The Effects of "Physical BEMER Vascular Therapy" on Work Performance During Repeated Wingate Tests
Additional Funding Sources
This project was supported financially by the following sources: Idaho Higher Education Research Council (HERC) Student Research Award, Idaho HERC Research Collaborative Award, and American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) Northwest Research Award.
Presentation Date
7-2020
Abstract
Physical Vascular Therapy using Bio-Electro-Magnetic-Energy-Regulation (BEMER) is being increasingly recognized as a promising modality in therapeutic settings around the world. Although proponents of BEMER suggest that physically active populations (e.g. athletes) may also benefit from treatments, scant research exists to actually test this hypothesis. PURPOSE: To explore the effects of BEMER technology on recovery and performance parameters in anaerobic exercise. METHODS: Eighteen healthy participants (Males = 15, Females = 3) volunteered for the study. Of those participants, 15 completed all three testing sessions separated by 2-5 days. Each session involved four repeated Wingate tests (i.e. 30-second sprints) on a Monark 894e cycle ergometer separated by four minutes of recovery. The recovery methods for the three sessions included the following: 1- BEMER recovery (i.e. laying supine on the BEMER body pad at intensity level "5-Plus"), 2- Active recovery (i.e. pedaling at 50rpm at 20% of the Wingate load), 3- Passive recovery (i.e. laying supine). The same recovery method was used within each session. The order of each recovery protocol was randomized to minimize potential for an order effect. Measures of peak power, average power, fatigue index, and total work were recorded for each 30-second sprint in the Monark Anaerobic Testing Software. The average of these values for the 2nd – 4th Wingates was used for comparison. In the first and fourth minutes of recovery time between sprints, additional measures of heart rate, blood lactate, blood glucose, blood pressure, oxyhemoglobin saturation, pain intensity, and pain unpleasantness were recorded. RESULTS: There was no difference in peak power, average power, fatigue index, or average work performed between the three recovery conditions. Active recovery resulted in a statistically significant decrease in ratings of pain intensity (M = -0.767 , SD = 0.928) and pain unpleasantness (M = -0.608 , SD = 0.915 ), from the first minute to the fourth minute of recovery, compared to both BEMER (Intensity: M = 0.675 , SD = 0.745, Unpleasantness: M = 1.125, SD = 0.862) and passive (Intensity: M = 0.542 , SD = 0.774, Unpleasantness: M = 1.018, SD = 0.872) recoveries where pain ratings increased. CONCLUSIONS: The purported benefits of physical BEMER vascular therapy may be more readily apparent in chronic recovery applications rather than interval-type exercise sessions. Although active recovery did not result in higher measures of any parameter of exercise capacity, it involved significant decreases in pain ratings from the first to fourth minutes of recovery, while these ratings increased during BEMER and passive recoveries. This result suggests that active recovery makes for a more comfortable exercise experience while still allowing comparable exercise performance.
The Effects of "Physical BEMER Vascular Therapy" on Work Performance During Repeated Wingate Tests
Physical Vascular Therapy using Bio-Electro-Magnetic-Energy-Regulation (BEMER) is being increasingly recognized as a promising modality in therapeutic settings around the world. Although proponents of BEMER suggest that physically active populations (e.g. athletes) may also benefit from treatments, scant research exists to actually test this hypothesis. PURPOSE: To explore the effects of BEMER technology on recovery and performance parameters in anaerobic exercise. METHODS: Eighteen healthy participants (Males = 15, Females = 3) volunteered for the study. Of those participants, 15 completed all three testing sessions separated by 2-5 days. Each session involved four repeated Wingate tests (i.e. 30-second sprints) on a Monark 894e cycle ergometer separated by four minutes of recovery. The recovery methods for the three sessions included the following: 1- BEMER recovery (i.e. laying supine on the BEMER body pad at intensity level "5-Plus"), 2- Active recovery (i.e. pedaling at 50rpm at 20% of the Wingate load), 3- Passive recovery (i.e. laying supine). The same recovery method was used within each session. The order of each recovery protocol was randomized to minimize potential for an order effect. Measures of peak power, average power, fatigue index, and total work were recorded for each 30-second sprint in the Monark Anaerobic Testing Software. The average of these values for the 2nd – 4th Wingates was used for comparison. In the first and fourth minutes of recovery time between sprints, additional measures of heart rate, blood lactate, blood glucose, blood pressure, oxyhemoglobin saturation, pain intensity, and pain unpleasantness were recorded. RESULTS: There was no difference in peak power, average power, fatigue index, or average work performed between the three recovery conditions. Active recovery resulted in a statistically significant decrease in ratings of pain intensity (M = -0.767 , SD = 0.928) and pain unpleasantness (M = -0.608 , SD = 0.915 ), from the first minute to the fourth minute of recovery, compared to both BEMER (Intensity: M = 0.675 , SD = 0.745, Unpleasantness: M = 1.125, SD = 0.862) and passive (Intensity: M = 0.542 , SD = 0.774, Unpleasantness: M = 1.018, SD = 0.872) recoveries where pain ratings increased. CONCLUSIONS: The purported benefits of physical BEMER vascular therapy may be more readily apparent in chronic recovery applications rather than interval-type exercise sessions. Although active recovery did not result in higher measures of any parameter of exercise capacity, it involved significant decreases in pain ratings from the first to fourth minutes of recovery, while these ratings increased during BEMER and passive recoveries. This result suggests that active recovery makes for a more comfortable exercise experience while still allowing comparable exercise performance.