Table 2 LOAD-study-heart rate (beats/min) response to training weight with or without whole-body vibration in-/post-exercise (n = 10).

From: Unveiling whole body vibration squat intensity insight from oxygen consumption and heart rate response

 

Rest

In-exercisea

Post-exerciseb

CON

30 Hz 2 mm

CON

30 Hz 2 mm

Mean difference (95%CI)c

Cohen’s d

CON

30 Hz 2 mm

Mean difference (95% CI)c

Cohen’s d

0%BW

62 ± 11

64 ± 7

86 ± 10

88 ± 8

2.35 (− 10.30, 14.99)

0.2

92 ± 11

89 ± 10

− 2.90 (− 16.88, 11.08)

0.3

40%BW

61 ± 8

60 ± 8

102 ± 10

108 ± 19

6.65 (− 8.96, 22.26)

0.4

108 ± 10

114 ± 22

6.50 (− 7.48, 20.48)

0.4

80%BW

62 ± 8

62 ± 8

121 ± 15

130 ± 13

8.82 (− 5.23, 22.88)

0.6

135 ± 17

134 ± 19

− 0.77 (− 15.14, 13.60)

0.1

  1. CON, squat without whole-body vibration. %BW, percent of body weight.
  2. Cohen’s d is interpreted as trivial (d < 0.2), small (0.2 ≤ d < 0.6), moderate (0.6 ≤ d < 1.2), large (1.2 ≤ d < 2), very large (2 ≤ d < 4), and extremely large.
  3. ainteraction effect of vibration x training weight, F= 0.252, P = 0.778, ηp2 = 0.013.
  4. bF = 0.498, P = 0.611, ηp2 = 0.018.
  5. cMean difference between conditions with or without whole-body vibration (95% confidence interval).
Back to article page