then you go on to talk about sport specific which functional training is actually about or occupational function because in real life you cannot squat and deadlift with proper form only in the gym. Functional training is all about the core, utter nonsense maybe finding way s to engage the core and make it work but all about it no, only in the fact that we move in the three planes of motion which is something traditional strength training sadly misses. Unless you really think that supine crunches and squats and deadlifts address all the planes of motion. But you know they don't so why say they are great core exercises, they have a part about 33% and to be honest since coming back to training I have not done a supine crunch and I probably never will because they are a retarded movement, do I have a core of steel yes. Still too fat to show it though, ;-((
Very disappointed with you and your input, and I think to be honest most gyms are touting "functional" training and then not actually providing qualified functional trainers. It is more to do with the more complex compound moves and keeping HR elevated so people get more bang for their buck in shorter time frames.0 -
Just wanted to say... The title totally made me think this thread was about something else.
That is all.
Agreed!0 -
Just wanted to say... The title totally made me think this thread was about something else.
That is all.
Me too laughing hard I had to look twice because I thought it said something else :noway:0 -
Yes, this is not what I thought the thread was going to be about....a bit disappointed! lol0
-
It really depends on what you call Vibration Training. It can be a pure scientific idea, or a cheapened marketing idea. Approx 99% of all machines are fake. Because retail companies simply can not afford to build machines that function properly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPUQji9RPsA&list=UUdr50aEfipyQmlfzBouM7jg&index=23&feature=plcp
And then the different types of machines make a huge difference to what you should expect ......
http://www.vibration-training-advice.com/machine-reviews
Static VS Dynamic ?
Moving on the machines was only promoted when production to China and weaker plastic machines were manufactured. I know , I was the Product Manager of Power Plate when this happened. Needless to say, because I an a purest and not some scummy marketer. I left.
This is my program here......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PikfQv7uwwo&list=UUdr50aEfipyQmlfzBouM7jg&index=6&feature=plcp
Ask me anything you want. No BS or sales pitch ( I do not sell machines )
Kind regards Lloyd Shaw
.0 -
Dang it...Just wanted to say... The title totally made me think this thread was about something else.
That is all.
This
Yeah me too0 -
Sorry for your disappointment, but what I've stated is entirely true. Functional trainings origin is in REHABILITATION. The fitness industry morphed it over to a "new" type of training to increase profit. Don't believe that functional training isn't any better than strengthening the core than just good old crunches and compound movements?There is research that supports that it can increase strength while strength training on it, but IMO it's an expensive way, unless your gym has it, to do it compared to just standard strength training with resistance alone.
I compare it with functional training being touted at about every gym. Functional training advocates keep insisting that it strengthens your core more than just regular lifting when research really hasn't shown that. But for some reason people watching others struggle on unstable surfaces leads them to believe that they are working out harder. To a point they are, but it's mostly with balance. And realistically, unless you're going to walk on unstable surfaces, compete, or deal with an activity or sport that requires lots of balance, for most of the population this type of training won't benefit you anymore than directly training your core with ab exercises or doing compound movements like squats or dead lifts.
Like Azdak stated, there is an application for just about every product or program out there, but they can't be seen as the Magic Bullet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That is a gross misrepresentation of functional training and you know it and then you go on to talk about sport specific which functional training is actually about or occupational function because in real life you cannot squat and deadlift with proper form only in the gym. Functional training is all about the core, utter nonsense maybe finding way s to engage the core and make it work but all about it no, only in the fact that we move in the three planes of motion which is something traditional strength training sadly misses. Unless you really think that supine crunches and squats and deadlifts address all the planes of motion. But you know they don't so why say they are great core exercises, they have a part about 33% and to be honest since coming back to training I have not done a supine crunch and I probably never will because they are a retarded movement, do I have a core of steel yes. Still too fat to show it though, ;-((
Very disappointed with you and your input, and I think to be honest most gyms are touting "functional" training and then not actually providing qualified functional trainers. It is more to do with the more complex compound moves and keeping HR elevated so people get more bang for their buck in shorter time frames.
Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. I could pull up even more (since I've personally researched it myself which is why I posted my opinion on it) if you like, but I doubt I'd convince you of it.Today, it is well documented in the scientific literature that progressive resistance training aimed at improving strength, power, and muscular hypertrophy, as well as endurance training or moderate aerobic exercise combined with improved eating habits, can lead to a plethora of health benefits in addition to very significant increases in all aspects of human performance for all age groups, including the elderly and children Behm, 1995; Brooks et al., 2005; Fitzgerald et al., 2004; Fujita et al., 1995; Ratamess et al, 2009, Rogers et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2009). However, it is noted that certain characteristics of exercise are important for achieving these benefits, in that the exercise must be progressive, specific, and must have some variation (Ratamess et al, 2009). Understanding these basic rules are important, because it helps one determine whether or not to implement a specific training program or tool.
Unfortunately, the idea of having a one-size-fits-all magical cure-all has not gone away, and people still search for the newest, greatest training method or device that will help them achieve all of their health and fitness goals with less time and energy spent. The idea of a modern training concept that will trump all those which came before it leads us to the focus of this paper. Numerous fitness enthusiasts and fitness professionals are advocating the use of unstable surface training (UST) as a means of achieving all physical and health goals. Unstable surface training may include the use of stability balls (AKA Swiss balls), BOSU balls, wobble boards, and several other devices that create an unstable platform with which to work from. Additionally, UST is being combined with resistance training exercises such that one will perform a traditional exercise with weights wile standing, sitting, or lying on an unstable surface. Upon entering any corporate gym n America or performing a simple Google search, one will quickly discover the high revalence of UST and its combination with resistance training.
One idea behind using UST is to increase trunk muscle activation during exercises that attempt to isolate the trunk musculature. However, a very recent review written by a Professor and practitioner of osteopathy makes a compelling argument that attempting to isolate the “core” musculature does not appear to offer any proven benefits, despite claims that this type of training will reduce lower back pain, improve rehabilitation, improve movement patterns and motor function, and prevent injuries (Lederman, 2010). In fact, it is suggested that core stability exercises are no more effective at strengthening the trunk and preventing injuries than any other type of exercise or therapy (Lederman, 2010). While claims exist about the preventative benefits of core stability training, hard scientific evidence is lacking (Lederman, 2010).
If we assume that Lederman’s (2010) argument is true, then it is unnecessary to address the use of UST for trunk isolation movements in this paper. Regardless, there appears to be a larger problem at hand. Proponents of performing resistance training exercises on an unstable surface claim that you can work your core, improve balance and coordination, rehabilitate injuries, “prehabilitate” (prevent injuries), build muscle, burn fat, and get stronger all at the same time. All of these claims for this fitness cure-all can be found on bosu.com and other websites that sell these types of products. Additionally, these claims have been found in numerous articles (not peer-reviewed) found on “ptonthenet,” a website for personal trainers that claims to be evidence-based yet never shows a single scientific reference. Additionally, “expert” writers on the website make claims about training “truths” that have been consistently rejected in the scientific literature.
Another interesting aspect to this story is that UST has already been thoroughly examined in peer-reviewed literature, yet advocates of UST never appear to discuss these studies. It appears that many advocates of UST may be unaware of the facts that (A) “ptonthenet” does not provide peer-reviewed scientific literature and (B) many of the claims that practitioners make about UST have actually been tested by many different scientists in many different laboratories. Therefore, it is the purpose of this paper to discuss the existing peer-reviewed literature as it pertains to UST and find out if its current popularity amongst practitioners is justified. Deciphering this evidence will help to determine if UST devices are the newest cure-all, or if the American people should be focusing on other proven methods for health and performance, such as traditional progressive resistance training, as is outlined in the recently updated ACSM Position Stand on Resistance Training (Ratamess et al., 2009).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
.... she was basically riding a sybian in packed crowd of people doing their shopping. That is just shameless, absoltutely shameless.
I just had to lie and tell my baby 14 year old cousin that a Sybian is a lot like the electronic bulls you ride in a country bar. I hope to God she doesn't Google it later on thinking, "Yeee Haw" Lmfoa.0 -
Sorry for your disappointment, but what I've stated is entirely true. Functional trainings origin is in REHABILITATION. The fitness industry morphed it over to a "new" type of training to increase profit. Don't believe that functional training isn't any better than strengthening the core than just good old crunches and compound movements?There is research that supports that it can increase strength while strength training on it, but IMO it's an expensive way, unless your gym has it, to do it compared to just standard strength training with resistance alone.
I compare it with functional training being touted at about every gym. Functional training advocates keep insisting that it strengthens your core more than just regular lifting when research really hasn't shown that. But for some reason people watching others struggle on unstable surfaces leads them to believe that they are working out harder. To a point they are, but it's mostly with balance. And realistically, unless you're going to walk on unstable surfaces, compete, or deal with an activity or sport that requires lots of balance, for most of the population this type of training won't benefit you anymore than directly training your core with ab exercises or doing compound movements like squats or dead lifts.
Like Azdak stated, there is an application for just about every product or program out there, but they can't be seen as the Magic Bullet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That is a gross misrepresentation of functional training and you know it and then you go on to talk about sport specific which functional training is actually about or occupational function because in real life you cannot squat and deadlift with proper form only in the gym. Functional training is all about the core, utter nonsense maybe finding way s to engage the core and make it work but all about it no, only in the fact that we move in the three planes of motion which is something traditional strength training sadly misses. Unless you really think that supine crunches and squats and deadlifts address all the planes of motion. But you know they don't so why say they are great core exercises, they have a part about 33% and to be honest since coming back to training I have not done a supine crunch and I probably never will because they are a retarded movement, do I have a core of steel yes. Still too fat to show it though, ;-((
Very disappointed with you and your input, and I think to be honest most gyms are touting "functional" training and then not actually providing qualified functional trainers. It is more to do with the more complex compound moves and keeping HR elevated so people get more bang for their buck in shorter time frames.
Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. I could pull up even more (since I've personally researched it myself which is why I posted my opinion on it) if you like, but I doubt I'd convince you of it.Today, it is well documented in the scientific literature that progressive resistance training aimed at improving strength, power, and muscular hypertrophy, as well as endurance training or moderate aerobic exercise combined with improved eating habits, can lead to a plethora of health benefits in addition to very significant increases in all aspects of human performance for all age groups, including the elderly and children Behm, 1995; Brooks et al., 2005; Fitzgerald et al., 2004; Fujita et al., 1995; Ratamess et al, 2009, Rogers et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2009). However, it is noted that certain characteristics of exercise are important for achieving these benefits, in that the exercise must be progressive, specific, and must have some variation (Ratamess et al, 2009). Understanding these basic rules are important, because it helps one determine whether or not to implement a specific training program or tool.
Unfortunately, the idea of having a one-size-fits-all magical cure-all has not gone away, and people still search for the newest, greatest training method or device that will help them achieve all of their health and fitness goals with less time and energy spent. The idea of a modern training concept that will trump all those which came before it leads us to the focus of this paper. Numerous fitness enthusiasts and fitness professionals are advocating the use of unstable surface training (UST) as a means of achieving all physical and health goals. Unstable surface training may include the use of stability balls (AKA Swiss balls), BOSU balls, wobble boards, and several other devices that create an unstable platform with which to work from. Additionally, UST is being combined with resistance training exercises such that one will perform a traditional exercise with weights wile standing, sitting, or lying on an unstable surface. Upon entering any corporate gym n America or performing a simple Google search, one will quickly discover the high revalence of UST and its combination with resistance training.
One idea behind using UST is to increase trunk muscle activation during exercises that attempt to isolate the trunk musculature. However, a very recent review written by a Professor and practitioner of osteopathy makes a compelling argument that attempting to isolate the “core” musculature does not appear to offer any proven benefits, despite claims that this type of training will reduce lower back pain, improve rehabilitation, improve movement patterns and motor function, and prevent injuries (Lederman, 2010). In fact, it is suggested that core stability exercises are no more effective at strengthening the trunk and preventing injuries than any other type of exercise or therapy (Lederman, 2010). While claims exist about the preventative benefits of core stability training, hard scientific evidence is lacking (Lederman, 2010).
If we assume that Lederman’s (2010) argument is true, then it is unnecessary to address the use of UST for trunk isolation movements in this paper. Regardless, there appears to be a larger problem at hand. Proponents of performing resistance training exercises on an unstable surface claim that you can work your core, improve balance and coordination, rehabilitate injuries, “prehabilitate” (prevent injuries), build muscle, burn fat, and get stronger all at the same time. All of these claims for this fitness cure-all can be found on bosu.com and other websites that sell these types of products. Additionally, these claims have been found in numerous articles (not peer-reviewed) found on “ptonthenet,” a website for personal trainers that claims to be evidence-based yet never shows a single scientific reference. Additionally, “expert” writers on the website make claims about training “truths” that have been consistently rejected in the scientific literature.
Another interesting aspect to this story is that UST has already been thoroughly examined in peer-reviewed literature, yet advocates of UST never appear to discuss these studies. It appears that many advocates of UST may be unaware of the facts that (A) “ptonthenet” does not provide peer-reviewed scientific literature and (B) many of the claims that practitioners make about UST have actually been tested by many different scientists in many different laboratories. Therefore, it is the purpose of this paper to discuss the existing peer-reviewed literature as it pertains to UST and find out if its current popularity amongst practitioners is justified. Deciphering this evidence will help to determine if UST devices are the newest cure-all, or if the American people should be focusing on other proven methods for health and performance, such as traditional progressive resistance training, as is outlined in the recently updated ACSM Position Stand on Resistance Training (Ratamess et al., 2009).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
And I repeat, if you think functional training is putting people on an unstable surface, then you have very little understanding of what functional training is and I find it hilarious. Anecdotal or otherwise you are misrepresenting or choosing to belittle something for whatever your personal prejudice is. I have enjoyed your inputs on everything, on this occasion I beg to differ because 28 years or not I see traditional trainees and functionally trained, results talk.0 -
Sorry for your disappointment, but what I've stated is entirely true. Functional trainings origin is in REHABILITATION. The fitness industry morphed it over to a "new" type of training to increase profit. Don't believe that functional training isn't any better than strengthening the core than just good old crunches and compound movements?There is research that supports that it can increase strength while strength training on it, but IMO it's an expensive way, unless your gym has it, to do it compared to just standard strength training with resistance alone.
I compare it with functional training being touted at about every gym. Functional training advocates keep insisting that it strengthens your core more than just regular lifting when research really hasn't shown that. But for some reason people watching others struggle on unstable surfaces leads them to believe that they are working out harder. To a point they are, but it's mostly with balance. And realistically, unless you're going to walk on unstable surfaces, compete, or deal with an activity or sport that requires lots of balance, for most of the population this type of training won't benefit you anymore than directly training your core with ab exercises or doing compound movements like squats or dead lifts.
Like Azdak stated, there is an application for just about every product or program out there, but they can't be seen as the Magic Bullet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That is a gross misrepresentation of functional training and you know it and then you go on to talk about sport specific which functional training is actually about or occupational function because in real life you cannot squat and deadlift with proper form only in the gym. Functional training is all about the core, utter nonsense maybe finding way s to engage the core and make it work but all about it no, only in the fact that we move in the three planes of motion which is something traditional strength training sadly misses. Unless you really think that supine crunches and squats and deadlifts address all the planes of motion. But you know they don't so why say they are great core exercises, they have a part about 33% and to be honest since coming back to training I have not done a supine crunch and I probably never will because they are a retarded movement, do I have a core of steel yes. Still too fat to show it though, ;-((
Very disappointed with you and your input, and I think to be honest most gyms are touting "functional" training and then not actually providing qualified functional trainers. It is more to do with the more complex compound moves and keeping HR elevated so people get more bang for their buck in shorter time frames.
Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. I could pull up even more (since I've personally researched it myself which is why I posted my opinion on it) if you like, but I doubt I'd convince you of it.Today, it is well documented in the scientific literature that progressive resistance training aimed at improving strength, power, and muscular hypertrophy, as well as endurance training or moderate aerobic exercise combined with improved eating habits, can lead to a plethora of health benefits in addition to very significant increases in all aspects of human performance for all age groups, including the elderly and children Behm, 1995; Brooks et al., 2005; Fitzgerald et al., 2004; Fujita et al., 1995; Ratamess et al, 2009, Rogers et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2009). However, it is noted that certain characteristics of exercise are important for achieving these benefits, in that the exercise must be progressive, specific, and must have some variation (Ratamess et al, 2009). Understanding these basic rules are important, because it helps one determine whether or not to implement a specific training program or tool.
Unfortunately, the idea of having a one-size-fits-all magical cure-all has not gone away, and people still search for the newest, greatest training method or device that will help them achieve all of their health and fitness goals with less time and energy spent. The idea of a modern training concept that will trump all those which came before it leads us to the focus of this paper. Numerous fitness enthusiasts and fitness professionals are advocating the use of unstable surface training (UST) as a means of achieving all physical and health goals. Unstable surface training may include the use of stability balls (AKA Swiss balls), BOSU balls, wobble boards, and several other devices that create an unstable platform with which to work from. Additionally, UST is being combined with resistance training exercises such that one will perform a traditional exercise with weights wile standing, sitting, or lying on an unstable surface. Upon entering any corporate gym n America or performing a simple Google search, one will quickly discover the high revalence of UST and its combination with resistance training.
One idea behind using UST is to increase trunk muscle activation during exercises that attempt to isolate the trunk musculature. However, a very recent review written by a Professor and practitioner of osteopathy makes a compelling argument that attempting to isolate the “core” musculature does not appear to offer any proven benefits, despite claims that this type of training will reduce lower back pain, improve rehabilitation, improve movement patterns and motor function, and prevent injuries (Lederman, 2010). In fact, it is suggested that core stability exercises are no more effective at strengthening the trunk and preventing injuries than any other type of exercise or therapy (Lederman, 2010). While claims exist about the preventative benefits of core stability training, hard scientific evidence is lacking (Lederman, 2010).
If we assume that Lederman’s (2010) argument is true, then it is unnecessary to address the use of UST for trunk isolation movements in this paper. Regardless, there appears to be a larger problem at hand. Proponents of performing resistance training exercises on an unstable surface claim that you can work your core, improve balance and coordination, rehabilitate injuries, “prehabilitate” (prevent injuries), build muscle, burn fat, and get stronger all at the same time. All of these claims for this fitness cure-all can be found on bosu.com and other websites that sell these types of products. Additionally, these claims have been found in numerous articles (not peer-reviewed) found on “ptonthenet,” a website for personal trainers that claims to be evidence-based yet never shows a single scientific reference. Additionally, “expert” writers on the website make claims about training “truths” that have been consistently rejected in the scientific literature.
Another interesting aspect to this story is that UST has already been thoroughly examined in peer-reviewed literature, yet advocates of UST never appear to discuss these studies. It appears that many advocates of UST may be unaware of the facts that (A) “ptonthenet” does not provide peer-reviewed scientific literature and (B) many of the claims that practitioners make about UST have actually been tested by many different scientists in many different laboratories. Therefore, it is the purpose of this paper to discuss the existing peer-reviewed literature as it pertains to UST and find out if its current popularity amongst practitioners is justified. Deciphering this evidence will help to determine if UST devices are the newest cure-all, or if the American people should be focusing on other proven methods for health and performance, such as traditional progressive resistance training, as is outlined in the recently updated ACSM Position Stand on Resistance Training (Ratamess et al., 2009).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
And I repeat, if you think functional training is putting people on an unstable surface, then you have very little understanding of what functional training is and I find it hilarious. Anecdotal or otherwise you are misrepresenting or choosing to belittle something for whatever your personal prejudice is. I have enjoyed your inputs on everything, on this occasion I beg to differ because 28 years or not I see traditional trainees and functionally trained, results talk.
I suspect one of you is talking about swinging sledgehammers and sandbags and the other is talking about people doing bicep curls on BOSU balls. I think you're disagreeing more on terminology than methodology0 -
I use thes power plates to warm down and my stretches. I also use it for my stomach for Planks and side planks.
Some gym session I do Cardio for 90 mins and the warm down I feel the muscle is not as tight against when I have not warmed down using it.
1 min on full power full vibration and i am struggling to hold the plank, a normal floor plank a minute is no problem.
i certainly think it is a nice bit of equipment to have in the gym and I feel it helps me.
With regards to sitting on them, as a bloke there is a certain position NOT to sit in when stretching your back. Trust me guys you know when you are sat in the wrong place! I didn't think I could move as quick as I did! A mistake you don't make twice! I have seen a few women in fits of giggles sat on these plates too!0 -
You can find it hilarious if it amuses you. I work in the fitness industry and know when they speak of functional training, it's to promote the use of UST in the facility. Does it work? Let's put it this way: with all the TV gimmicks out there (say a Shake Weight for ex.) if you use them for their intended use, you'll get some results. Will the results overshadow other basic strength movements that work out the same area? More than likely no.
Sorry for your disappointment, but what I've stated is entirely true. Functional trainings origin is in REHABILITATION. The fitness industry morphed it over to a "new" type of training to increase profit. Don't believe that functional training isn't any better than strengthening the core than just good old crunches and compound movements?There is research that supports that it can increase strength while strength training on it, but IMO it's an expensive way, unless your gym has it, to do it compared to just standard strength training with resistance alone.
I compare it with functional training being touted at about every gym. Functional training advocates keep insisting that it strengthens your core more than just regular lifting when research really hasn't shown that. But for some reason people watching others struggle on unstable surfaces leads them to believe that they are working out harder. To a point they are, but it's mostly with balance. And realistically, unless you're going to walk on unstable surfaces, compete, or deal with an activity or sport that requires lots of balance, for most of the population this type of training won't benefit you anymore than directly training your core with ab exercises or doing compound movements like squats or dead lifts.
Like Azdak stated, there is an application for just about every product or program out there, but they can't be seen as the Magic Bullet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That is a gross misrepresentation of functional training and you know it and then you go on to talk about sport specific which functional training is actually about or occupational function because in real life you cannot squat and deadlift with proper form only in the gym. Functional training is all about the core, utter nonsense maybe finding way s to engage the core and make it work but all about it no, only in the fact that we move in the three planes of motion which is something traditional strength training sadly misses. Unless you really think that supine crunches and squats and deadlifts address all the planes of motion. But you know they don't so why say they are great core exercises, they have a part about 33% and to be honest since coming back to training I have not done a supine crunch and I probably never will because they are a retarded movement, do I have a core of steel yes. Still too fat to show it though, ;-((
Very disappointed with you and your input, and I think to be honest most gyms are touting "functional" training and then not actually providing qualified functional trainers. It is more to do with the more complex compound moves and keeping HR elevated so people get more bang for their buck in shorter time frames.
Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. I could pull up even more (since I've personally researched it myself which is why I posted my opinion on it) if you like, but I doubt I'd convince you of it.Today, it is well documented in the scientific literature that progressive resistance training aimed at improving strength, power, and muscular hypertrophy, as well as endurance training or moderate aerobic exercise combined with improved eating habits, can lead to a plethora of health benefits in addition to very significant increases in all aspects of human performance for all age groups, including the elderly and children Behm, 1995; Brooks et al., 2005; Fitzgerald et al., 2004; Fujita et al., 1995; Ratamess et al, 2009, Rogers et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2009). However, it is noted that certain characteristics of exercise are important for achieving these benefits, in that the exercise must be progressive, specific, and must have some variation (Ratamess et al, 2009). Understanding these basic rules are important, because it helps one determine whether or not to implement a specific training program or tool.
Unfortunately, the idea of having a one-size-fits-all magical cure-all has not gone away, and people still search for the newest, greatest training method or device that will help them achieve all of their health and fitness goals with less time and energy spent. The idea of a modern training concept that will trump all those which came before it leads us to the focus of this paper. Numerous fitness enthusiasts and fitness professionals are advocating the use of unstable surface training (UST) as a means of achieving all physical and health goals. Unstable surface training may include the use of stability balls (AKA Swiss balls), BOSU balls, wobble boards, and several other devices that create an unstable platform with which to work from. Additionally, UST is being combined with resistance training exercises such that one will perform a traditional exercise with weights wile standing, sitting, or lying on an unstable surface. Upon entering any corporate gym n America or performing a simple Google search, one will quickly discover the high revalence of UST and its combination with resistance training.
One idea behind using UST is to increase trunk muscle activation during exercises that attempt to isolate the trunk musculature. However, a very recent review written by a Professor and practitioner of osteopathy makes a compelling argument that attempting to isolate the “core” musculature does not appear to offer any proven benefits, despite claims that this type of training will reduce lower back pain, improve rehabilitation, improve movement patterns and motor function, and prevent injuries (Lederman, 2010). In fact, it is suggested that core stability exercises are no more effective at strengthening the trunk and preventing injuries than any other type of exercise or therapy (Lederman, 2010). While claims exist about the preventative benefits of core stability training, hard scientific evidence is lacking (Lederman, 2010).
If we assume that Lederman’s (2010) argument is true, then it is unnecessary to address the use of UST for trunk isolation movements in this paper. Regardless, there appears to be a larger problem at hand. Proponents of performing resistance training exercises on an unstable surface claim that you can work your core, improve balance and coordination, rehabilitate injuries, “prehabilitate” (prevent injuries), build muscle, burn fat, and get stronger all at the same time. All of these claims for this fitness cure-all can be found on bosu.com and other websites that sell these types of products. Additionally, these claims have been found in numerous articles (not peer-reviewed) found on “ptonthenet,” a website for personal trainers that claims to be evidence-based yet never shows a single scientific reference. Additionally, “expert” writers on the website make claims about training “truths” that have been consistently rejected in the scientific literature.
Another interesting aspect to this story is that UST has already been thoroughly examined in peer-reviewed literature, yet advocates of UST never appear to discuss these studies. It appears that many advocates of UST may be unaware of the facts that (A) “ptonthenet” does not provide peer-reviewed scientific literature and (B) many of the claims that practitioners make about UST have actually been tested by many different scientists in many different laboratories. Therefore, it is the purpose of this paper to discuss the existing peer-reviewed literature as it pertains to UST and find out if its current popularity amongst practitioners is justified. Deciphering this evidence will help to determine if UST devices are the newest cure-all, or if the American people should be focusing on other proven methods for health and performance, such as traditional progressive resistance training, as is outlined in the recently updated ACSM Position Stand on Resistance Training (Ratamess et al., 2009).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
And I repeat, if you think functional training is putting people on an unstable surface, then you have very little understanding of what functional training is and I find it hilarious. Anecdotal or otherwise you are misrepresenting or choosing to belittle something for whatever your personal prejudice is. I have enjoyed your inputs on everything, on this occasion I beg to differ because 28 years or not I see traditional trainees and functionally trained, results talk.
The reality is that functional training in the fitness industry is promoted to pad the pocket book. 20 years ago you didn't see Bosu balls, stability boards, etc. Like "toning" (a made up term by the fitness industry to fool women into weight training), the promotion of these apparatuses were to draw more people to the industry by claiming that it would work the "core" better (which everyone wants since a stream lined midsection is physically desirable) than traditional exercises.
I train people on TRX suspension systems and use it myself for variety. It's a great workout and IMO for the price for a piece of equipment you can take anywhere (literally)really good. Does it work? Sure it does. Does it get anyone in BETTER shape than others who train with traditional exercises? Subjective. The biggest difference? My TRX clients PAY a fee (for 10 sessions it's $250).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 991 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions