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.

The combination of strength training with complementary whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) and plyometric exercises has been shown to increase strength and jumping performance in athletes. In elite sport, however, the mesocycles of training are often organized according to block periodization. Furthermore, WB-EMS is often applied onto static strength exercises, which may hamper the transfer into more sport-specific tasks. Thus, this study aimed at investigating whether four weeks of strength training with complementary dynamic vs. static WB-EMS followed by a four-week block of plyometric training increases maximal strength and jumping performance. A total of n = 26 (13 female/13 male) trained adults (20.8 ± 2.2 years, 69.5 ± 9.5kg, 9.7 ± 6.1h of training/w) were randomly assigned to a static (STA) or volume-, load- and work-to-rest-ratio-matched dynamic training group (DYN). Before (PRE), after four weeks (three times weekly) of WB-EMS training (MID) and a subsequent four-week block (twice weekly) of plyometric training (POST), maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) at leg extension (LE), leg curl (LC) and leg press machines (LP) and jumping performance (SJ, Squat Jump; CMJ, counter-movement-jump; DJ, drop-jump) were assessed. Furthermore, perceived effort (RPE) was rated for each set and subsequently averaged for each session. MVC at LP notably increased between PRE and POST in both STA (2335 ± 539 vs. 2653 ± 659N, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.528) and DYN (2483 ± 714N vs. 2885 ± 843N, SMD = 0.515). Reactive strength index of DJ showed significant differences between STA and DYN at MID (162.2 ± 26.4 vs. 123.1 ± 26.5 cm·s-1, p = 0.002, SMD = 1.478) and POST (166.1 ± 28.0 vs. 136.2 ± 31.7 cm·s-1, p = 0.02, SMD = 0.997). Furthermore, there was a significant effect for RPE, with STA rating perceived effort higher than DYN (6.76 ± 0.32 vs. 6.33 ± 0.47 a.u., p = 0.013, SMD = 1.058). When employing a training block of high-density WB-EMS both static and dynamic exercises lead to similar adaptations.

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.

Whole-body vibration (WBV) systems are increasingly used among athletes, yet the literature lacks input on differences in impact following high or low amplitudes. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a 4-week WBV training at high or low amplitudes, with external loads, on maximal isometric strength, muscular endurance, and different performances of vertical jump. In all, 24 physical education undergraduate students were randomly allocated to a high (4 mm amplitude) or low (2 mm amplitude) vibration group. The study included pretest assessments, 4‑week intervention phase with three weekly training sessions, and posttest assessments. During the 12 intervention sessions, participants performed six sets of 30 s leg-dynamic back squats with external load of 40% of one repetition maximum. Assessments included maximal isometric muscle strength, muscular endurance, squat jump, counter-movement jump, and drop jump. Statistical analysis was done using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with group × time (2 × 2) as a model factor. The results revealed no significant groups × time interactions in any test. However, significant improvements were found in all measures among the high amplitude vibration group: maximal isometric muscle strength (p < 0.05), squat jump (p < 0.01), counter-movement jump (p < 0.01), drop jump (p < 0.01), and muscular endurance (p < 0.01), following the intervention, yet in only three variables: squat jump (p < 0.01), counter-movement jump (p < 0.01), and drop jump (p < 0.05) among the low amplitude vibration group. Based on the current results, we conclude that while high amplitude WBV training in physical education students could enhance muscular strength and endurance as well as jumping performances, low amplitude WBV protocols may improve only jumping performances.

This systematic review and meta-analysis set out to determine the efficacy on whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) on body composition and strength parameters in non-athletic cohorts. A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA statement included (a) controlled trials, (b) WB-EMS trials with at least one exercise and one control group, (c) WB-EMS as primary physical intervention, (d) WB-EMS with at least six electrodes covering most muscle groups, (e) non-athletic cohorts. We searched eight electronic databases up to June 30, 2020, without language restrictions. Standardized mean differences (SMD) for muscle mass parameters, total body fat mass, maximum leg extension, and trunk extension strength were defined as outcome measures. In summary, 16 studies with 19 individual WB-EMS groups representing 897 participants were included. Studies vary considerably with respect to age, BMI, and physical conditions. Impulse protocols of the studies were roughly comparable, but training frequency (1–5 sessions/week) and intervention length (6–54 weeks) differed between the studies. SMD average was 1.23 (95%-CI: 0.71–1.76) for muscle mass, 0.98 (0.74–1.22) for maximum leg, and 1.08 (0.78–1.39) for maximum trunk extension strength changes (all p < 0.001). SMD for body fat changes (−0.40, [−0.98 to 0.17]), however, did not reach significance. I 2 and Q-statistics revealed substantial heterogeneity of muscle and fat mass changes between the trials. However, rank and regression tests did not indicate positive evidence for small-study bias and funnel plot asymmetries. This work provided further evidence for significant, large-sized effects of WB-EMS on muscle mass and strength parameters, but not on body fat mass. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , PROSPERO; ID: CRD42020183059.

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.

Introduction: The whole-body vibration (WBV) approachis considered to be a unique training method for physicalrehabilitation, injury preventions, and improving physicalperformance in athlete. The scientific literature about WBV iswell documented and presents different vibration protocols,different measurements and, as a consequence - differentresults. Objectives: To explore the effect of a strengtheningprogram with WBV on several muscular strength variablesamong physical education students in comparison to a controlpassive group of students. Methods: Thirty-eight healthymale physical education students were randomly allocatedinto Vibration Group (VG, n=13) - who underwent strengtheningprogram with WBV and external load, and Control Group(CG, n=25), that received no treatment. The study includedpre-test assessments, 4-week intervention phase and post-testassessments. During the intervention phase VG performedthree training sessions per week that included six sets of 30sec squats with external loads on a WBV platform. Assessmentsincluded maximal muscle strength, power, reactivestrength and endurance. Results: Significant improvementswere shown in all components among the VG from pre topost-tests (p<0.001), with no significant change among theCG. Conclusions: A 4-week strengthening program with WBVand medium external load improves different components ofstrength among healthy physical education students.

The current study aimed to explore the effect of long-term Whole-Body Vibration (WBV) in comparison to traditional training on muscular performance. Thirty healthy physical education students were randomly allocated into a Vibration Group (VG, n=13), which underwent a whole-body vibration training program with external load, and a Traditional Group (TG, n=17), which received the same training program without a vibration load. The study was composed of pre-test assessments, a 4-week intervention phase, and post-test assessments. During the intervention phase, the VG and TG performed three training sessions per week, including six sets of 30-sec squats with external loads. Assessments included: Maximal isometric muscle strength; Power (assessed by Squat Jump); Reactive strength (assessed by Counter-Movement Jump and Drop Jump); and Muscular endurance. The results revealed significant improvements in all measured variables among the participants in the VG from the pre-to post-tests (p<0.05). Among the TG participants, significant differences between the pre- and post-tests were found only in the Squat Jump and the Counter-Movement Jump (p<0.01). A significant Group X Time interaction was found in the Drop Jump test, implying greater improvement in the VG following the intervention. The findings suggest that it would be beneficial for athletes to train with WBV to improve different strength and performance components, rather than traditional resistance training, which has the disadvantage of being very specific and time-consuming.

Launched in Germany in about 2006, whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) is a young exercise technology. Due to its increasing popularity, time-efficiency, jointfriendliness and individualized application, WB-EMS has been increasingly been the subject of scientific research. Apart from the current Research Topics, the large variety of articles published during the last 2 years has considerably increased the evidence for positive effects on relevant health and performance related parameters. Notably, there is a clear tendency towards the scientific application of WB-EMS in the area of “health” that have been mirrored in the present Research Topic. Summarizing the published articles, at least six of seven contributions addressed health-related outcomes while one study Verch et al. can be considered as a methodological trial that determined the specific effect ofWBEMS combined with walking and Nordic Walking on oxygen consumption (VO2) in healthy adults. Although the authors reported significant net effects on average VO2 (≈10%) during the 10 min treadmill test, they doubt the clinical relevance of their results. In line with similar data of longitudinal studies (e.g. Mathes et al., 2017), this result questioned (once again) the concept of superimposed WB-EMS application during endurance exercise at least in non-athletic cohorts. In their meta-analysis Kemmler et al., on the other hand, provided strong evidence for a large effect of WB-EMS on muscle mass and strength parameters in non-athletic adult cohorts. However, although six of the twelve trials included obese participants, the authors OPEN ACCESS

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.

Purpose: Overweight and obesity are an increasing problem worldwide. However, most studies that focus on weight reduction by energy restriction and/or aerobic exercise reported considerable loss of muscle mass as well. Increased protein intake and/or resistance exercise might inhibit this detrimental effect during a negative energy balance. Whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS), a time effective, joint-friendly, and highly customizable training technology, showed similar hypertrophic effects compared with high-intensity resistance training. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of WB-EMS on body composition during negative energy balance with maintained/increased protein intake in overweight premenopausal women. Patients and Methods: Ninety premenopausal, 25–50-year-old, overweight women were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 30 each). (1) Negative energy balance (−500 kcal/day) by energy restriction with compensatory protein intake (CG). (2) Negative energy balance (−500 kcal/day) by energy restriction (−250 kcal/day) and increased physical activity (−250 kcal/day) with increased protein intake (PA). (3) Negative energy balance (−500 kcal/day) due to energy restriction and increased physical activity with increased protein intake plus WB-EMS. The duration of the intervention was 16 weeks. Participants underwent restrictions in kcal per days and supplementation of protein (CG: 1.2 or PA/WB-EMS: 1.7 g/kg body mass/day) where needed. Bipolar WB-EMS was applied 1.5× week for 20 min (85 Hz; 350 μs; intermittent 6 s impulse, 4 s rest; rectangular). The primary study endpoint “lean body mass” (LBM) and secondary endpoint body fat mass (BFM) were assessed by bio-impedance analysis (BIA). Results: LBM decreased in the CG and PA group (CG: −113 ± 1,872 g; PA: −391 ± 1,832 g) but increased in the WB-EMS group (387 ± 1,769 g). However, changes were not significant (p > 0.05). Comparing the groups by ANOVA, no significant differences were observed (p = 0.070). However, pairwise adjusted comparisons determined significant differences between WB-EMS and PA (p = 0.049). BFM decreased significantly (p < 0.001) in all groups (CG: −2,174 ± 4,331 g; PA: −3,743 ± 4,237 g; WB-EMS: −3,278 ± 4,023 g) without any significant difference between the groups (ANOVA: p = 0.131). Conclusion: WB-EMS is an efficient, joint-friendly, and highly customizable training technology for maintaining muscle mass during energy restriction and can thus be considered as an alternative to more demanding resistance exercise protocols.

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.

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 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.

PURPOSE:Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most frequent chronic conditions worldwide. Data from a recent meta-analysis indicated that whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS), a time-effective, joint-friendly, and highly individualized training technology, demonstrated promising effects on LBP; however, methodologic limitations prevent definitive evidence for this result. Thus, the aim of this study was to conduct a randomized controlled WB-EMS trial to determine the corresponding effect on chronic, nonspecific LBP in people with chronic LBP. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Thirty LBP patients, 40-70 years old, were randomly assigned into two groups (WB-EMS: 15; control [CG]: 15). While the nonactive CG maintained their lifestyle, the WB-EMS group completed a 12-week WB-EMS protocol (1×20 min/week) with slight movements, specifically dedicated to LBP. Pain intensity and frequency were determined by a 4-week pain diary before and during the last 4 weeks of intervention. Primary study endpoint was average pain intensity at the lumbar spine. RESULTS:At baseline, no group differences apart from nonregular exercise were observed. Mean intensity of LBP decreased significantly in the WB-EMS group (P=0.002) and remained unchanged in the CG (P=0.730), with a significant difference between both groups (P=0.027). Maximum isometric trunk extensors improved significantly in the WB-EMS group (P=0.005), while no significant difference was seen in the CG (P=0.683). In contrast to the significant difference between WB-EMS group and CG for the latter parameter (P=0.038), no intergroup difference was determined for maximum isometric trunk flexors (P=0.091). The WB-EMS group showed a significant increase of this parameter (P=0.003), while no significant change was determined in the CG (P=0.563). CONCLUSION:WB-EMS is a time-effective training method for reducing chronic nonspecific LBP and increasing maximum trunk strength in people with such complaints. After this promising comparison with a nonactive CG, research needs to be extended to include comparisons with active groups (WB-Vibration, conventional back strengthening).

Exercise positively affects most risk factors, diseases and disabling conditions of middle to advanced age, however the majority of middle-aged to older people fall short of the exercise doses recommended for positively affecting cardio-metabolic, musculoskeletal and neurophysiological fitness or disabling conditions. Whole-Body Electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) may be a promising exercise technology for people unable or unmotivated to exercise conventionally. However, until recently there has been a dearth of evidence with respect to WB-EMS-induced effects on health-related outcomes. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the effects, limitations and risks of WB-EMS as a preventive or therapeutic tool for non-athletic adults. Electronic searches in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane and Eric were run to identify randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses of individual patient data and peer reviewed scientific theses that examined (1) WB-EMS-induced changes of musculoskeletal risk factors and diseases (2) WB-EMS-induced changes of functional capacity and physical fitness (3) WB-EMS-induced changes of cardio-metabolic risk factors and diseases (4) Risk factors of WB-EMS application and adverse effects during WB-EMS interventions. Two researchers independently reviewed articles for eligibility and methodological quality. Twenty-three eligible research articles generated by fourteen research projects were finally included. In summary, thirteen projects were WB-EMS trials and one study was a meta-analysis of individual patient data. WB-EMS significantly improves muscle mass and function while reducing fat mass and low back pain. Although there is some evidence of a positive effect of WB-EMS on cardio-metabolic risk factors, this aspect requires further detailed study. Properly applied and supervised, WB-EMS appears to be a safe training technology. In summary, WB-EMS represents a safe and reasonable option for cohorts unable or unwilling to join conventional exercise programs. However, much like all other types of exercise, WB-EMS does not affect every aspect of physical performance and health.

In order to evaluate the favorable effect of whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) on low back pain (LBP), an aspect which is frequently claimed by commercial providers, we performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data. The analysis is based on five of our recently conducted randomized controlled WB-EMS trials with adults 60 years+, all of which applied similar WB-EMS protocols (1.5 sessions/week, bipolar current, 16-25 min/session, 85Hz, 350 mu s, and 4-6s impulse/4s impulse-break) and used the same pain questionnaire. From these underlying trials, we included only subjects with frequent-chronic LBP in the present meta-analysis. Study endpoints were pain intensity and frequency at the lumbar spine. In summary, 23 participants of the underlying WB-EMS and 22 subjects of the control groups (CG) were pooled in a joint WB-EMS and CG. At baseline, no group differences with respect to LBP intensity and frequency were observed. Pain intensity improved significantly in the WB-EMS (p < .001) and was maintained (p = .997) in the CG. LBP frequency decreased significantly in the WB-EMS (p < .001) and improved nonsignificantly in the CG (p = .057). Group differences for both LBP parameters were significant (p <= .035). We concluded that WB-EMS appears to be an effective training tool for reducing LBP; however, RCTs should further address this issue with more specified study protocols.

BACKGROUND:The aim of the study was to determine whether a combination of strength training (ST) and local vibration (LV) improved the isometric maximum force of arm flexor muscles. ST was applied to the left arm of the subjects; LV was applied to the right arm of the same subjects. The main aim was to examine the effect of LV during a dumbbell biceps curl (Scott Curl) on isometric maximum force of the opposite muscle among the same subjects. It is hypothesized, that the intervention with LV produces a greater gain in isometric force of the arm flexors than ST.METHODS:Twenty-seven collegiate students participated in the study. The training load was 70% of the individual 1 RM. Four sets with 12 repetitions were performed three times per week during four weeks. The right arm of all subjects represented the vibration trained body side (VS) and the left arm served as the traditional trained body side (TTS).RESULTS:A significant increase of isometric maximum force in both body sides (Arms) occurred. VS, however, significantly increased isometric maximum force about 43% in contrast to 22% of the TTS.CONCLUSION:The combined intervention of ST and LC improves isometric maximum force of arm flexor muscles.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:III.