Background: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been used clinically for many years as a modality to improve muscular strength and endurance. Recently, equipment manufacturers have developed over-the-counter NMES units to target specific muscle groups, particularly the abdominal region. Objective: To study the effects of self-administered neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on changes in abdominal muscle strength and endurance, core strength, abdominal girth, and subjective measures of body satisfaction and shape. Methods: Fifty-three adults were randomly assigned into high intensity (HI: n=27) or low intensity (LI: n=26) groups. The NMES device for the LI group had been altered so that subjects felt some tactile sensation, but the intensity was not sufficient to elicit a muscular contraction. All subjects stimulated their abdominal muscles 5 days per week (30 minutes per session) for 6 weeks. Subjects were tested at Baseline, 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Results: The HI group had a significantly greater increase in strength at 4 weeks (19%) and 6 weeks (29%) compared to the LI group and performed significantly more curl-ups than the LI group at 2 weeks (62%). Both groups had a significant increase in core strength over the course of the study, with no difference between groups. There was no change in abdominal girth between groups. Both groups had significant improvements in body satisfaction from Baseline to 4 weeks and Baseline to 6 weeks, with no significant interaction. Conclusions: Results of the current study indicate that high intensity NMES can significantly increase abdominal strength and endurance compared to LI intensity (control) stimulation. Results for subjective measures tended to favor the HI group, but were less conclusive, since the LI group also had some positive changes.

Exercise intensity is traditionally prescribed using %HRmax, %HRR, %VO2max, or %VO2R. Recently, the Talk Test (TT) has been proposed as an alternative method to guide exercise intensity. However, it is unknown if prescribing exercise intensity solely using the TT can provoke training responses that are comparable to traditional guidelines. This study compared the responses to training using either the TT or %HRR. Forty-four subjects (17 males and 27 females: age=20.4±3.02 years; body height=170.5±9.79 cm; body weight=71.9±13.63 kg) completed an incremental maximal cycle ergometer test, were stratified by VO2max and gender, and randomly assigned to training groups guided by either %HRR (n=20) or the TT (n=24). Both groups completed 40-minute training sessions three days per week for 10 weeks. In the HRR group, exercise intensity was targeted (per ACSM guidelines) at 40-59% HRR for weeks 1-4, 50-59% HRR for weeks 5-8, and 60-79% HRR for weeks 9-10. In the TT group, exercise intensity was targeted at the highest power output (PO) that still allowed for comfortable speech. Changes in VO2max, peak power output (PPO), VO2 at ventilatory threshold (VT), and PO at VT were compared between the groups using two-way ANOVA with repeated measures. There were significant (p<.05) pre vs. post increases in VO2max (TT=10.6%; HRR=11.5%), PPO (TT=19%; HR=14%), VO2 at VT (T=32.7%; HRR=56.9%), and PO at VT (TT=43.1%; HRR=38.6%) in both groups, with no significant (p>0.05) interaction effect. Guiding exercise prescription using the TT is a simple and effective method for prescribing exercise intensity and elicits improvements in exercise performance that are comparable to the traditional %HRR guidelines.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract