Whole-body electromyostimulation as a means to impact muscle mass and abdominal body fat in lean, sedentary, older female adults: subanalysis of the TEST-III trial

Figures & data

Figure 1 Flow chart.

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; BMD, bone mineral density; SD, standard deviation; WB-EMS, whole-body electromyostimulation; WC, waist circumference.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the WB-EMS and control groups

Variable	WB-EMS (n=23)	Control (n=23)
Age (years)*	74.7 ± 3.9	74.7 ± 3.9
Age at menopause (years)*	50.1 ± 5.7	49.6 ± 5.8
Body height (cm)	162.7 ± 5.0	163.5 ± 4.4
Body weight (kg)	59.3 ± 6.2	59.4 ± 5.1
Body mass index (kg/m^2)	22.4 ± 1.1	22.2 ± 1.2
Total body fat DXA (%)	32.5 ± 3.1	32.8 ± 3.3
Waist circumference (cm)	87.1 ± 5.1	87.4 ± 4.7
Total energy uptake (mJ/day)**	6.52 ± 1.76	6.57 ± 1.53
Exercise volume (min/week)*	31.1 ± 12.9	33.7 ± 18.8
Grip strength (kg)	24.1 ± 4.5	23.8 ± 3.7
Walking speed (m/sec)	1.42 ± 0.39	1.44 ± 0.45
Sarcopenia score*** (kg/m^2)	6.17 ± 0.48	6.07 ± 0.51
Sarcopenia¥ (n)	1 (4%)	2 (9%)
Sarcopenia (EWGSOP) (n)	0	0

Notes:

* As assessed by detailed questionnaires;^33,34 **as assessed by 4-day dietary protocols;

*** skeletal muscle mass index (appendicular muscle mass/body height);

¥ skeletal muscle mass index <5.45 kg/m.^2,27

Abbreviations: DXA, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry; EWGSOP, European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People; WB-EMS, whole-body electromyostimulation.

Figure 2 Whole-body electromyostimulation electrodes (vest and sleeves).

Figure 3 Whole-body electromyostimulation exercise protocol.

Table 2 Baseline and follow-up data, absolute changes, and statistical parameters of primary endpoints in the WB-EMS and control groups

	WB-EMS (mean ± SD)	Control (mean ± SD)	Difference mean (95% CI)	P	Effect size (d)
Appendicular skeletal muscle mass (g)
Baseline	16,423 ± 2,172	16,281 ± 1,777	–	–	–
12 months	16,506 ± 2,169	16,147 ± 1,820	–	–	–
Difference	83 ± 327^§	−133 ± 303*	216 (29–404)	0.025	0.69
Abdominal body fat (g)
Baseline	10,310 ± 2,329	10,000 ± 1,678	–	–	–
12 months	10,184 ± 2,316	10,243 ± 1,898	–	–	–
Difference	−126 ± 560^§	243 ± 607^§	368 (21–719)	0.038	0.63

Notes: Significance for within-group effects: *P<0.05, and ^§not statistically significant. Exact significance values are listed in the Results section.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation; WB-EMS, whole-body electromyostimulation.

Table 3 Changes in body fat and maximum isometric strength in the WB-EMS and control groups

	WB-EMS (mean ± SD)	Control (mean ± SD)	Difference mean (95% CI)	P	Effect size (d)
Upper leg muscle mass (g)
Baseline	7,839 ± 1,132	7,937 ± 856	–	–	–
12 month	7,881 ± 1,112	7,861 ± 889	–	–	–
Difference	42 ± 208^§	−75 ± 149*	117 (10–225)	0.033	0.65
Upper leg fat mass (g)
Baseline	4,987 ± 1,028	4,785 ± 922	–	–	–
12 month	4,946 ± 1,058	4,833 ± 972	–	–	–
Difference	−41 ± 166^§	49 ± 133^§	90 (0–179)	0.050	0.60
Maximum isometric strength leg extensors (leg press) (N)
Baseline	602 ± 160	524 ± 159	–	–	–
12 month	656 ± 91	529 ± 180	–	–	–
Difference	55 ± 71*	5 ± 49^§	50 (12–87)	0.010	0.82

Notes: Significance (P) for within-group effects: *P<0.05; ^§not statistically significant. Exact significance values are listed in the Results section.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation; WB-EMS, whole-body electromyostimulation; N, Newton.

KemmlerWLauberDWeineckJBenefits of 2 years of intense exercise on bone density, physical fitness, and blood lipids in early postmenopausal osteopenic women: results of the Erlangen Fitness Osteoporosis Prevention Study (EFOPS)Arch Intern Med2004164101084109115159265

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

KemmlerWWeineckJKalenderWAThe effect of habitual physical activity, non-athletic exercise, muscle strength, and VO2max on bone mineral density is rather low in early postmenopausal osteopenic womenJ Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact20044332533415615501

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

StenholmSHarrisTBRantanenTSarcopenic obesity: definition, cause and consequencesCurr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care200811669370018827572

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

BaumgartnerRNKoehlerKMGallagherDEpidemiology of sarcopenia among the elderly in New MexicoAm J Epidemiol199814787557639554417

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar