Impact of Whole-Body Electromyostimulation and Resistance Training Programme on Strength Parameters and Body Composition in Group of Elderly Women at Risk of Sarcopenia

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of the study is to compare the effect of ten-week lasting whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) and the circuit resistance training programme (RT) on body composition and strength parameters in women at risk of sarcopenia. Methods: The WB-EMS programme was carried out once a week and included ten exercise sessions, the RT was carried out twice a week and included 20 sessions. 17 elderly women participated in the study, nine in a WB-EMS intervention group (age: 63.11±1.52 years; weight: 70.07±9.07kg; height: 165.11±6.4cm; BMI 25.81±3.96kg/m2), eight in a RT group (age: 62.13±1.69 years; weight: 73.58±3.87 kg; BMI 27.34±2.58 kg/m2). To assess body composition, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was used. To determine the level of strength parameters, hand dynamometry and isokinetic dynamometry of knee flexors and knee extensors were used. Results: Body composition assessment was performed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and strength parameters were evaluated using isometric dynamometry (knee flexors and extensors strength). After completing ten weeks of intervention, significant differences were observed for lean muscle mass (RT group, Leanmasspre-test 43316.91 ± 1856.77 vs. Leanmasspost-test 43939.56 ± 1869.84, p= 0.0307). No significant differences were found between the pre-test and post-test in the WB-EMS group (Leanmasspre-test 39472.56 ± 3370.04 vs. Leanmasspost-test 38835.56 ± 3306.84, p= 0.5995). The isokinetic dynamometry analysis showed significant differences for the extensors and the peak torque on the right side in the RT group (Extensors Peak Torquepre-test 98.00 ± 13.55 vs. Extensors Peak Torquepost-test 38835.56 ± 3306.84, p= 0.0160; Flexors Peak Torquepre-test 54.25 ± 11.14 vs. Flexors Peak Torquepost-test 59.75 ± 11.13, p= 0.0059). Conclusions: The most obvious finding that emerges from this study is that resistance training has shown a greater effect than whole-body electromyostimulation.

Outcomes Addressed by Whole-Body Electromyostimulation and Belt Electrode-Skeletal Muscle Electrical Stimulation Trials in Middle Aged to Older Adults – an Evidence Map

“…Maximum strength changes of the lower extremities [12,16,22,23,29,32,37,40,41,45,46,51,53,57,61,62,67,71,75,82,83,85,86], trunk [12,37,41,51,55,71,93] and upper extremities/hand [12,16,22,25,27,41,45,49,57,[61][62][63]69,71,76,85] 4 were determined by many studies. About two thirds of the studies/projects applied isometric tests; functional tests were performed by seven studies and eight studies used isokinetic devices for strength assessments [16,…”

“…The eligible studies determined changes in maximum power of the lower extremity by the 10s/3reps/5reps chair rise test [12,22,30,45,51,63,69,85,86], jump tests [45,51], leg press/leg extension devices [40,57] or functional tests [61,65].…”

“…More than two thirds of the studies/projects reported changes body composition parameters as primary, secondary or tertiary outcome. Although difficult to conclude 8 , about 14 studies considered changes in body composition and anthropometry at least as a core outcome [21,23,27,39,44,49,50,53,54,58,59,63,68,77] (Figure 3 31,39,44,57,75,92], one study [37] relied on the caliper method and a further study [53] determined changes in thigh and calf circumference.…”

“…Bone mineral density (BMD) or bone mineral content (BMC), i.e. outcomes specifically dedicated to Osteoporosis, were determined by five studies [19, 57,75,87,92]. All studies applied dual energy xray absorptiometry (DXA) considered as the gold standard of bone densitometry and focus on middle aged to older women.…”

“…While five studies failed to report adverse effects [56,57,59,62,86] and did not respond to our queries, no project/study listed relevant side effects related to the WB-EMS or B-SES application (Table 2). In detail, no study reported musculoskeletal adverse effects or injuries or negative effects on inflammatory, cardiovascular and cardiometabolic biomarkers or renal health, be it in cohorts with sarcopenia [12], sarcopenic obesity [48], advanced cancer [78], frailty [22], acute heart failure [85] or critical care patients [59].…”