Talk:Electrical muscle stimulation

message: The study cited in the reference section clearly states that EMS is ineffective. The article sounds far more like an advertisement than an unbiased encyclopedia entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.202.109 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this section be deleted, since the criticism was almost 10 years ago, and in the meantime the article has been completely rewritten with completely new bibliographic soutces?--Gciriani (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article mis-represents the results of the study it cites 

message: According to the study cited in the reference section:
"The stimulation group had a 58% increase in abdominal strength, whereas the control group did not change. The stimulation group also had a 100% increase in abdominal endurance versus a 28% increase in the control group. Waist circumference decreased by of 3.5 cm in the stimulation group compared to no significant change in the control group. All 24 subjects in the stimulation group felt that their midsections were more “toned” and “firmed” and 13/24 (54%) felt that their posture had improved as a result of the stimulation. None of the control group subjects reported changes in these parameters. There were no significant differences in body weight, BMI, or skinfold thickness over the course of the study in either group. NMES, as used in the current study, resulted in significant improvements in the muscular strength and endurance of the abdominal region, as well as subject’s perceived shape and satisfaction of the midsection."
Furthermore:
"This study found that the use of the Slendertone FLEX TM belt significantly increased abdominal strength and endurance, decreased waist girth, and improved self-perceived abdominal firmness and tone. The results probably can be attributed to the strength of the electrically induced muscle contractions made possible by the quality of the electrodes utilized in the belt system, as well as the stimulator itself."
Investigation by the FTC (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/05/projectabsurd.htm) has shown that quite a few of these belts are more or less totally useless. However, Slendertone Flex - and, presumably, Slendertone Flex Max - clearly shouldn't be lumped in with them.
Only glass (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The study is simply not misrepresented. 

message: : I have moved this article from "electro muscle stimulation" to "electrical muscle stimulation" because the latter is much more common terminology: gbooks hits/gscholar hits:
:* "electrical muscle stimulation"  662/2050
:* "electro muscle stimulation" 30/21
: Xasodfuih (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Electro myostimulation" is also very uncommon at 9/20, whereas "electromyostimulation" gets more hits: 182/441. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, neuromuscular electrostimulation seems to be the more common term in terms of books/scholar hits: 759/about 19,800. Another problem with the current title, however, is the capitalization, which goes against the naming convention, so no matter what title is correct, it should be moved anyway. Where next Columbus? (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you failed to use quotes: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="neuromuscular+electrostimulation" gives only 78 hits for "neuromuscular electrostimulation". Xasodfuih (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh. :D Well, unless anyone has another suggestion, I'll go ahead and lowercase the title (but I'll wait for comments, so as to not need moving it around even further, because I suspect there are already several double and perhaps triple redirs to be resolved...). Where next Columbus? (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Went ahead and moved it to normal caps. Where next Columbus? (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't we moving too fast? I tried electrostimulation: 1,860/15,200--Gciriani (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Electrostimulation is not specific enough in my view. TENS and ECT qualify as electrostimulation. Can you find a source that equates electrostimulation with EMS? Xasodfuih (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a good point. I do have several examples that equate electrostimulation with EMS though. See for example Maffiuletti 2006. I've read tens of articles on EMS, both scholarly and review articles, and it seems to me that different clusters of authors gravitate around different naming preferences. Uneducated but influential authors even come up with misnomers like electronic muscle stimulation, which used to be the title of this article before I started editing it. I guess that Electrical Muscle Stimulation makes most sense (sorry, I prefer title case, which is more readable). Thanks for your contribution in helping improving this article.--Gciriani (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree title case looks better when in a title, but it however is harder to link to as all links must use title case as well, which doesn't look as good in the midst of a paragraph of prose. Also, if one links to the article with normal case, a link would be needed to redirect to title case. That's why I changed it to normal case as per the relevant naming convention. Where next Columbus? (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text:  Those are niche papers, e.g. the first one you cite is titled "... in electrostimulation resistance training", so it's clear from the context what type of electrostimulation it's talking about. To title this article simply electrostimulation some general reference is needed to support electrostimulation=EMS, e.g. a medical dictionary, a medical encyclopaedia, a general book on electrotherapy etc. For instance Bioimpedance and Bioelectricity Basics only calls EMS "electrotherapy of muscles". A more therapy-oriented book Electrotherapy:  Evidence-based Practice distinguishes NMES from EMS in an intersting way: innervated vs denervated muscle, but doesn't equate either with electrostimulation. They do however point out that "investigators have used the following terms interchangeably, and sometimes the precise form of electrical stimulation is gleaned only by careful review of the particular paper." Terms listed are: NMES, FES/FNS, TES, ES, and later warns that "the meaning of the generic term, electrical stimulation (ES), is further complicated by the expanding use of electrical stimulation." They seem to prefer NMES throughout that chapter though. Electrotherapy explained also seems to prefer NMES as terminology, but they consider TENS a low power NMES too. Also "neuromuscular electrical stimulation" gets 612/2410 google books/scholar hits, so it's on par with "electrical muscle stimulation". It should probably be added to the 1st sentence. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  pubmed counts: "neuromuscular electrical stimulation" 240, "electrical muscle stimulation" 115. It looks like NMES is preferred in professional circles after all. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: (Outdent) So... should we move the thing to neuromuscular electrostimulation, then? I'm beginning to feel a bit like Willy on Wheels here, if you know what I mean. Thank $(DEITY) disk is cheap, though. Where next Columbus? (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know what yo mean :) I've added "neuromuscular electrical stimulation" (NMES) as alias in the lede (note that "neuromuscular electrostimulation" is uncommon). It think it's okay the way it is given that lay sources prefer EMS (about 64K web ghits) to NMES (about 31K), so most of our readers would probably search for EMS rather than NMES. If somebody comes along and feels strongly that it should be called "neuromuscular electrical stimulation", I won't object either. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I've added an extra redir to cover all bases. Where next Columbus? (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming Statistics

message: This is the best (or only) top flight coach folks could come up with? That is kind of like saying Hitler used a particular kind of Krupps oven (OK, over the top example, but you get my drift). Almost any other named coach would be better.--Fizbin (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Be my guest. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Fizbin, this is the best example I knew of. Whom do you propose to add?--Gciriani (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry folks, I would have given up a name if I had one. I have no idea who uses or promotes these devices - I was reading the article to learn, not because I know anything about these. All I know as a T&F fan is that the name Charlie Francis is tainted far beyond redemption of any kind. Using him as an example is basically saying 'Charlie Francis, known long-term pusher of drugs in sports, uses this, so you should to.' Even if he is correct in this case, he is a terrible example. In lieu of another example I'd kill the sentence. Just saying.--Fizbin (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlie Francis?? 

message: I came to this article seeking basic information on the subject and general validity of medical and physical therapy claims. The material presented reads like several competing points of view mashed together with "neutral" language. Information and tone is conflicting. I briefly looked up the various articles cited as references and the majority of them are poorly-cited (often fewer than 15-20 other papers make reference to the cited article). While citations alone are not a measure of quality, it does lend weight to the interest the article has generated within it's field. It also is a good measure of how many peers have reviewed and possibly validated the research presented.
I understand this article is marked for low priority and not being knowledgeable I cannot offer any useful edits myself. Can an editor at least clean out the alternating bias and perhaps make it just a simple encyclopedic  description of what EMS is? It certainly couldn't be any less useful than it is now. TJW (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where can I check references' citation by others? Also is it possible that there are only a few because this is a very small niche? Some of the scientists whose research I cited are at the top of the food chain in the field.--Gciriani (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I see where your poorly-cited impression comes from: I cross referenced some of the articles at PubMed. In my opinion the relatively low count of references is due by the fact that this is a niche of medicine, therefore there are relatively fewer researcher conducting research in this field. I also think the POV tag could be removed, as the complaint was more about the lack of taking sides for or against electrical muscle stimulation, rather than about neutrality.--Gciriani (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Editor who proposed POV review agreed in his talk page that the article looks OK.--Gciriani (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing NPOV 

message: More information is needed on the machines that use electrical pulses to stimulate muscles to grow. These use pads fixed to the skin. How effective are they, and what are the disadvantages of using them compared to weight training and strength training? Are they safe to use? Do they sometimes damage muscles or disfigure them? Wsmss (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I don't remember for sure but this book might have some information on the topic. Happy hunting and don't forget to cite your sources. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a tall order, easier said than done ITasteLikePaint. I also doubt that the Draper book you referenced contains any comparison of different machines. Although electrons are a commodity, their effect is extremely dependent on the stimulation parameters and how well the waveform is generated. There are probably very few people able to pass judgement, and for sure any judgement would be regarded as unfair endorsement by others.--Gciriani (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and quoted some relevant material regarding effectiveness. I haven't found anything yet regarding safety, perhaps because it is a non issue.--Gciriani (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrical muscle stimulation machines 

message: I'm proposing to remove the Globalize/US tag. This tag was introduced by User:UltraMagnus on May 30, 2010, suggesting a discussion in the talk page. Nobody ever did that until now, not even the proponent. After reading the article, it seems that  citations used in the article come from many different places around the world. The only section that is exclusively US, is the one on the US FDA regulatory aspect. That section has been counterbalanced by a perspective on European regulations and views.--Gciriani (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Globalize/US tag 

message: Hello, I wanted to comment on the opening statement of electrical stimulation. I'm in a physical therapy program and everything I have been learning contradicts the opening statement about NMES and EMS being the same thing or referred to as the same thing. From my understanding EMS and NMES are not the same type of treatment and should not be referred to synonymously. Neuromuscular stimulation uses the peripheral nerve to stimulate muscular contractions with parameters that affect the motor fibers. Whereas, electrical muscle stimulation is used in treatments of denervated muscles with parameters that surpass motor-level stimulation.I would be happy to provide more specification and/or known parameters to elicit these effects if interested.--Hob10 (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct from the point of view of your class. I help teach the practical portion of the modality class of a master program in physical therapy at a reputable university, and what you are saying is what the professor teaches in the that class too. However, in every day's parlance many practitioners refer to it as EMS, and it's important to explain in the article both scientific and lay synonyms. There are also several scientists who refer to it occasionally as EMS, and others as simply ES (while we know that ES could refer to other types of stimulation that have nothing to do with muscle). I have several examples in my bibliography of research articles and textbooks using EMS, so I think the opening statement is appropriate. You can also take a look at the discussion Naming Statistics for more.--Gciriani (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ES or EMS was generally how I have heard people refer to it as well. I guess I questioned if it would be misleading from a denervated muscle standpoint, where ES is not really strengthening the muscle, but more so retarding atrophy.--Hob10 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   NMES vs. EMS 

message: The external link "Casting New Energy onto Broken Limbs", doesn't seem to fit the article and out of the blue. It smells of indirect advertising, and I propose to delete it.--Gciriani (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Make it so number one -ITasteLikePaint (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link - Casting New Energy onto Broken Limbs 

message: In my opinion, popular culture should be a paragraph with citations rather than a section. It also seems that the use by Bruce Lee is a legitimate use rather than popular culture; however, I don't have a citation available to be able to do so. Further ideas on how to modify this section or absorb it into the main text?--Gciriani (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: I don't understand why you Cherrin5 deleted so much material from the Use section of the article. I think you need to broaden your understanding of the subject before doing something like that. You could for instance read some of the references cited in the article. I'm giving you here the link of one resource that I hope will help you understanding why I'm reversing your edit: Maffiuletti NA, Minetto MA, Farina D, Bottinelli R. Electrical stimulation for neuromuscular testing and training: state-of-the art and unresolved issues. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(10):2391-2397. The article was leading a cluster of presentations at the XVIII Congress of the International Society of Electrophysiology and Kinesiology (ISEK 2010) that took place in Aalborg, Denmark on 16–19 June 2010.--Gciriani (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversal of major edit of use section 

message: I do not know how similar FES Functional electrical stimulation is to EMS Electrical muscle stimulation, but they seem the same to me. A merge of the two articles may be necessary.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: FES and EMS are very different from each other. FES is done with the intent to help disabled people to move their own limbs (the muscle contracts the limb moves). EMS is mainly done on able bodied individuals, and is mostly done in an isostatic manner (the muscle contracts but the limb doesn't move).--Gciriani (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Two similar articles

message: As poorly reffed
"===Popular culture ===
* The 1996 Star Wars novel Shadows of the Empire describes a 'myostim' chair that artificially stimulates muscles to build muscle mass and strength.
* The science fiction movie The Matrix contains a scene in which Neo's muscles are activated by means of acupuncture needles and EMS after being 'cocooned' for a long time aboard the ship Nebuchadnezzar.
* In a documentary about Bruce Lee one of his friends states in an interview that Bruce Lee used electrical wires to increase his muscle development (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hSzyjPfoRY).
* In the anime Boku Dake ga Inai Machi an EMS device is used upon the main character during his 15 year coma.
* In the book Earth Unaware by Orson Scott Card and Aaron Johnston, Victor Delgado used an EMS device to keep his muscles from degenerating during his flight through space on a quickship, which lasted 6 months and 3 weeks.
* In the 2002 film Jackass: The Movie, Johnny Knoxville, Chris Pontius, Dave England, and Ehren McGhehey each test out the stimulator on their cheeks, fingers, and finally on Chris's testicle."
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved here

message: I was looking at the Relax-A-Cizor portion of the article, and it seems to me disproportionate compared to the content of the original article on Electrical muscle stimulation. There are several other devices that have been routinely taken off commerce or warned against by the FDA. Policing the market place is one of the things they do, and that device is one of many they pursued. I would like to propose to drastically remove most of the Relax-A-Cizor content. It even sounds as reverse-advertising by substitute products that see EMS as a detrimental to their own market niche. I would even eliminate the Slendertone paragraph of the section, if there is support.--Gciriani (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks well referenced. Section could be expanded. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well referenced doesn't make it proportioned to the article. First of all the section is called devices, not device rejections/prohibitions. Then we have to take into account that there there are so many devices out there OTC electrical muscle stimulator devices, 89 as of now according to the link I gave you. With such a premise, the Relax-A-Cizor portion would seem advertising if it weren't for the fact that it was sanctioned bu the FDA.--Gciriani (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relax-A-Cizor merge