Buzzing with Good (or Bad) Intentions? by Dr. Lon Kilgore

Editor’s Note: We are pleased to present another guest post by Dr. Lon Kilgore. Today’s Kilgore article looks at the risks of vibration plate training. It continues the theme developed by John Weatherly. Weatherly’s vibration plate articles (Part 1, Part 2) exposed the unreliable research the National Strength and Conditioning Association published on its sponsor Power Plate. 

Image by Dr. Lon Kilgore

Image by Dr. Lon Kilgore

What do we really want to do with vibration devices? They’ve been in and out of fashion since Kellogg’s painful vibrating chair in the 1880’s but if vibration truly drove fitness gain, wouldn’t every truck driver and machine operator be a pinnacle of fitness? And doesn’t vibration carry with it a documented risk of injury?

—————-

It is no secret that the NSCA has made some relatively stern, and public, statements that paint CrossFit as a purveyor of unsafe and ineffective exercise training. For example,

An additional concern with ECPs is the risk of injury …

In summary, though ECPs such as CrossFit and P90X are very popular, this popularity does not appear to be warranted. There is little evidence from peer-reviewed studies that ECPs are safe and/or effective

Let’s counterpoint this treatment to how the NSCA approaches another trendy exercise modality, vibration training.

First, we need to set the table. Vibration training involves a trainee standing on, or exercising on a large vibrating plate. Some models of this equipment type have handlebars to hold, other models do not. The basic concept here is the strong vibrations, delivered at frequencies between 10 and 60 Hz, are applied to the human body and cause the mechanoreceptors (sensory nerves) in the muscles to fire, causing muscular contraction on a fairly large scale. This muscular activity, with no exercise, is proposed to drive fitness. If you can simply stand on a vibrator and get fit, why wouldn’t everyone do that? Especially since the NSCA blesses vibration training as safe and effective to use in every warm-up session:

it can be recommended that if practitioners have access to a WBV platform that it can be used within a warm-up protocol …

There was an increase in flexibility and power output

This position is interesting in the context of the background literature regarding vibration exposure and the human body. When a human body is exposed to vibration, the symptoms are immediate and related to vibration frequency (hertz or Hz):

  • 4-8 Hz – Influence on breathing movements
  • 4-9 Hz – General feeling of discomfort
  • 4-9 Hz – Muscle contractions
  • 4-10 Hz – Abdominal pains
  • 5-7Hz – Chest Pains
  • 6-8 Hz – Lower Jaw symptoms
  • 10-18 Hz – Urge to urinate
  • 12-16 Hz – “Lump in throat”
  • 13-20 Hz – Head symptoms
  • 13-20 Hz – Influence on speech
  • 13-20 Hz – Increased muscle tonus

Vibrating the entire body repeatedly over time has also been documented to produce some fairly deleterious effects:

  • 10 Hz – Inner ear damage
  • 20 Hz – Organ resonance
  • 30 Hz – Nerve damage
  • 10-30 Hz – Blurred vision
  • 50 Hz – Loss of visual acuity
  • 30 and 60 Hz – Arterial damage

The risk of permanent damage from vibration is related to the amount of vibration exposure, with long or repeated exposures carrying the highest probability of injury. It is a telling indictment that the NSCA endorses regular use of an exercise modality that has enough documented hazard that the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, via ANSI and ISO standards, and the European Parliament have recommendations in place to monitor and limit vibration exposure.

Regular exposure to whole-body vibration in the workplace has been described as a cause for:

  • Low back pain
  • Neck and shoulder disorders
  • Digestive disorders
  • Circulatory disorders
  • Cochleo-vestibular disorders
  • Possible reproductive issues
  • Vehicular safety hazard (loss of vehicle control)

How broadly scoping potential for injury arises can be represented as in the graphic below:

By Dr. Lon Kilgore

By Dr. Lon Kilgore. Adapted and expanded from Seidel H (2005). On the relationship between Wholebody Vibration Exposure and Spinal Health Risk. Industrial Health, 43: 361-377.

While most of the concern about whole body vibration is in the workplace, the use of vibration devices in the fitness environment carries the same risks.

In fact, Clinton Rubin, Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Biomedical Engineering at SUNY, has written that

The magnitudes used in those devices [referring to commercially available vibration devices for fitness] well in excess of 8.0G, are well beyond the limits recommended for human tolerance by ISO and OSHA, are 35 times greater in amplitude than those mechanical signals that we study, are inherently dangerous, and to our knowledge, show little if any evidence that their devices are safe for the bone, cartilage, muscle, tendon, ligaments or any of the major organs.

Is it strange that the NSCA recommends an “exercise” modality that has a trainee placed on and potentially exercising on top of an apparatus that confounds neuromotor feedback and defeats spinal reflexes, reflexes intended to ensure our safety and function? What possible rationale could a professional organization have to take such a cavalier position in this instance while singling out CrossFit, whose safety has been shown to be as safe, or safer, than weight training, soccer, cheerleading, and virtually all other training modalities? http://www.nsca.com/about-us/support-and-sponsors/

Should the NSCA executive group take it upon themselves to drive the creation of materials for public consumption that inequitably and potentially wrongfully promote or deter use of any exercise modality? Should the NSCA membership demand accountability for the actions of their executive group?

These are valid questions that must be answered in order for the NSCA to rightfully occupy their self-proclaimed niche as the “world authority” on strength and conditioning.

SOURCES:

Leahy, G. Evidence-Based Physical Training: Do CrossFit or P90X Make the Cut.  http://www.nsca.com/education/articles/evidence-based-physical-training-do-crossfit-or-p90x-make-the-cut/

National Strength & Conditioning Association. Is whole-body vibration training effective for golfers? http://www.nsca.com/education/articles/is-whole-body-vibration-training-effective-for-golfers/

Rasmussen G. (1983). Human body vibration exposure and its measurement. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73(6): 2229.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA Technical Manual (OTM) Section II: Chapter 3 [Updated 02/11/2014] https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_ii/otm_ii_3.html#WholeBodyVibration

American National Standards Institute. ANSI S3.18:2002 (adoption of ISO 2631-1). International Organization for Standardization. ISO 2631-1:1997 (Mechanical vibration and shock: Evaluation of human exposure to whole body vibration—Part 1: General requirements); http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2fASA+S2.72-2002%2fPart+1+%2f+ISO+2631-1%3a1997+%28R2012%29

European Parliament. Directive 2002/44/EC. Minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32002L0044&from=EN

Muir J, Kiel D, and Rubin C. (2013). Safety and severity of accelerations delivered from whole body vibration exercise devices to standing adults. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 16(6): 526–531. 

Rubin, C. (2006). Contraindications and Potential Dangers of the Use of Vibration as a Treatment for Osteoporosis and other Musculoskeletal Diseases. http://www.bme.sunysb.edu/people/faculty/docs/crubin/safety-1-11-06.pdf

Seidel H (2005). On the relationship between Wholebody Vibration Exposure and Spinal Health Risk. Industrial Health, 43: 361-377

About the Author:
Professor Lon Kilgore graduated from Lincoln University with a bachelor of science in biology and earned a Ph.D. in anatomy and physiology from Kansas State University. He has competed in weightlifting to the national level since 1972 and coached his first athletes to national-championship event medals in 1974. He has worked in the trenches, as a coach or scientific consultant, with athletes from rank novices to professionals and the Olympic elite, and as a collegiate strength coach. He has been a certifying instructor for USA Weightlifting for more than a decade and a frequent lecturer at events at the U.S. Olympic Training Center. His illustration, authorship, and co-authorship efforts include the best-selling books “Starting Strength” (first and second editions) and “Practical Programming for Strength Training” (first and second editions), recent releases “Anatomy Without a Scalpel” and “FIT,” magazine columns, textbook chapters, and numerous research journal publications. He is presently engaged in the most difficult task of his career: recreating the educational track to becoming a professional fitness practitioner. The second stage of this effort is the creation of a one-year university qualification in fitness practice at the University of the West of Scotland.

45 comments

  1. lloydrshaw

    All I can say is. The person who wrote this article is highly uneducated in real Vibration Training. And I would say has ZERO experience in the field. ( which is not general. It is a stand alone discipline which no other qualification carries over into )

    And the information he omits is unethical.

    You guys are no better than the NSCA.

    • Russ Greene

      Lloyd,

      I am looking forward to your rebuttal.

      If it is well thought out and cites sources, as I expect it will, I would love to publish it.

      • lloydrshaw

        So lets get this right. You hate the NSCA / Richard Beddie etc… publishing articles full of cherry picked BS. Forcing you to write rebuttals.

        But you will do this yourself. ……. What a legendary hypocrite you are.

      • lloydrshaw

        You going to answer the question……??

        So lets get this right. You hate the NSCA / Richard Beddie etc… publishing articles full of cherry picked BS. Forcing you to write rebuttals.

        But you will happily do this yourself. …….

      • Russ Greene

        Lloyd,
        Truthfully, I was unaware of any possible issues with Lon’s sources before we published the article. Now that you have brought them to my attention, I would love for you to rebut them publicly, and correct the record.

        Our issue with the NSCA is that they knowingly published fraudulent research, and then refused to correct the record. Neither of those charges is applicable here.

  2. lloydrshaw

    All you have done here. Is republish some of the unethical scare tactic info marketing some Vibration Training / Therapy companies used to try and sell their product in the early days.

    Eg……. Juvent ( That Dr Rubin had shares in. Had only built machine big enough to be effective on a mouse. So was kind of screwed. Company went under ).

    Power Plate ( told people if you use ANYONE else’s machine your eyeballs will explode ).

    Pivotal companies ( told everyone only Pivotal was safe.

    PTs who could not be bothered learning a new discipline. Or try a real machine. So spouted off it was either dangerous or useless.

    As for the ISO2631 work on occupational health comparison protocols. I WROTE THEM In 2001. Because I wanted to do a worse case scenario impact report for Power Plate ( who then refused to acknowledge it ) As a product Manager and mortician who had other reasons other than greed to enter the industry.

    But you don’t have to trust me……

    But besides all that, you would have known by critical thinking that if VT has been commercially available for over a decade. And it has been widely used by not only athletes but at risk populations with Muscular Dystrophy , Parkinson’s, Stroke victims etc… And it has a excellent safety record. ( none of the predicted damaged ever occurred….. )

    Then you have just done EXACTLY what you accuse others of doing with CF…….. ” were are all the injuries ”

    If you wanted to do the real story. It would have been about the Europeans and us in N.Z. using controlled vibration to form an industry based on safety first. Were as the NSCA went with uncontrolled poorly built devices ( fake machines ) and let people do stupid uncontrolled workouts on them.

    You just shit on 10 years of my hard work to make this industry honest and safe. Turning away a blank check from PP to lie for them. Been training people who utilized or needed this technology for over 10 years. The ones who need it get it free.

    You have no idea the damage the above rubbish does. It is cheery picking scare mongering BS at its worst.

    .

  3. lloydrshaw

    The truth about Dr Rubin your so called expert should have known……

    History / perspective

    The first platforms used were driven by speakers and not small motors with counterweights for good reason, Dr Clinton Rubin et al had done studios on tennis players arms back in 1981. Trying to figure out the exact cause for a 27% increase in bone mass on the playing arm.

    Dr Rubin had a theory, and that was bones also responded to noise not just force ( the idea had actually come from two places, purring in animals and bone phones ( early phone prototypes that transmitted sound through the skeletal system )

    Idea was simple. If noise traveled so well through bone. Maybe a biological response was possible just with sound like vibrations.

    The idea worked , with more mice tests done than any other. A single “Rubin Device” was used during these tests. As per photos above.

    Results. Bone density increase. Loss of body fat ( mice only ) Muscle mass increase ( mice only )

    Human tests done straight after on the same devices showed none of the dramatic positive effects. And the best that was found was a slowing down or slight increase in lower limb / spine MBD.

    On top of that engineering issues like overheating of the devices was of real concern. ( first recommendation was 20 mins , but that got taken down to 10 mins )

    The reason for the multi level failure was simple for designers of VT machines to see. The platforms had not been re-engineered to take the mass of a human. The dampening effect was skewing all results and leading to the failure of the devices themselves. And after 10 mins speakers being restricted in movement often burn out the amp.

    Also the contentions issue of focusing solely on Fq as the reason behind the previous animal results.

    Eg…… Test platform specs used on mice had not been directly unscaled to a human equivalent ( 1.70m tall @ 75kg ) = 30hz / 28mm amplitude.

    The contentious issues being this. At 30hz / 28mm these animals were on some serious Vibration Training platforms. Far exceeding anything we build for humans today . ( this was pointed out to Rubins team a number of times. They refused to respond. We found out why shortly )
    Dr Clinton Rubin in the mean time had released articles and media statements saying anything other than his 30hz / 0.3g would be very damaging to humans. ( he has never retracted this even though subsequent research globally has debunked it )

  4. lloydrshaw

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25592188

    CONCLUSIONS:

    Addition of high- and low-intensity WBV significantly increased the VO2 and HR, but the increase was modest. WBV thus should not pose any substantial cardiovascular hazard in people with chronic stroke.

    And that research list goes on and on and on. Athletes, people with life threatening disabilities. All foiund it to be safe and sometimes effective.

    You want to explain that to the people you ask to trust you to be straight up in your articles ?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vibration+exercise

  5. lloydrshaw

    And the only reason Rubin even considered ISO regulations was because I heard he was doing triple 20 min doses to his mice. And thought it was a bad precedent to set up for VT protocols and safety measures for humans.
    Next minute he is spouting it off like a good idea to look at.

    Then you have the audacity to quote him like an expert. He is a marketer now, a compromised desperate scientist that’s all.

  6. lloydrshaw

    ” Today’s Kilgore article looks at the risks of vibration plate training ”

    So lets see this “expert” come on here and defend that statement. Of course not patronizing me pretending to be confused about our industries well documented history.

  7. Dr Lon Gilgore has gone to some length to show possible negative results of vibration from many activities, not purely controlled whole body vibration. The graphic titled “Whole Body Vibration” (adapted from another study) would have us all running in fear, if it were true. It is presented at fact but actually unsubstantiated – it’s too broad in scope for one thing. The article “use of vibration devices in the fitness environment” is interesting and even within that study are delimiters – the measurements are attenuated by position e.g. squats rather than lock-legged standing; feet leave the platform (of course) once the standard 1g is exceeded; published benefits of vibration training and vibration therapy are stated.

    We have much yet to study about vibration training but to write it off as totally unsafe based on current knowledge of, mostly, industrial vibration’s possible damage to the human body (related to long time or periods of time and force), would be to deny what I and many others see daily – the strength gains, health improvements, mobility improvements etc – oh wait, these are the same benefits as other fitness modalities provide so vibration training is simply another method. Has vibration training been proven unsafe? Definitely not! How many people have trained on Vibration Platforms of varying types for upward of 5 years or even 10 years and how many have been injured – suffered brain damage, arterial or visual damage, or nerve damage? Any that have had some “injury”, have they followed correct training protocols, have they trained under supervision and what percentage of people have experienced these injuries? Maybe someone can answer me as I’m not an academic and don’t have access to this info.

    Perhaps we need to all beware of the Gravity force – a sneeze produces some 2-3g and a sharp slap on the back about 4g and how often do these happen in a lifetime. A physics textbook even states that if you jump on a chair about a metre high and land completely lock-legged on the ground you can experience for an instant a force of around 100g (most unpleasant I’d say so please don’t try it). I’ve used high energy, linear vibration training and vibration therapy as my main fitness training method for almost 9 years. I have none of the “fairly deleterious effects” listed in the article. Instead I have benefits of strength, improved blood glucose control, mental acuity that is excellent for age, and more.

  8. lloydrshaw

    http://www.rehab.research.va.gov/jour/11/482/page179.html

    Reason for study…

    Whole-body vibration training using single-frequency methods has been reported to improve bone mineral density. However, the intensities ( were thought by some ) to exceed safe levels..

    Conclusion to the study…

    Vibration Training generates stress level equivalent to the level during walking and stair-climbing. This evidence suggests that VT is safe for prolonged use in subjects with osteoporosis who ambulate independently.

    So lets get this straight. It is comparable to walking or stair-climbing. And safer than jogging.

    Never mind the FACT it has been commercial available for 10 years in the public domain as a full on exercise tool, including such delicate cases involving MS, MD, Parkinson’s and “at risk of fracture” osteoporosis sufferers.

    You would think it would be obvious to anyone doing any homework on this subject there is no cause for actual concern. Outside someone deliberately misusing a vibration platform.

  9. lloydrshaw

    A point on safety I would like to make for the readers of this discussion with more than 3 brain cells and no ulterior motive …..

    Studies on older people and children ( in hospitals , US, Australia and Europe ) have been done. If anyone has followed the process of getting this kind of thing past an ethics committee. You would know how hard it is for a physical therapy to get that far.

    It is easier to get a dodgy drug tested on humans.

  10. Russ/Russell/CrossFit,

    What I’m about to say isn’t meant to be pointed or condescending whatsoever. I’m an admirer of both of your body’s of work and appreciate the efforts you’ve put into making CrossFit what it is today. As a 6 year CrossFit veteran, I have coached at, competed with, and help start gyms both in the US and overseas with great success. My question is simply this: if CrossFit is, as you seem to argue, one of (if not the) most effective methods of training, why not prove it through research and study?

    I understand from reading your blog every day that there is a deep distrust and dislike of organizations such as the NSCA and ACSM. As a professional strength coach within US military special operations, I hold certifications from both of these groups as well as several others (CrossFit included). I, too, am often skeptical of some of the research published by these groups, however, you cannot seriously claim that every study published by the NSCA/ACSM/whomever is flawed and politically motivated. The quote by Glassman that sports science has done nothing good for fitness is, in my opinion, terrible. As an example, look no further than the very “Foundations of CrossFit” article that essentially forms the basis of the discipline. These early articles describe the body’s energy systems. How do we have such knowledge of these systems if not for sports science? Again, this is only one example but it shows the overall position of CrossFit as an “us against them” mindset. My question, again, is why?

    Why not publish research? Why not conduct studies, have them peer reviewed, and then published in professional journals? Instead of focusing 100% of your efforts on trying to destroy institutions, why not focus on support your/our own? I earned my Masters degree in Strength and Conditioning in the UK by authoring a thesis on the benefits of CrossFit in a team sports environment, and I can say from experience that by collecting data and exposing it to critique, I was able to make a strong scientific case for the efficacy of CrossFit. Your reach is much longer than mine, and your influence much greater, so why not do the same?

    I realize this got a bit long and never touched on vibration training, but in reading this article I again recognized a thread that seems to run through all of your articles and that is this: CrossFit is good, NSCA is bad, and now lets use our resources on trying to tell you how bad they are instead of proving how good CrossFit is. Again, I don’t intend to cause harm here…let me re-state that I have been involved with CrossFit for years and have seen it work. What I don’t see, however, is any scientific literature proving the effectiveness beyond what is “published” in the relative safety of the CrossFit Journal.

    You’re both smart guys. You know your stuff. From one strength coach to another, why not prove to the scientific and fitness world what a lot of us already know?

    • Russ Greene

      “What I’m about to say isn’t meant to be pointed or condescending whatsoever. I’m an admirer of both of your body’s of work and appreciate the efforts you’ve put into making CrossFit what it is today. As a 6 year CrossFit veteran, I have coached at, competed with, and help start gyms both in the US and overseas with great success. My question is simply this: if CrossFit is, as you seem to argue, one of (if not the) most effective methods of training, why not prove it through research and study?”

      CrossFit or years has proposed a simple standard for fitness program efficacy: increased work capacity across broad time and modal domains. My question to NSCA and ACSM, therefore, is if they think they have a superior tool for achieving this result, where is their evidence? Where are their athletes’ fitness data? If the NSCA and ACSM think they have a better standard for measuring fitness programs’ efficacy, what is it?

      As far as published research goes, the CrossFit training department is already supporting a multi-year, $2.4 million dollar study, led by Dr. Katie Heinrich. It may be the first long-term, controlled study on concurrent strength and conditioning programs, at least performed in the US.

      Where are the ACSM and NSCA’s long-term studies on concurrent strength and conditioning programs? Do they exist? I haven’t seen any.

      “I understand from reading your blog every day that there is a deep distrust and dislike of organizations such as the NSCA and ACSM. As a professional strength coach within US military special operations, I hold certifications from both of these groups as well as several others (CrossFit included). I, too, am often skeptical of some of the research published by these groups, however, you cannot seriously claim that every study published by the NSCA/ACSM/whomever is flawed and politically motivated. The quote by Glassman that sports science has done nothing good for fitness is, in my opinion, terrible. As an example, look no further than the very “Foundations of CrossFit” article that essentially forms the basis of the discipline. These early articles describe the body’s energy systems. How do we have such knowledge of these systems if not for sports science? Again, this is only one example but it shows the overall position of CrossFit as an ‘us against them’ mindset. My question, again, is why?”

      We did not state that every study published by the NSCA or ACSM is flawed. I am not sure why you are rebutting a point we did not make. We have only specifically stated that NSCA and ACSM’s work on CrossFit, vibration plates, and hydration is flawed. For the first we can demonstrate it with the sworn statements of the Devor study’s subjects, for the second we can show that they failed to test vibration platforms for reliability, and for the last we can point you to the work of Dr. Tim Tim Noakes, Dr. Ben Speedy, and Dr. Kevin Miller.

      “Why not publish research? Why not conduct studies, have them peer reviewed, and then published in professional journals? Instead of focusing 100% of your efforts on trying to destroy institutions, why not focus on support your/our own? I earned my Masters degree in Strength and Conditioning in the UK by authoring a thesis on the benefits of CrossFit in a team sports environment, and I can say from experience that by collecting data and exposing it to critique, I was able to make a strong scientific case for the efficacy of CrossFit. Your reach is much longer than mine, and your influence much greater, so why not do the same?”

      Beyond the 2.4 million dollar study I mentioned above, CrossFit hosted this year a ground-breaking international conference on Hyponatremia, which will produce new, practical guidelines that athletes can use to prevent a preventable, disease: exercise-associated hyponatremia.

      “I realize this got a bit long and never touched on vibration training, but in reading this article I again recognized a thread that seems to run through all of your articles and that is this: CrossFit is good, NSCA is bad, and now lets use our resources on trying to tell you how bad they are instead of proving how good CrossFit is. Again, I don’t intend to cause harm here…let me re-state that I have been involved with CrossFit for years and have seen it work. What I don’t see, however, is any scientific literature proving the effectiveness beyond what is ‘published’ in the relative safety of the CrossFit Journal.”

      You are asking us why we don’t have high quality, long-term, studies on strength and conditioning programs when the NSCA and ACSM don’t either. And CrossFit is working on what may be the first, in the US. Meanwhile the NSCA and ACSM continue to study sugary drinks and Power plates.

      “You’re both smart guys. You know your stuff. From one strength coach to another, why not prove to the scientific and fitness world what a lot of us already know?”

      • “As far as published research goes, the CrossFit training department is already supporting a multi-year, $2.4 million dollar study, led by Dr. Katie Heinrich. It may be the first long-term, controlled study on concurrent strength and conditioning programs, at least performed in the US. ”

        – Really? You imply CrossFit is directly involved in the funding of this study. CrossFit is not funding this study, the US Army is. By supporting do you mean that are promoting it? If CrossFit has actually sponsored and paid for any peer reviewed published research, please let me know.

      • Russ Greene

        I said that CrossFit is supporting the study. And this is true: CrossFit is supporting the study through the cooperation of its training department.

        CrossFit also funded an international conference on hyponatremia that will publish its fundings in a peer-reviewed journal this year.

  11. In response to your question of whether or not the NSCA/ACSM have published any studies on concurrent training (which I think CrossFit would fall under), I’ll direct you to the following:

    “Effect of Concurrent Endurance and Circuit Resistance Training Sequence on Muscular Strength and Power Development”
    Published by: NSCA
    Number of subjects: 48
    Length of study: 12 weeks
    http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2008/07000/Effect_of_Concurrent_Endurance_and_Circuit.2.aspx

    “Concurrent Training: A Meta-Analysis Examining Interference of Aerobic and Resistance Exercises”
    Published by: NSCA
    Number of studies investigated: 21 (422 effect sizes)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22002517

    “Review: The Effects of Combined Strength and Endurance Training on Strength Development”
    Published by: NSCA
    http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/1990/05000/A_Review__The_Effects_of_Combined_Strength_and.5.aspx

    “Effect of Preseason Concurrent Muscular Strength and High-Intensity Interval Training in Professional Soccer Players”
    Published by: NSCA
    Number of Subjects: 39
    Length of study: 8 weeks
    http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2010/03000/Effect_of_Preseason_Concurrent_Muscular_Strength.9.aspx

    “The Interference Effects of Training for Strength and Endurance Simultaneously”
    Published by: NSCA
    Length of Study: 8 weeks
    http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/1994/02000/The_Interference_Effects_of_Training_for_Strength.3.aspx

    “Concurrent Training Enhances Athletes’ Strength, Muscle Endurance, and Other Measures”
    Published by: NSCA
    Number of Subjects: 28
    Length of Study: 11 weeks
    http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2008/07000/Effect_of_Concurrent_Endurance_and_Circuit.2.aspx

    My intention here is not to throw hundreds of sources at you, but if you consider what’s listed above PLUS what’s included in the meta analysis, you’re looking at upwards of 30 studies on concurrent training spanning from the early 90’s to late 2000’s…some for and some against the idea of combining multiple training modalities simultaneously (i.e. nonlinear periodization vs something like block or traditional periodization).

    I acknowledge the time, effort, and money that CrossFit is putting into forthcoming research. I was fortunate enough during my thesis work to be in contact with several of the sports scientists that CrossFit is working with to conduct said research. And, as you say, longer-term studies are always better. Will this CrossFit study, then, be put through the paces of peer review and scientific exposure?

    Again, understand that I’m coming from a position of relative neutrality. As a sports scientist/strength coach it’s literally my job to disseminate research and findings on popular practices and find ways of implementing findings into the programming for my athletes. I laugh just as hard as you do when I see studies citing the effectiveness of sugary drinks that are, essentially, sponsored by sugary drink companies. That being said, is the idea of having a company fund a study in favor of that company any different than what you guys are doing with Dr. Heinrich?

    • Russ Greene

      “In response to your question of whether or not the NSCA/ACSM have published any studies on concurrent training (which I think CrossFit would fall under), I’ll direct you to the following”

      I said long-term studies. The longest study you have here is 12 weeks long. Is that what you mean by long-term?

      “My intention here is not to throw hundreds of sources at you, but if you consider what’s listed above PLUS what’s included in the meta analysis, you’re looking at upwards of 30 studies on concurrent training spanning from the early 90’s to late 2000’s…some for and some against the idea of combining multiple training modalities simultaneously (i.e. nonlinear periodization vs something like block or traditional periodization).

      I acknowledge the time, effort, and money that CrossFit is putting into forthcoming research. I was fortunate enough during my thesis work to be in contact with several of the sports scientists that CrossFit is working with to conduct said research. And, as you say, longer-term studies are always better. Will this CrossFit study, then, be put through the paces of peer review and scientific exposure?”

      Yes it will. It’s funded by the NIH and will go through peer review and publication. It’s not a CrossFit-funded study.

      “Again, understand that I’m coming from a position of relative neutrality. As a sports scientist/strength coach it’s literally my job to disseminate research and findings on popular practices and find ways of implementing findings into the programming for my athletes. I laugh just as hard as you do when I see studies citing the effectiveness of sugary drinks that are, essentially, sponsored by sugary drink companies. That being said, is the idea of having a company fund a study in favor of that company any different than what you guys are doing with Dr. Heinrich?”

      Earlier you asked why CrossFit wasn’t supporting research. Now you seem to be asking why CrossFit is supporting research, since it’s a conflict of interest.

      To reiterate, CrossFit is helping make sure that the training in the study meets CrossFit’s standards, but CrossFit is not funding the study. The NIH is.

      • Russ,
        How long of a study would you like to see? Out of my own curiosity, how long is this upcoming CrossFit study? Is it longitudinal or cross-sectional? My knock against longitudinal studies (which you may disagree with) is that after a time, you’re essentially dealing with observational research…at which point the conclusions you draw become more or less independent of whatever intervention you were hoping to study (in this case, CrossFit). The reason I limited my references to upwards of 12 weeks is because within that sort of time frame, as sports scientists, we still have enough control over our variables (independent, dependent, confounding, etc. etc.) to extrapolate our findings to a much broader population. As I’m sure you’re aware of, this sort of study then becomes cross-sectional (or repeated cross-sectional over a broader time frame).

        When it comes to sports science research, as I’m sure you’ll agree, the ability as investigators to control our variables and, thus, draw conclusions on our findings, is the whole point of the research in the first place. Simply observing a phenomenon (i.e. CrossFit) for an extended period of time (i.e. years) and then stating that “CrossFit is responsible for physiological and psychological changes that occurred” ignores the possibility of any other external variable playing a role over that duration of time (i.e. lifestyle changes, nutritional habits, aging, other hobbies/interests/etc.). I’m not saying that that’s what you guys are intending to do, I’m just saying that in a study like that, I would imagine that would be the biggest critique. I’m also not saying that one type of study is better than the other, rather, that in the instance of such a powerful intervention as CrossFit, it’d be pretty cool to see what kind of physiological response folks have to 6-12 weeks of training! That’s the kind of study that could say “hey, you know what? We imposed an intervention on these guys for 12 weeks, minimized our biases, controlled for any sort of external influences, and as a result, found that they really kicked some serious ass as a direct result of that intervention!” As a coach, I’ve seen those sorts of positive responses to CrossFit time and again, so I know as well as you do that it works. However, I’ve always been interested to read a study in which there is an experimental group, a control group, a stated purpose, a statistical analysis of the findings, an effect size, blah blah blah with regards to CrossFit. If that’s the route your $2.4 million study is taking, I eagerly await the results!

        And since you earlier claimed that the NSCA doesn’t have any long term studies on strength and conditioning, I figured I’d throw this one in the mix as well. 2 years seems long enough…
        http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2013/02000/Strength_Performance_in_Youth___Trainability_of.11.aspx

        …I’d argue that combining soccer training (aerobic) with strength training (anaerobic) as they did in this study would qualify as concurrent training

        Thanks for playing the debate game!

      • Russ Greene

        I would like to see 6 month, 1 year, and 2 year long studies. The Heinrich study will be a 6-month intervention: http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=8756148&icde=21545597

        Heinrich’s study says, “in the proposed cluster-randomized clinical trial we will test the effectiveness of HIFT compared to usual care APRT in active duty military personnel.” This seems to meet your standards.

        I stated that I was unaware of any long-term NSCA or ACSM studies on long term, concurrent strength and conditioning programs. If you think that soccer playing qualifies as a conditioning program, then I suppose you could argue that you’ve found a long-term concurrent strength and conditioning program. My original intent, however, was to find a long term concurrent program that trained both strength and conditioning with programmed workouts, AND tested the effects of the program on both strength and conditioning. This soccer study does not do that.

        To reiterate, CrossFit has not accused every ACSM or NSCA article ever published of being flawed or fraudulent. This would be impossible since we have not read every NSCA or ACSM article ever published. We have, however, demonstrated significant issues in specific cases. You have not defended these cases: Devor, hydration, Power Plate.

        You then asked why CrossFit is not cooperating with any scientific research. I replied that CrossFit is doing so. You then wondered if the research would be controlled. It is.

  12. In all honesty, anecdotally, I’m not a huge fan of vibration training. We’ve got a force platform here that we use but only insofar as it’s been shown to improve short term flexibility which allows us to recuperate better force production through movements such as back squats and deadlifts (here’s an example:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4135069/). I actually liked your series of articles on the technology, mainly due to the fact that of all the equipment we’ve got in our facility, it’s the force platform that gets the funniest looks.

    I’m glad you brought up Devor, because the CrossFit reaction to that study has fascinated me and several others in my field (military S&C) who implement CrossFit as a training solution. CrossFit can injure people. Surely you don’t dispute that fact. Walking across the street can injure you too. So can driving a car. So can sleeping. The fact that your team, amongst others in the CrossFit community, lashed out so violently at a well-respected exercise physiologist seems, among other things, a bit naïve. If that’s how CrossFit responds to a study that literally SUPPORTS CrossFit, then I can’t imagine how you would react to a study that finds any sort of flaw in the program. Is the goal to sue every published report that finds fault? I feel like that sort of approach to science undermines the very purpose of science: to constantly question and seek improvement/advancement of knowledge. Would you see merit in CrossFit conducting it’s own injury study? Surely a scientific study on injury rates is a better rebuttal than a lawsuit, although unfortunately that seems to be the path we’re taking here with Devor.

    • Russ Greene

      “In all honesty, anecdotally, I’m not a huge fan of vibration training. We’ve got a force platform here that we use but only insofar as it’s been shown to improve short term flexibility which allows us to recuperate better force production through movements such as back squats and deadlifts (here’s an example:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4135069/). I actually liked your series of articles on the technology, mainly due to the fact that of all the equipment we’ve got in our facility, it’s the force platform that gets the funniest looks.”

      Did the study you’re citing test for the reliability of the equipment? If not, I’d hesitate to cite it, were in your position.

      “I’m glad you brought up Devor, because the CrossFit reaction to that study has fascinated me and several others in my field (military S&C) who implement CrossFit as a training solution. CrossFit can injure people. Surely you don’t dispute that fact. Walking across the street can injure you too. So can driving a car. So can sleeping.”

      I didn’t ever state that it’s impossible for CrossFit to injure people. Why are you rebutting a point I did not make, ever?

      “The fact that your team, amongst others in the CrossFit community, lashed out so violently at a well-respected exercise physiologist seems, among other things, a bit naïve. If that’s how CrossFit responds to a study that literally SUPPORTS CrossFit, then I can’t imagine how you would react to a study that finds any sort of flaw in the program. Is the goal to sue every published report that finds fault? I feel like that sort of approach to science undermines the very purpose of science: to constantly question and seek improvement/advancement of knowledge.”

      All 9 subjects that the Devor study claimed injured have sworn to the court that the study’s claim regarding them is untrue. They all have sworn they were not injured in the course of the challenge and that they did not tell the researchers they were.

      Do you, despite this evidence, think that the Devor study’s 16% rate of “overuse or injury” is valid? On what basis?

      If you do not think the Devor’s study is valid, why do you think CrossFit should tolerate intentional fraud published about its affiliated gyms?

      “Would you see merit in CrossFit conducting it’s own injury study? Surely a scientific study on injury rates is a better rebuttal than a lawsuit, although unfortunately that seems to be the path we’re taking here with Devor.”

      Hak and Giordano have published injury studies on CrossFit. Hak found a 3.1 per 1000h rate of injury. Giordano found 2.4 per 1000h. While neither study was ideal, these rates put CrossFit’s rate lower than or equal to traditional fitness programs.

      Furthermore, CrossFit already has over 2000 gyms enrolled in its Risk Retention Group. We know the rate of claims there, and it’s far lower than other gym chains we’ve compared it to.

      I do not think that CrossFit will publish its own injury study, perhaps for the reason you mentioned earlier: conflict of interest.

      The NSCA knowingly published fraud. You, and all other NSCA defenders, have no effective defense against this claim. Hence, you change the subject.

      • I’m not trying to change the subject at all. You brought up Devor and the surrounding arguments. And I’m not trying to attack you or CrossFit nor am I trying to defend the NSCA. I have my qualms with them just like the next guy. There’s pros and cons to every possible strength and conditioning intervention, CrossFit included. As I’ve said before, I myself am a CrossFitter, a coach, and a competitor, and I love the modality and what its done for me and those I’ve trained using it. My issue lies with what I put forward in my initial statement, which is the way in which CrossFit feels like it has to respond to every allegation or criticism to it’s approach. I realize that I’m not going to change or even sway your opinion. Heck, you guys have an entire website dedicated to demolishing anything that undermines the brand! To the contrary, I’m instead wondering if maybe there’s a better way to go about all this, whether it’s hydration, force platforms, injury rates, whatever. It seems to me, in my experience as a coach, student, scientist, and practitioner, that when methods and principles are questioned, the best response is to prove those doing the questioning wrong through evidence-based argument. CrossFit, on the other hand, seems to give off the vibe that it feels like it has to destroy any naysayers.

      • Russ Greene

        “maybe there’s a better way to go about all this, whether it’s hydration, force platforms, injury rates, whatever.”

        What methods would be more effective for exposing fraudulent research?

        What plan would you suggest for getting the NSCA to correct the Devor study publicly and admit they knowingly published fraud, getting Gatorade and its sponsored organizations to start an effective anti-hyper-hydration campaign, and getting the NSCA to retract its unreliable Power Plate studies?

        I’d love to hear your suggestions.

  13. lloydrshaw

    The answer is in the article……. Here is a so called “expert” writing an article on something that is clearly beyond him.
    Would you trust him to do a study on Crossfit ?

    Repeat question…….. ” Today’s Kilgore article looks at the risks of vibration plate training ”

    So lets see this “expert” come on here and defend that statement. Of course not patronizing me pretending to be confused about our industries well documented history.

    Or you guys hanging out with cowards nowadays ?

  14. lloydrshaw

    Russ Greene….. You just showed you personally are just fine with publishing material full of scare mongering potential injuries. You publish the word DAMAGE more than once. But offer ZERO evidence of a single case of this “damage” .

    Please explain this obvious double standard, while you rage about the NSCA doing the same thing to CF.

      • lloydrshaw

        Today’s Kilgore article looks at the risks of vibration plate training.

        ” vibration plate training.”

        So mentions “risks” from coached vibration training , but shows ONLY research from ISO over exposure in the workplace. Even though there are over 1000 papers on PubMed on the subject of Vibration Exercise on Vibration Plates.

        Can you please explain that ?

  15. vibeplus

    Please ask Dr Kilgore to tell us his personal experience and any use or in-house observations of machines being used. Noting what machine or machine type and the program being used. Evidence of efficacy or lack , and of safety long term 5 + years cannot be proven simply by an academic consideration of other older academic studies including ones proven to be badly lacking.

    The Vibration Training industry gets accused of talking too often about ‘subjective’ results but these can be seen and verified by doctors in the case of people with specific conditions. And sworn to by regular people who get immense benefits and none of the suggested bad effects. I want to know if this guest writer has even used a real vibration training platform. As an industry we fought this head in the sand attitude in articles 7 or 8 years ago. And we’re still here providing quality supervised training that gives real results. Alongside this both Lloyd and myself run therapy sessions for people who need this, again with real results. If wanted I can list some real people with real conditions who get real relief/results. (Give me few days I’m out if town so posting via phone)

    • lloydrshaw

      ” I acquired two different pieces of vibration equipment in order that our biomechanics, physiotherapy, and physiology groups could work towards developing a systematic and long term investigation into commercially available vibration equipment. I am familiar with the concepts and field”

      Two whole machines Di……. So he is now an expert in the field enough to write articles. Does that answer your question ?

  16. Mr. Shaw,

    I’d be more than happy to receive any coherent and objective arguments on the vibration topic.

    You suggest that I am cherry picking articles. I am not, I am summarizing the evidence available through PubMed, google scholar, and from open access resources around the world. I was not doing a comprehensive academic literature review. The purpose of my article was to establish a discussion out amongst the fitness professionals, by writing and pointing out, as I like to do, very curious things about how the profession conducts itself.

    Regardless, as part of my previous university professorial position in Scotland I acquired two different pieces of vibration equipment in order that our biomechanics, physiotherapy, and physiology groups could work towards developing a systematic and long term investigation into commercially available vibration equipment. I am familiar with the concepts and field.

    I read your posts closely to try to understand the nature of your protestations. You used http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25592188 in one of your posts. I’m not sure of the point to be made with listing the Liao study or how it signifies or demonstrates bias. The article I wrote clearly states vibration increases muscular effort during a workout and that is what the Liao study also says. So there is no argument to be had here.

    Regarding Dr. Rubin, an eminent researcher in engineering and vibration, I would suggest that his experimental data and his analysis of other papers in the field is relevant … and there are a number of other papers by other authors available on PubMed that echo his findings and interpretations. Without you listing specific papers that authoritatively state otherwise, the evidence in support of the efficacy of vibration training is very weak. There is data to say that vibration may be of some physical benefit but it pales to the volume and strength of the literature describing the more likely negative effects of whole body vibration on health. Who knows, over time, the weight of evidence may shift, but presently caution in application is warranted as there is a known dose response to vibration in respect to pain and injury.

    I am also quizzical on three points. The first is you vehemently state you are not motivated by greed in your defense of vibration training. However, you are head of a company that franchises a chain of vibration gyms in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK (http://www.vibra-train.com/openstudio.html). You do not state this in your posts. So you clearly have some financial motivation for your public protestations and accusations. Second, you state that you wrote ISO 2631 in 2001. That document was written in 1989 and revised in 1997. There was one 2001 revision of 9 pages on “vibration and rotational motion on passenger and crew comfort in fixed-guideway transport systems” as the only modification that year. Although not out of the realm of possibility, I would find it strange for the ISO to recruit a mortician and fitness professional to write such a short and non-exercise specific amendment to the document. The third point comes from your own words in these posts, you describe vibration training as “sometimes effective”. Regarding training methods, every trainer that works with a client, gets paid to be effective in improving fitness in some aspect. If a modality is only sometimes effective, is it really good business to use it?

    I do appreciate your defense of your brand and your beliefs. What I ask of every reader of every one of my articles and books is to make up their own mind by objectively considering the big picture and alternative viewpoints. While my position is evidence and practice based, I never claim to be infallible or all-knowing. Readers may side with you. Who knows? I also never ask anyone to trust me. Trust is only a word unless it is earned through hard work and outputs and I am very blessed that so many people do trust me and my work. (http://www.vibration-training-advice.com/consumer-guide-and-safety-program/articles-41—50/lloyd-shaw-who-am-i-and-why-should-you-trust-me)

    Respectfully,

    Lon

    • lloydrshaw

      First off. WBV in workspace is NOT Vibration Training.

      The article clearly states it is about Vibration Plate Training. Not athletes driving tanks.
      “Today’s Kilgore article looks at the risks of vibration plate training.”

      No Vibration Plate manufactured by any company globally runs more than a few minutes. So none long term exposure data would apply. So sorry, I do not believe you have worked on any VT platform from any company. It would have been impossible to miss the above fact.

      It is highly unethical of the author to not educated the reader about that clear separation and inherent limitation in the first place.

      I have seen this before. In a deliberate attempt to slur vibration training as a whole. People with ulterior motives ” forget” to state on ISO long term exposure 8hr + cautions , the other VT usually 60 second bouts.

      I HATE people who misuse data to scare people. And your fake expert did it on purpose. So it does not need a rebuttal. He needs exposing as an unethical fake. Which I will do.

      My ISO 2631 work……. I was the one to first bring it to Power Plate attention and collect multiple research papers and data on the subject. I manly used Armed Forced data. No-one else working in the field at the time had placed any kind of restrictions on usage and training staff.

      No-one got me to do it. I did it for ETHICAL reasons..

      Greed……. Most of the work I do is free. For people with life threatening conditions. For you to even suggest my only motive is greed is more than disgusting and highly insulting.

      .
      ” Is jogging bad for you”

      If an anti-runner wrote an article on the dangers of running. But only cited research from ultra marathon runners. With out disclosing he was only actually referring to 10 k runs.

      Not a single academic or layperson alive would find that ethical.
      So stop feeding me BS excuses. Ok.

    • lloydrshaw

      I accuse you of one thing. …. ” Today’s Kilgore article looks at the risks of vibration plate training ”

      No mention of truck or tank driving etc…… ” vibration plate training ”

      Then even though admitting to getting info from PubMed. Not publishing any of the conclusions on safety from the research titled ” Vibration Exercise ” which was the topic of the article correct and what PubMed lists it under ?

      So you would have me and everyone else believe you accidentally missed over 1000 papers on the very subject ? Vibration Exercise being promoted to athletes.

      Can you please explain that ?

  17. lloydrshaw

    I acquired two different pieces of vibration equipment in order that our biomechanics, physiotherapy, and physiology groups could work towards developing a systematic and long term investigation into commercially available vibration equipment. I am familiar with the concepts and field.

    So YOU are the expert.

    What year was this ?. And what type of machines were used ? Brand , type , independent engineering reports etc…

  18. Lloyd,
    You know how much I respect your knowledge and work. I wouldn’t take this as an attack on you or the true vibration training industry. You have stated many times about all the confusion with vibration in the workplace, vibration therapy, vibration training, etc. What you do in your studios is way different than somebody getting on a vibration platform in a commerical gym etc.
    John

    • lloydrshaw

      That is not an answer.

      Why was the article titled to explore Vibration Training with athletes. But not use any of the research on that subject. PubMed is full of them.

      Instead the author used research from another field where the only common denominator is the word “vibration”. to infer them as the same thing. With equal risk.

      In other words. No platform. No matter what company we are discussing. Uses their Vibration Training platform as a workstation to stand on or as a sanding machine etc…

      There is not only zero logic, but also deceitfulness in the article. Plain and simple.

    • lloydrshaw

      And please note John, the author has only used 2 platforms before. I will await to find out the brands / type etc…. to see what the full truth is on his “expertise”.

  19. Mr. Shaw,

    Please look at the leading cartoon carefully. There is a clear question implied, why would whole body vibration or appendicular vibration be risk generating in occupational settings and risk absent in fitness settings? You have yet to supply any evidence to counter any statement made in the article or answer the above question other than your own opinion and allusion to undocumented anecdotal reports. I’m very sorry that you feel that a clearly written and appropriately researched interrogative paper, that does not hide any facts, is deceitful.

    If, as Mr. Weatherly states, you do things differently than everyone else, it might be prudent to document such in journals or outlets that can provide your work with the voracity it may deserve. As it stands now, your expertise on the science of vibration, its clinical application, and its safety cannot be validated. And, although you might be reticent to believe it, if your concepts are original and useful in practice, I do have academic colleagues who could help you along that path.

    Best of luck,

    Lon

    • lloydrshaw

      Go to PubMed and type in “vibration exercise”. that is my proof. Hundreds of papers with the same conclusion.

      Any ethical researcher writing that article would have done this voluntarily. Correct. ?

      Vibration Exercise has deemed to be safe. In peer reviewed articles globally. …..Please explain your knowledge gap here.

  20. Dr. Kilgore,
    Lloyd asked me to read the article again from a layperson’s viewpoint. I can see his side of this too. Basically, just like CrossFit being labled an “extreme conditioning program” or “high volume” that tends to cause more injuries (without any evidence), doesn’t your article do the same thing or at least suggest the possibility with vibration exercise or training? Workplace vibration injury risk is well-documented as you have stated. But, as Lloyd has pointed out, there are studies on people with stroke, muscular dystrophy, MS, paraplegics, fragile elderly patients, as well as athletes with various types of vibration platforms – and where are the documented injuries? So, it kind of parallels what CrossFit has been fighting. Lloyd sees this (and I can see his point) – as the same type of issue. I’m not trying to get in the middle of anything here.
    Respectfully,
    John

  21. Just as you said Lloyd, all you have to do is go to PubMed and type “vibration exercise” as search terms to see a huge number of studies on vibration. Many of these studies are on populations such as the elderly for bone density, MS, musclular dystrophy, stroke, paraplegics, maintaining muscle and bone during bed rest, as well as on athletes. I find it hard to believe if there’s much of a risk the International Society of Musculoskeletal and Neuronal Interactions would be publishing guidelines on how to conduct vibration studies (which I cited in my two vibration articles) in researching various populations. Why would these experts get together to publish guidelines on how to study something that could be so dangerous? They must think it has a lot of potential and is safe.

    • lloydrshaw

      And as I stated. It is used in Children’s Hospitals. With high risk patents where any issues are magnified and speed up greatly.

      Studies show use with at risk of fracture osteoporosis case, and strokes. All recommended as safe.

      These are high risk cases that again would magnify any issues of long term dangers.

      If the author understood the significance of that. The scrutiny and ethics committees it must go through to get that far. His whole argument has no legs to stand on.

      Important Critical Thinking Point : Entire industries revolve around heavy vibrational expose day after day. Even then we see none of the “damage” mentioned in the article. Or it would be a global issue effecting millions who would now be disabled.

      So even from that angle. I do not understand the reasoning behind the article.

  22. I’ll admit I will not take the time to read all of this back and forth so forgive me if this was already brought up, but the risk of whole body vibration would be like most things very dose dependent. Many things work this way, some is good to much is bad, Water, high intensity training, rest…. it all sits on a intervention dependent dosage curve. Heck Chemotherapy has its obvious use, but heck just a bit more and it will kill you.
    One thing I will say with all this bashing, is things need to be looked at differently for different situations. Crossfit “The Sport” and for the average joe, full body occupational vibration vs intermittent vibration. None of this is all or none yet many will claim this to create a social stir.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: