## 3 Results  
The results obtained in this study are shown below. Figures 2 and 3 show the data obtained in SampEn and the physiological parameters throughout the incremental test in both conditions (WBV and non-WBV). Significant differences were reported between rhythms in the physiological parameters and RPE, which increased directly in relation to the rhythm (\(p<0.001\)). On the other hand, differences between groups were observed in SampEn; they were higher when WBV was applied (\(p<0.001\)). Table 2 shows the results obtained in the differences between rhythms (30, 35, 40, 45 ppm) and conditions (WBV and non-WBV). The ES on the rhythm effect was large (\(\eta_{\rm P}\)2 > 0.14) for all parameters except SampEn. On the other hand, the ES of SampEn on the condition effect was large. However, for the rest of the parameters analysed, the ES was small or insignificant. Finally, the ES of the parameters in the interaction between rhythm and conditions was small or insignificant. Table 3 represents the intra-group differences in the analysed rhythm effect. Significant differences were reported in all the parameters analysed except SampEn. The most predominant differences were between 30 Hz vs. 40 Hz and 45 Hz (\(p<0.01\)). Figure 2: Evolution of RPE, HR, and VO2 max during the incremental test with and without vibration. (**A**) RPE: rating of perceived exertion; (**B**) HR: heart rate; (**C**) VO2 max: maximal oxygen uptake (absolute); (**D**) VO2 max (relative to body weight); WBV: whole-body vibration; * \(p<0.05\); ** \(p<0.01\)** differences between rhythms. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Rhyth Effect**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Condition Effect**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Rhyth \(\times\) Condition**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & **Sum of** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(F\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\eta_{\text{P}}\)\({}^{2}\)} & **Sum of** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(F\)} & **Sum of** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(F\)} & **Sum of** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(F\)} & **\(\eta_{\text{P}}\)\({}^{2}\)** \\  & **Squares** & & & **Square** & & & **Square** & & **Square** & \\ \hline RPE (point) & 400.11 & 33.89 & 0.585 & 3.20 & 0.81 & 0.011 & 0.77 & 0.25 & 0.003 \\ HR (bpm) & 3082.94 & 22.66 & 0.486 & 13.61 & 0.10 & 0.001 & 24.13 & 8.04 & 0.002 \\ VO\({}_{\text{2 max}}\) (L/min) & 3.67 & 14.57 & 0.378 & 0.19 & 2.25 & 0.030 & 0.06 & 0.02 & 0.010 \\ VO\({}_{\text{2 max}}\) (mL/kg/min) & 637.42 & 17.12 & 0.416 & 37.65 & 3.03 & 0.040 & 10.78 & 3.59 & 0.012 \\ VCO\({}_{\text{2 max}}\) (L/min) & 10.32 & 22.78 & 0.487 & 0.09 & 0.62 & 0.009 & 0.16 & 0.05 & 0.015 \\ RER & 0.18 & 16.94 & 0.414 & 0.00 & 0.28 & 0.004 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.009 \\ VE (L/min) & 11,246.67 & 16.20 & 0.403 & 120.54 & 0.52 & 0.007 & 20.74 & 6.91 & 0.001 \\ SampEn (a.u.) & 0.00 & 0.459 & 0.019 & 0.20 & 77.71 & 0.519 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.033 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Sum of squares, F, and \(\eta_{\text{P}}\)\({}^{2}\) values for the different effects analysed. Figure 3: VCO\({}_{\text{2}}\), RER, VE, and SampEn evolution during incremental testing with and without vibration. (**A**) VCO\({}_{\text{2 max}}\): maximal carbon dioxide; (**B**) RER: respiratory exchange ratio; (**C**) VE: expired volume; (**D**) SampEn: sample entropy; WBV: whole-body vibration; \({}^{*}\)\(p\)\(<\) 0.05; \({}^{**}\)\(p\)\(<\) 0.01; differences between rhythms. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & **Condition I** & **Condition II** & **Mean** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)} & **Cl (95\%)** \\ \cline{3-5}  & **(Hz)** & & **Differences** & & **Lower** & **Upper** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{RPE (point)} & \multirow{3}{*}{30} & 35 & \(-\)2.00 & 0.013 & \(-\)3.70 & \(-\)0.29 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 40 & \(-\)3.92 & \(<\)0.001 & \(-\)5.62 & \(-\)2.22 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 45 & \(-\)6.02 & \(<\)0.001 & \(-\)7.72 & \(-\)4.32 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 40 & \(-  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & \multirow{2}{*}{