Functional Exercise Training and Undulating Periodization Enhances the Effect of Whole-Body Electromyostimulation Training on Running Performance

Abstract

The popularity of whole-body electromyostimulation is growing during the last years, but there is a shortage of studies that evaluate its effects on physical fitness and sport performance. In this study, we compared the effects of a periodized and functional whole-body-electromyostimulation training on maximum oxygen uptake (VO₂max), ventilatory thresholds (VT1 and VT2), running economy (RE), and lower-body muscle strength in runners, vs. a traditional whole-body-electromyostimulation training. A total of 12 male recreational runners, who had been running 2-3 times per week (90-180 min/week) for at least the previous year and had no previous experience on WB-EMS training, were enrolled in the current study. They were randomly assigned to a periodized and functional whole-body-electromyostimulation training group (PFG) (n = 6; 27.0 ± 7.5 years; 70.1 ± 11.1 kg; 1.75 ± 0.05 m) whose training program involved several specific exercises for runners, or a traditional whole-body-electromyostimulation training group (TG) (n = 6; 25.8 ± 7.4 years; 73.8 ± 9.8 kg; 1.73 ± 0.07 m), whose sessions were characterized by circuit training with 10 dynamic and general exercises without external load. The training programs consisted of one whole-body electromyostimulation session and one 20-min running session per week, during 6 weeks. The PFG followed an undulating periodization model and a selection of functional exercises, whereas the TG followed a traditional session structure used in previous studies. Both groups were instructed to stop their habitual running training program. VO₂max, VT1, VT2, RE, and lower body muscle strength (vertical jump) were measured before and after the intervention. The PFG obtained significantly higher improvements when compared with the TG in terms of VO₂max (2.75 ± 0.89 vs. 1.03 ± 1.01 ml/kg/min, P = 0.011), VT2 (2.95 ± 1.45 vs. 0.35 ± 0.85 ml/kg/min, P = 0.005), VO₂max percentage at VT2 (5.13 ± 2.41 vs. 0.63 ± 1.61%), RE at VT1 (-7.70 ± 2.86 vs. -3.50 ± 2.16 ml/kg/km, P = 0.048), RE at 90% of VT2 (-15.38 ± 4.73 vs. -3.38 ± 4.11 ml/kg/km, P = 0.005), and vertical jump in Abalakov modality (2.95 ± 0.94 vs. 0.52 ± 1.49 cm, P = 0.008). Therefore, we conclude that running performance improvements were better after a 6-week program following an undulating periodization and consisting on functional exercises when compared with a 6-week traditional WB-EMS program.

Keywords: VO2max; VT2; WB-EMS; running economy; training periodization.

Figure 1

Pre and post 6-week intervention values and mean change (95% CI) in maximal oxygen uptake (absolute and relative values), and maximal aerobic speed after the intervention program. (A,B) Maximal oxygen uptake in absolute values [VO₂max (ml/min)]; (C,D) Maximal oxygen uptake in relative values [VO₂max (ml/kg/min)]; (E,F) Maximal Aerobic Speed [MAS (km/h)]. §P < 0.05, §§P < 0.01, §§§P < 0.001 (analysis pre-post; Student's paired t-test). ^*P < 0.05, ^**P < 0.01, ^***P < 0.001 (analysis between groups; analysis of covariance). PFG, Periodized, and Functional group; TG, Traditional Whole-Body-Electromyostimulation training.

Figure 2

Pre and post 6-week intervention values and mean change (95% CI) in oxygen uptake at ventilatory threshold 2, maximal oxygen uptake percentage in ventilatory threshold 2, and ventilatory threshold 2 speed. (A,B) Oxygen uptake at ventilatory threshold 2 [VO₂VT2s (ml/kg/min)]; (C,D) Maximal oxygen uptake percentage in ventilatory threshold 2 [%VO₂max VT2]; (E,F) Ventilatory Threshold 2 Speed [VT2 speed (km/h)]. §P < 0.05, §§P < 0.01, §§§P < 0.001 (analysis pre-post; Student's paired t-test). ^*P < 0.05, ^**P < 0.01, ^***P < 0.001 (analysis between groups; ANCOVA). PFG, Periodized and Functional Whole-Body- Electromyostimulation training; TG, Traditional Whole-Body-Electromyostimulation training.

Figure 3

Running economy (RE) kinetics at ventilatory threshold 1 speed, and 90% of ventilatory threshold 2 speed after the intervention program. (A,B) Running economy at ventilatory threshold 1 speed [VO₂ VT1 (ml/kg/km)], (C,D) running economy at 90% of ventilatory threshold 2 speed [VO₂ 90%VT2 (ml/kg/km)]. RE0 corresponded to the first running economy test (pre-test); RE1 corresponded to the running economy test performed in week 1; RE2 corresponded to the running economy test performed in week 2; RE3 corresponded to the running economy test performed in week 3. RE4 corresponded to the running economy test performed in week 4; RE5 corresponded to the running economy test performed in week 5; RE6 corresponded to the running economy test performed in week 6 (post-test). Repeated letters (a–a; b–b, etc.) indicate P < 0.05 in different weeks (analysis throughout time; Repeated ANOVA measures). ^*P < 0.05, ^**P < 0.01, ^***P < 0.001 (analysis between groups of the pre-test differences; ANCOVA). PFG, Periodized and Functional Whole-Body-Electromyostimulation training; TG, Traditional Whole-Body-Electromyostimulation training.

Figure 4

Pre and post 6-week intervention values and mean change (95% CI) countermovement jump and Abalakov jump after the intervention program. (A,B) Countermovement jump [CMJ (m)], (C,D) Abalakov jump [ABJ (m)]. §P < 0.05, §§P < 0.01, §§§P < 0.001 (analysis pre-post; Student's paired t-test). ^*P < 0.05, ^**P < 0.01, ^***P < 0.001 (analysis between groups; ANCOVA). PFG, Periodized and Functional Whole-Body-Electromyostimulation training; TG, Traditional Whole-Body-Electromyostimulation training.