Whole-Body Electromyostimulation Improves Performance-Related Parameters in Runners

Abstract

The aim of this study was to study the effects of a 6-session (one per week) WB-EMS training intervention on maximum oxygen uptake, aerobic and gas exchange thresholds, running economy, and muscular power in male recreational runners. Twelve men were randomized into WB-EMS intervention (n = 6; 27.0 ± 7.5 years; 70.1 ± 11.1 kg; 1.75 ± 0.5 m) or control (n = 6; 27.0 ± 6.1 years; 73.6 ± 3.4 kg; 1.77 ± 0.3 m). The WB-EMS group reduced the running training frequency to one per week and followed one WB-EMS training session per week during 6 weeks. Participants in the control group maintained their usual running endurance training. Each participant completed four assessments: physiological parameters [(i) VO₂max, aerobic and gas exchange threshold values, and (ii) running economy at two intensities], muscular power (vertical jump), and anthropometric parameters both at baseline and after the intervention. Participants in the WB-EMS group improved VO₂max, aerobic and gas exchange threshold values, running economy, and vertical jump (p < 0.05) compared to the control group. There, WB-EMS seems to be an effective training methodology leading to improvements in performance during endurance training volume reduction in male recreational runners.

Keywords: VO2max; WB-EMS; detraining; endurance; recreational runners; running economy.

FIGURE 1

Experimental timeline: Testing period in week 0 and week 7, training and running economy from week 1 to week 6. WB-EMS, whole-body electromyostimulation; VO₂max, maximal treadmill exercise test; VJ, vertical jump test; RET, running economy test; FS, familiarization session; WB-E, whole-body electromyostimulation training session; RT, running training session.

FIGURE 2

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 [VO₂max (ml^∗min⁻¹)]; (C,D) maximal oxygen uptake [VO₂max (ml^∗kg^−1∗min⁻¹)]; (E,F) maximal aerobic speed [MAS (km^∗h⁻¹)]. ^§ 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).

FIGURE 3

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 [VO₂ VT2s (ml^∗kg^−1∗min⁻¹)]; (C,D) maximal oxygen uptake percentage in ventilatory threshold 2 [%VO₂max VT2]; (E,F) ventilatory threshold 2 speed [VT2 speed (km^∗h⁻¹)]. ^§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).

FIGURE 4

Pre and post 6-week intervention values and mean change (95% CI) in running economy at ventilatory threshold 1 and 90% of ventilatory threshold 2 speed after the intervention program. (A,B) Running economy at ventilatory threshold 1 speed [VO₂ VT1s (ml/kg/km)]; (C,D) running economy at 90% of ventilatory threshold 2 speed [VO₂ VT2s (ml/kg/km)]. ^§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).

FIGURE 5

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).