Corrigendum: Position statement and updated international guideline for safe and effective whole-body electromyostimulation training-the need for common sense in WB-EMS application.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2023.1174103.].

Position statement and updated international guideline for safe and effective whole-body electromyostimulation training-the need for common sense in WB-EMS application.

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.

Similar Pain Intensity Reductions and Trunk Strength Improvements Following Whole-Body Electromyostimulation vs. Whole-Body Vibration vs. Conventional Back-Strengthening Training in Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain Patients: A Three-Armed Randomized Controlled Trial.

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.

Seven Weeks of Jump Training with Superimposed Whole-Body Electromyostimulation Does Not Affect the Physiological and Cellular Parameters of Endurance Performance in Amateur Soccer Players.

Intramuscular density of monocarboxylate-transporter (MCT) could affect the ability to perform high amounts of fast and explosive actions during a soccer game. MCTs have been proven to be essential for lactate shuttling and pH regulation during exercise and can undergo notable adaptational changes depending on training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence and direction of potential effects of a 7-weeks training period of jumps with superimposed whole-body electromyostimulation on soccer relevant performance surrogates and MCT density in soccer players. For this purpose, 30 amateur soccer players were randomly assigned to three groups. One group performed dynamic whole-body strength training including 3 x 10 squat jumps with WB-EMS (EG, n = 10) twice a week in addition to their daily soccer training routine. A jump training group (TG, n = 10) performed the same training routine without EMS, whereas a control group (CG, n = 8) merely performed their daily soccer routine. 2 (Time: pre vs. post) x 3 (group: EG, TG, CG) repeated measures analyses of variance (rANOVA) revealed neither a significant time, group nor interaction effect for VO2peak, Total Time to Exhaustion and Lamax as well as MCT-1 density. Due to a lack of task-specificity of the underlying training stimuli, we conclude that seven weeks of WB-EMS superimposed to jump exercise twice a week does not relevantly influence aerobic performance or MCT density.

Comparison of Whole-Body Electromyostimulation versus Recognized Back-Strengthening Exercise Training on Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) affects almost everyone at least once in their lifetime. Various meta-analyses show promising effects on pain reduction for conventional exercise. However, the lack of time and, especially for pain patients, a fear of movement ("kinesiophobia") as well as functional limitations often oppose participation in such activities. In contrast, the advantage of novel training technologies like whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) lies particularly in a joint-friendly, time-effective, and highly customized training protocol and might be an alternative option for LBP patients. A meta-analysis of individual patient data and a comparison of WB-EMS against a passive control group confirmed the proof principle. Thus, the aim of this randomized controlled trial is to compare WB-EMS with a recognized back-strengthening exercise protocol to determine the corresponding effects on chronic, nonspecific LBP in people suffering from this. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This randomized, controlled multicenter study is focused on novel and time-effective training technologies and LBP. In this contribution, the focus is primarily on the comparison of WB-EMS against a comparable conventional exercise training (CT). One hundred ten nonspecific chronic LBP patients, 40-70 years old, were randomly allocated to the intervention arms (WB-EMS: 55 vs. CT: 55). Both groups completed a 12-week program (WB-EMS: 1 × 20 min/week vs. CT: 1 × 45 min/week) specifically dedicated to LBP. The selection of the content of the active control group was based on the principles of WB-EMS training, which uses electrical stimulation to train mainly strength and stabilization in a very short time. Exercises were similar in all groups, with the focus on strengthening and stabilizing the trunk. Outcome measures were assessed by a four-week pain diary (before and during the last four weeks of intervention) as well as an isometric maximum strength measurement of the trunk muscles at baseline and after 12 weeks of intervention. Primary study endpoint was average pain intensity at the lumbar spine. Secondary study endpoints were maximum isometric strength of the back and the abdominals. The mean pain intensity of LBP decreased significantly in both groups (WB-EMS: -22.3 ± 20.9% vs. CT: -30.2 ± 43.9%; p < 0.001), however, without significant intergroup difference (p=0.160). A similar result was observed for "maximum isometric strength of trunk muscles." The increase in back strength (WB-EMS: 15.6 ± 24.9% vs. CT: 23.0 ± 30.9%) was highly significant in both groups (p=0.001), and similar changes were observed for the trunk flexors (WB-EMS: 17.6 ± 24.8% vs. CT: 18.1 ± 24.8%). Also, at the secondary endpoint, no significant difference in pairwise comparison was observed in both cases (extension: p=0.297; flexion: p=0.707). CONCLUSION: In summary, both, WB-EMS and conventional back-strengthening protocol are comparably effective in reducing nonspecific chronic LBP in this dedicated cohort. The result is particularly positive in terms of time effectiveness and offers an adequate alternative for people with limited time resources or other barriers to conventional training methods.

Effects of Whole-Body Electromyostimulation on Strength-, Sprint-, and Jump Performance in Moderately Trained Young Adults: A Mini-Meta-Analysis of Five Homogenous RCTs of Our Work Group.

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 I 2 = 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, I 2 = 0%] and for CMJ [SMD: 0.01 (90% CI: -0.34, 0.33), p = 0.81, I 2 = 0%]. Small effects, were found for linear sprint [SMD: 0.22 (90% CI: -0.15, 0.60), p = 0.77, I 2 = 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 Effects of Superimposed Whole-Body Electromyostimulation During Short-Term Strength Training on Physical Fitness in Physically Active Females: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

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; η p 2 = 0.15-0.25) for S (≤ 11.6%) compared to S+E (≤ 5.7%). Significant time effects (p < 0.024; η p 2 = 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.

Effects of an Eight-Week Superimposed Submaximal Dynamic Whole-Body Electromyostimulation Training on Strength and Power Parameters of the Leg Muscles: A Randomized Controlled Intervention Study.

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.

Effects of Loaded Squat Exercise with and without Application of Superimposed EMS on Physical Performance.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of a multiple set squat exercise training intervention with superimposed electromyostimulation (EMS) on strength and power, sprint and jump performance. Twenty athletes from different disciplines participated and were divided into two groups: strength training (S) or strength training with superimposed EMS (S+E). Both groups completed the same training program twice a week over a six week period consisting of four sets of the 10 repetition maximum of back squats. Additionally, the S+E group had EMS superimposed to the squat exercise with simultaneous stimulation of leg and trunk muscles. EMS intensity was adjusted to 70% of individual pain threshold to ensure dynamic movement. Strength and power of different muscle groups, sprint, and vertical jump performance were assessed one week before (pre), one week after (post) and three weeks (re) following the training period. Both groups showed improvements in leg press strength and power, countermovement and squat jump performance and pendulum sprint (p < 0.05), with no changes for linear sprint. Differences between groups were only evident at the leg curl machine with greater improvements for the S+E group (p < 0.05). Common squat exercise training and squat exercise with superimposed EMS improves maximum strength and power, as well as jumping abilities in athletes from different disciplines. The greater improvements in strength performance of leg curl muscles caused by superimposed EMS with improvements in strength of antagonistic hamstrings in the S+E group are suggesting the potential of EMS to unloaded (antagonistic) muscle groups. Key pointsSimilar strength adaptations occurred after a 6 week 10 RM back squat exercise program with superimposed EMS (S+E) and 10 RM back squat exercise (S) alone.Specific adaptations for S+E at the leg curl muscles were evident.S and S+E improved SJ, CMJ and pendulum sprint performance.No improvement occurred in linear sprint performance.

Lactate Kinetics during Multiple Set Resistance Exercise.

Intensive exercise like strength training increases blood lactate concentration [La]. [La] is commonly used to define the metabolic stress of an exercise and depends on the lactate production, transportation, metabolism, and elimination. This investigation compared multiple set training of different volumes to show the influence of exercise volume on [La]. Ten male subjects performed 3 sets of resistance exercises within 4 separate sessions: Arm Curl with 1 or 2 arms (AC1 or AC2), and Leg Extension with 1 or 2 legs (LE1 or LE2). Each set was performed at a standard velocity and at a previously determined 10RM load. Blood lactate samples were taken immediately before and after each set (pre1, post1, pre2, post2, pre3, post3). Maximum [La] was significantly higher after LE2 (6.8 ± 1.6mmol·L(-1)) and significantly lower after AC1 (2.8 ± 0.7mmol·L(-1)) in comparison with the other exercise protocols. There was no difference between AC2 (4.3 ± 1.1mmol·L(-1)) and LE1 (4.4 ± 1.1mmol·L(-1)). Surprisingly, [La] decreased during the 3(rd) set (for AC exercise), and during both the 2(nd) and 3(rd) sets (for LE exercise) and increased only during the recovery phases. In contrast to our expectations, blood [La] decreased during the 2(nd) and 3(rd) exercise sets and further increased only during recovery phases. However, from the increases observed following the first set, we know that lactate was produced and transported to the blood during our exercise protocol. We speculate that lactate is taken up and metabolized by distal muscle fibres or organs. In addition, as the decreases occurred within a short period of time, blood volume shifts and/or the muscle-to-blood gradient may account for the rapid decreases in [La]. Key PointsBlood lactate concentration [La] decreases during the 2(nd) and 3(rd) set of a resistance exercise program of the leg extensor muscles.[La] decreases during the 3(rd) set of a resistance exercise program of the arm flexor muscles.A significant increase of [La] only appears during the first set, during rest periods and after the last set.The decline of [La] during sets becomes larger over the course of exercise.

Physiological and metabolic responses as function of the mechanical load in resistance exercise.

The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between the mechanical load during resistance exercise and the elicited physiological responses. Ten resistance-trained healthy male subjects performed 1 set of resistance exercise each at 55%, 70%, and 85% of 1 repetition maximum for as many repetitions as possible and in 4 training modes: 4-1-4-1 (4 s concentric, 1 s isometric, 4 s eccentric, and 1 s isometric successive actions), 2-1-2-1, 1-1-1-1, and explosive (maximum velocity concentric). Mean concentric power and total concentric work were determined. Oxygen uptake (V̇O2) was measured during exercise and for 30 min post exercise. Total volume of consumed oxygen (O2 consumed) and excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) were calculated. Maximum blood lactate concentration (LAmax) was also determined. V̇O2 exhibited a linear dependency on mean concentric power. Mean concentric power did not have a detectable effect on EPOC and LAmax. An augmentation of total concentric work resulted in significant linear increase of O2 consumed and EPOC. Total concentric work caused a significant increase in LAmax. In general, a higher mechanical load induced a larger physiological response. An increase in mean concentric power elicited higher aerobic energy turnover rates. However, a higher extent of total concentric work augments total energy cost covered by oxidative and (or) glycolytic pathways.

Mechanical load and physiological responses of four different resistance training methods in bench press exercise.

The purpose of the study was to compare the mechanical impact and the corresponding physiological responses of 4 different and often practically applied resistance training methods (RTMs). Ten healthy male subjects (27.3 ± 3.2 years) experienced in resistance training performed 1 exhausting set of bench press exercise until exhaustion for each of the following RTMs: strength endurance (SE), fast force endurance (FFE), hypertrophy (HYP), and maximum strength (MAX). The RTMs were defined by different lifting masses and different temporal distributions of the contraction modes per repetition. Mean concentric power (P), total concentric work (W), and exercise time (EXTIME) were determined. Oxygen uptake (V[Combining Dot Above]O2) was measured during exercise and for 30 minutes postexercise. Mean V[Combining Dot Above]O2, volume of consumed O2, and excess postexercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) were calculated over 30 minutes of recovery. Maximum blood lactate concentration (LAmax) was also determined postexercise. The P was significantly higher (p < 0.01) for FFE and MAX compared with that for SE and HYP. The W was significantly higher for FFE than for all other RTMs (p < 0.01), and it was also lower for SE than for MAX (p < 0.05). EXTIME for SE was significantly higher (p < 0.01) than for all other RTMs, whereas EXTIME for MAX was significantly lower (p < 0.01) than for all other RTMs. Mean V[Combining Dot Above]O2 was significantly higher during FFE than during all other RTMs (p < 0.01). Consumed O2 was significantly higher (p < 0.05) during SE than for HYP and MAX, and it was also significantly higher for FFE and HYP compared with MAX (p < 0.05). The LAmax was significantly higher after FFE than after MAX (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in EPOC between all RTMs. The results indicate that FFE and MAX are adequate to train muscular power despite the discrepancy in the external load. Because FFE performance achieves the highest amount in mechanical work, it may also elicit the highest total energy expenditure. The FFE challenges aerobic metabolism most and SE enables the longest EXTIME, indicating both are appropriate to enhance aerobic muscular capacities. The EPOC and LA values may indicate that energy needs covered by anaerobic metabolism are not higher during HYP and MAX compared with the RTM of lower external load.