Editorial Note
This article was written by the EMS-Training Editorial Team for the international English version of EMS-Training.com. It is based on a peer-reviewed pilot randomized controlled trial published in the International Journal of Cardiology and on an earlier scientific poster presentation of the same research context.
The study is especially relevant for international readers because several authors were affiliated with Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, one of the most recognized medical and academic research environments in the United States. The publication lists affiliations including the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and the Division of Sports Medicine at Mayo Clinic.
Additional author affiliations included Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, the United States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine and the University of South Florida.
Where numbers differ between the earlier poster presentation and the peer-reviewed publication, this article follows the peer-reviewed journal article.
This article does not suggest that Mayo Clinic endorses EMS Training as a general method or that Whole-Body EMS prevents or treats cardiovascular disease. The study should be understood as a Mayo Clinic College of Medicine-affiliated pilot trial in healthy adults, not as a final clinical recommendation.
Editorial Classification
This Mayo Clinic College of Medicine-affiliated pilot study should not be understood as the first evidence that Whole-Body EMS can be effective. German and European researchers have been studying WB-EMS for many years, including its effects on muscle strength, body composition, functional capacity, safety, adherence and training efficiency.
The relevance of the study is not only the Mayo Clinic connection itself. Its value lies in the combination of an internationally visible U.S. academic medical research environment, European WB-EMS expertise and a research question that goes beyond muscle strength and body composition: cardiovascular and metabolic biomarkers.
In that sense, the study confirms much of what previous WB-EMS research has already suggested: professionally supervised, well-dosed Whole-Body EMS can be a time-efficient training method with measurable physiological effects.
At the same time, the cardiovascular findings should be interpreted carefully. They are promising, but they do not yet prove cardiovascular disease prevention or treatment. They point toward questions that should be investigated more deeply in larger and longer clinical studies.
For EMS-Training.com, this makes the study an important bridge: it connects the long-standing German and European WB-EMS evidence base with growing international research interest in time-efficient exercise, physical inactivity, cardiometabolic health and prevention-oriented biomarkers.
Why this study matters
Most people associate EMS Training with muscle activation, body shaping, back strength or time-efficient strength training. Cardiovascular biomarkers are less often discussed.
That makes this study especially interesting. It investigated whether physical training augmented with Whole-Body EMS could influence markers related to cardiovascular risk.
The background is clear: physical activity is protective against cardiovascular disease and can improve cardiovascular risk factors. However, many adults do not achieve regular physical activity. The study authors note that more than 25% of American adults report no regular physical activity.
Whole-Body EMS may be relevant in this context because it offers a short, supervised and adaptable training format. In the study, participants trained once per week for 20 minutes across 16 weeks.
For people who are unable or unwilling to exercise conventionally, this kind of time-efficient training model could be interesting. But “interesting” does not mean proven for every population or every medical condition.
The correct interpretation is: this pilot study adds valuable evidence and opens an important research direction, but larger trials are needed.
Study design: 20 minutes once a week for 16 weeks
The study was designed as a pilot randomized controlled trial in healthy adult volunteers.
Participants were randomized to either physical training with Whole-Body EMS or the same physical training without electrical stimulation. Both groups performed the same exercises for the same duration and in the same manner.
The key difference was whether the WB-EMS device delivered electrical stimulation.
The intervention lasted 16 weeks. Training took place once per week for 20 minutes.
Participants were asked to continue their usual daily activities but to avoid additional exercise training during the study. This helped the researchers better compare the effect of the study protocol itself.
The training included simple exercises such as squats, lunges, standing leg raises, standing abdominal crunches, biceps curls and arm extensions.
This is important: the study was not about complex workouts, heavy weights or high-impact training. It was about a structured, standardized 20-minute protocol, with and without Whole-Body EMS.
What the WB-EMS protocol looked like
Participants wore a fitted vest and arm and leg straps connected to a Whole-Body EMS device. In the study protocol, the device is specified as miha bodytec, Gersthofen, Germany.
This is relevant for methodological transparency. The findings should be understood in relation to the device, protocol, stimulation settings, supervision model and study population used in this pilot trial. Any transferability to other devices, application models or regulatory contexts would need to be assessed separately.
The stimulation was biphasic and delivered in intervals: 4 seconds on, followed by 4 seconds off.
The stimulation targeted major muscle groups, including thighs, glutes, lower back, upper back, latissimus dorsi, abdomen, chest and arms.
Intensity was adjusted using the Borg rating of perceived exertion. The study describes training intensity in the “hard to very hard” range. Stimulation was titrated during the first four weeks and then fixed for the remaining study period.
Sessions were provided by personal trainers formally certified in WB-EMS training. One trainer could supervise a maximum of two participants in each session to ensure that participants were attended to and exercising safely and correctly.
This detail is highly relevant for real-world interpretation. The study was not unsupervised EMS. It was certified, supervised, structured Whole-Body EMS training.
What the study found
After 16 weeks, the WB-EMS group showed favorable changes or stability in several biomarkers, while the control group, which performed the same exercises without stimulation, showed stability or worsening in some of the same markers.
The study reported a reduction in waist-to-hip ratio in the WB-EMS group. Waist-to-hip ratio is relevant because it is often used as a marker related to central adiposity.
The WB-EMS group also showed stability in several cardiovascular risk-related markers, while the control group showed worsening in some areas.
These included peripheral endothelial function, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol.
The study also reported that VO2 over heart rate improved in both groups, with a greater improvement in the WB-EMS group.
These findings suggest that, within this pilot study, once-weekly WB-EMS training may have helped maintain or improve selected biomarkers more favorably than the same conventional exercises without electrical stimulation.
This does not mean WB-EMS “prevents cardiovascular disease.” It means the study found promising changes in markers associated with cardiovascular risk in healthy adults.
What the study confirms — and what it adds
The study does not replace the existing WB-EMS evidence base. It adds to it.
For years, previous research has investigated Whole-Body EMS in relation to muscle strength, body composition, functional capacity, sarcopenia, metabolic health, back strength, safety and adherence.
This pilot study supports the broader view that supervised WB-EMS can create measurable physiological effects when applied in a structured and well-controlled setting.
The new and especially interesting part is the cardiovascular angle. The study looked beyond muscle and body composition and examined biomarkers that are relevant in preventive and cardiovascular research.
This makes the study important for international discussion, especially in English-speaking markets where public health, physical inactivity, cardiometabolic risk and time-efficient exercise solutions are major topics.
The study therefore should be read in two ways.
It confirms the relevance of professionally supervised WB-EMS as a time-efficient training method.
And it opens a promising research question: could WB-EMS become more relevant in future studies on cardiovascular and metabolic health?
That second question cannot be answered finally by this pilot trial. It requires larger, longer and more targeted studies.
What the study did not show
The limitations are just as important as the findings.
This was a pilot study, not a large clinical outcomes trial. It did not test whether Whole-Body EMS prevents heart attacks, strokes or cardiovascular disease.
The participants were healthy adults without established cardiovascular disease at baseline. Therefore, the findings cannot simply be transferred to people with cardiovascular disease, high-risk medical conditions or frailty without further research.
The study lasted 16 weeks. That is useful for observing biomarker changes, but it does not answer long-term questions about adherence, clinical outcomes or health economics.
The study also did not fully evaluate baseline exercise and lifestyle habits. This matters because changes in normal activity patterns could influence biomarker results.
The authors also note that some differences could have occurred by chance due to multiple comparisons.
For readers, the message is clear: the findings are encouraging, but they should not be overstated.
Safety findings and creatine kinase
Safety is a central part of Whole-Body EMS research.
The study limited WB-EMS training to once weekly for 20 minutes to align with safety standards and to reduce risk. Creatine kinase, often abbreviated as CK, was monitored as a safety endpoint.
CK can rise after intensive muscular work. In Whole-Body EMS, CK is an important safety topic because excessive or poorly controlled stimulation can create a high muscular load.
In this study, CK values did not differ significantly between groups at baseline or after the intervention. No participant withdrew due to elevated CK values. One participant missed one session due to CK values at least five times above the upper reference limit, then resumed training after follow-up testing.
No adverse events were reported during the 16-week study period.
This safety result is meaningful, but it must be understood in context. The training was supervised by certified trainers, followed a once-weekly protocol, used controlled intensity progression and included CK monitoring.
It should not be used to justify unsupervised, uncontrolled or excessively frequent EMS use.
What this means for EMS users
For users, the study supports one important idea: Whole-Body EMS should be understood as structured, supervised training, not as passive stimulation.
The participants performed real exercises. The EMS impulse was added to active movement and body tension. Trainers supervised the sessions and adjusted the stimulation.
This matches the professional model of Whole-Body EMS Training: short sessions, individual intensity control, clear supervision and enough recovery.
The study also reinforces why the 20-minute format can be relevant. Time efficiency is not just a marketing argument. It is one reason researchers are interested in WB-EMS as a possible way to increase the uptake of regular physical activity.
For people who struggle to maintain conventional exercise, a fixed weekly supervised session may be easier to implement.
However, users should not expect EMS to replace all movement, cardiovascular exercise, healthy eating or medical care. Whole-Body EMS may be one useful training component within a broader health-oriented lifestyle.
What this means for providers
For providers, the study highlights quality requirements.
The protocol used certified trainers, controlled exercises, individual stimulation settings, a structured 20-minute session and a maximum of two participants per trainer.
This matters because the evidence does not support a casual “turn on the device and train anyone” approach.
Professional Whole-Body EMS requires screening, trainer qualification, controlled intensity, supervision, safety awareness and clear communication.
Providers who want to use scientific research responsibly should avoid exaggerated claims. A pilot study on biomarkers in healthy adults should not be translated into direct claims about disease prevention, therapy or medical outcomes.
The stronger and more credible message is: supervised WB-EMS is being studied as a time-efficient training method, and early research on selected cardiovascular biomarkers is promising.
Editorial Conclusion
The Mayo Clinic College of Medicine-affiliated pilot study is an important international reference point for Whole-Body EMS research, but it should be placed in the right scientific context.
It does not stand alone. For many years, German and European researchers have investigated Whole-Body EMS in relation to muscle strength, body composition, functional capacity, safety and adherence. This study supports the broader view that supervised WB-EMS can produce measurable physiological effects when applied in a structured and well-controlled setting.
The new and especially interesting aspect is the focus on cardiovascular and metabolic biomarkers. In healthy adults, once-weekly 20-minute physical training augmented with WB-EMS produced favorable or stable changes in selected cardiovascular risk-related biomarkers compared with the same exercises without electrical stimulation.
These findings are promising, but they should not be overstated. This was a pilot randomized controlled trial, not a large long-term clinical outcomes study. It does not prove that EMS Training prevents or treats cardiovascular disease.
The most balanced interpretation is this: the study confirms the relevance of professionally supervised WB-EMS as a time-efficient training method and opens an important research direction for cardiovascular and metabolic health. Larger, longer and more specific studies are now needed to explore these findings in greater depth.
Explore More Whole-Body EMS Research
This study is one important piece of the evidence. Explore our Science & Studies cluster to learn more about Whole-Body EMS research on muscle strength, back pain, body composition, safety, metabolism and training outcomes.
References
Primary Scientific Basis:
Sara JDS, Rajai N, Ahmad A, Breuer L, Olson T, Kemmler W, Nagai T, Schilaty N, Lerman A. Physical training augmented with whole body electronic muscle stimulation favorably impacts cardiovascular biomarkers in healthy adults — A pilot randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Cardiology. 2025;419:132706. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132706.
Related Scientific Presentation:
Sara JDS, Rajai N, Breuer L, Bjerke J, Olson T, Nagai T, Schilaty N, Lerman A. Physical Training Augmented With Whole Body Electronic Muscle Stimulation Is Superior To Conventional Training Alone In Healthy Subjects — A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Scientific poster presentation.
Transparency Note:
The published study states that it was an investigator-initiated study funded by miha bodytec, Gersthofen, Germany, and by the Mayo Foundation, Rochester, MN, USA. The EMS-Training Editorial Team reports this for transparency and interprets the findings as pilot-study evidence, not as product advertising or as a general medical claim.
Additional Scientific Context:
Kemmler W, Fröhlich M, Ludwig O, Eifler C, von Stengel S, Willert S, Teschler M, Weissenfels A, Kleinöder H, Micke F, Wirtz N, Zinner C, Filipovic A, Wegener B, Berger J, Evangelista A, D’Ottavio S, Sara JDS, Lerman A, Perez de Arrilucea Le Floc’h UA, Carle-Calo A, Guitierrez A, Amaro-Gahete FJ. Position statement and updated international guideline for safe and effective whole-body electromyostimulation training — the need for common sense in WB-EMS application. Front Physiol. 2023;14:1174103.
Kemmler W, Shojaa M, Steele J, Berger J, Fröhlich M, Schoene D, von Stengel S, Kleinöder H, Kohl M. Efficacy of whole-body electromyostimulation on body composition and muscle strength in non-athletic adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Physiol. 2021;12:640657.
Kemmler W, von Stengel S, Uder M. Safety, adherence and attractiveness of Whole-Body Electromyostimulation in non-athletic cohorts. A systematic review. Studia Sportiva. 2025;19.