Whole Body Vibration for Osteoporosis

@awfultruth,
I have no problem with people on this forum disagreeing with me. In response to your uncertainty, if you are unsure about how to disagree with someone nicely on the forum, please follow Mayo’s community rules (see https://connect.mayoclinic.org/blog/about-connect/tab/community-guidelines/) .
My reply to yours:
1. My post was just about the VIBMOR trial. It was in response to Belinda Beck's 7/8/2024 Facebook comments at https://www.facebook.com/theboneclinic/ that were posted on this forum. My comments were not about Beck's entire body of work, nor its breadth, quality, importance, and applicability.
2. Yes, Beck was upfront and clear in her interview with Margie Bissinger about the VIBMOR trial’s flaws (or limitations or shortcomings, if you prefer). I never said she wasn’t. In the interview :
____a. Beck “discovered after the fact that my research assistants didn’t actually load up the participants as heavily as they needed to. And, ultimately, they were only doing moderate intensity” (vs. high intensity exercise per the study protocol). Beck's words in quotes.
____b. Beck said the study had difficulty getting the Marodyne plates delivered and so couldn't recruit the full sample of 400 (got ~250) stipulated in the study protocol. Thus, she said it’s possible they didn't have the power to change in bone density in the vibration group(s) because of an insufficient number of study participants. Beck's words paraphrased.
3. My post said it sounds like from Beck’s Facebook post, that “Rubin and she are motivated (desperate?) to salvage the flawed study” (my words in quotes). You interpreted this as “...If she was trying to hide something I don't think she would be doing interviews and broadcasting results that, according to you, she is desperately trying to hide.” (your words in quotes). I'm puzzled by your remarks because my comments did not say anywhere that Beck “is trying to hide something”.
4. Yes, I admit it’s “wild conjecture” (your words in quotes) and my opinion only, but in the publish-or-perish world of academia, I’d be motivated too to try to salvage a flawed study (or a study with shortcomings) given the time, effort, and expense spent on it.
5. You wrote “for the vibration to be unsuccessful is not a failure of the study.” (your words in quotes). My post never implied this, nor did my post refer to or discuss any results from the VIBMOR trial.
6. I still believe that a well-planned study does not have “many, many outcomes” (Beck’s words in quotes).

I had heard through the grapevine the VIBMOR trials were going to be published in spring 2024; however, based on Beck’s Facebook post, it will be “a little while yet” (Beck’s words in quotes). As a person who follows a modified strength-training program based on results from Beck’s LIFTMOR trial, I will be interested in reading them.

Dr Belinda Beck has confirmed her LIFTMOR study results again on the Marodyne and LIV, which is:

Disappointing news that vibration therapy does not work and will not even maintain bone.

Located at 55:00.

And yet OsteoBoost, a vibrating belt, has been FDA approved for treating osteopenia. Is it the weight of the belt that helps?

Hmm. Wonder if the difference is osteopenia as opposed to osteoporosis. Interesting thought bout the weight of the belt. I’m seeing my endocrinologist in september and want to ask him about these things.

I too wonder why Osteoboost would work and the Marodyne did not? It is important to note that these were two different studies done by two different groups and in neither study were the two devices compared. It's also important to note what "work" meant in the Osteoboost study. It did not create bone growth and did not increase bone density. Still, the Osteoboost group had only about one fifth the bone loss as the placebo group. Anything that can slow bone loss that much is important (assuming the studies findings are correct). Belinda Beck says the Marodyne appeared to have no effect in her as yet unpublished study.

As to why it's only for osteopenia and not osteoporosis I'm guessing that was a marketing decision and involved where they could most likely get FDA approval. Common sense would be that if it helps slow bone loss when you haven't had too much bone loss yet, that it will slow bone loss even if you've already lost a lot of bone. It appears they did not include people with osteoporosis in the study so it just wasn't tested.
Also I could only find the abstract of this study - if anyone could provide a link to the full study that would be great.

This is the link to an article that was posted here in January about Osteoboost for those who are not familiar with it.
https://www.engadget.com/vibrating-belt-that-treats-low-bone-density-gets-fda-approval-181552362.html