ArticleJournal of exercise science and fitness2025
Comparing the effects of 25-minute electrical muscle stimulation vs. 90-minute full-body resistance training on body composition and strength: A 20-week intervention.
Article in Journal of exercise science and fitness, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Electromyostimulation (EMS) and traditional resistance training (TradRT) are widely used methods for improving muscle strength and body composition. However, comparative studies employing a multi-week longitudinal design remain limited. This study aimed to investigate the effects of 20 weeks of EMS vs. TradRT on body composition and strength performance in physically active adults. Methods: Forty-six participants were randomly assigned to either the EMS group (n = 22) or the TradRT group (n = 24). The EMS group performed twice-weekly, 25-min whole-body EMS sessions, while the TradRT group completed twice-weekly, 90-min full-body resistance training sessions. Results: Assessments of body weight, body mass index (BMI), fat percentage, and maximal strength were conducted at baseline, 10 weeks, and 20 weeks. A significant time effect was observed for all variables (p < 0.001), indicating improvements in both groups. However, group × time interactions revealed distinct adaptation patterns. The TradRT group exhibited greater reductions in body fat percentage and superior strength gains in bench press, leg press, shoulder press, and triceps pushdown, and abdominal strength. Conversely, the EMS group showed greater reductions in body weight and BMI. No significant interaction effect was observed for biceps curl strength. Both EMS and TradRT were effective in improving strength and body composition, but TradRT led to greater strength development and fat reduction, while EMS was more effective for weight and BMI reduction. Conclusions: These findings suggest that EMS may serve as a viable alternative for individuals unable to engage in high-load resistance training, whereas TradRT remains superior for maximizing strength and fat loss.
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.