Wirtz Nicolas, Dörmann Ulrike, Micke Florian, Filipovic André, Kleinöder Heinz, Donath Lars
Department of Intervention Research in Training Science, Institute of Training Science and Sport Informatics, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Front Physiol. 2019 Nov 8;10:1336. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01336. eCollection 2019.
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. 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. 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 ( = 58): 21.5 ± 3.3 y; 178 ± 8 cm; 74.0 ± 11 kg; control group ( = 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. Five extremely homogenous studies (all studies revealed an = 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 F of leg muscle groups [SMD: 0.11 (90% CI: -0.08, 0.33), = 0.73, = 0%] and for CMJ [SMD: 0.01 (90% CI: -0.34, 0.33), = 0.81, = 0%]. Small effects, were found for linear sprint [SMD: 0.22 (90% CI: -0.15, 0.60), = 0.77, = 0%] in favor of the EMS-group compared to CON. 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.
近年来，全身肌电刺激（WB - EMS）在体育领域越来越受到关注。然而，与传统力量训练相比，很少有干预研究考察WB - EMS对训练有素的受试者的影响。本研究对我们工作组最近进行并发表的5项随机对照WB - EMS试验进行了小型荟萃分析，目的是评估与传统力量训练相比，WB - EMS可能产生的有利影响。我们纳入了所选腿部肌肉力量和功率的参数，以及短跑和跳跃成绩。所有受试者均为中度训练的运动员[每周>2次训练课程，力量训练经验>2年；实验组（n = 58）：21.5±3.3岁；身高178±8厘米；体重74.0±11千克；对照组（n = 54）：21.0±2.3岁；身高179.0±9厘米；体重72.6±10千克]。以下WB - EMS方案应用于实验组（EG）：每周2次WB - EMS训练课程，双相电流叠加于动态运动，85赫兹，350微秒，个体疼痛阈值电流的70%。对照组（CG）接受相同的训练方案，但不进行WB - EMS，而是进行外部阻力训练。对5项高度同质的研究（所有研究的I² = 0%）进行了分析，这些研究共有112名受试者，涉及腿弯举、腿伸展和腿推举器械中的下肢力量和功率，以及短跑和跳跃成绩。在腿部肌肉群的F值方面，发现有利于WB - EMS的影响可忽略不计[标准化均值差（SMD）：0.11（90%置信区间：-0.08，0.33），P = 0.73，I² = 0%]，在纵跳（CMJ）方面也是如此[SMD：0.01（90%置信区间：-0.34，0.33），P = 0.81，I² = 0%]。与对照组相比，在直线短跑方面发现有利于EMS组的小影响[SMD：0.22（90%置信区间：-0.15，0.60），P = 0.77，I² = 0%]。我们得出结论，WB - EMS是一种可行的辅助训练刺激方式，有助于提高运动表现。然而，对力量和功率指标的额外影响似乎有限，短跑和跳跃成绩似乎仅略有受益。可以在更大的样本中研究更长的训练周期、更频繁的应用时间和稍大的刺激，以进一步阐明WB - EMS对运动员运动表现参数的有益影响。
