The aim of this work is to compare induced force, tolerance and fatigue between Neo-Russian, Aussie, RBS and HIFEM stimulation in healthy male subjects aged 18 to 30 years old.
This a cross-sectional study. Twenty-two male subjects, right leg dominant, randomly received 3 types of NMES and HIFEM. MVIC and MEIC was measured with an isometric dynamometer. MVIC was used to normalize MEIC (%MVIC). NRS was used to assess tolerance to each treatment. An effectiveness ratio (ER) using %MVIC:NRS was calculated, indicating that the current is better when this ratio is higher.
One week later, the subjects randomly received a fatigue protocol of 21 repetitions. A fatigue index (FI) was calculated considering the first rep and the last one, obtaining the percentage difference.
InStat 3.01 was used to statistically compare the data and Bonferroni test was applied.
22 male participants were included. Their demographic data was: age (years) 24.45+/-3.88, weight (Kg) 83.27+/-9.19, height (m) 1.77+/-0.07, body mass index 26.51+/- 2.98, MVIC (N) 558,56+/-94.14.
The comparison of Aussie vs Neo-Russian, Aussie vs RBS, Aussie vs HIFEM, Neo-Russian vs RBS, Neo-Russian vs HIFEM and RBS vs HIFEM for %MVIC, NRS and for the FI was not significant (p>0.05). However, the ER showed a statistically significant difference between RBS and HIFEM (p 0.05).
Study compares EENM and HIFEM in muscle strength, tolerance and fatigue. Results highlights that HIFEM has the best ER in comparison with RBS.
The following study provides information highlighting that there is no difference between the aforementioned currents and HIFEM in the studied variables, except for ER in HIFEM vs. RBS.
RBS is available in most high-quality portable devices and HIFEM is about 400 times more expensive.
This should be taken into consideration when making a clinical decision.
High Intensity Electromagnetic Fields
Effectiveness
