| Author |
Participants
|
Vibration
Method (type)
|
Exercise
Type
|
Frequency
(Hz)
|
Amplitude
(mm)
|
Duration
|
Results |
| Bosco et al., 1999a |
12
♂ national boxers
|
DB
|
Elbow
Flexion
|
260
|
60
|
5
x 60 s5 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
|
100
|
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. |
RA = Recreationally
active; H = Healthy; AT = Athletes; UT = Untrained DB = Dumbbell; SV= Side alternating vibration; VV = Vertical vibration; DS=
Dynamic squat; SS = Static
squat; MVC = Maximal voluntary contraction; NA=
Not applicable; RM = Repetition
maximum
|
