3 Comments

  • Chris says:

    Im not an adherent of vibration training, in fact, ive never done it. That out of the way: Neither the absolute effects NOR the effect sizes are small: 0,4-0,6 is nice for S%C research! As Chris Beardsleys excellent reviews demonstrate, a lot of factors and methods of resistance training that are recommended by everyone (evidence-based or anecdotally) struggle to have any meaningful effect size or even dont reach significance! Just compare various factors in http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/hypertrophy/ to that of vibration training.

    • Chris says:

      As I dont wanna do FB discussions, and after reading the one about this on Bret´s FB page, Id like to reinforce my point (in case someone stumbles upon this here): Guys, wake up, stop the knee-jerk-reflex about an exotic method being ineffective and read Chris Beardsley´s summary! The absolute and effect sizes are not very small! Chris Beardsleys writes the subjects are competitive, trained athletes, and you can even say for that population 0.4-0.6 ES is great!

      So either the studies done were much more apt to show such nice ES than studies done on various factors of strength training that are “supposed” to be more effective and meaningful than something exotic like vibration training or… – well, vibration training just is. 🙂

      • Chris says:

        The review Chris Beardsley linked to on Bret´s FB discussion even noted ESs of 0.76-0.87 for muscle strength and countermovement jump, respectively. ADDITIONAL effects to an existing strength program, we should note! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23989260
        Debunking myths is great, but we shouldnt blindly bash something because it sounds strange.

Leave a Reply

SIGN UP FOR THE FREE NEWSLETTER

and receive my FREE Lower Body Progressions eBook!

You have Successfully Subscribed!