Search

Introduction: Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) cannot be clearly distinguished from and may be explained in large by warm-up effects. To disentangle PAPE from a systemic warm-up effect, we conducted three randomized crossover trials (RCT).Methods: Each RCT consisted of a familiarization/one-repetition-maximum (1RM) assessment session followed by two interventional sessions (random order). In Study I, 18 participants (age: 26 ± 4 years; height: 1.84 ± 0.06 m; mass: 83.7 ± 8.7 kg; Squat-1RM: 146 ± 19 kg) performed either a 3-s isometric squat at 130%1RM or a 6-s isometric squat at 65%1RM. In Study II, 28 participants (11 female; age: 23 ± 3 years; height: 1.77 ± 0.08 m; mass: 76.5 ± 10.4 kg; Squat-1RM: 109 ± 38 kg) completed either Squat (3 × 3 repetitions, 85%1RM) or local electromyostimulation of the quadriceps muscle (85% of individual pain threshold). In Study III, 20 participants (6 female, age: 25.0 ± 3.5 years, mass: 78.5 ± 15.8 kg, height: 1.75 ± 0.08 m; SQ-1RM: 114 ± 33 kg, chest-press-1RM: 74 ± 29 kg) performed either squats or chest press (4 repetitions, 80%1RM). Counter-Movement-Jump height (CMJ) was assessed after a general (PRE) and/or muscle-specific warm-up (POST_WU) and for up to 11 min after the PAPE protocols. To identify possible differences in CMJ between the experimental conditions, mixed-design ANOVA models were used for each study individually, with condition and time modelled as fixed effects, while participants were included as a random effect blocking factor. The level of statistical significance was set at α = 5%.Results: In studies I and II, significant effects for time (p < 0.05, ωp2 = 0.06 and p < 0.001, ωp2 = 0.43) were found with the highest CMJ compared to all other time points at PRE (≤8.2 ± 4.6%, standardized mean difference: ≤0.39), regardless of condition. In study III, no significant effects were observed.Discussion: Thus, PAPE protocols do not further improve jumping performance compared to a general and muscle-specific traditional warm-up. Prior to tasks requiring explosive strength, general and sport-specific warm-up strategies should be used.

Objective: Wheelchair basketball (WCB) demands high-intensity training due to its intermittent nature. However, acute oxygen uptake (V˙O2) in handcycling is restricted. Combining handcycling with low-frequency electromyostimulation (LF-EMS) may enhance V˙O2 in elite WBC athletes. Design: Randomized crossover trail. Subjects: Twelve German national team WCB players (age: 25.6 [5.6] years, height: 1.75 [0.16] m, mass: 74.0 [21.7] kg, classification: 2.92 [1.26]). Method: Participants underwent 2×5 min of handcycling (60 rpm, ¾ bodyweight resistance in watts) (HANDCYCLE) and 2×5 min of handcycling with concurrent LF-EMS (EMS_HANDCYCLE). LF-EMS (4Hz, 350µs, continuous stimulation) targeted gluteal, quadriceps, and calf muscles, adjusted to individual pain thresholds (buttocks: 69.5 [22.3] mA, thighs: 66.8 [20.0] mA, calves: 68.9 [31.5] mA). Results: Significant mode-dependent differences between HANDCYCLE and EMS_HANDCYCLE were found in V˙O2 (17.60 [3.57] vs 19.23 [4.37] ml min-1 kg-1, p = 0.001) and oxygen pulse (16.69 [4.51] vs 18.41 [5.17] ml, p = 0.002). ΔLactate was significantly lower in HANDCYCLE (0.04 [0.28] vs 0.31 [0.26] mmol l-1). Although perceived effort did not differ (p = 0.293), discomfort was rated lower in HANDCYCLE (1.44 [1.28] vs 3.94 [2.14], p = 0.002). Conclusion: LF-EMS applied to the lower extremities increases oxygen demand during submaximal handcycling. Thus, longitudinal application of LF-EMS should be investigated as a potential training stimulus to improve aerobic capacity in wheelchair athletes.

Whole-Body Electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) is a training technology that enables simultaneous stimulation of all the main muscle groups with a specific impulse intensity for each electrode. The corresponding time-efficiency and joint-friendliness of WB-EMS may be particularly attractive for people unable or unmotivated to conduct (intense) conventional training protocols. However, due to the enormous metabolic and musculoskeletal impact of WB-EMS, particular attention must be paid to the application of this technology. In the past, several scientific and newspaper articles reported severe adverse effects of WB-EMS. To increase the safety of commercial non-medical WB-EMS application, recommendations “for safe and effective whole-body electromyostimulation” were launched in 2016. However, new developments and trends require an update of these recommendations to incorporate more international expertise with demonstrated experience in the application of WB-EMS. The new version of these consensus-based recommendations has been structured into 1) “general aspects of WB-EMS”, 2) “preparation for training”, recommendations for the 3) “WB-EMS application” itself and 4) “safety aspects during and after training”. Key topics particularly addressed are 1) consistent and close supervision of WB-EMS application, 2) mandatory qualification of WB-EMS trainers, 3) anamnesis and corresponding consideration of contraindications prior to WB-EMS, 4) the participant’s proper preparation for the session, 5) careful preparation of the WB-EMS novice, 6) appropriate regeneration periods between WB-EMS sessions and 7) continuous interaction between trainer and participant at a close physical distance. In summary, we are convinced that the present guideline will contribute to greater safety and effectiveness in the area of non-medical commercial WB-EMS application.

The aim of this multicenter trial was to compare the effects of whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) and whole-body vibration (WBV) with conventional back-strengthening training (CT) on changes in mean back pain intensity (MPI) and trunk strength in patients suffering from chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP). Two-hundred and forty CNLBP patients (40–70 years; 62% female) were randomly assigned to three intervention arms (WB-EMS: n = 80 vs. WBV: n = 80 vs. CT: n = 80). All training intervention programs were performed for 12 weeks in their usual commercial training setting. Before and during the last 4 weeks of the intervention, MPI was recorded using a 4-week pain diary. Additionally, maximal isometric trunk extension and -flexion strength was assessed on the BackCheck® machine. A moderate but significant decrease of MPI was observed in all groups (WB-EMS: 29.7 ± 39.1% (SMD 0.50) vs. WBV: 30.3 ± 39.3% (SMD 0.57) vs. CT: 30.5 ± 39.6% (SMD 0.59); p < 0.001). Similar findings were observed for maximal isometric strength parameters with a significant increase in all groups (extension: WB-EMS: 17.1 ± 25.5% vs. WBV: 16.2 ± 23.6% vs. CT: 21.6 ± 27.5%; p < 0.001; flexion: WB-EMS: 13.3 ± 25.6% vs. WBV: 13.9 ± 24.0% vs. CT: 13.9 ± 25.4%; p < 0.001). No significant interaction effects for MPI (p = 0.920) and strength parameters (extension: p = 0.436; flexion: p = 0.937) were observed. WB-EMS, WBV, and CT are comparably effective in improving MPI and trunk strength. However, training volume of WB-EMS was 43 or 62% lower, compared with CT and WBV.

Background: Whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) gained increasing interest in sports within recent years. However, few intervention studies have examined the effects of WB-EMS on trained subjects in comparison to conventional strength training.Objective: The aim of the present mini-meta-analysis of 5 recently conducted and published randomized controlled WB-EMS trails of our work group was to evaluate potentially favorable effects of WB-EMS in comparison to conventional strength training.Methods: We included parameter of selected leg muscle's strength and power as well as sprint and jump performance. All subjects were moderately trained athletes [>2 training sessions/week, >2 years of experience in strength training; experimental group (n = 58): 21.5 ± 3.3 y; 178 ± 8 cm; 74.0 ± 11 kg; control group (n = 54): 21.0 ± 2.3 y; 179.0 ± 9 cm; 72.6 ± 10 kg]. The following WB-EMS protocols were applied to the experimental group (EG): 2 WB-EMS sessions/week, bipolar current superimposed to dynamic exercises, 85 Hz, 350 μs, 70% of the individual pain threshold amperage. The control groups (CG) underwent the same training protocols without WB-EMS, but with external resistance.Results: Five extremely homogenous studies (all studies revealed an I2 = 0%) with 112 subjects in total were analyzed with respect to lower limb strength and power in leg curl, leg extension and leg press machines, sprint—and jump performance. Negligible effects in favor of WB-EMS were found for Fmax of leg muscle groups [SMD: 0.11 (90% CI: −0.08, 0.33), p = 0.73, I2 = 0%] and for CMJ [SMD: 0.01 (90% CI: −0.34, 0.33), p = 0.81, I2 = 0%]. Small effects, were found for linear sprint [SMD: 0.22 (90% CI: −0.15, 0.60), p = 0.77, I2 = 0%] in favor of the EMS-group compared to CON.Conclusion: We conclude that WB-EMS is a feasible complementary training stimulus for performance enhancement. However, additional effects on strength and power indices seem to be limited and sprint and jump-performance appear to be benefiting only slightly. Longer training periods and more frequent application times and a slightly larger stimulus could be investigated in larger samples to further elucidate beneficial effects of WB-EMS on performance parameters in athletes.

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of short-term strength training with and without superimposed whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) on straight sprinting speed (SSS), change of direction speed (CODS), vertical and horizontal jumping, as well as on strength and power in physically active females. Twenty-two active female participants (n = 22; mean ± SD: age: 20.5 ± 2.3 years; height: 171.9 ± 5.5 cm; body mass: 64.0 ± 8.2 kg; strength training experience 5.1 ± 3.6 years) were randomly assigned to two groups: strength training (S) or strength training with superimposed WB-EMS (S+E). Both groups trained twice a week over a period of 4 weeks and differed in the application of free weights or WB-EMS during four strength (e.g., split squats, glute-ham raises) and five sprinting and jumping exercises (e.g., side and box jumps, skippings). The WB-EMS impulse intensity was adjusted to 70% of individual maximal sustainable pain. SSS was tested via 30-m sprinting, CODS by a T-run, vertical and horizontal jumping using four different jump tests at pre-, post-, and retests. Maximal strength (Fmax) and power (Pmax) testing procedures were conducted on the Leg Press (LP), Leg Extension (LE), and Leg Curl (LC) machine. Significant time × group interaction effects revealed significant decreases of contact time of the Drop Jump and split time of CODS (p ≤ 0.043; ηp2 = 0.15–0.25) for S (≤ 11.6%) compared to S+E (≤ 5.7%). Significant time effects (p < 0.024; ηp2 = 0.17–0.57) were observed in both groups for SSS (S+E: ≤6.3%; S: ≤8.0%) and CODS (S+E: ≤1.8%; S: ≤2.0%) at retest, for jump test performances (S+E: ≤13.2%; S: ≤9.2%) as well as Fmax and Pmax for LE (S+E: ≤13.5%; S: ≤13.3%) and LC (S+E: ≤18.2%; S: ≤26.7%) at post- and retests. The findings of this study indicate comparable effects of short-term strength training with and without superimposed WB-EMS on physical fitness in physically active females. Therefore, WB-EMS training could serve as a reasonable but not superior alternative to classic training regimes in female exercisers.

The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of dynamic superimposed submaximal whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) training on maximal strength and power parameters of the leg muscles compared with a similar dynamic training without WB-EMS. Eighteen male sport students were randomly assigned either to a WB-EMS intervention (INT; n = 9; age: 28.8 (SD: 3.0) years; body mass: 80.2 (6.6) kg; strength training experience: 4.6 (2.8) years) or a traditional strength training group (CON; n = 9; age: 22.8 (2.5) years; body mass: 77.6 (9.0) kg; strength training experience: 4.5 (2.9) years). Both training intervention programs were performed twice a week over a period of 8 weeks with the only difference that INT performed all dynamic exercises (e.g., split squats, glute-ham raises, jumps, and tappings) with superimposed WB-EMS. WB-EMS intensity was adjusted to 70% of the individual maximal tolerable pain to ensure dynamic movement. Before (PRE), after (POST) and 2 weeks after the intervention (FU), performance indices were assessed by maximal strength (Fmax) and maximal power (Pmax) testing on the leg extension (LE), leg curl (LC), and leg press (LP) machine as primary endpoints. Additionally, vertical and horizontal jumps and 30 m sprint tests were conducted as secondary endpoints at PRE, POST and FU testing. Significant time effects were observed for strength and power parameters on LE and LC (LE Fmax +5.0%; LC Pmax +13.5%). A significant time × group interaction effect was merely observed for Fmax on the LE where follow-up post hoc testing showed significantly higher improvements in the INT group from PRE to POST and PRE to FU (INT: +7.7%, p < 0.01; CON: +2.1%). These findings indicate that the combination of dynamic exercises and superimposed submaximal WB-EMS seems to be effective in order to improve leg strength and power. However, in young healthy adults the effects of superimposed WB-EMS were similar to the effects of dynamic resistance training without EMS, with the only exception of a significantly greater increase in leg extension Fmax in the WB-EMS group.