The additive effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation and resistance training on muscle mass and strength.

Purpose: To compare strength and muscle mass development between conventional resistance training (RT) and a combined resistance training with neuromuscular electrical stimulation group (RT + NMES).Searches of EBSCO, GoogleScholar, PubMed, and ResearchGate were conducted for studies that met the inclusion criteria of being a randomized controlled trial comparing RT in isolation with NMES and RT being done simultaneously. Effect sizes were calculated as the standard mean difference (SMD) and meta-analyses were computed using random effects models. Thirteen studies were included in the analyses.When comparing strength gain, there was a favorable effect towards superimposed training (SMD: 0.31; 95% CI 0.13–0.49; <italic>p</italic> = 0.02; <italic>I</italic>2 = 73.05%) with similar results seen for muscle mass (SMD: 0.26; 95% CI 0.04–0.49; <italic>p</italic> = 0.02; <italic>I</italic>2 = 21.45%).Use of NMES during RT results in greater gains in strength and muscle mass compared to RT performed in isolation. Incorporation of NMES into RT protocols may represent a more effective strategy to improve muscle strength and muscle mass. Future studies should explore whether use of NMES concurrently with RT may have additive effects on metabolic and/or cardiovascular health.Methods: To compare strength and muscle mass development between conventional resistance training (RT) and a combined resistance training with neuromuscular electrical stimulation group (RT + NMES).Searches of EBSCO, GoogleScholar, PubMed, and ResearchGate were conducted for studies that met the inclusion criteria of being a randomized controlled trial comparing RT in isolation with NMES and RT being done simultaneously. Effect sizes were calculated as the standard mean difference (SMD) and meta-analyses were computed using random effects models. Thirteen studies were included in the analyses.When comparing strength gain, there was a favorable effect towards superimposed training (SMD: 0.31; 95% CI 0.13–0.49; <italic>p</italic> = 0.02; <italic>I</italic>2 = 73.05%) with similar results seen for muscle mass (SMD: 0.26; 95% CI 0.04–0.49; <italic>p</italic> = 0.02; <italic>I</italic>2 = 21.45%).Use of NMES during RT results in greater gains in strength and muscle mass compared to RT performed in isolation. Incorporation of NMES into RT protocols may represent a more effective strategy to improve muscle strength and muscle mass. Future studies should explore whether use of NMES concurrently with RT may have additive effects on metabolic and/or cardiovascular health.Results: To compare strength and muscle mass development between conventional resistance training (RT) and a combined resistance training with neuromuscular electrical stimulation group (RT + NMES).Searches of EBSCO, GoogleScholar, PubMed, and ResearchGate were conducted for studies that met the inclusion criteria of being a randomized controlled trial comparing RT in isolation with NMES and RT being done simultaneously. Effect sizes were calculated as the standard mean difference (SMD) and meta-analyses were computed using random effects models. Thirteen studies were included in the analyses.When comparing strength gain, there was a favorable effect towards superimposed training (SMD: 0.31; 95% CI 0.13–0.49; <italic>p</italic> = 0.02; <italic>I</italic>2 = 73.05%) with similar results seen for muscle mass (SMD: 0.26; 95% CI 0.04–0.49; <italic>p</italic> = 0.02; <italic>I</italic>2 = 21.45%).Use of NMES during RT results in greater gains in strength and muscle mass compared to RT performed in isolation. Incorporation of NMES into RT protocols may represent a more effective strategy to improve muscle strength and muscle mass. Future studies should explore whether use of NMES concurrently with RT may have additive effects on metabolic and/or cardiovascular health.Conclusion: To compare strength and muscle mass development between conventional resistance training (RT) and a combined resistance training with neuromuscular electrical stimulation group (RT + NMES).Searches of EBSCO, GoogleScholar, PubMed, and ResearchGate were conducted for studies that met the inclusion criteria of being a randomized controlled trial comparing RT in isolation with NMES and RT being done simultaneously. Effect sizes were calculated as the standard mean difference (SMD) and meta-analyses were computed using random effects models. Thirteen studies were included in the analyses.When comparing strength gain, there was a favorable effect towards superimposed training (SMD: 0.31; 95% CI 0.13–0.49; <italic>p</italic> = 0.02; <italic>I</italic>2 = 73.05%) with similar results seen for muscle mass (SMD: 0.26; 95% CI 0.04–0.49; <italic>p</italic> = 0.02; <italic>I</italic>2 = 21.45%).Use of NMES during RT results in greater gains in strength and muscle mass compared to RT performed in isolation. Incorporation of NMES into RT protocols may represent a more effective strategy to improve muscle strength and muscle mass. Future studies should explore whether use of NMES concurrently with RT may have additive effects on metabolic and/or cardiovascular health.Graphical Abstract: To compare strength and muscle mass development between conventional resistance training (RT) and a combined resistance training with neuromuscular electrical stimulation group (RT + NMES).Searches of EBSCO, GoogleScholar, PubMed, and ResearchGate were conducted for studies that met the inclusion criteria of being a randomized controlled trial comparing RT in isolation with NMES and RT being done simultaneously. Effect sizes were calculated as the standard mean difference (SMD) and meta-analyses were computed using random effects models. Thirteen studies were included in the analyses.When comparing strength gain, there was a favorable effect towards superimposed training (SMD: 0.31; 95% CI 0.13–0.49; <italic>p</italic> = 0.02; <italic>I</italic>2 = 73.05%) with similar results seen for muscle mass (SMD: 0.26; 95% CI 0.04–0.49; <italic>p</italic> = 0.02; <italic>I</italic>2 = 21.45%).Use of NMES during RT results in greater gains in strength and muscle mass compared to RT performed in isolation. Incorporation of NMES into RT protocols may represent a more effective strategy to improve muscle strength and muscle mass. Future studies should explore whether use of NMES concurrently with RT may have additive effects on metabolic and/or cardiovascular health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]