Electromyostimulation—A Systematic Review of the Influence of Training Regimens and Stimulation Parameters on Effectiveness in Electromyostimulation Training of Selected Strength Parameters

Abstract

Our first review from our 2-part series investigated the effects of percutaneous electromyostimulation (EMS) on maximal strength, speed strength, jumping and sprinting ability, and power, revealing the effectiveness of different EMS methods for the enhancement of strength parameters. On the basis of these results, this second study systematically reviews training regimens and stimulation parameters to determine their influence on the effectiveness of strength training with EMS. Out of about 200 studies, 89 trials were selected according to predefined criteria: subject age (<35 years), subject health (unimpaired), EMS type (percutaneus stimulation), and study duration (>7 days). To evaluate these trials, we first defined appropriate categories according to the type of EMS (local or whole-body) and type of muscle contraction (isometric, dynamic, isokinetic). Unlike former reviews, this study differentiates between 3 categories of subjects based on their level of fitness (untrained subjects, trained subjects, and elite athletes) and on the types of EMS methods used (local, whole-body, combination). Special focus was on trained and elite athletes. Untrained subjects were investigated for comparison purposes. The primary purpose of this study was to point out the preconditions for producing a stimulus above the training threshold with EMS that activates strength adaptations to give guidelines for implementing EMS effectively in strength training especially in high-performance sports. As a result, the analysis reveals a significant relationship (p < 0.05) between a stimulation intensity of ≥50% maximum voluntary contraction (MVC; 63.2 ± 19.8%) and significant strength gains. To generate this level of MVC, it was possible to identify guidelines for effectively combining training regimens (4.4 ± 1.5 weeks, 3.2 ± 0.9 sessions per week, 17.7 ± 10.9 minutes per session, 6.0 ± 2.4 seconds per contraction with 20.3 ± 9.0% duty cycle) with relevant stimulation parameters (impulse width 306.9 ± 105.1 microseconds, impulse frequency 76.4 ± 20.9 Hz, impulse intensity 63.7 ± 15.9 mA) to optimize training for systematically developing strength abilities (maximal strength, speed strength, jumping and sprinting ability, power).

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation pulse duration and maximum tolerated muscle torque

“…We are unaware of any study that has compared the strengthening effects of different types of NMES that produced different torques during training. The work that has been done in this area typically examines strength gains from NMES in comparison to control groups or other non-NMES interventions (Filipovic, Kleinöder, Dörmann, and Mester, 2011;Maddocks, Gao, Higginson, and Wilcock, 2013;Stevens, Mizner, and Snyder-Mackler, 2004). We do know that in general there is a positive correlation between the percentages of MVIC produced during training and subsequent strength gains (Filipovic, Kleinöder, Dörmann, and Mester, 2011;Selkowitz, 1989;Snyder-Mackler, Delitto, Stralka, and Bailey, 1994;Stevens-Lapsley et al, 2012a).…”

“…An additional potential mechanism of NMES-induced strength gains is improvement in volitional muscle activation (Maffiuletti, 2010). Regardless, strength gains from NMES are proportional to the forces produced during training with higher training forces resulting in greater strength gains (Filipovic, Kleinöder, Dörmann, and Mester, 2011;Selkowitz, 1985;Snyder-Mackler, Delitto, Stralka, and Bailey, 1994;Stevens-Lapsley et al, 2012b).…”

Effects of Eccentric Contractions Induced Electrical Stimulation Training System on Quadriceps Femoris Muscle

“…However, the muscle loading need at least 50% MVC force to induce muscle hypertrophy for the healthy subjects [24]. In contrast, muscle loading induced electrical stimulation could also be enhanced by increasing electrical current intensity.…”

“…The previous studies have suggested that it was necessary to induce muscle strengthening at least 50% MVC [24] [25]. In addition, the pain was depended on current intensity [26].…”

Effects of intermittent pneumatic compression vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation on recovery following anaerobic exercise in male basketball players

“…The carrier frequency was set at 4 kHz. The pulse duration was fixed at 125 μs to induce sufficient muscle activation [29]. The current intensity was set within the range of the minimum visible contraction of the calf muscles.…”