 |
| |
| Author | Participants | Vibration Method (type) |
Exercise Type |
Frequency (Hz) |
Amplitude (mm) |
Duration | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bosco et al., 1999a | 12 ♂ national boxers | DB | Elbow Flexion | 260 | 6 0 |
5 x 60 s 5 x 60 s |
During vibration %EMGrms significantly increased and elbow flexion power was significantly enhanced (14%) compared to no vibration. | |
| Bosco et al., 1999b | 6 AT♀ | SV Control |
SS SS | 260 | 10 0 |
10 x 60s 10 x 60s |
Leg press velocity-force and power-force relationship shifted to the right after vibration | |
| Bosco et al., 2000 | 14 RA | SV | Standing, SS, lunge | 26 | 10 | 5 x 90 s, 10 days |
Vibration increased leg press power (160% of body mass) by 7% and EMG/Power ratio significantly decreased | |
| Delecluse et al., 2003 | 18 UT ♀ 19 UT ♀ 18 UT ♀ |
VV Placebo Resistance |
DS, SS, lunge DS, SS, lunge Cardio +knee & leg extensor strength |
35-40 Low Cardio (20mins) 20RM (2wks), 15RM (3wks), 12RM (3wks), 10RM (4wks) |
2.5-5 Low |
1-3 x 2-6 x30-60 s (3x/wk, 12 wks) |
There was a significant increase in isometric and dynamic knee extensor strength for vibration and resistance groups but there was no significant difference between the two groups. Vibration increased EMG activity in rectus femoris and medial gastrocnemius compared to placebo group. | |
| 19 UT ♀ | Control | No training | NA | NA | ||||
| Martin and Park, 1997 | 10 H | Direct vibration | Isometric hand grip |
40, 80, 100, 120, 150, 200 at 0, 10 or 20% MVC |
0.2-0.3 | 60 s | Vibration frequency of greater than 150 Hz induced less motor unit synchronisation. When vibration increases subharmonic synchronisation increases but harmonic synchronisation decreases. | |