Vibration training?..your opinion please

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.

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?

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).

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.

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 methodology

Just wanted to say... The title totally made me think this thread was about something else.

That is all.

Just wanted to say... The title totally made me think this thread was about something else.

That is all.

This

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.
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 nutrition

I appreciate your perspective, and putting it out that strongly helps focus the discussion. I am still kind of going over it in my head, not to look for points of disagreement, but to make sure I am being logically consistent. And I am intuitively in kind of the same place as you.

One other aspect in the different kinds of training is: what are you going to use it for? By that, I mean in practical terms, is there more benefit to increasing your bench press, say, from 200 to 250lbs, or to use something like TRX that might result in a *decrease* in bench strength, but have more functional application (i.e. increased use of stabilizers, multi plane movements, etc). To be honest, I don't think of UST in terms of "core" training, if one is describing "core" as a toned abdominal musculature.

I use it primarily for people who need to improve balance and stability, and to rehab from injuries -- like it was intended.

If I am working with a younger athlete, I don't waste time on any of that stuff--it's not what they want.

However, I do you and the other poster were defining "functional" a little differently. I think he was using the term more as a description of "sport specific" strength and conditioning drills.

Regarding functional training and definition I have read numerous articles and take part in functional or full range of movement strength and conditioning exercisesI do use UST but simplly to avoid ridiculous fad based supine crunches. I am not naieve regarding the many con jobs in the fitness industry, particularly the great snake oil salesman Charles Poliquin.

Wikipedia, has a concise definition of Functional Training.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_training?oldid=0

And I do functional training along side the conventional big lifts but

a) I lift just about as much as is practical - unless someone knows of a job where lifting more than 80Kilos overhead is necessary and pays really well.
b) Muscle endurance, body movement, cardio condition, lack of injury, balance, ability to absorb knocks are all improved by adopting a tri-planar approach to strength. Hips move really well, shoulders amazingly well, ankle flexibility, no tightness or impingement in muscle groups.

Now admittedly, a really great personal trainer will help me achieve B but a functional trainer and therapist who has in addition all the traditional qualifications is going to provide a better service for me.

But yes, maybe functional training has been hijacked as a term in disreputable gyms, and therefore Functional trainers are going to have to create a different buzz.



And who said Functional Training offered better core development? i certainly did not, you went off on the UST angle.

the fact that some people can single leg squat on a balance ball rather dictates that their core is stronger, is doing that a functional exercise - clearly it is not. It defies everything that functional training is about - FUNCTION versus Circus Skills


Callisthenetic maestro at Beast Skills demonstrates Circus Skills and amazing strength, applicable to life. Yes, for impressing potential mates.

There are no magic bullets for fitness. And I hate the promised land of the next big thing - I feel vibration plate works for me especially on calf development, I was frankly bemused about the core activation part through instability that you were highlighting and it seemed to me that you took a very broad brushstroke to functional training. I guess though that as a seasoned professional you also get miffed at the promises of quick fixes versus structured workouts with an achieveable goal.

I suppose argument of benefit aside, perhaps I just enjoy the challenges of exercises that are compound in nature and require the body to do lots more than push and pull. Anyone who thinks that this can replace deadlift, squat and overhead pressing is sadly mistaken, as with everything in fitness you need the complete package. In the same way that anyone who believes only lifting and cardio is makiing them a complete package is wrong.

(a) If you want functional training. Go play on a jungle gym or climb a tree. It is free.

The fact is these terms are marketing jargon .Just like "exercise" . They are generic and are for the layperson, not scientific.

Real Vibration Training is not cardio. It is simply looping an eccentric contraction. It does not do total fitness. But what it does do, it does very well ( if used properly )

For PTs to read..... http://www.vibration-training-advice.com/lloyd-shaw-s-pts-guide-to-vibration-training

(2) Most gyms have no staff qualified enough to use this equipment. It is pure ego / marketing for trainers to suggest otherwise. This is specialist equipment.


Research..... Really does not help when most machines are fake with clueless researchers.


http://www.vibration-training-advice.com/fake-specs-the-true-timeline-of-discovery

I'm believing now that it is probably the way we are thinking of application. I do train sports athletes (mostly teens) and apply lots of functional training because most do have to work balance and ballistic movements.
Personally for me, I just don't like the way it's marketed by the fitness industry and the deception of focusing on the midsection since for some reason having a slim sexy waistline is the basic goal of just about everyone. Not that it's not a good goal to have, but referring to functional training as a "better" way to train the core than traditional exercise by the current fitness industry direction is IMO a misrepresentation to improve profits.