نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار گروه فیزیولوژی ورزشی، دانشکده تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
2 کارشناس ارشد فیزیولوژی ورزشی، دانشکده تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه عامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
3 استاد گروه فیزیولوژی ورزشی، دانشکده تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه عامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
4 دانشجوی دکتری گروه فیزیولوژی ورزشی، دانشکده علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه حکیم سبزواری، سبزوار. ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Extended Abstract
Background and Aim: The global prevalence of obesity has nearly doubled in recent decades, becoming as a major public health concern. Obesity is a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and mortality and is closely associated to pulmonary, skeletal, and neurological disorders. However, physiological limitations often hinder exercise adherence in obese individuals. Whole-body neuromuscular electrical stimulation (WB-EMS) has emerged as a potential alternative, enhancing muscle activation and metabolic responses with lower mechanical load. While WB-EMS improves body composition and strength in obese populations, its acute effects on cardiopulmonary parameters particularly compared to incremental exercise remain underexplored. The present study aimed to compare the acute impacts of WB-EMS, incremental exercise, and their combination on selected cardiopulmonary markers in overweight men.
Materials and Methods: This applied semi-experimental study employed a crossover design to investigate the acute effects of electromyo stimulation (EMS) and incremental exercise (IE) on cardiorespiratory parameters in overweight men. Ten sedentary male participants (BMI: 25–30 kg/m²; age: 20–40 years) were recruited via public announcements in Tehran. After receiving a detailed explanation of the study’s aims and procedures, all participants provided written informed consent and completed a dietary recall questionnaire. Exclusion criteria included smoking, diagnosed cardiovascular or respiratory diseases, diabetes, hypertension, regular exercise participation, and the use of medications or supplements during the study period. Each participant completed three randomly ordered protocols with a one-week washout period among sessions: (1) an incremental exercise test on a cycle ergometer, beginning at 50 W with 25 W increments every 3 minutes until reaching a respiratory exchange ratio (RER) of 1.0, then increasing by 25 W every 2 minutes until volitional exhaustion to determine VO₂max; (2) the same IE combined with EMS; and (3) EMS alone in a seated position for a matched duration. EMS was delivered via a 7-channel TITAN device (Salatandishan Co., Iran) using bipolar pulses (6 s on, 4 s off), targeting 9 major muscle groups through specially designed EMS garments. Cardiorespiratory responses, including minute ventilation (VE), Energy expenditure (EE), ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide ratio (VE/VCO2), oxygen consumption (VO2), heart rate (HR), and systolic blood pressure (SBP), were recorded breath-by-breath using a ZAN 600 gas analyzer (nspire Health, Germany) at baseline, during exercise, and throughout a 20-minute recovery period. Blood pressure was measured at rest, immediately after exercise, and at 10 and 20 minutes post-exercise. One-way and two-way repeated measures ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test were used for data analysis. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
Results: The mean ± standard deviation values of the measured variables were assessed across the three interventions: IE, IE+EMS, and EMS alone. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA indicated significant effects for all main outcome variables (p<0.01). Tukey’s post-hoc analysis showed that both IE and IE+EMS interventions significantly increased VE, VE/VCO₂, VO₂, and HR during the exercise protocol and recovery phase (p<0.0001). However, no significant differences were observed between IE and IE+EMS for these variables. For VE, no significant difference was found between IE and IE+EMS during exercise (p=0.48) or recovery (p=0.20). Nevertheless, both exercise conditions produced higher VE compared to EMS alone during exercise (p<0.0001) and showed a significant reduction during recovery (p<0.0001). The VE/VCO₂ ratio did not differ significantly between IE and IE+EMS during exercise (p=0.20) or recovery (p=0.76), but both exercise trials had higher values than EMS alone during exercise (p=0.04) and recovery (p=0.0002). VO₂ also showed similar patterns, with no significant differences between IE and IE+EMS during exercise (p=0.87) or recovery (p=0.65). Both incremental exercise trials, however, produced significantly higher VO₂ compared to EMS alone during exercise (p<0.0001) and significantly lowered VO₂ during recovery (p<0.0001). HR did not differ significantly between IE and IE+EMS immediately post-protocol (p=0.38), at 10 minutes of recovery (p=0.60), or at 20 minutes of recovery (p=0.76). However, both IE+EMS and IE interventions caused a significant increase in HR compared to EMS alone immediately post-protocol (p=0.0002), at 10 minutes (p=0.0008), and at 20 minutes of recovery (p<0.0001). SBP did not differ significantly between IE and IE+EMS immediately post-protocol (p=0.95), at 10 minutes (p=0.86), or at 20 minutes of recovery (p=0.83). Nevertheless, both IE and IE+EMS resulted in significantly higher SBP immediately post-protocol compared to EMS alone (p<0.0001), with no differences observed at 10 minutes (p=0.83) or 20 minutes (p=0.85) of recovery. EE differed significantly among the three interventions (one-way ANOVA, p=0.03). Bonferroni post-hoc analysis showed that EE in the EMS condition alone was significantly lower than IE (p=0.001) and IE+EMS (p=0.04), while no significant difference was observed between IE and IE+EMS (p=0.93).
Conclusion: This study yielded several key findings. First, combining EMS with IE did not significantly enhance acute cardiorespiratory responses beyond those elicited by IE. This indicates that EMS does not augment the immediate physiological benefits of aerobic exercise in overweight men. Second, both IE and IE+EMS produced higher energy expenditure, oxygen consumption, VE, and HR responses compared to EMS. These consistent differences across all measured parameters underscore the superior efficacy of active exercise in stimulating acute cardiorespiratory function. Third, recovery patterns were similar across both exercise conditions, whereas, EMS showed a distinct recovery pattern, likely due to its lower physiological load. Overall , these results highlight the vital role of traditional exercise methods in cardiorespiratory activation within overweight populations. Although EMS may serve as an adjunctive tool, especially when conventional exercise is not feasible, it does not appear to provide comparable short-term physiological benefits when used independently.
Ethical Considerations: This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committees from Allameh Tabataba’i University (IR.ATU.REC.1399.08). All participants were informed about the study procedures and provided written informed consent.
Compliance with Ethical Guidelines: The research followed the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and institutional guidelines. Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality was maintained.
Funding: The authors declare that no financial support was received for this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this study.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)