Abstract
High-intensity (resistance) exercise (HIT) and whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) are both approaches to realize time-efficient favorable changes of body composition and strength. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of WB-EMS compared with the gold standard reference HIT, for improving body composition and muscle strength in middle-aged men. Forty-eight healthy untrained men, 30–50 years old, were randomly allocated to either HIT (2 sessions/week) or a WB-EMS group (3 sessions/2 weeks) that exercised for 16 weeks. HIT was applied as “single-set-to-failure protocol,” while WB-EMS was conducted with intermittent stimulation (6 s WB-EMS, 4 s rest; 85 Hz, 350 ms) over 20 minutes. The main outcome parameters were lean body mass (LBM) as determined via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and maximum dynamic leg-extensor strength (isokinetic leg-press). LBM changes of both groups (HIT 1.25 ± 1.44% versus WB-EMS 0.93 ± 1.15%) were significant (p = .001); however, no significant group differences were detected (p = .395). Leg-extensor strength also increased in both groups (HIT 12.7 ± 14.7%, p = .002, versus WB-EMS 7.3 ± 10.3%, p = .012) with no significant (p = .215) between-group difference. Corresponding changes were also determined for body fat and back-extensor strength. Conclusion. In summary, WB-EMS can be considered as a time-efficient but pricy option to HIT-resistance exercise for people aiming at the improvement of general strength and body composition.
Highlights
Time constraints are frequently reported as the main hindrance for frequent exercise; time-saving exercise protocols are attractive to people seeking to increase their performance, attractiveness, and health
During the interventional period of 16 weeks, 3 participants of the high-intensity training (HIT) and 2 participants of the whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) group were lost to follow-up
Relative attendance rate was comparable between the groups (HIT 93.3 ± 7.0% versus WB-EMS 89.5 ± 10.7%; p = .171); net length of training sequence, varied significantly (p < .001) between the groups (HIT 30.3 ± 2.3 versus WB-EMS 20 ± 0 minutes)
Summary
Time constraints are frequently reported as the main hindrance for frequent exercise; time-saving exercise protocols are attractive to people seeking to increase their performance, attractiveness, and health. With respect to resistance exercise, low volume, high-intensity training (HIT) protocols seem to be the most time-efficient method to improve muscle mass and strength, independent of the ongoing debate whether resistance exercise with higher volume may be more effective in general [1,2,3,4,5]. Alternative training technologies tailored to commercial applications may dispute this position This includes in particular whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS), which is becoming increasingly popular in Europe. Commercial suppliers advertise “outcome effects” of up to 18-fold higher compared with conventional resistance exercise training. This promise is, primarily based on the misinterpretation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
