Have you heard of this new device called Osteoboost?

@wondering1, My access is through a paid membership, so I wouldn't feel right sharing the recording outside of that. I hope you can understand.

If you're interested, here's a link to Lani's Masterclass. I've been a member for about 18 months and have gotten a lot out of it.
https://lanisimpson.com/pages/masterclass

@babs10 , I understand. Does she cite any research relating to the inner ear issue?

@wondering1 - YES! As a matter of fact, she said crystals in the inner ear can become dislodged and cause Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV). I had that a few years ago (not related to vibration plates), and fortunately the Epley maneuver resolved it immediately. She also discussed the potential risk of retinal tears or detachment in susceptible individuals.

One of her main criticisms was that the Osteoboost study was small (64 women in the treatment group and 64 in the placebo group), yet the marketing has been much broader than the evidence. The placebo group wore an identical belt that emitted sound but did not vibrate.

Lani's interpretation was that the belt did not build new bone or increase bone density. At best, it appeared to slow the rate of bone loss compared with doing nothing. Among participants who used the device at least three times per week, spinal bone strength declined by 0.48% over 12 months versus 2.84% in the placebo group, but both groups still lost bone.

As Margaret Martin has pointed out: "In clinical research, a trial is considered negative if it misses its main objective (the primary endpoint). In the Osteoboost trial, there was no statistically significant difference in bone density between the active group and the placebo group across the full study population."

One small caveat: the statement that the belt "doesn't build new bone" is an interpretation of the trial results rather than something the study directly proved. The trial failed to show a significant improvement in bone mineral density (its primary endpoint), but it did report some positive findings in bone strength measures among adherent users. Whether those secondary findings are clinically meaningful is where the experts disagree. I hope this helps.

@babs10 Very helpful! Thanks!

@syasin I’ve been using the belt since May 2025. I had a DXA in Dec 2025, so only half a year later. My DXA stayed about the same from the year before. But I’m doing lots of other things in addition to the belt. So it’s impossible to know if it has made a difference. My guess is that it may help, but isn’t a game changer. As someone else mentioned in this thread, it may be a positive for someone who can’t exercise much.

I just saw this posted by Osteoboost on Facebook:

"Our clinical trial showed that Osteoboost provides potent mechanical stimulation to both the spine and hips. Osteoboost provided statistically significant benefits for vertebral (i.e. spine) bone density and bone strength as compared to placebo treatment (>80% reduction in loss of bone density and bone strength) for study participants who used Osteoboost at least 3 times per week. Osteoboost also provided a trend of a benefit for bone density in the proximal femur (often called "total hip BMD" or "total femur BMD"), with a 55% reduction in the loss of bone density compared to placebo treatment. For the femoral neck, the Active treatment group (those receiving the real vibration therapy) had a small increase (+0.37%) in their femoral neck BMD during the 12 months of using Osteoboost, but our study sample size was not large enough to show statistical significance for this treatment effect."

Interpretation: Osteoboost may help slow bone loss, especially in the spine. People who used it at least three times a week lost much less spinal bone density and bone strength than those using the placebo device, but they still lost some bone. The results for the hip were less convincing. While there was a small improvement in femoral neck bone density and less bone loss overall at the hip, those findings were not statistically significant, meaning the study couldn't prove they weren't due to chance. Overall, the device appears to slow bone loss rather than build new bone.

Hello @babs10,

This article from NPR also helps explain the numbers in fracture reductions as well:

- https://www.npr.org/2026/06/08/nx-s1-5843308/bone-density-loss-vibrating-plates-belt

Here is quote from the article about the 126 person trial: "The placebo group lost 2.84% of their bone strength over the course of the year. Those who received the vibration therapy lost only 0.5%," Jaasma says.

This can help provide a bit more context around the percentages of bone loss. It does show promise and the researchers acknowledge it is more for localized (spine, hips) treatments to focus on areas that are at the highest risks for fracture. The device is FDA approved for patients with osteopenia who may be at risk for fractures in those areas and it may be worth a conversation with your provider if you fit the criteria.