Electric Muscle-stimulating Machine Experiment

11976 words (48 pages) Dissertation

10th Dec 2019 Dissertation Reference this

Tags: PhysiologyMedical Technology

Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Dissertation Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NursingAnswers.net.

Abstract

In recent decades advancements in technology, medicine, and human health have been explosive. These key categories have crossed paths to bring forth the development of an electric muscle-stimulating machine called E-Fit EF1280. Much like a scene from a futuristic movie, participants are prepared in a full body suit with surface electrodes connected to 14 key muscle groups. Using only 2-pound weights and very basic movements, E-Fit will contract and relax the muscles at any designated intensity, time, and order. E-Fit relies on water as a conductor of the electrical current being sent from the machine to the suit. Previous research provides sufficient evidence to make the claim that the suit does provide muscle enhancing results as well as to increase functional health of previously damaged joints. The studies conducted in this research wished to focus on the applied question: How does E-Fit’s 20 minute workout compare to standard weight training? The research was propelled by the claim that a 20 minute E-Fit workout could constructively stimulate just as many muscle fibers as a 90 minute workout with weights. This study was conducted by collecting 30 healthy participants to undergo a bi-weekly 6-week exercise regimen. The volunteers were randomly split into the “experimental” (E-Fit method) and “control” (conventional method). Measurements including body fat %, body mass index, muscle mass index, strength, and endurance values were recorded at the beginning of the study, before session 7, and after the last session (14). Results showed that the E-Fit group showed more beneficial outcomes than the conventional group in every test except for BMI.

Table of Contents

List of Tables                                                        4

Table 1.1 Participant Selection Analyses 4

Table 1.2 Training Routine Weeks 1-6 4

Table 1.3 Pre-Exercise Data Collection 5

Table 1.4 Intra-Exercise Data Collection 6

Table 1.5 Post-Exercise Data Collection 7

 

INTRODUCTION 8

Training Protocol 10

Study Background 10

History of Electrical Muscle Stimulation 11

Abbreviations 12

 

METHODS 13

Sample Selection 13

Experimental Procedure 13

Diet and Supplementation 15

 

Results                                                            16

Comparative Data 16

Individual Subject Analytic Tables 29

 

Discussion                                                         45

Body Composition 45

Muscular and Cardiovascular Development 47

Conclusion                                                         50

 

Bibliography                                                        52

 

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Participant Selection Analyses

Male (E-Fit) Female (E-Fit) Male (Conventional) Female (Conventional
Very Fit 3 1 2 2
Fit 2 2 2 2
Sedentary 3 4 4 3

Table 1.1 Training Routine Weeks 1-6

 

Exercise Reps Sets
Shoulder Press 35 1
Chest Press 35 1
Front Biceps Curl 25 1
Overhead Triceps Extension 25 1
T-Curl (Biceps) 25 1
Triceps Kickbacks 25 1
Squats 35 1
Lunges 25 1
Crunches 20 Sec 1
Russian Twists 20 Sec 1
Lying Flutter Kicks 20 Sec 1
Lying Scissor Kicks 20 Sec 1
Leg Raises 20 Sec 1

Table 1.3 Pre-Exercise Data Collection

 

Participant BMI MMI BF% 1RM Bench 1RM

Squat

1RM

Sh.Press

Endu. Push Up Endu. Sit Up
1 Male (Efit) 18.0 42.1 9.6 140 200 135 60 82
2 Male (Efit) 18.0 39.2 10.3 195 210 140 73 103
3 Male (Efit) 16.5 30.5 15.2 115 195 135 58 75
4 Male (Efit) 17.0 29.4 16.0 255 185 185 62 67
5 Male (Efit) 24.0 48.2 12.0 310 365 200 55 92
6 Male (Efit) 21.5 30.0 11.6 155 190 145 58 76
7 Male (Efit) 20.2 39.2 14.5 165 295 145 75 97
8 Male (Efit) 19.4 38.1 19.0 155 285 125 46 58
9 Female (Efit) 24.5 26.5 22.1 85 165 80 42 76
10 Female (Efit) 21.3 27.2 24.0 90 155 90 31 67
11 Female (Efit) 15.5 28.9 23.1 85 175 70 28 58
12 Female (Efit) 17.0 27.2 22.6 70 145 45 18 64
13 Female (Efit) 27.0 30.0 25.1 55 135 66 21 57
14 Female (Efit) 21.4 21.2 29.0 55 130 55 34 46
15 Female (Efit) 24.5 28.1 32.0 85 175 75 25 35
16 Male (Conv.) 27.2 41.0 13.9 145 225 155 34 67
17 Male (Conv.) 21.0 38,6 17.6 175 265 155 53 53
18 Male (Conv.) 20.2 39.0 12.1 105 145 140 49 36
19 Male (Conv.) 17.2 32.9 18.1 135 145 130 59 74
20 Male (Conv.) 19.5 44.0 14.0 225 315 185 74 21
21 Male (Conv.) 21.0 48.2 15.1 295 285 185 110 65
22 Male (Conv.) 24.0 34.1 8.5 145 185 135 93 85
23 Male (Conv.) 23.1 41.0 7.2 275 315 125 54 36
24 Female (Conv.) 22.8 26.0 17.5 110 135 100 57 73
25 Female (Conv.) 22.1 27.3 20.0 55 165 55 63 42
26 Female (Conv.) 25.1 24.1 21.0 90 170 105 48 53
27 Female (Conv.) 24.0 33.1 26.1 65 105 65 75 42
28 Female (Conv.) 18.0 32.0 19.0 75 125 65 24 47
29 Female (Conv.) 21.3 26.1 25.0 60 105 50 53 27
30 Female (Conv.) 21.9 26.0 24.4 80 115 55 64 35

Table 1.4 Intra-Exercise Data Collection

 

Participant BMI MMI BF% 1RM Bench 1RM

Squat

1RM

Sh.Press

Endu. Push Up Endu. Sit Up
1 Male (Efit) 17.0 42.8 9.4 165 245 155 85 84
2 Male (Efit) 17.3 39.6 10.0 205 255 145 101 107
3 Male (Efit) 17.0 30.5 15.1 135 205 140 67 92
4 Male (Efit) 21.0 34.8 15.8 280 205 215 75 85
5 Male (Efit) 22.5 47.5 11.0 315 385 215 70 103
6 Male (Efit) 22.0 30.2 11.1 165 205 145 64 102
7 Male (Efit) 20.8 38.2 15.2 160 300 145 72 100
8 Male (Efit) 19.4 38.9 18.8 175 305 135 54 55
9 Female (Efit) 23.9 27.5 24.0 90 160 85 44 82
10 Female (Efit) 21.5 28.0 24.0 100 160 105 42 74
11 Female (Efit) 16.1 30.8 24.5 105 195 85 34 65
12 Female (Efit) 17.8 28.2 22.4 85 155 60 25 72
13 Female (Efit) 27.8 30.2 25.5 65 145 72 35 64
14 Female (Efit) 21.0 21.0 27.2 60 140 65 36 52
15 Female (Efit) 24.5 28.2 31.5 95 190 85 32 40
16 Male (Conv.) 25.0 38.8 12.2 155 230 165 28 55
17 Male (Conv.) 20.0 38.5 16.2 190 285 160 55 54
18 Male (Conv.) 20.3 39.1 12.4 110 145 150 53 42
19 Male (Conv.) 18.0 33.1 18.5 150 145 140 63 78
20 Male (Conv.) 19.7 44.1 13.8 245 325 190 78 24
21 Male (Conv.) 21.2 50.1 14.9 305 290 190 112 72
22 Male (Conv.) 24.1 34.5 9.5 155 205 140 100 92
23 Male (Conv.) 22.8 39.0 8.4 240 300 130 62 44
24 Female (Conv.) 22.6 25.0 17.2 115 135 100 60 70
25 Female (Conv.) 22.1 27.3 20.0 60 170 55 72 51
26 Female (Conv.) 26.1 23.2 19.8 85 175 100 52 61
27 Female (Conv.) 24.8 33.5 27.0 70 115 75 81 50
28 Female (Conv.) 19.1 32.4 20.1 85 135 75 27 47
29 Female (Conv.) 21.3 28.1 24.6 60 110 70 72 45
30 Female (Conv.) 21.6 28.0 25.2 85 120 65 69 41

Table 1.5 Post-Exercise Data Collection

 

Participant BMI MMI BF% 1RM Bench 1RM

Squat

1RM

Sh.Press

Endu. Push Up Endu. Sit Up
1 Male (Efit) 19.1 43.0 9.4 155 215 140 85 90
2 Male (Efit) 18.4 40.2 10.0 225 240 155 92 110
3 Male (Efit) 18.1 34.4 14.0 145 205 145 70 84
4 Male (Efit) 17.0 30.5 15.2 275 210 200 71 80
5 Male (Efit) 24.2 49.3 12.1 325 370 205 68 100
6 Male (Efit) 22.2 35.0 11.9 165 200 165 65 81
7 Male (Efit) 20.1 39.0 15.0 170 285 150 82 100
8 Male (Efit) 19.8 39.1 18.0 170 295 130 76 64
9 Female (Efit) 22.0 26.5 20.5 90 170 85 48 82
10 Female (Efit) 21.0 28.0 23.7 100 205 92 38 77
11 Female (Efit) 16.2 30.2 22.2 90 190 65 34 64
12 Female (Efit) 17.2 28.0 21.5 75 165 55 24 72
13 Female (Efit) 27.7 31.2 24.7 65 145 75 29 64
14 Female (Efit) 22.0 24.0 30.0 60 155 70 42 52
15 Female (Efit) 24.0 27.8 33.0 85 175 70 27 40
16 Male (Conv.) 26.5 40.6 13.5 150 230 155 41 70
17 Male (Conv.) 21.1 38.9 17.6 180 265 155 55 48
18 Male (Conv.) 20.8 39.4 12.0 110 190 145 52 39
19 Male (Conv.) 18.0 32.5 17.9 145 150 140 66 79
20 Male (Conv.) 20.0 44.8 13.9 240 335 195 81 24
21 Male (Conv.) 21.7 47.8 14.1 305 305 180 112 70
22 Male (Conv.) 23.3 35.5 9.2 155 205 140 100 91
23 Male (Conv.) 24.0 40.1 8.4 280 301 135 72 44
24 Female (Conv.) 24.8 25.2 19.2 110. 120 105 48 63
25 Female (Conv.) 22.7 26.5 21.9 60 170 60 72 48
26 Female (Conv.) 26.1 25.0 21.9 90 175 125 52 50
27 Female (Conv.) 23.1 34.0 25.8 75 115 75 77 50
28 Female (Conv.) 19.1 33.6 20.1 80 135 75 32 50
29 Female (Conv.) 22.1 28.0 26.1 60 115 50 53 32
30 Female (Conv.) 21.9 26.0 24.5 80 120 55 62 37

 

 

Introduction

Considered one of the most powerful platforms of preventative medicine and health development, the fitness industry has become inflated with diverse forms and methods of exercise. Progression in physiological understanding has allowed researchers to advance efforts in discovering the most efficient exercise system. The state of the art E-Fit EF-1280 (E-Fit) machine aims to achieve just that. Its advanced mechanism of training utilizes electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) to train key muscle groups. Daniel Nyiri, member of the E-Fit development team, states that a 90-minute conventional workout yields approximately 21,000 muscle contractions while a 20-minute E-Fit workout achieves more than 32,000 fibrous contractions…delivering “the most efficient workout in the country” (Nyiri, 2012).

The machine producers have implemented a training protocol that includes wearing a tight fitting and highly conductive spandex under suit in addition to an over suit fitted with electrodes strategically placed to the human musculoskeletal system. The electrodes require warm alkaline water as a conductor in order to activate the muscle. The machines utilize electrical currents on a frequency ranging from 5 Hz to 120 Hz to effectively contract the muscles of indicated use. It is said that the machine is effective due to the rapid contraction and relaxation of each muscle, which actually enhances aerobic metabolism (Kovacs, 2012).

Initially geared towards astronauts, the E-Fit technology is the first tool to utilize maximum muscle output without touching a weight. The technology utilizes five phases during a standard training session. The first is the comprehensive warm-up that engages myofascial release, activating and relaxing the muscles in a way such that they are primed for exercise. This two minute warm-up includes rapid movement to a transition of slow and controlled movements. The second phase is the strength program. During this phase the muscles are contracted for a longer time and then released for a very short rest in between repetitions. This fires surface muscle tissue, activating type II fibers. The third phase is the endurance program. The muscles are contracted for an extended time during the phase and are given little to no rest time. This ensures that the deep tissues (type I fibers) are being activated. The fourth phase is the abdominal program in which core is the primary focus. The final phase is a cool down period. The patron will simply lie on a mat in a relaxed state while a low frequency of power stimulates the muscles. This helps drive lactic acid out of the muscles as well as remove water from the skin, which treats cellulite.

MIK_6296_web.jpg

Image obtained from the E-Fit America Website.

The E-Fit machine above shows the individual dials that control the intensity and activation each muscle can experience.

Training Protocol

 

The training regimen for this machine differs depending on professional expertise, client goals, and preference. Nyiri, owner of E-Fit US distribution rights, has constructed a systemic training plan that requires each individual to undergo a 20-minute session two times per week. He claims that the workout is so intense on the muscles as well as demanding on the central nervous system that it is not necessary to train any more than twice per week (Nyiri, 2012). In fact, he considers it to be dangerous if completed any more than that (Kovacs, 2012).

Study Background

Research exists utilizing EMS for athletic performance, pain management, and physiological benefits but this study aims to target the actual comparison between conventional weight training and EMS training routines. An integrated approach was generated to systematically compare the benefits of the two unique methods of training. This was completed by selection of some of the most informative fitness measurements: including body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage (BF%), muscle mass index (MMI), strength using 1 repetition maximum (1RM), and endurance tests. The study’s scope focused equally on both conventional training and E-Fit training by utilizing the exact same workout program and diet approach with each participant. The study did not include an overwhelming focus on one style of training over the other.

History of Electrical Muscle Stimulation

The civilizations of Ancient Egypt and Rome were the first to discover EMS benefits through the use of electrical fish for pain management. Since then, many electrotherapy pioneers have contributed significant efforts to the process. One of the most notable includes Guillaume Duchenne de Boulogne. This 19th century researcher was the first to stimulate surface muscles using water as a conductor. He placed dampened electrodes and used a battery to implement controlled voltage to the muscle (Kovacs, 2012). Before the E-Fit machine was mass-produced, professional athletes were able to utilize EMS devices solely for their fitness development. The company E-Fit accomplished the launch of EMS to the fitness industry in the early 2000s. In recent decades, electrical stimulation was actually modified to target neurotransmitters. The most common neuromuscular applications include the transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS). Through studies of these treatments, electrical stimulation has been proven to actually rid mild to moderate joint, muscle, and/or ligament pain while EMS has yielded results that show improvements and prevention of muscle dysfunction and sarcopenia (Heidland, 2012).

Abbreviations

 

Sh.Press (Shoulder Press)

Endu. (Endurance)

EMS (Electical Muscle Stimulation)
E- Fit (Electo Fitness)

BMI (Body Mass Index)

BF% (Body Fat Percentage)

MMI (Muscle Mass Index)

1RM (1 Repetition Maximum)

TENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation)

PENS (Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation)

P-Width (Pulse Width)

BCAA (Branch Chain Amino Acids)

Methods

Sample Selection

 

The study included use of 16 males and 14 females training at an exact frequency of twice per week. Each of the subjects experienced average* childhood health and range between the ages of 21 and 38. The male subject average age was 24 while the female subject average age was 25. None of the subjects had any current physical limiting injuries or notable hormonal imbalances. In sight, none of the subjects were experiencing any result-altering conditions at the time of volunteer selection. Five males and three females were considered “very fit”, meaning they trained at least five times per week. Four males and four females were considered “fit”, meaning they trained three to five per week. And seven males and seven females were considered “sedentary”, meaning they participated in one or less days of physical activity.

Refer to Table 1.1 for sample categories.

Experimental Procedure

 

The subjects were split in half in accordance to gender and then again at random into two categories: E-Fit training and conventional training.

See Table 1.2 for training routine. Note: the regimen for both conventional training and E-Fit training were identical.

Each of the “E-Fit Training” subjects participated in a 20 minute supervised E-Fit workout on a bi-weekly routine for six weeks. While each of the “Conventional Training” subjects participated in a 20 minute supervised conventional workout on a bi-weekly routine.

The workout, repetitions, weight, and E-Fit variables were maintained until the professional trainer felt that the participant could healthily progress to the next weight and/or P-Width – depending on classification of subject’s workout method.

Data recordings of three sets of data included body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage (BF%), muscle mass index (MMI), strength using 1 repetition maximum (1RM) for bench press, squat, and shoulder press, endurance using push-up challenge and sit-up challenge. These proper measurements were to be taken at the beginning of session 1, session 7, and two days after session 12.

See Table 1.3 for body measurements and data collection for “Pre-Training Measurements”.

See Table 1.4 for body measurements and data collection for “Intra-Training Measurements”.

See Table 1.5 for body measurements and data collection for “Post-Training Measurements”.

Diet and Supplementation

 

Each participant was subject to following a structured calorie restricted program. This was created by determining each participant’s BMI, BF%, and body measurements. In conjunction with gender, age, height, and weight; all seven measurements were used to create a customized caloric requirement in order to maintain body weight while still promoting full muscle recovery, organ function, and fat loss*.

Supplement recommendations included multivitamins, BCAA and protein powders essential in the recovery of broken muscle tissue.

Results

The results obtained were analyzed in a comparison manner of before and after recordings through each study. This helped identify the degree of change on an individual scale so the results could be most easily translated.

Comparative Data

 

Graph 1.1 BMI Results of the Conventional Method of Training

 

Graph 1.2 BMI Results of E-Fit Method of Training

 

Body mass index (BMI) is essentially an individual ratio of their weight to their height.

BMI: 18.5-24.9 = Normal

BMI: 25-29.9 = Overweight

BMI: 30+ = Obese

Graph 1.1 and 1.2 provide very valuable data in regards to the role of conventional training and E-Fit towards BMI. The E-fit group began with an average BMI of 20.39 and after six weeks finished with an average of 20.60, for a change of +0.21. The conventional group began with an average BMI of 21.90 and final recordings provided an average of 22.35, yielding a difference of +0.45.

Graph 2.1 MMI Results of E-Fit Method of Training

 

 

Graph 2.2 MMI Recordings of the Conventional Method of Training

 

Muscle mass index gives an alternative perspective to the results associated with fitness. The data recorded proved much more interesting results than BMI. The initial recordings for the E-Fit group averaged at 32.39 and after six weeks proved to be 33.75 for a change of +1.36. The conventional group began with an average of 34.23 and after six weeks was 34.53, a change of +0.30. Both results yielded a positive increase in muscle mass index proving that both forms of exercise will (on average) increase an individual’s muscle mass index. In regards to increasing MMI, it is absolutely favorable towards the E-Fit method to be more efficient than the conventional method at only two times per week.

 

Graph 3.1 Body Fat Percentage Results of E-Fit Method of Training

 

 

Graph 3.2 Body Fat Percentage of the Conventional Method of Training

 

 

Body fat percentage is one of the most well-known in the fitness industry. This is due to the fact that it takes body composition into account. The E-fit group began the study with an average BF% of 19.07% and the final recording was 18.75% (-0.32%). The conventional group began the study with an average BF% of 17.3% and the final recording was 17.74% (+0.44%).

Graph 4.1 1 Repetition Maximum Bench Press of E-Fit Group

 

 

Graph 4.2 1 Repetition Maximum Bench Press of Conventional Group

 

 

Bench press data was initially recorded by allowing the participants to warm up to a state of full muscle activation during 1-repetition maximum sets. The E-Fit group averaged a beginning weight of 134.33 lbs. and final recordings were averaged at 146.33 lbs., which is a total increase of 12 lbs. over six weeks. The conventional group began with an average bench press maximum of 135.67 lbs. and finished the study with an average bench press maximum of 141.33 lbs. The increase was 5.66 lbs.

Graph 5.1 1 Repetition Maximum Squat of E-Fit Group

 

 

Graph 5.2 1 Repetition Maximum Squat of Conventional Group

 

 

The barbell squat was performed by first ensuring proper warm-up of every participant. Auxiliary and compound stretches were required to ensure safety and maximal muscle output. The E-fit group began with an average of 200.33 lbs. and the final recordings averaged at 215 lbs., proving an average increase in max squat capability of approximately 15 lbs. The conventional group began the study with an average 1RM squat of 186.67 lbs. and finished with an average of 195.4 lbs. The increase was 8.73 lbs.

Graph 6.1 1 Repetition Maximum Shoulder Press of E-Fit Group

 

 

Graph 6.2 1 Repetition Maximum Shoulder Press of Conventional Group

 

 

 

The barbell shoulder press was performed by first ensuring proper warm-up of every participant. Auxiliary and compound stretches were required to ensure safety and maximal muscle output. The E-fit group began with an average of 112.73 lbs. The final recordings averaged at 120.13 lbs., proving an average increase in maximum shoulder press capability of 7.4 lbs. The conventional group began the study with an average 1RM shoulder press of 113.67 lbs. and after the study the group averaged 119.33 lbs. The increase in the 1RM shoulder press was 5.67 lbs.

 

Graph 7.1 Maximum Push-Ups of E-Fit Group

 

 

Graph 7.2 Maximum Push-Ups of Conventional Group

 

 

The push-ups were performed by calculating the maximum amount that could be completed without resting. The E-fit group recorded an average of 45.73 before the study and ended with an average of 56.73, and an increase of 11 push-ups. The conventional group recorded an average of 60.67 before the study and ended at 65.00, and an increase of 4.33 push-ups.

Graph 8.1 Maximum Sit-Ups of E-Fit Group

 

 

Graph 8.2 Maximum Sit-Ups of Conventional Group

 

 

The sit-ups were performed by calculating the maximum amount that could be completed without resting. The E-fit group recorded an average of 70.20 before the study and ended with an average of 77.33, an increase of 7.13 sit-ups. The conventional group recorded an average of 50.40 before the study and ended with an average of 53.00, an increase of 2.6 sit-ups.

Individual Subject Analytic Tables

 

Table 2.1 BMI E-Fit

Participant BMI Before BMI Intra BMI Post
1 Male (Efit) 18 17 19.1
2 Male (Efit) 18 17.3 18.4
3 Male (Efit) 16.5 17 18.1
4 Male (Efit) 17 21 17
5 Male (Efit) 24 22.5 24.2
6 Male (Efit) 21.5 22 22.2
7 Male (Efit) 20.2 20.8 20.1
8 Male (Efit) 19.4 19.4 19.8
9 Female (Efit) 24.5 23.9 22
10 Female (Efit) 21.3 21.5 21
11 Female (Efit) 15.5 16.1 16.2
12 Female (Efit) 17 17.8 17.2
13 Female (Efit) 27 27.8 27.7
14 Female (Efit) 21.4 21 22
15 Female (Efit) 24.5 24.5 24
Average 20.38666667 20.6

 

Table 2.2 BMI Conventional

Participant BMI Before BMI Intra BMI Post
16 Male (Conv.) 27.2 25 26.5
17 Male (Conv.) 21 20 21.1
18 Male (Conv.) 20.2 20.3 20.8
19 Male (Conv.) 17.2 18 18
20 Male (Conv.) 19.5 19.7 20
21 Male (Conv.) 21 21.2 21.7
22 Male (Conv.) 24 24.1 23.3
23 Male (Conv.) 23.1 22.8 24
24 Female (Conv.) 22.8 22.6 24.8
25 Female (Conv.) 22.1 22.1 22.7
26 Female (Conv.) 25.1 26.1 26.1
27 Female (Conv.) 24 24.8 23.1
28 Female (Conv.) 18 19.1 19.1
29 Female (Conv.) 21.3 21.3 22.1
30 Female (Conv.) 21.9 21.6 21.9
Average 21.89333333 22.34666667

 

Table 3.1 MMI E-Fit

Participant MMI Before MMI Intra MMI Post
1 Male (Efit) 42.1 42.8 43
2 Male (Efit) 39.2 39.6 40.2
3 Male (Efit) 30.5 30.5 34.4
4 Male (Efit) 29.4 34.8 30.5
5 Male (Efit) 48.2 47.5 49.3
6 Male (Efit) 30 30.2 35
7 Male (Efit) 39.2 38.2 39
8 Male (Efit) 38.1 38.9 39.1
9 Female (Efit) 26.5 27.5 26.5
10 Female (Efit) 27.2 28 28
11 Female (Efit) 28.9 30.8 30.2
12 Female (Efit) 27.2 28.2 28
13 Female (Efit) 30 30.2 31.2
14 Female (Efit) 21.2 21 24
15 Female (Efit) 28.1 28.2 27.8
Average 32.38666667 33.74666667

 

Table 3.2 MMI Conventional

Participant MMI Before MMI Intra MMI Post
16 Male (Conv.) 41 38.8 40.6
17 Male (Conv.) 38.6 38.5 38.9
18 Male (Conv.) 39 39.1 39.4
19 Male (Conv.) 32.9 33.1 32.5
20 Male (Conv.) 44 44.1 44.8
21 Male (Conv.) 48.2 50.1 47.8
22 Male (Conv.) 34.1 34.5 35.5
23 Male (Conv.) 41 39 40.1
24 Female (Conv.) 26 25 25.2
25 Female (Conv.) 27.3 27.3 26.5
26 Female (Conv.) 24.1 23.2 25
27 Female (Conv.) 33.1 33.5 34
28 Female (Conv.) 32 32.4 33.6
29 Female (Conv.) 26.1 28.1 28
30 Female (Conv.) 26 28 26
Average 34.22666667 34.52666667

 

Table 4.1 Body Fat % E-Fit

Participant BF% Before BF% Intra BF% Post
1 Male (Efit) 9.6 9.4 9.4
2 Male (Efit) 10.3 10 10
3 Male (Efit) 15.2 15.1 14
4 Male (Efit) 16 15.8 15.2
5 Male (Efit) 12 11 12.1
6 Male (Efit) 11.6 11.1 11.9
7 Male (Efit) 14.5 15.2 15
8 Male (Efit) 19 18.8 18
9 Female (Efit) 22.1 24 20.5
10 Female (Efit) 24 24 23.7
11 Female (Efit) 23.1 24.5 22.2
12 Female (Efit) 22.6 22.4 21.5
13 Female (Efit) 25.1 25.5 24.7
14 Female (Efit) 29 27.2 30
15 Female (Efit) 32 31.5 33
Average 19.07333333 18.74666667

 

Table 4.2 Body Fat % Conventional

Participant BF% Before BF% Intra BF% Post
16 Male (Conv.) 13.9 12.2 13.5
17 Male (Conv.) 17.6 16.2 17.6
18 Male (Conv.) 12.1 12.4 12
19 Male (Conv.) 18.1 18.5 17.9
20 Male (Conv.) 14 13.8 13.9
21 Male (Conv.) 15.1 14.9 14.1
22 Male (Conv.) 8.5 9.5 9.2
23 Male (Conv.) 7.2 8.4 8.4
24 Female (Conv.) 17.5 17.2 19.2
25 Female (Conv.) 20 20 21.9
26 Female (Conv.) 21 19.8 21.9
27 Female (Conv.) 26.1 27 25.8
28 Female (Conv.) 19 20.1 20.1
29 Female (Conv.) 25 24.6 26.1
30 Female (Conv.) 24.4 25.2 24.5
Average 17.3 17.74

 

Table 5.1 1RM Bench Press E-Fit

Participant 1RM Bench Before 1RM Bench Post
1 Male (Efit) 140 155
2 Male (Efit) 195 225
3 Male (Efit) 115 145
4 Male (Efit) 255 275
5 Male (Efit) 310 325
6 Male (Efit) 155 165
7 Male (Efit) 165 170
8 Male (Efit) 155 170
9 Female (Efit) 85 90
10 Female (Efit) 90 100
11 Female (Efit) 85 90
12 Female (Efit) 70 75
13 Female (Efit) 55 65
14 Female (Efit) 55 60
15 Female (Efit) 85 85
Average 134.3333333 146.3333333

 

Table 5.2 1RM Bench Press Conventional

Participant 1RM Bench Before 1RM Bench Post
16 Male (Conv.) 145 150
17 Male (Conv.) 175 180
18 Male (Conv.) 105 110
19 Male (Conv.) 135 145
20 Male (Conv.) 225 240
21 Male (Conv.) 295 305
22 Male (Conv.) 145 155
23 Male (Conv.) 275 280
24 Female (Conv.) 110 110
25 Female (Conv.) 55 60
26 Female (Conv.) 90 90
27 Female (Conv.) 65 75
28 Female (Conv.) 75 80
29 Female (Conv.) 60 60
30 Female (Conv.) 80 80
Average 135.6666667 141.3333333

 

Table 6.1 1RM Squat E-Fit

Participant 1RM

Squat Before

1RM

Squat Post

1 Male (Efit) 200 215
2 Male (Efit) 210 240
3 Male (Efit) 195 205
4 Male (Efit) 185 210
5 Male (Efit) 365 370
6 Male (Efit) 190 200
7 Male (Efit) 295 285
8 Male (Efit) 285 295
9 Female (Efit) 165 170
10 Female (Efit) 155 205
11 Female (Efit) 175 190
12 Female (Efit) 145 165
13 Female (Efit) 135 145
14 Female (Efit) 130 155
15 Female (Efit) 175 175
Average 200.3333333 215

 

Table 6.2 1RM Squat Conventional

Participant 1RM

Squat Before

1RM

Squat Post

16 Male (Conv.) 225 230
17 Male (Conv.) 265 265
18 Male (Conv.) 145 190
19 Male (Conv.) 145 150
20 Male (Conv.) 315 335
21 Male (Conv.) 285 305
22 Male (Conv.) 185 205
23 Male (Conv.) 315 301
24 Female (Conv.) 135 120
25 Female (Conv.) 165 170
26 Female (Conv.) 170 175
27 Female (Conv.) 105 115
28 Female (Conv.) 125 135
29 Female (Conv.) 105 115
30 Female (Conv.) 115 120
Average 186.6666667 195.4

 

Table 7.1 1RM Shoulder Press E-Fit

Participant 1RM

Sh.Press Before

1RM

Sh.Press Post

1 Male (Efit) 135 140
2 Male (Efit) 140 155
3 Male (Efit) 135 145
4 Male (Efit) 185 200
5 Male (Efit) 200 205
6 Male (Efit) 145 165
7 Male (Efit) 145 150
8 Male (Efit) 125 130
9 Female (Efit) 80 85
10 Female (Efit) 90 92
11 Female (Efit) 70 65
12 Female (Efit) 45 55
13 Female (Efit) 66 75
14 Female (Efit) 55 70
15 Female (Efit) 75 70
Average 112.7333333 120.1333333

 

Table 7.2 1RM Shoulder Press Conventional

Participant 1RM

Sh.Press Before

1RM

Sh.Press Post

1 Male (Efit) 155 155
2 Male (Efit) 155 155
3 Male (Efit) 140 145
4 Male (Efit) 130 140
5 Male (Efit) 185 195
6 Male (Efit) 185 180
7 Male (Efit) 135 140
8 Male (Efit) 125 135
9 Female (Efit) 100 105
10 Female (Efit) 55 60
11 Female (Efit) 105 125
12 Female (Efit) 65 75
13 Female (Efit) 65 75
14 Female (Efit) 50 50
15 Female (Efit) 55 55
Average 113.6666667 119.3333333

 

Table 8.1 Endurance Push-Up E-Fit

Participant Endu. Push Up Before Endu. Push Up Post
1 Male (Efit) 60 85
2 Male (Efit) 73 92
3 Male (Efit) 58 70
4 Male (Efit) 62 71
5 Male (Efit) 55 68
6 Male (Efit) 58 65
7 Male (Efit) 75 82
8 Male (Efit) 46 76
9 Female (Efit) 42 48
10 Female (Efit) 31 38
11 Female (Efit) 28 34
12 Female (Efit) 18 24
13 Female (Efit) 21 29
14 Female (Efit) 34 42
15 Female (Efit) 25 27
Average 45.73333333 56.73333333

 

Table 8.2 Endurance Push-Up Conventional

Participant Endu. Push Up Before Endu. Push Up Post
16 Male (Conv.) 34 41
17 Male (Conv.) 53 55
18 Male (Conv.) 49 52
19 Male (Conv.) 59 66
20 Male (Conv.) 74 81
21 Male (Conv.) 110 112
22 Male (Conv.) 93 100
23 Male (Conv.) 54 72
24 Female (Conv.) 57 48
25 Female (Conv.) 63 72
26 Female (Conv.) 48 52
27 Female (Conv.) 75 77
28 Female (Conv.) 24 32
29 Female (Conv.) 53 53
30 Female (Conv.) 64 62
Average 60.66666667 65

 

Table 9.1 Endurance Sit-Up E-Fit

Participant Endu. Sit Up Before Endu. Sit Up Post
1 Male (Efit) 82 90
2 Male (Efit) 103 110
3 Male (Efit) 75 84
4 Male (Efit) 67 80
5 Male (Efit) 92 100
6 Male (Efit) 76 81
7 Male (Efit) 97 100
8 Male (Efit) 58 64
9 Female (Efit) 76 82
10 Female (Efit) 67 77
11 Female (Efit) 58 64
12 Female (Efit) 64 72
13 Female (Efit) 57 64
14 Female (Efit) 46 52
15 Female (Efit) 35 40
Average 70.2 77.33333333

 

Table 9.2 Endurance Sit-Up Conventional

Participant Endu. Sit Up Before Endu. Sit Up Post
16 Male (Conv.) 67 70
17 Male (Conv.) 53 48
18 Male (Conv.) 36 39
19 Male (Conv.) 74 79
20 Male (Conv.) 21 24
21 Male (Conv.) 65 70
22 Male (Conv.) 85 91
23 Male (Conv.) 36 44
24 Female (Conv.) 73 63
25 Female (Conv.) 42 48
26 Female (Conv.) 53 50
27 Female (Conv.) 42 50
28 Female (Conv.) 47 50
29 Female (Conv.) 27 32
30 Female (Conv.) 35 37
Average 50.4 53

Discussion

The data recorded during the study is original and was subject to human and experimental error that will be further discussed. The importance of testing a series of data was significant to the study. It was vital to identify and record changes in body composition, mass, and muscular productiveness.

The workout provided to the E-Fit group and the conventional group was identical on paper but differed in a host of ways. When training conventionally, it takes approximately 25 minutes to fully activate the muscles. On the contrary, with E-Fit it takes just seconds to experience over 300 muscle contractions in over 18 muscles. The E-Fit group’s results showed a greater benefit in every area of data except for BMI.

Body Composition

 

BMI

The overall change in body mass index was minor, not significant and failed to reject the null hypothesis. BMI is a great variable for determining obesity but it does have a degree of error. Weight and height are the only considerations of BMI, while key values such as muscular density, composition, and muscle mass index were not factored into the end variable (Hiza, 2011). An example of a false diagnosis of obesity would be a 5’10” male weighing 200 pounds at 10% body fat with a BMI of “overweight”. For the possibility of skewed entry data, it was necessary to take other factors into consideration such as muscle mass index and body fat percentage.

MMI

Muscle mass index is a great indicator of genuine muscle development. Since the muscle fibers studied do not replicate but rather expand and grow, it can be claimed that E-fit at two times per week is more efficient and productive at expanding muscle fibers than the conventional method. This is based on the data that proves the increase of 1.36 MMI in the E-fit group compared with the increase of 0.30 MMI in the conventional group during the study. The significant increase in muscle mass index in the E-Fit group gives rise to new questions of hope for athletes and fitness enthusiasts looking for a new method of training to progress them further.

Body Fat

The data compiled in this category was the most interesting. The E-Fit group of participants saw a decrease in body fat percentage while the conventional method group saw an increase in body fat. This can be attributed to the idea that training conventionally with weights just two times per week does not stimulate the muscles enough to create metabolic increases. The opposite can be said for E-Fit. The average body fat of the E-Fit participants fell a significant amount in just six weeks time (12 workouts). Even more interesting, mid-point recordings showed that participants lost half of their overall change, providing a clean trend of decrease in body fat projections for the E-Fit group.

It is necessary for children to exercise at least 60 minutes daily to ensure health and body development (Stong, 2005). As children age, the body’s central nervous system expects exercise but in some individuals this is not possible due to health issues, anatomical underdevelopment, or even just timing. E-Fit could resolve this issue, requiring 40 minutes per week to see a decline in body fat percentage.

Muscular and Cardiovascular Development

 

1RM Bench Press

The bench press is a movement that requires activation of numerous muscles used in the motion of pushing. For a 1 repetition maximum, it is important to note that the primary type of muscle used is the type 2b muscle fibers. These fibers are extremely susceptible to fatigue and are often used for brief explosive motions, such as bench-pressing at maximum capacity. There was a greater increase in the 1RM bench press of the E-Fit group compared to the conventional training group, although both served as productive methods of training to increase muscular strength. E-Fit is run on a muscle depth system, meaning the machine must pass through a series of muscle fibers activating all three types.

1RM Barbell Squat

The barbell squat is a similar movement to the bench press in that it requires activation of a combination of muscles. This set of data showed very similar results to those recorded in the bench press. The E-Fit group improved their average squat maximum of approximately 15 lbs. while the conventional group increased by 8.73 lbs. Both are proven to be effective in building raw strength in the lower body/trunk but it is certainly clear which is more efficient. It should be noted that a normal power lifter’s training routine is comprised of three days of squats, adding to the list of reasons why the increase in strength was not notably higher in the conventional group. Considering that the E-Fit group did not use a weight even close to maximum capabilities, it is astonishing they were able to achieve raw strength gains of this caliber. This may attributed to the fact that extreme muscle damage stimulates type 2b fibers to become better conditioned and more active in the right environment. A muscle fiber can exist without any use, but its ability to work at full potential is dependent on the individual’s use of that fiber. The E-Fit group participated in the full E-Fit workout that stimulates the muscles to a degree not obtainable with traditional weights – at least at only 2 times per week.

1RM Shoulder Press

The barbell shoulder press was the final compound movement tested during the study. The results were similar to the other strength tests’ results. The E-Fit group recorded an average 1RM increase of over 7 lbs. while the conventional group was only 5.67 lbs. This was certainly not expected due to the fact that there is not an electrode connected to the deltoid muscles. When performing the E-Fit workout, participants do not their deltoids engaged by an electrode but rather through a series of indirect contractions. The chest, back, bicep, and tricep electrodes work in sequence to contract and relax all three heads of the deltoid. This indirect relationship allows for safe, yet full, contraction of the shoulder muscles. In the conventional group, the deltoids are trained during the program so it is clear why strength gains were made in this group. But yet again, E-Fit proves to be the more efficient option when training just two times per week.

Endurance Push-Up

The results obtained during the endurance push-up study were rather remarkable. There was a tremendous increase of 11 repetitions in the E-Fit group average and only an average increase of 4.33 repetitions in the conventional group. This is a genuine indicator of type 1 fiber development due to the fact that type 1 fibers are used primarily in endurance training. During testing the muscles used in the push-up are taken to failure and notation time of fatigue is the goal. In the E-Fit group it is clear there was a significant increase in type 1 fiber resistance to fatigue as well as overall condition. The conventional group did indeed see an increase in type 1 fiber condition but rather insignificant when compared to the E-Fit group. This is possibly due to the fact that the conventional group did not achieve type 1 fiber muscle exertion to the extent of the E-Fit group. Even though the E-Fit group participated in just over 20 minutes of training twice per week, it is clear that the muscle contractions were both deep and intense enough to create noticeable development in type 1 fibers.

Endurance Sit-Up

Much like the results of the endurance push-up challenge, the results recorded during this study were in E-Fit’s favor. The E-Fit group recorded an average increase of seven sit-ups from the beginning to the end of the study while the conventional group recorded an increase of just two repetitions. The debate for this can also be related to the endurance push-up challenge. Type 1 fibers are only trained when excessive time of contraction has been implemented on the body. It can be argued that the workout provided to the conventional group was not sufficient enough to stimulate type 1 fibers to new growth.

Conclusion

Conventional weightlifting dates back further than any other form of muscular development. Within the past 10 years (E-Fit’s initial introduction to the market), weightlifting and body engineering has become an extremely popular area of focus for both athletes and scientists. With the introduction of a new machine to the market, it is likely not an accepted tool by traditionalists. E-Fit is modern exercise that is geared towards those looking to save time, prevent injury, and maintain a healthy routine. The results in this study proved E-Fit is beneficial in saving time and enhancing muscular development.

The hypothesis, that E-Fit would have insignificant benefits to human metabolism and the muscular system compared with conventional training, as tested thoroughly over the course of the six-week study. But after the data were placed in a comparative scenario, it is necessary to accept the null hypothesis. E-Fit proved itself to show significant benefits to the human body at just two workouts per week while the conventional training method at the same volume proved itself to be ineffective. This stems from the results showing beneficial results in the E-Fit group of the categories: muscle mass index, body fat percentage, 1 repetition maximum bench press, 1 repetition maximum squat, 1 repetition maximum shoulder press, maximum push-ups, and maximum sit-ups. The only category in which the conventional group outperformed the E-Fit group was the body mass index.

It is critical to analyze the human and experimental errors that could have impacted the study. Human error can be attributed to numerous variables but the most vital include improper measurements, improper form of the subject, and even improper adjustment of weight/power on exercises. The most critical human error could be the subject’s diet and sleep habits. The subjects were given nutritional guidelines to follow but if were inconsistent with their nutrition, the primary factor affected would be fitness level and exercise progress. Experimental error includes the error associated with a measured value and the true value. The possibility of experimental error arises in the observed data collection. An example would be the subject engaging in a specific weight for an exercise, assuming they could not do more even if it were possible. This causes inconsistency in the data and the results could be skewed. For future studies, it may be beneficial to compose a longer study with more subjects and more data columns. This would identify if a subject was experiencing abnormal strength or endurance declines on that day.

Bibliography

Callaghan, M. J., J. A. Oldham, and J. Winstanley. “A Comparison of Two Types of               Electrical Stimulation of the Quadriceps in the Treatment of Patellofemoral               Pain Syndrome. A Pilot Study.” Clinical Rehabilitation 15.6 (2001): 637-46.               Web.

Chae, John, Zi-Ping Fang, Maria Walker, and Soheyl Pourmehdi. “Intramuscular  Electromyographically Controlled Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for               Upper Limb Recovery in Chronic Hemiplegia.” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 80.12 (2001): 935-41. Web.

Chae, John, Zi-Ping Fang, Maria Walker, Soheyl Pourmehdi, and Jayme Knutson.               “Intramuscular Electromyographically Controlled Neuromuscular Electrical               Stimulation for Ankle Dorsiflexion Recovery in Chronic Hemiplegia.”               American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 80.11 (2001): 842-47.               Web.

Kao, R. L., J. Davis, E. Lamb, and W. Browder. “Satellite Cell Transplantation  Prevented Muscle Degeneration During Chronic Electric Stimulation.” ASAIO Journal 45.2 (1999): 160. Web.

Omura, Yoshiaki. “Electrical Parameters For Safe And Effective Electro-Acupuncture               And Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation: Threshold Potentials For               Tingling, Muscle Contraction And Pain; And How To Prevent Adverse Effects               Of Electro-Therapy Part I.” Acupunct Electrother Res Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research 10.4 (1985): 335-37. Web.

Osu, Rieko, Yohei Otaka, Junichi Ushiba, Sachiko Sakata, Tomofumi Yamaguchi,               Toshiyuki Fujiwara, Kunitsugu Kondo, and Meigen Liu. “A Pilot Study of               Contralateral Homonymous Muscle Activity Simulated Electrical Stimulation               in Chronic Hemiplegia.” Brain Injury 26.9 (2012): 1105-112. Web.

Sperelakis, N. “Electrical Stimulation of Muscle: Field Stimulation.” Smooth Muscle               (1975): 321-37. Web.

Nyiri, D. (2016, September 16). Personal interview: communication with [R. Oltz].

Sperelakis, N. (1975). Electrical Stimulation of Muscle: Field Stimulation. Smooth               Muscle, 321-337.

Kovacs, P., Ph.D. (2012). Assessing the Effects of Training with Electrical Muscle               Stimulation. 1-31. Retrieved October 21, 2016.

Heidland, A., Fazeli, G., Klassen, A., Sebekova, K., Hennemann, H., Bahner, U., & Iorio,               B. D. (2012). Neuromuscular electrostimulation techniques: Historical aspects               and current possibilities in treatment of pain and muscle waisting. Clinical               Nephrology

Hazel, H. A. (2000). Body Mass Index and Health. ProQuest,16. Retrieved March 8,               2017, from               http://search.proquest.com/openview/1eb3be218d08486b8f8e107b8fa8a4ad/1?pq-              origsite=gscholar&cbl=6796

Stockman, J. (2007). Evidence Based Physical Activity for School-Age Youth. Yearbook of Pediatrics,2007, 424-425. doi:10.1016/s0084-3954(08)70234-3

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: