Background: Potential moderators such as exercise intensity or apolipoprotein-E4 (ApoE4) carriership may determine the magnitude of exercise effects on physical and cognitive functions in patients with dementia (PwD). We determined the effects of a 24-week aerobic and strength training program with a low- and high-intensity phase on physical and cognitive function. Methods: In an assessor-blinded randomized trial, 91 PwD (all-cause dementia, recruited from daycare and residential care facilities, age 82.3 ± 7.0 years, 59 women, Mini-Mental State Examination 20.2 ± 4.4) were allocated to the exercise or control group. In the exercise group, PwD participated in a walking and lower limb strength training program with 12 weeks low- and 12 weeks high-intensity training offered three times/week. Attention-matched control participants performed flexibility exercises and recreational activities. We assessed adherence, compliance, and exercise intensity for each session. We assessed physical (endurance, gait speed, mobility, balance, leg strength) and cognitive (verbal memory, visual memory, executive function, inhibitory control, psychomotor speed) functions with performance-based tests at baseline and after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 weeks (follow-up). ApoE4 carriership was determined post-intervention. Results: Sixty-nine PwD were analyzed. Their mean attendance was ~ 60% during the study period. There were no significant effects of the exercise vs. control intervention on endurance, mobility, balance, and leg strength in favor of the exercise group (Cohen’s d = 0.13–0.18). Gait speed significantly improved with ~ 0.05 m/s after the high-intensity phase for exercise participants (Cohen’s d = 0.41) but declined at follow-up. There were no significant effects of the exercise vs. control intervention on any of the cognitive measures (Cohen’s d ~ − 0.04). ApoE4 carriership did not significantly moderate exercise effects on physical or cognitive function. Conclusions: Exercise was superior to control activities for gait speed in our sample of PwD. However, the training effect provided no protection for mobility loss after detraining (follow-up). There were no beneficial effects of the exercise vs. control group on cognitive function. Exercise intensity moderated the effects of exercise on gait speed. ApoE4 carriership moderated the effect of exercise on global cognition only (trend level). Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR5035. Registered on 2 March 2015.

Whole-body vibration (WBV) is an exercise modality or treatment/prophylaxis method in which subjects (humans, animals, or cells) are exposed to mechanical vibrations through a vibrating platform or device. The vibrations are defined by their direction, frequency, magnitude, duration, and the number of daily bouts. Subjects can be exposed while performing exercises, hold postures, sitting, or lying down. Worldwide, WBV has attracted significant attention, and the number of studies is rising. To interpret, compare, and aggregate studies, the correct, complete, and consistent reporting of WBV-specific data (WBV parameters) is critical. Specific reporting guidelines aid in accomplishing this goal. There was a need to expand existing guidelines because of continuous developments in the field of WBV research, including but not limited to new outcome measures regarding brain function and cognition, modified designs of WBV platforms and attachments (e.g., mounting a chair on a platform), and comparisons of animal and cell culture studies with human studies. Based on Delphi studies among experts and using EQUATOR recommendations, we have developed extended reporting guidelines with checklists for human and animal/cell culture research, including information on devices, vibrations, administration, general protocol, and subjects. In addition, we provide explanations and examples of how to report. These new reporting guidelines are specific to WBV variables and do not target research designs in general. Researchers are encouraged to use the new WBV guidelines in addition to general design-specific guidelines.

Vibrations are all around us. We can detect vibrations with sensitive skin mechanoreceptors, but our conscious awareness of the presence of vibrations is often limited. Nevertheless, vibrations play a role in our everyday life. Here, we briefly describe the function of vibration detection and how it can be used for medical applications by way of whole body vibration. Strong vibrations can be harmful, but milder vibrations can be beneficial, although to what extent and how large the clinical relevance is are still controversial. Whole body vibration can be applied via a vibrating platform, used in both animal and human research. Recent findings make clear that the mode of action is twofold: next to the rather well-known exercise (muscle) component, it also has a sensory (skin) component. Notably, the sensory (skin) component stimulating the brain has potential for several purposes including improvements in brain-related disorders. Combining these two components by selecting the optimal settings in whole body vibration has clear potential for medical applications. To realize this, the field needs more standardized and personalized protocols. It should tackle what could be considered the “Big Five” variables of whole body vibration designs: vibration amplitude, vibration frequency, method of application, session duration/frequency, and total intervention duration. Unraveling the underlying mechanisms by translational research can help to determine the optimal settings. Many systematic reviews on whole body vibration end with the conclusion that the findings are promising yet inconclusive. This is mainly because of the large variation in the “Big Five” settings between studies and incomplete reporting of methodological details hindering reproducibility. We are of the opinion that when (part of) these optimal settings are being realized, a much better estimate can be given about the true potential of whole body vibration as a medical application.