PURPOSE:Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) with large electrodes and multiple current pathways (m-NMES) has recently been proposed as a valid alternative to conventional NMES (c-NMES) for quadriceps muscle (re)training. The main aim of this study was to compare discomfort, evoked force and fatigue between m-NMES and c-NMES of the quadriceps femoris muscle in healthy subjects. METHODS:Ten healthy subjects completed two experimental sessions (c-NMES and m-NMES), that were randomly presented in a cross-over design. Maximal electrically evoked force at pain threshold, self-reported discomfort at different levels of evoked force, and fatigue-induced force declines during and following a series of 20 NMES contractions were compared between c-NMES and m-NMES. RESULTS: m-NMES resulted in greater evoked force (P < 0.05) and lower discomfort in comparison to c-NMES (P < 0.05-0.001), but fatigue time course and magnitude did not differ between the two conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of quadriceps m-NMES appears legitimate for (re)training purposes because it generated stronger contractions and was less discomfortable than c-NMES (due to multiple current pathways and/or lower current density with larger electrodes).
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) with large electrodes and multiple current pathways (m-NMES) has recently been proposed as a valid alternative to conventional NMES (c-NMES) for quadriceps muscle (re)training. The main aim of this study was to compare discomfort, evoked force and fatigue between m-NMES and c-NMES of the quadriceps femoris muscle in healthy subjects. METHODS: Ten healthy subjects completed two experimental sessions (c-NMES and m-NMES), that were randomly presented in a cross-over design. Maximal electrically evoked force at pain threshold, self-reported discomfort at different levels of evoked force, and fatigue-induced force declines during and following a series of 20 NMES contractions were compared between c-NMES and m-NMES. RESULTS: m-NMES resulted in greater evoked force (P < 0.05) and lower discomfort in comparison to c-NMES (P < 0.05-0.001), but fatigue time course and magnitude did not differ between the two conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of quadriceps m-NMES appears legitimate for (re)training purposes because it generated stronger contractions and was less discomfortable than c-NMES (due to multiple current pathways and/or lower current density with larger electrodes).
Authors: Ana Luiza C Martimbianco; Maria Regina Torloni; Brenda Ng Andriolo; Gustavo Jm Porfírio; Rachel Riera Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-12-12
Authors: Morufu Olusola Ibitoye; Nur Azah Hamzaid; Nazirah Hasnan; Ahmad Khairi Abdul Wahab; Glen M Davis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anthony J Blazevich; David F Collins; Guillaume Y Millet; Marco A Vaz; Nicola A Maffiuletti Journal: Exerc Sport Sci Rev Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 6.230