↓ Skip to main content

Functional Exercise Training and Undulating Periodization Enhances the Effect of Whole-Body Electromyostimulation Training on Running Performance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Functional Exercise Training and Undulating Periodization Enhances the Effect of Whole-Body Electromyostimulation Training on Running Performance
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00720
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francisco J. Amaro-Gahete, Alejandro De-la-O, Guillermo Sanchez-Delgado, Lidia Robles-Gonzalez, Lucas Jurado-Fasoli, Jonatan R. Ruiz, Angel Gutiérrez

Abstract

The popularity of whole-body electromyostimulation is growing during the last years, but there is a shortage of studies that evaluate its effects on physical fitness and sport performance. In this study, we compared the effects of a periodized and functional whole-body-electromyostimulation training on maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max), ventilatory thresholds (VT1 and VT2), running economy (RE), and lower-body muscle strength in runners, vs. a traditional whole-body-electromyostimulation training. A total of 12 male recreational runners, who had been running 2-3 times per week (90-180 min/week) for at least the previous year and had no previous experience on WB-EMS training, were enrolled in the current study. They were randomly assigned to a periodized and functional whole-body-electromyostimulation training group (PFG) (n = 6; 27.0 ± 7.5 years; 70.1 ± 11.1 kg; 1.75 ± 0.05 m) whose training program involved several specific exercises for runners, or a traditional whole-body-electromyostimulation training group (TG) (n = 6; 25.8 ± 7.4 years; 73.8 ± 9.8 kg; 1.73 ± 0.07 m), whose sessions were characterized by circuit training with 10 dynamic and general exercises without external load. The training programs consisted of one whole-body electromyostimulation session and one 20-min running session per week, during 6 weeks. The PFG followed an undulating periodization model and a selection of functional exercises, whereas the TG followed a traditional session structure used in previous studies. Both groups were instructed to stop their habitual running training program. VO2max, VT1, VT2, RE, and lower body muscle strength (vertical jump) were measured before and after the intervention. The PFG obtained significantly higher improvements when compared with the TG in terms of VO2max (2.75 ± 0.89 vs. 1.03 ± 1.01 ml/kg/min, P = 0.011), VT2 (2.95 ± 1.45 vs. 0.35 ± 0.85 ml/kg/min, P = 0.005), VO2max percentage at VT2 (5.13 ± 2.41 vs. 0.63 ± 1.61%), RE at VT1 (-7.70 ± 2.86 vs. -3.50 ± 2.16 ml/kg/km, P = 0.048), RE at 90% of VT2 (-15.38 ± 4.73 vs. -3.38 ± 4.11 ml/kg/km, P = 0.005), and vertical jump in Abalakov modality (2.95 ± 0.94 vs. 0.52 ± 1.49 cm, P = 0.008). Therefore, we conclude that running performance improvements were better after a 6-week program following an undulating periodization and consisting on functional exercises when compared with a 6-week traditional WB-EMS program.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 12%
Student > Master 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Researcher 6 5%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 38 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 45 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 45 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2018.
All research outputs
#12,895,081
of 23,070,218 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#3,962
of 13,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,317
of 328,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#192
of 505 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,070,218 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,540 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 505 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.