"Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF): Thank you, Naomid, for your post, which I'll partially quote here, to spread the news:
"Yes and yes. I've read every study to date. Here are a couple: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33314313/ https://asbmr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1359/JBMR.0301251"
We bought the Marodyne LIV almost a month ago, like others, out of fear and with the strategy to, "leave no stone unturned," in our search for effective treatments. After nearly a month of searching for ANY research, (other than that sponsored by the inventor, Dr. Rubin, or his cohorts), we were about to send it back for a full refund, until we found the study you publicized in you post, published by National Institute of Health (NIH). That's the ONE positive, independent study I needed in order to keep and not return the LIV device. The other study you included in your post had no value for us, as it's results were inconclusive, AND, is was sponsored by a cohort of Dr. Rubin, the inventor. Thanks, again. Let's all keep up this very helpful conversation, and thanks to MayoClinic for facilitating this discussion.
It sounds like you decided to keep the Marodyne LIV based off of the results in https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33314313/. If that's correct, actually that study was published by the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, not NIH, though the investigators received grants from NIH to conduct the study. (Pubmed is a search engine to biomedical and life sciences literature and is maintained by the National Library of Medicine, which is part of NIH.)
I admit I only skimmed that article after you referenced it. It seemed the study was small (n=80 total); included only postmenopausal women with normal bone density or osteopenia (low bone mass); did not take into account nutrition, exercise, fracture history, and other factors; etc. The study may have been more meaningful to me if it had used postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (though that may be deemed unsafe or unethical).
I continue to wait for more evidence (including VIBMOR trial) regarding vibration platforms. Perhaps they are helpful for persons with osteoporosis who have a sedentary lifestyle or can't do weight-bearing exercise. I am grateful that I'm physically capable of doing weight-bearing exercise. And it doesn't require a major outlay of money either!
It sounds like you decided to keep the Marodyne LIV based off of the results in https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33314313/. If that's correct, actually that study was published by the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, not NIH, though the investigators received grants from NIH to conduct the study. (Pubmed is a search engine to biomedical and life sciences literature and is maintained by the National Library of Medicine, which is part of NIH.)
I admit I only skimmed that article after you referenced it. It seemed the study was small (n=80 total); included only postmenopausal women with normal bone density or osteopenia (low bone mass); did not take into account nutrition, exercise, fracture history, and other factors; etc. The study may have been more meaningful to me if it had used postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (though that may be deemed unsafe or unethical).
I continue to wait for more evidence (including VIBMOR trial) regarding vibration platforms. Perhaps they are helpful for persons with osteoporosis who have a sedentary lifestyle or can't do weight-bearing exercise. I am grateful that I'm physically capable of doing weight-bearing exercise. And it doesn't require a major outlay of money either!
Thank you, for pointing out all of that. We do appreciate it. And, yes, keeping and using the Marodyne LIV, not based on adequate, definitive research, but the paucity of momentum for the device. Like you, we'll watch for the VIBMOR results and hoping that will validate our decision. (On another related subject, I'm about to post a question about collagen peptides and their influence on calcium uptake as applies to BMD and Osteoporosis. You seem a good person to ask for an opinion. Specifically we're using a product from Health Direct, called AminoSculpt, claiming to contain 18gm of amino peptides.)
I'm combining the Marodyne LIV 10 minutes twice a day with Fortibone Collagen Peptides, power walking five days a week, weights, Sarah Meeks PT for osteoporosis, Vitamins D and K, calcium (mostly through nutrition), Omega 3's, magnesium and whatever else I can find that might help. I will revisit the plan with my endocrinologist in one year after my next DEXA/TBS
Note that the first study had only 42 people using the machine average age of 61 and 38 in the placebo group average age of 58. None of the participants had DEXA scores lower than -2.5 and none of them had fractures.
The second study was odd and concluded "This study indicates that low-level mechanical stimuli may have the potential to prevent bone loss in the postmenopausal population, but failed to stimulate the formation of bone."
The 2nd 12 month 2009 study started with 70 participants and ended up with 46, but since the study allowed replacement of anyone who dropped out within the first 3 months they weren't the same participants. The machines were used at home and none of the participants' diet or exercise was monitored. None of the participants had fractures before the study and starting DEXA scores were not a factor in eligibility. All of the women were 3 to 8 years past menopause but age was not recorded.
The 2nd study was paid for by the manufacturer of a vibration machine.
Connect
Connect
Like
Helpful
Hug
It sounds like you decided to keep the Marodyne LIV based off of the results in https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33314313/. If that's correct, actually that study was published by the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, not NIH, though the investigators received grants from NIH to conduct the study. (Pubmed is a search engine to biomedical and life sciences literature and is maintained by the National Library of Medicine, which is part of NIH.)
I admit I only skimmed that article after you referenced it. It seemed the study was small (n=80 total); included only postmenopausal women with normal bone density or osteopenia (low bone mass); did not take into account nutrition, exercise, fracture history, and other factors; etc. The study may have been more meaningful to me if it had used postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (though that may be deemed unsafe or unethical).
I continue to wait for more evidence (including VIBMOR trial) regarding vibration platforms. Perhaps they are helpful for persons with osteoporosis who have a sedentary lifestyle or can't do weight-bearing exercise. I am grateful that I'm physically capable of doing weight-bearing exercise. And it doesn't require a major outlay of money either!
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 ReactionsThank you, for pointing out all of that. We do appreciate it. And, yes, keeping and using the Marodyne LIV, not based on adequate, definitive research, but the paucity of momentum for the device. Like you, we'll watch for the VIBMOR results and hoping that will validate our decision. (On another related subject, I'm about to post a question about collagen peptides and their influence on calcium uptake as applies to BMD and Osteoporosis. You seem a good person to ask for an opinion. Specifically we're using a product from Health Direct, called AminoSculpt, claiming to contain 18gm of amino peptides.)
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 ReactionsNote that the first study had only 42 people using the machine average age of 61 and 38 in the placebo group average age of 58. None of the participants had DEXA scores lower than -2.5 and none of them had fractures.
The second study was odd and concluded "This study indicates that low-level mechanical stimuli may have the potential to prevent bone loss in the postmenopausal population, but failed to stimulate the formation of bone."
The 2nd 12 month 2009 study started with 70 participants and ended up with 46, but since the study allowed replacement of anyone who dropped out within the first 3 months they weren't the same participants. The machines were used at home and none of the participants' diet or exercise was monitored. None of the participants had fractures before the study and starting DEXA scores were not a factor in eligibility. All of the women were 3 to 8 years past menopause but age was not recorded.
The 2nd study was paid for by the manufacturer of a vibration machine.