|
retardo_montelbahn
Nov 1, 2007, 1:28 AM
Post #1 of 30
(2896 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2007
Posts: 24
|
It has been claimed that an electronic muscle stimulation(ems or e-stim) machine can effectively increase strength with little hypertrophy due to the ability of 100% muscle fiber recruitment through an external electronic signal; and actually decrease the time needed for slow twitch fibers to maximally contract, acting more like a fast twitch fiber. Also it is claimed that these machines can effectively increase vascularity and decrease a muscle's recovery time. Does anybody have any first hand knowledge of the claimed effectiveness of these higher end contraptions, like either a Compex or Globus brand?I know that Andy Raether claims that recovery is hastened, but I've seen no comment on fiber recruitment or strength gains.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Nov 1, 2007, 2:20 AM
Post #2 of 30
(2883 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
If you look at the science, the claims are mostly just that at this point: Claims.
In physical therapy we spend a lot of time with e-stim. I think it offers more value for pain relief than anything else, and if anything, I'd think it offers the LEAST amount of benefit in athletic training. Tissue stimuli from an outside source just won't translate to gains when the same tissues are stimulated by your body's internal systems. There are good physiological reasons for this.
If you really want to improve your abilities, do what most every athlete does: Train properly. Can't beat the real thing.
(This post was edited by ja1484 on Nov 1, 2007, 2:20 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
retardo_montelbahn
Nov 1, 2007, 2:30 AM
Post #3 of 30
(2871 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2007
Posts: 24
|
I'm not afraid of training. I'm a classic overtrainer. I was just wondering if anybody has noticed any significant difference in using one of these things, beside the $800 less you'll have after buying one. Thanks for the input.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Nov 1, 2007, 2:31 AM
Post #4 of 30
(2871 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
agree with ja1484.
i use e-stim in my practice occaionally. your nervous system recruits small muscle fibers first, then progressively larger fibers, until the task is conpleted. e-stim recruits large to small.
it will cause hypertrophy. people are now selling e-stim for abs, so they can have a six-pack. but their usable abdominal strength stays the same.
there's no easy way. train harder and smarter.
|
|
|
|
|
N_Oo_B
Nov 1, 2007, 2:42 AM
Post #5 of 30
(2854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2007
Posts: 463
|
Owned sucka!
I saw a Bruce Lee movie once where he was using them on his pecs though!
|
|
|
|
|
retardo_montelbahn
Nov 1, 2007, 2:57 AM
Post #6 of 30
(2843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2007
Posts: 24
|
Yeah, I've seen some of that footage. I also know that Ramonet, Edu Marin, and previously mentioned Andy Raether all use e stim either for faster recovery or fiber recruitment. So I was just trying to get a tally on the Pros vs Cons type thing. I mean is it really worth $500-$1000? If it made a 20 percent difference in recovery time or in strength, me thinks it might be worth it.
I don't remember making any statements about wanting to become a better climber. I just want to know what those who have used E stim have experienced.
(This post was edited by retardo_montelbahn on Nov 1, 2007, 4:08 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Nov 1, 2007, 12:38 PM
Post #7 of 30
(2763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
you said:
"I don't remember making any statements about wanting to become a better climber"
nobody said anything about improving climbing. e-stim will improve muscle mass (weight), but not improve usable strength. you can't recruit the fibers that are strengthened by it, until you get to doing true one-rep max kinds of lifts. it is used in spinal cord patients to slow muscle atrophy and improve circulation. also, it is sometimes used post-operatively in a bio-feedback mechanism to improve voluntary firing, but only until voluntary firing is restored.
of course, you are free to buy the unit, and try to prove people wrong who have tried to make e-stim more useful for the past 50 years. it's not new.
there is no objective evidence supporting e-stim's use for the purposes you have described.
|
|
|
|
|
retardo_montelbahn
Nov 1, 2007, 3:36 PM
Post #8 of 30
(2712 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2007
Posts: 24
|
onceahardman wrote: you said: " e-stim will improve muscle mass (weight), but not improve usable strength. you can't recruit the fibers that are strengthened by it, until you get to doing true one-rep max kinds of lifts." Well that's a relief. I was hoping that I wasn't missing the boat. So with this knowledge, I suppose these elite athletes are mainly using e stim to promote blood circulation, and theoretically clear toxins and bring nutrients to a muscle that is in need of repair...It seems this is closer to the same application that you are talking about with injuries etc. So I guess in that sort of application, it is feasible that it could decrease recovery time of a torn muscle fibers.?
|
|
|
|
|
bigfatrock
Nov 1, 2007, 4:40 PM
Post #9 of 30
(2684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 2, 2006
Posts: 1321
|
E-stim is about on par with men's hair growth formula. Enough said! :)
(This post was edited by bigfatrock on Nov 1, 2007, 4:41 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Nov 1, 2007, 4:53 PM
Post #10 of 30
(2674 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
montelbahn said:
In reply to: So with this knowledge, I suppose these elite athletes are mainly using e stim to promote blood circulation, and theoretically clear toxins and bring nutrients to a muscle that is in need of repair...
first, WHO are all these "elite athletes"? do you think the NFL might use e-stim to prepare athletes making 10 million/year? but they don't.
next, like you said, "theoretically clear toxins," etc.
it's a very simple thing to study, to see whether this theoretical basis has any real effect. it has been done, more than 10 years ago. it doesn't happen. (even though it seems like a good idea.)
similarly, you may have heard that eating a high-fiber diet reduces your risk of colon cancer. after all, it makes sense, right? a huge, multi-university, long-term study, VERY carefully done, has proven that there is NO DIFFERENCE in colon cancer rates between high and low fiber diets.
just because it "seems" like a good idea, doesnt mean it WORKS.
but go ahead, buy the thing if you want. maybe it will work on you.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Nov 1, 2007, 5:44 PM
Post #11 of 30
(2649 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
It's bunk, dude. I have been asked this question for the last seven years and nothing has changed in the sports conditioning industry in terms of endorsing or using such nonsense for performance, recovery, or whatever else the marketers want to attribute to it.
However, it WILL take some weight off.... in your wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
cj1
Nov 1, 2007, 6:31 PM
Post #12 of 30
(2621 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2006
Posts: 17
|
onceahardman wrote: montelbahn said: similarly, you may have heard that eating a high-fiber diet reduces your risk of colon cancer. after all, it makes sense, right? a huge, multi-university, long-term study, VERY carefully done, has proven that there is NO DIFFERENCE in colon cancer rates between high and low fiber diets.
Who conducted this research, where are the results posted/published?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
retardo_montelbahn
Nov 2, 2007, 1:38 AM
Post #14 of 30
(2533 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2007
Posts: 24
|
Thanks for all the replies. I was trying to find out if I was doing everything possible to improve performance, less steroids and blood doping. So based on the recent posts, I no longer have to wonder if I could be doing more by using "snake oil" in addition to steady training and sound nutritional intake. Thanks to all.
|
|
|
|
|
scuzzyMD
Nov 2, 2007, 3:18 AM
Post #15 of 30
(2507 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2006
Posts: 28
|
onceahardman wrote: similarly, you may have heard that eating a high-fiber diet reduces your risk of colon cancer. after all, it makes sense, right? a huge, multi-university, long-term study, VERY carefully done, has proven that there is NO DIFFERENCE in colon cancer rates between high and low fiber diets.
Here's a study done by NIH and National Cancer Institute this year (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)
BACKGROUND: Whether the intake of dietary fiber can protect against colorectal cancer is a long-standing question of considerable public health import, but the epidemiologic evidence has been inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to investigate the relation between dietary fiber and whole-grain food intakes and invasive colorectal cancer in the prospective National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study. DESIGN: The analytic cohort consisted of 291 988 men and 197 623 women aged 50-71 y. Diet was assessed with a self-administered food-frequency questionnaire at baseline in 1995-1996; 2974 incident colorectal cancer cases were identified during 5 y of follow-up. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Total dietary fiber intake was not associated with colorectal cancer. The multivariate RR for the highest compared with the lowest intake quintile (RR(Q5-Q1)) was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.15; P for trend = 0.96). In analyses of fiber from different food sources, only fiber from grains was associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer (multivariate RR(Q5-Q1): 0.86; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.98; P for trend = 0.01). Whole-grain intake was inversely associated with colorectal cancer risk: the multivariate RR(Q5-Q1) was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.89) for the whole cohort (P for trend < 0.001). The association with whole grain was stronger for rectal than for colon cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective cohort study, total dietary fiber intake was not associated with colorectal cancer risk, whereas whole-grain consumption was associated with a modest reduced risk.
So, from this study it looks like fiber intake from whole grains is protective against colon cancer.
It seems like the studies that just look at total dietary fiber intake are fairly inconsistent. Here's one from Japan that showed dietary fiber being very protective: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Nov 2, 2007, 1:50 PM
Post #16 of 30
(2480 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
hi scuzzyMD...
i'm not trying to argue too much, but here is the conclusion from that study:
CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective cohort study, total dietary fiber intake was not associated with colorectal cancer risk, whereas whole-grain consumption was associated with a modest reduced risk.
then YOU said"
"So, from this study it looks like fiber intake from whole grains is protective against colon cancer."
the conclusion you reach does NOT agree with the study. whole-grain foods appear to offer protection. dietary fiber does NOT.
are you an MD? no offense if you are,(or not), i just thought you'd read more carefully. fiber does NOT protect against colon cancer. perhaps it's some nutrient in whole grain foods, but its not the fiber.
|
|
|
|
|
serpico
Nov 2, 2007, 2:18 PM
Post #17 of 30
(2474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 139
|
The Encyclopaedia of Sports Medicine's 'Strength and Power in Sport' (published by the IOC) dedicates a chapter to E-Stim, quoting references, that suggests it does have measurable benefits. To say that elite athletes don't use it is wrong, it depends on the sport; cyclists in particular use EMS.
For climbers however I think it's of little use as we're primarily concerned with finger strength/endurance. These muscles are difficult to innervate with EMS as they are in layers in the forearm, principally the middle and deep layer. EMS works on muscle which is just beneath the skin, if you try to use it on your forearms you will get a strong contraction of the palm towards the elbow, but little to no contraction of the proximal and distal finger joints.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Nov 2, 2007, 4:59 PM
Post #18 of 30
(2448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
I would be interested in what studies they are referencing because I cannot find any real scientific information about this, other than a few studies that either show it's of no benefit or that it's only of benefit if athletes use e-stim while performing plyometrics (but that at the same time, it seemed to decrease sprinting speed). Otherwise all I find is marketing propaganda by e-stim manufacturers who have paid top athletes to endorse their product.
Keep in mind what athletes might do individually themselves and what is taught and used in the professional sports conditioning industry is not the same. In all the conferences I have been to over the years, I have never seen any researcher or strength coach advocate the use of these kinds of things for performance enhancement.
|
|
|
|
|
retardo_montelbahn
Nov 2, 2007, 7:29 PM
Post #19 of 30
(2422 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2007
Posts: 24
|
There are rockclimbing coaches in Europe that prescribe this sort of training to their athletes.
http://www.8a.nu/eng/articles/ramonetedu.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
scuzzyMD
Nov 2, 2007, 7:34 PM
Post #20 of 30
(2415 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2006
Posts: 28
|
onceahardman wrote: hi scuzzyMD... i'm not trying to argue too much, but here is the conclusion from that study: CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective cohort study, total dietary fiber intake was not associated with colorectal cancer risk, whereas whole-grain consumption was associated with a modest reduced risk. then YOU said" "So, from this study it looks like fiber intake from whole grains is protective against colon cancer." the conclusion you reach does NOT agree with the study. whole-grain foods appear to offer protection. dietary fiber does NOT. are you an MD? no offense if you are,(or not), i just thought you'd read more carefully. fiber does NOT protect against colon cancer. perhaps it's some nutrient in whole grain foods, but its not the fiber.
Quote from the study:
"Results of the analyses of fiber from different food sources (grains, fruit, vegetables, and beans) in relation to colorectal cancer are shown in Table 3Go. The age- and sex-adjusted models for fiber from grains, fruit, vegetables, and beans showed inverse relations. After adjustment for other colorectal cancer risk factors, these inverse relations essentially disappeared for fiber from fruit, vegetables, and beans but remained statistically significant for fiber from grains (multivariate RR for the highest compared with the lowest quintile: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.98; P for trend = 0.01). None of the interactions between sex and fiber from each source were significant."
Sorry to continue the thread hijack.
And no, I am not an MD. I'm from Maryland.
|
|
|
|
|
retardo_montelbahn
Nov 2, 2007, 7:56 PM
Post #21 of 30
(2400 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2007
Posts: 24
|
"And no, I am not an MD. I'm from Maryland. "
lol!!! too f***in' funny!
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Nov 2, 2007, 8:29 PM
Post #22 of 30
(2388 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
But that proves nothing, you know what I mean.
You also have to understand the mindset of many athletes: they'll willing to believe in or try a lot of things if they're told it will make them better or keep them at the top of their game, or if they believe it's giving the competition an edge. It's quite possible these guys could get the same effect with massage and/or consuming the right mix of macronutrients right after a climbing workout. The science of athletic performance is very complex.
|
|
|
|
|
retardo_montelbahn
Nov 2, 2007, 10:53 PM
Post #23 of 30
(2360 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2007
Posts: 24
|
yeah, very complex indeed. The reason I started this thread was to get "seat of pants" answers from those who are currently or who have used them for the application specified. I.E. what can you tell me about your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE? Just a general feel for if it is wasted time, energy and money from those who have direct experience. It sounds like most of those posting are gauging the validity of e-stim from experiments or studies that others have carried out. Not to discredit these sources, but I was more or less looking for those that shelled out $500 because Andy Raether said its more effecient than light massage or just resting. I had already read many articles on the subject, from both those that advocate such training and those that say it's a total waste of time. So far nobody has said anything like "I own one these things, and it's a piece of shit." or "I own one of these things, and its the only way to go, man." Nonetheless, I'm now more skeptical about the validity of E-stim, only because more people posted negatively on the subject. But really the only way one can really know is to try it out for themselves. I don't have much desire to go this route, unless some of you are willing to donate $500-$1000; I'll be the guinea pig and let you know what I find out. Once again, thanks for all the input.
|
|
|
|
|
serpico
Nov 3, 2007, 8:41 AM
Post #24 of 30
(2317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Posts: 139
|
retardo_montelbahn wrote: what can you tell me about your PERSONAL EXPERIENCE?
I own one (a Cefar). I've gone through phases of using it, but have never felt any real benefit for climbing.
I climb with a few members of the British Bouldering Team who have bought them. They bought them because the French Team use them for 'Potentiation' before comps, and recovery afterwards. But given what I said earlier, and my own experience, about how difficult it is to get correct muscles in the forearm to contract I can't see how they can work.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Nov 3, 2007, 4:05 PM
Post #25 of 30
(2297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
onceahardman wrote: similarly, you may have heard that eating a high-fiber diet reduces your risk of colon cancer. after all, it makes sense, right? a huge, multi-university, long-term study, VERY carefully done, has proven that there is NO DIFFERENCE in colon cancer rates between high and low fiber diets.
First of all, I wouldn't say that the study proved that there was no effect of dietary fiber on colon cancer risk. Secondly, to be precise, the study did not compare high- and low-fiber diets; it compared high and low fiber intake, while controlling for correlates of fiber that might affect colon cancer risk. That is to say, a high-fiber diet might protect against colon cancer for some reason other than the fiber itself.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
