ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2008
Electrostimulation improves muscle perfusion but does not affect either muscle deoxygenation or pulmonary oxygen consumption kinetics during a heavy constant-load exercise.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Handcycling with concurrent lower body low-frequency electromyostimulation significantly increases acute oxygen uptake in elite wheelchair basketball players: an acute crossover trial.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2024Trial
- Similar Recovery of Maximal Cycling Performance after Ischemic Preconditioning, Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation or Active Recovery in Endurance Athletes.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2020Trial
- High-frequency electrical stimulation can be a complementary therapy to promote nerve regeneration in diabetic rats.PloS one · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electromyostimulation (EMS) is commonly used as part of training programs. However, the exact effects at the muscle level are largely unknown and it has been recently hypothesized that the beneficial effect of EMS could be mediated by an improved muscle perfusion. In the present study, we investigated rates of changes in pulmonary oxygen consumption (VO(2p)) and muscle deoxygenation during a standardized exercise performed after an EMS warm-up session. We aimed at determining whether EMS could modify pulmonary O(2) uptake and muscle deoxygenation as a result of improved oxygen delivery. Nine subjects performed a 6-min heavy constant load cycling exercise bout preceded either by an EMS session (EMS) or under control conditions (CONT). VO(2p) and heart rate (HR) were measured while deoxy-(HHb), oxy-(HbO(2)) and total haemoglobin/myoglobin (Hb(tot)) relative contents were measured using near infrared spectroscopy. EMS significantly increased (P < 0.05) the Hb(tot) resting level illustrating a residual hyperaemia. The EMS priming exercise did not affect either the HHb time constant (17.7 +/- 14.2 s vs. 13.1 +/- 2.3 s under control conditions) or the VO(2p) kinetics (time-constant = 18.2 +/- 5.2 s vs. 15.4 +/- 4.6 s under control conditions). Likewise, the other VO(2p) parameters were unchanged. Our results further indicated that EMS warm-up improved muscle perfusion through a residual hyperaemia. However, neither VO(2p) nor [HHb] kinetics were modified accordingly. These results suggest that improved O(2) delivery by residual hyperaemia induced by EMS does not accelerate the rate of aerobic metabolism during heavy exercise at least in trained subjects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.