Comparative Efficiency of Whole-Body Electromyostimulation and Resistance Training in Enhancing 1-Repetition Maximum

TL;DR

This study compares whole-body electrical muscle stimulation and traditional resistance training, finding both improve strength similarly but WB-EMS requires less time.

Contribution

Demonstrates that whole-body electromyostimulation is as effective as resistance training for strength gains but with less time investment.

Findings

WB-EMS and resistance training both significantly improved 1-RM in squat, curl, and plank exercises.

WB-EMS achieved similar strength gains with 20 minutes per week compared to 60 minutes per session in resistance training.

No significant difference in improvement between the two training methods was found.

Abstract

Background: Whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) combines full-body electrical muscle stimulation with instructor-assigned exercise. Electrical impulses are transmitted to the peripheral muscles through electrodes applied to the body. This study compared two training methodologies, WB-EMS training and traditional resistance training, to determine which approach leads to greater strength improvement in terms of 1-repetition maximum (1-RM). Methods: Twenty sedentary women participated in a 10 weeks protocol with five evaluations conducted every two weeks. The WB-EMS group trained for 20 min per week, and the resistance training group (RT) performed an average of two training sessions per week, lasting 60 min each. Both groups were evaluated using three exercises: back squat and hammer curl (1-RM), and plank exercise (time to exhaustion). Results: Both groups increased their performance in squat (WB-EMS +36%, p = 0.0001; RT +34%, p = 0.0001), curl (WB-EMS +42%, p = 0.0001; RT +33%, p = 0.0001), and plank (WB-EMS +103%, p = 0.0001; RT +65%, p = 0.0001). No significant time × training interaction was found for any exercise, indicating that the two groups improved similarly. Conclusions: Although WB-EMS did not confer greater strength improvement than traditional resistance training, it offers a time-efficient alternative, achieving similar results with reduced time commitment.

Figures