4.5 Article

The Effect of 8 Mos of Twice-Weekly Low- or Higher Intensity Whole Body Vibration on Risk Factors for Postmenopausal Hip Fracture

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e3181f71063

关键词

Bone; Muscle Function; Balance; Vibration; Hip Fracture

资金

  1. Griffith University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Whole body vibration is a potential therapy for age-related loss of musculoskeletal competence. Vibration has improved bone in animal models, but evidence in humans is limited. Relative efficacy of low-vs. high-intensity whole body vibration is also unknown. Our goal was to observe the effect of brief low-and higher intensity whole body vibration on risk factors for hip fracture in postmenopausal women. Design: We used an 8-mo randomized controlled trial design to examine the influence of twice-weekly low-intensity whole body vibration (15 mins, 30 Hz, 0.3 g) or higher intensity whole body vibration (2 x 3 mins, 12.5 Hz, 1 g) on anthropometrics, bone (whole body, hip, spine, forearm, and heel), muscle (wall squat and chair rise), and balance (tandem walk and single leg stance). Physical activity, daily calcium, and compliance were recorded. Effects were examined by repeated-measures analysis of covariance, controlling for age, height, weight, calcium, physical activity, compliance, and baseline values. Results: Forty-seven women (71.5 +/- 9.0 yrs) completed the trial. There were no between-group differences in any measure at 8 mos, but within-group effects were evident. Controls lost bone at the trochanter (-6%, P = 0.03) and lumbar spine (-6.6%, P = 0.02), whereas whole body vibration groups did not. Whole body vibration subjects improved wall squat (up to 120%, P = 0.004) and chair rise performance (up to 10.5%, P = 0.05). Conclusions: Eight mos of twice-weekly whole body vibration may reduce bone loss at the hip and spine and improve lower limb muscle function. These changes may translate to a decreased risk of falls and hip fracture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据