Author: chad reilly

  • Intense Strength Training for Anorexia, Works Great!

    Resistance training enhances muscular performance in patients with anorexia nervosa: a randomized controlled trial. Fernandez-del-Valle M, Larumbe-Zabala E, Villaseñor-Montarroso A, Cardona Gonzalez C, Diez-Vega I, Lopez Mojares LM, Perez Ruiz M. International Journal of Eating Disorders 2014 Sep;47(6):601-9.

    From the Abstract

    METHODS:
    From a total of 36 female patients with AN-R, one group (intervention, n = 18) underwent a supervised high-intensity resistance training program lasting 8 weeks, and the other group with no exercise (control, n = 18). Body weight, body mass index, whole-body muscular strength, and agility were assessed before, after, and 4 weeks after training (detraining).

    RESULTS:
    Leg-press, bench-press, and lateral row tests improved significantly (p < 0.001) after 8 weeks of training compared with controls. Improvements were maintained after the detraining period. The training program also showed beneficial effects on agility.

    DISCUSSION:
    A high-intensity resistance training program adapted to the recommendations for adolescents in AN-R patients was effective and safe, improving muscular strength in the whole body and the ability to perform daily tasks. However, long-term maintenance of gains seems to be linked to the continuance of training or the use of a maintenance program.

    My comments:
    This was a good study to see done as prior recommendations for patients with anorexia have been quite lame, either due to low intensities or there just being no exercise done, at all, with the general fear being that patients with anorexia nervosa will become obsessive with the exercise and that’s a risk factor for relapses of symptoms. The caution seems perhaps somewhat misplaced here as the exercise that contributes to the runner’s high like addiction anorexic’s get and subsequent weight loss is aerobic exercise. I expect (at least early on in this population) aerobic exercise might be a bad idea. Aside from psychological effects I would expect yoga and the like to be largely neutral, and as this study shows, weight lifting, or resistance exercise led to considerable improvements in strength levels, with girls in the weight training group increasing leg press strength 52%, bench press strength 41%, and row strength 37% after 8 weeks of training 3 times per week. The training program consisted of bench press, leg press, rows, leg extensions, lat pulldowns for 3 sets of 8-10 reps, starting at 70% of their 6 RM. Abdominal crunches, back extension and push-ups were also done working up to as much as 30 reps.

    I would have liked to have seen them use some squats, and deadlifts, but overall the program looked pretty good and is a lot better than other paper I have read for the rehabilitation of anorexia. Which oft consisted of a bunch of low intensity physical therapy exercises which are all but worthless, like the ever popular (among physical therapist that don’t know how to workout) bridges, pelvic tilts, and rhythmic stabilization. One of the big fears with anorexia also seems to be fracture risk per the lessened bone mineral density, but since squat exercises seem exceeding beneficial for the treatment of osteoporosis, I would expect squats to work very well for the functional recovery with anorexia as well.

    After 4 weeks of detraining, some strength was lost (~15%) emphasizing the importance of continuing the weight training indefinitely, which is the same as I would say for anyone, but it has especial importance in those with anorexia given the considerable deficits in strength, muscle mass, and bone mineral density they are starting off with. Long term I would love to see them transition into a CrossFit type exercise program as I would think the aggressive weight bearing type exercise would be near optimal for ultimate gains in strength, muscle, and bone mass. I would however urge caution and perhaps a transitional period consisting general weight training (much like this program) first as it is unknown if the explosive nature of Crossfit training would lead to increased risk of injuries early on. I’m not too concerned with the olympic lifts because they can always be done lighter, but I would be more concerned about plyometrics, which I don’t think are particularly good exercises anyway. That said, I think the group exercise environment of CrossFit would be psychologically ideal as well, since in CrossFit people (A LOT of whom are women) come to value strength, performance, and muscle as ideal as opposed to mere thinness.

    I know some people think that yoga, Pilates, theraband or faddish boot camps will make them are just as strong, but generally that’s because those folks, instructors included, don’t know what strong is. Not to mention, if I had weakened bones, the last thing I would want to do is yoga. So if one want’s the best of both mind and body, I’d suggest skipping the hour long yoga class, and instead doing 50 minutes of lifting weights, followed by 10 minutes of meditation. And it’s not like general exercise, to include weight training doesn’t have positive mental effects by itself.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Cross Training: Weights, Cardio and Anxiety

    State anxiety responses to 60 minutes of cross training. Hale BS, Koch KR, Raglin JS. Br J Sports Med. 2002 Apr;36(2):105-7. [free full text]

    Abstract
    OBJECTIVES:
    Significant reductions in state anxiety following bouts of aerobic exercise have been consistently noted, whereas changes are generally absent after acute resistance training. However, the influence of a single exercise session involving both modes on state anxiety has not been examined.
    METHODS:
    To address this, state anxiety responses to 60 minutes of cross training were examined in 16 collegiate athletes (12 women, four men). Each subject completed two cross training exercise sessions (30 minutes of resistance training, 30 minutes of bicycle ergometry) in which the order of the exercises was reversed, with a minimum of one week between sessions. Each exercise mode was completed at about 70% of maximum. State anxiety (SAI-Y1) was assessed five minutes before, and 0, 10, and 60 minutes after exercise.
    RESULTS:
    Repeated measures analysis of variance showed a significant (p<0.05) main effect for time. However, the main effect for order and the order by time interaction were not significant. Post hoc analysis showed that state anxiety was reduced (p<0.05) from baseline (mean (SD) = 34.8 (7.9)) at 10 minutes (32.1 (7.5)) and 60 minutes (30.4 (5.9)) after exercise, but not at 0 minutes (33.8 (6.9)).
    CONCLUSIONS:
    The results indicate that combined sessions of aerobic and resistance exercise are associated with reductions in state anxiety, and that the order in which the exercise is completed does not influence this response.

    My comments:

    I don’t think that this paper is particularly groundbreaking per se as I have seen a number of references to exercise, either weights or cardio (mostly cardio) decreasing anxiety or depression over the years. More recently I have been reading the benefits of meditation, particularly mindfulness or Vipassana meditation which is getting a lot of attention in Western psychological research with a number of demonstrated psychological benefits. Though I have played around with it, and I think it’s interesting to see how difficult it is to quiet one’s mind, I can’t say that I have noticed anything groundbreaking (yet). So I’m curious how the mental health benefits of meditation compare to that of general exercise, which also has the co-benefits of physical health; building muscle, bone mineral density, burning fat, improving cardiovascular health, and on and on and on.

    Also I have been a critic of yoga in the past, which is supposed to have mental health benefits as well, this I hope because physically there isn’t really anything I think yoga offers that weight lifting and cardio doesn’t do better. Heck, Bikram yoga has to turn up their gym temperature to 105 degrees to get people to work up a sweat, while I keep mine at 72 and still need a fan pointing directly at me when doing speed intervals on my Stepmill to avoid overheating. As far as physical exercise and burning calories go, that’s what you call a clue. As for bone mineral density and muscle strength weights obviously win. So what about mental health? I have been telling people do weights hard, cardio hard, and if that doesn’t cover you then maybe meditate for 10 minutes after, and I expect your overall fitness will still be well ahead than equal time spent doing yoga.

    That said this paper has quantified the anti-anxiety effects of cross training, 30 minutes of weights and 30 minutes of cardio as judged by the State Trait Anxiety Inventory for which anxiety decreased 12.4% 60 minutes after the exercise. Could be more as the rate still decreasing when last measured at 60 minutes. The authors of this study reported the effects were about the same as prior studies on aerobic exercise by itself. So I’ll be interested to how this compares to mindfulness and yoga. And where’s the sweet spot? I first got interested in mindfullness after reading Sam Harris’ Waking Up, and he said he would go on retreats where they would meditate up to 18 hours per day. I’m really not sure what you get out of meditation that’s worth that kind of time commitment and Sam’s obviously brilliant but didn’t really say. So whatever I see quantified I’ll try to compare it to equal time doing something else and with 18 hours there’s a lot else one can do. Harris’ book was still a great read though and speaking of spiritual awareness and Bikram, it seems guru’s overstepping their bounds isn’t so rare. Harris had a section in his book on it, and apparently Bikram is no exception with several counts of sexual assault and harassment currently pending against him. All of which puts a bit of a damper on reports of yoga leading to enlightenment. So I’m rambling, the take home of this study is cross training with 30 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of weights decreases anxiety at least 12.4% 60 minutes after training in addition to the other musculoskeletal and cardiovascular benefits.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Short Term Fasting Increases Metabolic Rate

    Resting energy expenditure in short-term starvation is increased as a result of an increase in serum norepinephrine. Zauner C, Schneeweiss B, Kranz A, Madl C, Ratheiser K, Kramer L, Roth E, Schneider B, Lenz K. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Jun;71(6):1511-5. [free full text]

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    The effects of food restriction on energy metabolism have been under investigation for more than a century. Data obtained are conflicting and research has failed to provide conclusive results.

    OBJECTIVE:
    The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that in lean subjects under normal living conditions, short-term starvation leads to an increase in serum concentrations of catecholamines and thus to an increase in resting energy expenditure.

    DESIGN:
    Resting energy expenditure, measured by indirect calorimetry, and hormone and substrate concentrations were measured in 11 healthy, lean subjects on days 1, 2, 3, and 4 of an 84-h starvation period.

    RESULTS:
    Resting energy expenditure increased significantly from 3.97 +/- 0.9 kJ/min on day 1 to 4.53 +/- 0.9 kJ/min on day 3 (P < 0.05). The increase in resting energy expenditure was associated with an increase in the norepinephrine concentration from 1716. +/- 574 pmol/L on day 1 to 3728 +/- 1636 pmol/L on day 4 (P < 0.05). Serum glucose decreased from 4.9 +/- 0.5 to 3.5 +/- 0.5 mmol/L (P < 0.05), whereas insulin did not change significantly.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Resting energy expenditure increases in early starvation, accompanied by an increase in plasma norepinephrine. This increase in norepinephrine seems to be due to a decline in serum glucose and may be the initial signal for metabolic changes in early starvation.

    My comments:
    Since I started experimenting and talking about intermittent fasting, the big thing I hear is “won’t that decrease your metabolic rate?” EVERYBODY asks that and it seems to be entrenched in the culture that if you miss meals your body will go into ‘starvation mode’ and the metabolism will drop such that when you return to eating ‘normally’ you will gain all your weight back and then some. At this point I think of intermittent fasting as a lifestyle rather than a diet so a normal ‘Merican’ diet isn’t something I ever intend to return to, however how fasting affects metabolism is still a good question.

    I think there is a general consensus that weight loss in general does slow the metabolism because carrying around a lot of fat and/or muscle throughout the day, burns a fair amount of calories that you otherwise wouldn’t. However there is a tradeoff when excess fat mass leads to arthritis and joint pain, as well as general effort to move, making the person more sedentary, just decreasing calories burned per day even if the resting metabolic rate is higher. So prolonged dieting and weight loss I would expect to decrease resting metabolic rate, though perhaps not total calories burned per day.

    As for the short term effects of fasting, this study shows the opposite is true. Healthy, lean subjects in this study were fasted for 4 days with resting energy expenditure increasing each day, from 3.97 kJ per minute on the first day of the fast (12 hours in), 4.37 kJ on day 2, 4.56 kJ and 4.43 kJ on day 4. That works out to a 10.08% from day 1-2, 14.11% by day 3 and 11.59% at day 4.

    At day four the researchers noted that the resting metabolic rate was starting to drop, but it was still higher than day one and it was increasing each day prior to that. With the various versions of intermittent fasting requiring no more than a day of fasting, and my favorite version being 5-6 hours of eating and 18-19 hours of fasting every day. This study would tend to indicate that if anything, resting metabolic rate is increased rather than decreased, and ‘starvation mode’ mode isn’t a risk at all.

    The researchers attributed the rise in resting metabolic rate to norepinephrine, which according to wiki is the neurotransmitter most associated with concentration, vigilance and alertness. The idea apparently being that paleolithic man, and probably Jurassic dinosaurs, wouldn’t survive long if they slowed down and became less alert when they were hungry. Which would probably go along way towards explaining why I, and everyone I have heard who tries it, reports feeling more energy when fasting. Which if you ask me, is one of the best parts.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • 40 Days of Fasting (Intermittent)

    Actually it was 43 days before I got my blood test and 47 days before I finally cheated. My plan at first was 30 days, then figured who fasts for 30 days? 40 days has more history, then I figured I’d try to do at least one more day than Jesus, then I had to wait for an appointment for my blood test. The lady at the lab asked if I had been fasting and I said, “heck yeah, for 43 days!” After my blood test I thought about hitting Taco Bell, but I wasn’t that hungry so I figured I’d keep fasting. Today I’m 78 days in with just 3 cheat days, but I never ate before 5 pm the first 47.

    It all started (for me) when I read, and blogged on that paper about the calorie restricted (CR) monkeys having MORE muscle mass than those who ate as much as they wanted. I was like what? That’s the opposite of what I would have expected. Guessing as to why I did some follow up research on Pubmed and found out that both young and old CR monkeys had increased testosterone as well, which is partially explanatory, as was another paper that found less muscle cell apoptosis (programmed cell death) in CR animals. Looking through the animal research, with human studies tending to be in agreement, caloric restriction was a very healthy thing that basically slows the aging process and helps with a plethora of metabolic illnesses. More reading led me to papers that found intermittent fasting (either eating every other day), or time restricted feeding (eating only certain hours of the day) had similar and sometimes greater health benefits as caloric restriction. Some of these benefits were both neurological or musculoskeletal which I thought could really help a lot of my physical therapy patients. In my physical therapy practice I do a lot with exercise and EMS, which I know does a lot of good treating people from the outside. However with calorie restriction, for which intermittent fasting seemed the easiest way to go about it, I thought it could do a lot of good to cure them from the inside, particularly if combined with my largely exercise/EMS programs. Always wanting to test something new, I wondered how hard was it to do in practice, and what would it do to me?

    So April 17th I wrote my monkey blog about eating less for more muscle and on April 20th I started healthy intermittent fasting. I had read the wiki on The Warrior Diet years ago, and had tried it on and off, skipping lunch from time to time (I already skipped breakfast) but on April 20th I figured I’d start it strict, actually read the book, and see what could happen. Had I read the book first I might not have tried it. Although I thought the basic premise was sound and a number of his observations agreed with my own, in the book the author Ori Hofmekler said he didn’t really fast during the day, but just ate small meals “underfeeding” to later “overfeed” after 6 pm. A lot of his claims came across pretty pseudoscientific and he recommended the sale of a lot of his own supplements, and per the order form in the back of his book, his supplements cost a total of $416 plus shipping. The thing that appealed to me about the Warrior Diet was not having to worry about eating at all during the day, so I was a bit disappointed. Later reading the criticisms of the Warrior Diet on amazon.com someone mentioned the Fast-5, written by Bert W. Herring, MD. Best of all the Fast-5 book is FREE, simple to follow, there were no supplements to buy, and it really was fasting. I’m currently reading Martin Berkhan’s leangains.com blog, in which he recommends an 8 hour eat and 16 hour fast phases, geared towards bodybuilders trying to lose fat while maintaining or gaining muscle. It’s not exactly my emphasis but is great resource for research and rationales regarding intermittent fasting. For some star appeal, 8 on 16 off is what Hugh Jackman did to get in shape for Wolverine. For now the Fast-5 suits my personality and lifestyle so I plan to stick with it, slightly modified, for the time being.

    Results:

    My last body fat test was 6 months prior to the fast that was on 9-29-14 as I was wrapping up my year of electric muscle stimulation self experiment and I was 183 lb and 7.2% body fat. The last time I weighed myself before the fast I was 179 lb. May 5th, (16 days in) I figured I should measure where I was at and I weighed 179 lb at 7.4% body fat. On 6-1-15, 43 days in I weighed 183 lb with 6.8% body fat and felt pretty jacked. Skin-fold tests have a good 2% error range and my body weight in a day will fluctuate as much as 4 lb, but I feel pretty good about saying at the end of 40 days I didn’t lose any muscle, and did seem to measure a bit leaner. I did EMS workouts only one weekend over that month because I was worried I was losing muscle, and I did a couple hard (for me) interval cardio workouts on the Stepmill to see how that affected my hunger level (surprisingly they didn’t), but otherwise I was pretty sedentary because I wanted to see what the diet did by itself.

    My blood test results were more dramatic. A couple months prior to starting the fast (2-22-15) I had a physical, and I was yet again told I had high cholesterol, so I was curious what IF would do for that. Since I had just blogged on caloric restriction and testosterone levels, I wanted to see what intermittent fasting did to mine, and I was glad to see that my prior blood test checked my pre-fast testosterone. The results were:

    Pre-Fast (2-26-15)Post-Fast (6-2-15)% Change
    Total Cholesterol (mg/dL)231190-17.7%
    Cholesterol/HDL Ratio3.12.8-9.7%
    HDL Cholesterol (mg/dL)7467-9.6%
    LDL Cholesterol (mg/dL)146111-24%
    Testosterone, Free (pb/mL)93.699.4+6.2%

    So boom! After 40 days of fasting my total cholesterol dropped 41 points moving me from “high cholesterol” to “good cholesterol.” HDL cholesterol dropped 7 points (so that stinks) but LDLs dropped 35 points still  improving my cholesterol/HDL ratio. My free testosterone increased 6.2% and total testosterone increased 25%, just like the monkeys!

    How hard was it? A lot easier than you might think. The Fast-5 recommends you start by skipping breakfast for some time, then when you’re used to that you skip lunch, start eating after 5 and you are on your way. I have skipped breakfast almost every day for the last 20 years (to the chagrin of everyone fatter than me who ‘knew better’ but I digress), so all I had to do was start skipping lunch. Also I had played around, inconsistently, with what I thought was the Warrior Diet for a couple years so skipping lunch wasn’t unheard for me so I might have had an easier time getting started than most. In the book the 8 Hour Diet (which turned out to be a watered down version of the leangains.com diet) the author interviewed one of the intermittent fasting researchers, who said if the subjects lasted 2 weeks, they were all able to stick with it. That sounded reasonable per my experience. Fasting got easier the longer I did it and having a 30 day, and later 40 day goal, gave me something to stick to. Since then I have stuck with it because I like it.

    I should point out that the Fast-5 diet allows eating in a 5 hour window from 5-10 pm, but a handful of times I would eat as late as 11 pm or so. Sometimes I would come home from work, have a high carb meal, fall asleep, wake up at 10 pm and still be hungry.  If that happened I ate more that night rather than make myself wait till the next day, so at worst my longest eating window was maybe 6 to 6.5 hours rather than 5. However, I was real strict about waiting till 5 pm to start eating each day.

    Also what I thought was interesting about the 8 Hour Diet book, was that it said pretty much all the researchers testing fasting on animals and people were fasters themselves and they all looked great. And that was something I wondered about that you didn’t see written about in the objective research.

    What I like about fasting:

    1. It’s easy! In fact it’s better than easy! You get to stop doing things you were doing already, like preparing breakfast, lunch, and snacks.
    2. It’s free! In fact it’s better than free! Not only does it cost nothing, you save all the money you were paying for breakfast, lunch and snacks.
    3. It saves you time, eating and preparing.
    4. You don’t have to count calories.
    5. You don’t have to think about food.
    6. More energy all day (very noticeable), and for me seemed to improve especially around 30 days or so.
    7. My BP dropped from borderline high ~140/90 to normal ~120/80.
    8. My cholesterol dropped A LOT!
    9. At night you can eat whatever you feel like.
    10. At night you can eat as much as you feel like.
    11. After a while I noticed myself getting full faster, to a point where I wasn’t eating much more at night than usual, and I might have been eating less. So I think my stomach actually shrank, which I started to notice after maybe 15-20 days or so. I didn’t notice that with inconsistent missed meals prior to starting the my strict fasting program.
    12. You know how food tastes really good when you are really hungry? It’s like that every day.

    What I don’t like about fasting:

    1. Sometimes you feel hungry (especially when others are eating, or if you are bored) and you want to eat, but I imagine this is no worse than any other diet.
    2. It’s a bit anti-social, I’d be out with friends and everyone would go to a restaurant, so to be social I would go along, but it’s a little weird when they are eating and you aren’t. In time I got used to that too and I found myself ordering take out so I could just eat the food that looked best later.

    Things I noticed about fasting:

    1. The things I liked list is a lot longer than the things I didn’t like.
    2. Ordering healthier appetizers. I started ordering brussel sprouts. I hate brussel sprouts, or used to, but they taste better now. So blander foods seem to have more flavor.
    3. Super high fat appetizers, onion rings and fried calamari started to make me feel sick. So that’s weird. I used to love that stuff but fasting seemed to make really high fat foods unappealing. I remember in the movie Supersize Me, Morgan Spurlock said he felt sick when he first started eating McDonalds and I thought that was a little over the top. I thought he was playing it up for the film because I had never felt sick after eating high fat foods. Now I think (coming from a vegetarian diet) he was legit.
    4. A container of spun honey I bought lasted me better than a week. Just a couple spoons satisfied my sweet tooth, when before I would have eaten the whole thing. I never enjoyed moderation before.
    5. I can workout in the morning (20 minutes of hard Stepmill intervals) and be fine, hunger-wise until evening. I miss my post workout carb loading interval so it may not be ideal for sports performance and recovery, but I was no more hungry than usual and I imagine a burned a fair amount of fat.
    6. Starting to eat at 5pm instead of 6pm means you catch all the happy hours.
    7. At the store at the checkout, I’m not tempted to buy sweets cause it’s not 5 pm.
    8. Fasting gives you willpower. People say they have trouble not eating, but this just gets you used to it. People who know me know I had no willpower whatsoever with regards to food. In fact, fasting is the first “diet” I have ever attempted short of carrying around a cooler in college to make sure I ate 5000 calories a day to gain weight for weightlifting. Generally I would eat cookies, candy, and chips till they were gone, it was what I was used to. In hindsight the things that saved me from obesity was my fair amount of residual muscle mass from prior bodybuilding and residual weightlifting, and the fact that I always skipped the least important meal of the day, breakfast.
    9. If you are busy you don’t feel that hungry, when you are hungry it’s a feeling you are used to and you know it’s healthy so you don’t mind the feeling as much as you used to.
    10. If I had something to do at 5 pm, it was no big deal to keep waiting. A lot of times I would stay after work talking to people, or would go home and surf the web, and not start eating till 6:30 or 7 pm.

    Other thoughts

    1. Intermittent fasting might share benefits with various cleanses/detoxes talked about with alternative-med/new-age folks, but it’s like a clense/detox you do every day.
    2. Intermittent fasting might share benefits with vegetarianism.
    3. It probably helps mentally to know that you aren’t abstaining from anything, you’re just waiting, and in my experience that’s enough to get you past all the midday temptations and I just felt like making better food choices later on. Instinctively or cognitively thinking that if you are only going to have one big meal a day, it probably shouldn’t be junk.
    4. I felt pretty stoic around 35 days into the fast, and when I see people eating or snacking it makes me think they are weak willed. That’s not exactly pro-social but I recall hearing that anorexics like the feeling they get when depriving themselves and not giving into their impulses. So I wonder if the feeling is similar and if time restricted feeding would be a treatment option for those with eating disorders. They would get the satisfaction from the deprivation (which I found one study which showed they do in fact get that satisfaction) but they would still be able to so called binge, each and every night.
    5. The big test was my last official 41st day, where I went to a party at 3:30 with awesome food and I couldn’t start eating till 5. Actually it made for some good conversation as a lot of people were interested in why I wasn’t eating, so I showed them my monkey photos, talked about healthy intermittent fasting, which people seem genuinely curious about. So at 5:00 I started eating, it was great, and I didn’t cheat on my fast. I was thinking if I had been on a typical calorie restriction diet I either would have been miserable all night or I would have cheated.
    6. Also I thought with the Fast-5, where you eat at night, that if you like food, every day ends on a good note. So you always go to bed feeling full and satisfied vs calorie restriction, alternate day versions of intermittent fasting. I had recently read something somewhere about a psychological principle that however the end of something goes the better you feel about it. So the better the end of a workout, a physical therapy session, a phone call, a relationship, etc. the better you feel about it, even if the beginning and middle were tough. Basically a psychological principle of all’s well that ends well. So the cool thing about the Fast-5 is that regarding food and satiety, every day ends well.

    Going Forward

    I plan on sticking with the Fast-5 but I figured I’ll let myself cheat once a week in a social situation or if I just feel like it. However in the almost 40 more days it took me to get around to organizing these notes, usually I don’t take my cheat day. I think because I feel better fasting, but lazy and weak willed if I cheat.

    I’ve started lifting weights pretty hard to see what I can do with my extra 25% of testosterone and see I can gain back muscle on it. So far it’s going well and lifting on an empty stomach is no big deal, nor is not eating afterwards. It’s likely not ideal, as a number of bodybuilders and Hugh Jackman are making use of an 8 hour eating/16 hour fast and getting great gains by having a pre-workout meal then loading up afterwards, but I want to see what happens if I stay with my 5-6 hour window, at least for now.

    So overall, the healthy intermittent fasting was everything it was said to be; healthy, decreased blood pressure, decreased cholesterol, fat but no muscle loss, increased focus and energy, increased testosterone. It was a little unsocial, but if you are a social person and you live in America and you want to eat everything you want when your friends want you to, well, then you’re going to be fat.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Carbonized Rubber Electrodes Best for EMS & TENS

    Factors influencing quadriceps femoris muscle torque using transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation.Physical Therapy. 1991 Oct;71(10):715-21; discussion 722-3. Lieber RL, Kelly MJ.

    Abstract
    Quadriceps femoris muscle torque was measured in 40 subjects during transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). Three different electrode types (carbonized rubber, sponge, and adhesive) were used on each subject, permitting determination of the factors that influenced the magnitude of quadriceps femoris muscle torque induced by NMES. This goal was accomplished by entering the various factors into a multiple-regression model. The electrodes differed significantly in their characteristics. The carbonized-rubber electrode delivered the greatest current with the lowest impedance, resulting in the highest knee extension torque. We found that the most important factor in determining torque generation level was the quadriceps femoris muscle’s intrinsic ability to be activated (as opposed to electrode size, current, current density, or skin impedance). These data suggest that NMES efficacy is primarily determined by the intrinsic tissue properties of the individual (defined in this study as “efficiency”) and is not dramatically changeable by using high stimulation currents or large electrode sizes. The precise physiological basis for interindividual differences in efficiency is not known. [emphasis mine]

    My comments:

    This was one of those things I figured out the hard way during my year of electric stimulation, only to find research from 1991 had already been there. These researcher compared carbonized rubber electrodes to sponge electrodes and the sticky self-adhesive gel electrodes that generally come free with an EMS or TENS machine.

    The results of the sponge electrodes were about as good as the sticky (that’s what I call them)  electrodes, but the size of the sponge electrodes were about half the size so I don’t think they got a fair comparison. Since sponges always look dirty to me, I don’t use them anyway, so no great loss. The big difference (which I definitely agree with and think I can feel myself) was that the rubber electrodes, for which the size was comparable (109 cm square rubber, vs 104 cm square sticky), were almost twice as good as the sticky ones. Under otherwise identical conditions skin impedance with rubber was less 53 vs 98 k-ohms (84.9% better), % of maximal voluntary contraction was 21.2% rubber vs 12% sticky (76.7% better), and subsequent quadriceps torque produced was 33.5 vs 17.9 N-m (87.5% better). The idea being that skin impedance is about half as much with the carbonized rubber electrodes, making the electric stimulation about twice as comfortable, so you can activate almost twice as much muscle, producing almost twice as much torque, thus generating a better training effect. Their findings were something I largely figured out on my own, but it was good to see numbers and an explanation put to it.

     

    If using the electric stimulation for pain control (TENS rather than EMS) the rubber carbon electrodes should still let you more comfortably handle higher levels of electric stimulation, and I would expect greater reductions in pain per the . This would in turn go along with other researchers finding where EMS reduced pain better than TENS.

    Other reasons I like the carbonized rubber electrodes is that they are easy to clean between patients while the sticky electrodes just look like bacteria traps to me. The carbonized rubber electrodes work fine, even if with greater amounts of body hair, and the carbonized rubber electrodes seem to last indefinitely (longer than a year with repeated

    daily use thus far) while the sticky pads don’t last near as long. though a periodic spray with a water bottle helps extend the life of the sticky pads. The downside of the carbonized rubber electrodes is that they don’t stick to you so they have to be held in place with straps, which depending on the location can be lesser (legs, arms, core, feet) or greater of a challenge (chest and shoulders). Still, for clinical use or home for myself and pretty much every patient I get a EMS machine for, carbonized rubber is THE way to go. My preferred size for most uses being ~4 inch or 10 cm diameter circular pads. For conductivity I just spray them dripping wet with tap water.

    Updated 1/25/2016

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Ness Handmaster EMS for Stroke, Didn’t Appear to Work

    Electrical stimulation of the upper limb in stroke: stimulation of the extensors of the hand vs. alternate stimulation of flexors and extensors. de Kroon JR, IJzerman MJ, Lankhorst GJ, Zilvold G. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2004 Aug;83(8):592-600.

    Abstract
    OBJECTIVE:
    To investigate whether there is a difference in functional improvement in the affected arm of chronic stroke patients when comparing two methods of electrical stimulation.

    DESIGN:
    Explanatory trial in which 30 chronic stroke patients with impaired arm function were randomly allocated to either alternating electrical stimulation of the extensor and flexor muscles of the hand (group A) or electrical stimulation of the extensors only (group B). Primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm test to assess arm function. Grip strength, Motricity Index, Ashworth Scale, and range of motion of the wrist were secondary outcome measures.

    RESULTS:
    Improvement on the Action Research Arm test was 1.0 point in group A and 3.3 points in group B; the difference in functional gain was 2.3 points (95% confidence interval, -1.06 to 5.60). The success rate (i.e., percentage of patients with a clinically relevant improvement of >5.7 points on the Action Research Arm test) was 27% in group B (four patients) and 8% in group A (one patient). The differences in functional gain and success rate were not statistically significant, neither were the differences between the two groups on the secondary outcome measures.

    CONCLUSION:
    The difference between the two stimulation strategies was not statistically significant.

    My comments:

    I came across this article as I was reading up on EMS methods for arm and hand function for in patients with lost function due to lack of strength and/or spasticity post stroke. The way it was cited in other journals was as evidence that alternately stimulating the wrist and finger flexors (often spastic) with the wrist extensors didn’t work any better than just stimulating the extensors all by themselves. What I didn’t expect to find, and what wasn’t clear in the abstract (I hate that), was that neither protocol resulted in statistically significant or clinically relevant improvements. The exact quote, from the article was:

    “Neither the difference between the groups nor the improvement in the group that received ES of the extensor muscles only exceeded the minimal clinically important difference of 10% (i.e. 5.7 points on the ARA test).”

    I thought that particularly interesting because when googling the retail price of the Ness Handmaster, I get a retail price of $6200-$6800, which I thought was on the pricey side for an EMS machine for which similar parameters can be had in the $150 range. While I think the Ness Handmaster uniquely pricey for what it was, I was surprised it didn’t work better. Looking at the parameters, which weren’t entirely clear, I thought they leaned towards too much electric stimulation rather than too little. Subjects started with 20 minutes of EMS, 3 times per day, and worked up to 60 minutes with a duty cycle of 40%. Telling me the duty cycle is 40% doesn’t tell me what the actual on and off times were (note to researchers, just report the on and off times, plus any ramp info). However, in comparison, my “go to” strengthening program has a 16.6% duty cycle, which is 10 seconds on 50 seconds off, and I run that program for just 10 minutes, usually 3 times per week. To equate a 40% duty cycle with a 10 second on period, the rest would only 15 seconds. So their treatment time started at double mine, worked to 6 times mine, and instead of training 3 times per week, they were training 3 times per day. That’s A LOT of stimulation and at least when comparing to what is generally used in the training for strength and conditioning for athletes, sounds like it might be too much.

    My other thought on the study was about how they alternated stimulation of the wrist flexors and extensors. If I had my druthers, I would have stimulated them concurrently so that the extensors would balance out the extensors. My reasoning being that doing so, you could increase the intensity of each with lesser strain on the wrist and finger joints so that both muscle groups could work up to higher electric stimulation intensities. Likely, I would have used a mesh glove or rubber carbon gripper electrode on channel 1, combined with the other electrode in the pair being a large ~3.5″ rubber carbon one on the forearm flexors, and then put both electrodes of channel 2 (using rubber carbon electrodes) on the wrist extensor muscles. My reasoning would be that the gripper/glove would better hit the hand intrinsic muscles, while the double up of large 3.5″ electrodes on the wrist extensors would help them balance out the increased muscle mass and spasticity of the wrist flexors.

    I’m only recently starting to look into the data for EMS for restoring function post stroke, and from the reviews I have read there is a lot of research that shows it works. Perhaps this was a uniquely poor finding, for reasons which are potentially apparent as I talked about above. However, I’ll be looking at future papers with a bit more of a skeptical eye as this one wasn’t cited with the utmost in clarity.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India

  • Spinal Manipulation in Physical Therapy, Death Throes in Research

    Basis for spinal manipulative therapy: a physical therapist perspective. Bialosky JE, Simon CB, Bishop MD, George SZ. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012 Oct;22(5):643-7. [Free Full Text]

    My comments:

    This paper has an extremely well referenced number of facts seemingly leading to one conclusion, that oddly appears to escape the authors. I think this paper was intended to be a pro-spinal manipulation review paper for physical therapists. However, unless there is some underlying satire I missed, I think they did a great job of debunking spinal manipulation. So if anyone is skeptical of my interpretations please be sure to read the article in whole for yourself and let me know if I missed anything.

    Quoted from Section 3.2 on Segmental clinical decision making:

    “This model is dependent upon accuracy in determining a dysfunctional vertebral motion segment; however, the literature suggests poor reliability of the assessment techniques. For example, poor to fair inter-rater reliability for spinal mobility testing has been observed (van et al., 2005; Seffinger et al., 2004) and these findings are not improved with training, experience or discipline (Seffinger et al., 2004; Billis et al., 2003). Additionally, the traditional clinical decision making approach necessitates the correction of a specific dysfunction with a specific technique; however, SMT is not specific to a given segment (Kulig et al., 2004; Lee and Evans, 1997). Specifically, the force of SMT is spread over multiple segments (Herzog et al., 2001) and the cavitation (or pop) frequently accompanying these interventions often occurs at segments other than the intended site (Ross et al., 2004). Furthermore, the chosen technique does not correspond to clinical outcomes. For example, clinical outcomes are similar for SMT of varying mechanical parameters (Cleland et al., 2009) and whether the specific SMT is determined by examination findings or randomly chosen (Chiradejnant et al., 2003).”

    The above all sounds right on, and in my opinion it says everything. Spinal motion can not be reliably felt or tested for by palpation, more training doesn’t help, and even if it did it still doesn’t matter because spinal manipulation can not target a specific joint anyway. In fact, cracking the back using a technique opposite of what proponents think they need to correct perceived  joint dysfunction “works” just as well. Full stop right there! In a paragraph they concisely and accurately took apart the whole charade. All they need now is a logical conclusion, but rather than coming to one they say:

    “Collectively, these studies suggest a general biomechanical effect of SMT as opposed to an effect specific to a targeted segment.”

    Biomechanical? Couldn’t it be psychological? I imagine there might be some afferent mild pain reduction due to weak exploitation of gate control theory, but a TENS machine lasts longer and a massage feels better.

    Later in section 3.3 they talk about how spine manipulation researchers started to give up on treating specific joints and figured they would just try to figure out what type of person it does works for. Citing Timothy Flynn’s paper looking at clinical prediction rules for who responds to manipulation that blinded neither patient, nor therapist, nor evaluator and didn’t include a placebo or control group. And what did he find. Patients were more likely to respond favorably to spinal manipulation if they had the following 5 characteristics, the more they had being better.

    1. pain duration of less than 16 days
    2. fear avoidance beliefs work subscale score of less than 19
    3. hip internal rotation on one side of at least 35 degrees
    4. lumbar spine hypomobility
    5. pain not extending below the knee

    The only variable that seems relevant, is (#4) lumbar hypomobility determined by a spring test, but didn’t the authors already cite research suggesting segmental testing results are unreliable? Otherwise, when I read the above prediction rules, it just sounds like people who get better with spinal manipulation are mostly people who only recently got low back pain that isn’t bothering them very much. These are exactly the kind of people I would expect to just get better anyway, regardless of how you treated them. The lack of true effect of spinal manipulation for acute low back pain was recently confirmed by researcher (and chiropractor who has manipulated a lot of spines) J. Michael Menke found when he ran the statistics on spinal manipulation, finding:

    • “96% (81/84) of acute pain improvement in the first 6 weeks was unrelated to treatment”
    • “Attention placebo nearly doubled the pB [probability of recovery] shown in the difference between attended and unattended physiotherapies…”
    • “Acute pain treatment evidence never exceeded sham”
    • “More research is not the answer. That which is already known about SMT for back pain is quantifiably all that is worth knowing.”

    The inability spinal manipulation to beat out sham treatments for acute low back pain was also confirmed in the Cochrane review, again, with the main author being a chiropractor. So come on PTs, catch up!

    Conclusion aside, I thought it was a great paper, but when you go into your physical therapy clinic, conclusion is everything. Much of the paper I couldn’t say better myself, but then the authors go on to talk about future directions, saying that more research is needed to understand the mechanisms through which spinal manipulation works, to which they all seem flabberghasted. Well, I have one idea that oddly wasn’t mentioned once in the paper…

    • It starts with a “P”
    • It rhymes with “lacebo”

    That being, the positive benefits you all see with spinal manipulation, it’s in your head, and/or it’s in your patient’s head. It’s placebo effect! Barely propped up by poorly controlled studies and likely a fair degree of publication bias. Patient expectations likely are a factor, and it’s lot easier to sell a patient on ideas that make sense rather than some nebulous general effect. Section 3.1 about segmental treatment was good science, it made sense, and unfortunately clearly pointed away from spinal manipulation really fixing anything. If it went the other way, I’d be cracking spines.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • TENS, More Electric Stimulation is Better than Less

    Adjusting pulse amplitude during transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) application produces greater hypoalgesia.Pantaleão MA, Laurino MF, Gallego NL, Cabral CM, Rakel B, Vance C, Sluka KA, Walsh DM, Liebano RE. J Pain. 2011 May;12(5):581-90.

    Abstract
    Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a noninvasive technique used for pain modulation. During application of TENS there is a fading of current sensation. Textbooks of electrophysical agents recommend that pulse amplitude should be constantly adjusted. This seems to be accepted clinically despite the fact that there is no direct experimental evidence. The aim of the current study was to investigate the hypoalgesic effect of adjusting TENS pulse amplitude on pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) in healthy humans. Fifty-six healthy TENS naïve participants were recruited and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups (n = 14 per group): control, placebo TENS, fixed pulse amplitude TENS, and adjusted pulse amplitude TENS. Both active and placebo TENS were applied to the dominant forearm. PPTs were recorded from 2 points on the dominant forearm and hand before, during, and after 40 minutes of TENS. TENS increased the PPTs on the forearm (P = .003) and hand (P = .003) in the group that received the adjusted pulse amplitude when compared to all other groups. The mean final pulse amplitude for the adjusted pulse amplitude TENS group was 35.51 mA when compared to the fixed pulse amplitude TENS group, which averaged 31.37 mA (P = .0318).
    PERSPECTIVE:
    These results suggest that it is important to adjust the pulse amplitude during TENS application to get the maximal analgesic effect. We propose that the fading of current sensation allows the use of higher pulse amplitudes, which would activate a greater number of and deeper tissue afferents to produce greater analgesia.

    My comments:

    The above was a good/strong study on optimizing the use of TENS for pain reduction. Patients were blinded and they had control, placebo, standard TENS (starting with a “strong but comfortable” current), and TENS of increasing intensity as tolerated every 5 minutes (but keeping the intensity “strong but comfortable”) over 40 minutes. The idea being that electric stimulation feels strong at first but then feels less intense as time goes on as the patients either undergo:

    • adaptation: action potentials from the electric stimulation decreases over time
    • habituation: where electric stimulation continues to cause action potentials but the central nervous system (CNS) response decreases
    • accommodation: when a rise in membrane threshold potential that is associated with slowly applied depolarization current

    In the review sections the authors noted electric stimulation machines frequently have included or allow modulation of parameters, frequency, intensity, pulse width etc., but noted that no studies had confirmed if that strategy was effective. They noted an interferential current treatment study that found that while the sensation of electric stimulation faded over time the analgesic effect did not. So that’s good news. However it has been noted in a lot of reviews of TENS treatments over the years that there was controversy as to TENS effectiveness to reduce pain. This is likely due to many of the early studies applying the TENS haphazardly, letting patients put electrodes where they want and turning up the electric stimulation to what felt good to them and in doing so it was hit or miss whether the TENS reduced pain. As such, later papers found that when TENS intensity was increased to what was “strong but comfortable” the pain reduction was increased and more reliable.

    So this paper not only started with a strong and comfortable current, but instructed subjects to increase the TENS electricity every 5 minutes over the 40 minute treatment time, and the finding was that pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) tolerated both between and distal to the electrodes was increased significantly and fairly dramatically (in comparison to controls, placebo TENS and fixed pulsed TENS). It was also interesting that strong and comfortable fixed TENS resulted ~5-13% improvements in PPTs while the intensity increasing TENS increased pain in the range of ~25-50%, with PPTs staying elevated somewhat 60 minutes after the increasing intensity TENS PPTs were still elevated.

    So the take home message with TENS is to start high and increase from there. I like TENS for pain reduction, but I can’t say I love it. Electric Muscle Stimulation (EMS) I have a lot of love for, because EMS has been shown to decrease pain better than TENS and increase muscle strength and endurance at the same time. The reason, I think, is largely because EMS is not a strong comfortable current but I tell my patients to take all they can take, which is often more than uncomfortable.  Anecdotally I get pain reductions after the EMS is removed seemingly a lot longer than I used to get with TENS, so it would be interesting to see that tested.

    Of the proposed mechanisms describing the lessening of sensation intensity to TENS over time, the authors thought habituation was the best descriptor and that increasing TENS intensity over time counteracted this by activating a greater number of afferent (nerves heading from the periphery towards the brain) fibers to enhance neurotransmitter release in the CNS. This also got me thinking about the on and off portions of EMS in comparison to TENS currents which are generally more constant. On as hard as you can take and completely off, is a pretty extreme form of current “modulation” and that might be another reason for the enhanced pain reduction seen with EMS currents. So still lots of questions, but a lot of work seems to be going into the use of TENS and EMS for rehabilitation, which dwarfs any other physical therapy modality.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • TENS Electrodes Work Best Over Muscle or Soft Tissue

    An investigation into the magnitude of the current window and perception of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) sensation at various frequencies and body sites in healthy human participants. Hughes N, Bennett MI, Johnson MI.Clin J Pain. 2013 Feb;29(2):146-53.

    Abstract
    INTRODUCTION:
    Strong nonpainful transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is prerequisite to a successful analgesic outcome although the ease with which this sensation is achieved is likely to depend on the magnitude of current amplitude (mA) between sensory detection threshold (SDT) and pain threshold, that is, the current window.

    OBJECTIVES:
    To measure the current window and participant’s perception of the comfort of the TENS sensation at different body sites.

    METHODS:
    A repeated measure cross-over study was conducted using 30 healthy adult volunteers. Current amplitudes (mA) of TENS [2 pulses per second (pps); 30 pps; 80 pps] at SDT, pain threshold, and strong nonpainful intensities were measured at the tibia (bone), knee joint (connective tissue), lower back [paraspinal (skeletal) muscle], volar surface of forearm (nerve) and waist (fat). The amplitude to achieve a strong nonpainful intensity was represented as a percentage of the current window. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance.

    RESULTS:
    Effects were detected for body site and frequency for SDT (P<0.001, P=0.018, respectively), current window (P<0.001, P<0.001, respectively), and strong nonpainful TENS as a percentage of the current window (P=0.002, P<0.001, respectively). The current window was larger for the knee joint compared with tibia (difference [95% confidence interval]=12.76 mA [4.25, 21.28]; P=0.001) and forearm (10.33 mA [2.62, 18.40]; P=0.006), and for the lower back compared with tibia (12.10 mA [1.65, 22.52]; P=0.015) and forearm (9.65 mA [1.06, 18.24]; P=0.019). The current window was larger for 2 pps compared with 30 pps (P<0.001) and 80 pps (P<0.001). Participants rated strong nonpainful TENS as most comfortable at the lower back (P<0.001) and least comfortable at the tibia and forearm (P<0.001).

    CONCLUSIONS:
    TENS is most comfortable and easiest to titrate to a strong nonpainful intensity when applied over areas of muscle and soft tissue.

    My comments:
    My observations working with TENS and EMS  are pretty much in agreement with this paper that both TENS and EMS are better tolerated if you place the electrodes over areas of muscle and soft tissue rather than directly over bone. For example, in tennis elbow it only took me a couple tries at placing an electrode directly over the painful epicondyle (pretty boney) to learn that patients just don’t like that, but if I put the electrodes over the muscle, they had a mild reduction in pain, but it also helped to increase strength. So I think the findings here of placing electrodes over areas of deeper muscle might partially explain why EMS seems to work better for pain than TENS does. With EMS, electrodes are (at least the way I do it) put over the area of greatest muscle mass, in the region I want to work, that I can find. It might also explain why my EMS protocols are well tolerated even though I don’t look for acupuncture points or motor points like some practitioners advocate.
     
    A couple other things from the paper I thought worth touching on were that they found some subjects didn’t like the higher intensity TENS on their forearm muscles, not because of discomfort from the TENS itself but because of disconcerting contractions of their fingers. I felt the same thing with my year of EMS experiment, and found that problem went away if I gripped something firm with my hand like a rolled up towel, dowel rod, or in my clinic we now have short pieces (~5” long x 2” diameter) PVC pipe to hold onto while doing TENS or EMS to the forearm. So I expect the subjects in this study could have worked to higher intensities of electric stimulation on their forearm muscles, more comfortably, if they had done the same.
     
    Last, the cited other papers indicating there were higher reductions in pain with greater current amplitudes, which agrees with a number of other papers indicating there is a dose response relationship with TENS for pain reduction, for which I have also commented on regarding advantages of EMS over TENS just due to the higher currents used. And in the same vein they also referenced 3 other papers (which I’ll be looking up) that found greater pain reduction in animal studies, where TENS activated deeper levels of muscle tissue. So the evidence continues to mount up that to get the most out of TENS you might want to make the parameters more EMS-like. Which generally isn’t too hard since better electric stimulation units have settings for both, with EMS just being a strong variant of TENS with some other simple parameter changes regarding rate, rest periods, etc.
     
    The advantage that TENS still might have over EMS is that the on periods are usually on longer, or always on, while EMS has rest periods of varying length. In my office I don’t notice the rest periods to be a problem, and I get surprising pain reduction with EMS currents with a 10-50-10 (10 seconds on, 50 seconds off, for 10 minutes) protocol, but it does make me wonder, if pain reduction is a primary goal, if shorter off times and longer on times would be better. It might not though, as I did a trial of 5-15-10 for all my physical therapy patients for a couple months, which had a greater proportion of on periods in my office, but ended up going back to 10-50-10. Patients sometimes thought that the 50 seconds rest in 10-50-10 was too long and they wanted more stimulation. I would explain that the longer rest allowed for greater recovery and a stronger following contractions during the “on” times, which they accepted pretty well, but I thought the 5-15-10 might be better. With 5-15-10, I didn’t have as much explaining to do, but subjective pain reductions seemed about the same. On myself it felt like 10-50-10 was a better workout, and I could do something with the 50 seconds off. With 5-15-10 I was just waiting for the next blast and afterwords I didn’t feel like I had worked any harder or maybe not as hard.
     
    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Electroacupuncture and Motor Points

    Bilateral effects of 6 weeks’ unilateral acupuncture and electroacupuncture on ankle dorsiflexors muscle strength: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Jan;93(1):50-5. Zhou S1, Huang LP, Liu J, Yu JH, Tian Q, Cao LJ.

    Normally I could completely disregard this paper because I am not a fan of acupuncture and agree with Colquhoun and Novella that acupuncture is theatrical placebo [free full text]. I have been meaning to blog on Colquhoun/Novella’s article itself as it is fascinating, such that I highly recommend anyone to just read it. Among MANY other critiques of acupuncture, my favorite being that Chairman Mao was quoted as saying, “Even though I believe we should promote Chinese medicine, I personally do not believe in it. I do not take Chinese Medicine.” The other notable, and relevant to this blog, finding is that 100% of articles originating in China find acupuncture to be as or more effective than anything they are comparing it too. So either, like the ghost hunters on cable TV, the Chinese are “just really good researchers” or there is some severe publication bias regarding acupuncture coming out of China.

    So the article in question deals with electroacupuncture, which is basically a TENS or EMS machine hooked up to acupuncture needles, and while I have never tried it, I don’t doubt that it works. In my experience, and in a lot of research studies (conducted outside China) TENS works some, and EMS works a lot. In this paper I think some truth slipped out (if you read the full article but not seen in the abstract) that electroacupuncture applied to the sham/fake acupuncture points actually worked better for increasing strength than did applying it to the real acupuncture points. Per their illustration, it appears that needles for the sham acupuncture points were being placed in the middle of the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle belly, while the real acupuncture points were on the medial edge of the TA muscle. So after 6 weeks of treatment 3 times per week, the real acupuncture point group increased stimulated leg strength 35%, while the contralateral (other, unstimulated) leg increased 32%. In the sham/fake acupuncture points, strength increased almost twice as much: 64% in the stimulated leg and 55% in the contralateral (other, unstimulated) leg. The acupuncture group, real acupuncture, without electric stimulation still increased strength 46 and 49% in the poked and unpoked legs respectively, which if you ask me is either Chinese bias or just the power of placebo. It’s unfortunate that they did not include a sham acupuncture/no stimulation group, and it’s a greater shame that even if they did, many would still give the study the stinkeye due to what appears to be a long history of extra-ordinary publication bias.

    Also of interest to me was the needles were placed really deep 20-30 mm, which is plus or minus an inch. The stim machines used constant-current square waveform, pulse duration of 1 ms (1000 uS, which is pretty wide), 40 hz frequency, turned up as high as was tolerable (mA reached not given). For strength I would prefer other parameters myself, but their described parameters sound like they would elicit tetanic muscle contractions that should increase strength. I was interested to know what mA they were using because I thought the needles being placed directly in the muscles might require less electric stimulation per a given contraction than with surface electric muscle stimulation electrodes that I like to use. On the other hand, I’m not sure I would want my muscle contracting very hard and scrunching up on any needle stuck 2-3 cm inside my muscle. So, I was disappointed they didn’t say, but my curiosity is mostly academic anyway as surface electrodes, such as my rubber carbon electrodes, have no trouble whatsoever eliciting very strong muscle contractions.

    This gets me to the other thing I wanted to talk about, motor points, which is an apparent point of contention. Should you put your electrodes on motor points or on the muscle belly (center) of whatever muscle or portion of a muscle you want to work? You will see charts in books or on the web showing where they think motor points are or where electric stimulation electrodes should be placed.  Motor points are individual, such that the charts probably just get you close, but you’ll often miss with small electrodes.

    I learned how to search out motor points in physical therapy school by using a special probe, or the low tech way which is to use your finger. By placing a large dispersive electrode on the patient, sticking the other electrode to the therapist’s hand then closing the circuit by wetting the finger and rubbing the finger on the patient targeted body part to find the point where they get the greatest muscle twitching you find the motor point. The good news is that IT DOES WORK, and in doing so you will find motor points where smaller amounts of electric stimulation yield better contractions. The bad news is that it’s a mildly tedious process, which in my experience isn’t worth the effort. The other good news is that with modern electric stimulators using wide pulse duration, biphasic square wave alternating current and large rubber carbon electrodes, finding motor points is, in my experience, unnecessary. The electric stimulation itself doesn’t hurt so much, it’s just the muscle contractions are so intense that it’s the contraction force that limits you rather than the tingling sensation of the electric stimulation. Hooking up a good machine like the EV-906 or a great machine like a Globus with 3.5” circular (or greater) rubber carbon electrode and muscles are going to contract muscle just fine. Plus, with motor points being all over the place, the larger electrodes you are probably covering a number of them anyway. Finally, sometimes those motor points can just be annoying. Sometimes, for example, when doing core electric stimulation where I generally put 4 of those 3.5” pads on the rectus abdominus, 2 on the obliques and 2 on the spine extensors, sometimes you will hit a spot just perfect on the rectus that feels super intense. If I am using my new favorite criss cross electrode placement (where I pair one my rectus abdominal electrode of one channel with the opposite side spine extensor or oblique) it will limit how much I can turn up that channel and how much I can therefore stimulate my back/oblique muscles. Plus, for a larger muscle areas like rectus abdominis, quadriceps, or hamstrings I like a lot of pads, 4 in fact, to most fully contract the muscles. And while I have my favorite placements, I think there is something to varying the placements and connections so the electric stimulation input isn’t always the same.

    So when I read the recent (2014) review article on motor points and electric stimulation where they conclude that it’s “essential for optimizing neuromuscular electrical stimulation use” I think ehh.  Either their settings aren’t optimal, or their pads are too small. When I went and read the paper they based their conclusions on, it turns out they were using a pulse duration of only 100 uS, and 4 cm  (area = 16 square cm) gel electrodes. Gel electrodes have been shown to be inferior in conductance and comfort to rubber carbon even when the size is equal and the size they used is 1/4 what I prefer. The 4 cm gel electrodes they used the size of the cheapest pads that come with a machine. After having tested the small gel electrodes on myself, and later on patients, I no longer use them. I favor 3.5” (~9 cm) circular pads (for general use) which have a surface area of 63 cm, about 4 times as much. So I would expect the combination of factors would explain much of why they needed to use motor points, while I don’t. So if you want to take the time to search out motor points on yourself or your patients, I say go ahead. However, if you want to save a few minutes with every application use large rubber carbon electrodes and I expect you won’t be missing much if anything. My year (plus) of using EMS on myself, and putting it on a lot of patients, I’ve tried just about everything. One last advantage I can think of about strapping on rubber electrodes is that if you don’t like where it is you can adjust it a little bit by just pushing it, while a sticky gel electrode needs to be peeled off and reapplied.

    So there’s some research that I find interesting, but due to my experience I still disregard it. If I change my mind in the future I’ll be sure to post about it.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Chiropractor Debunks Manipulation/Manual Therapy for Low Back Pain

    Do manual therapies help low back pain? A comparative effectiveness meta-analysis. Menke JM. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Apr 1;39(7) :E463-72.

    Abstract
    STUDY DESIGN:
    Meta-analysis methodology was extended to derive comparative effectiveness information on spinal manipulation for low back pain.

    OBJECTIVE:
    Determine relative effectiveness of spinal manipulation therapies (SMTs), medical management, physical therapies, and exercise for acute and chronic nonsurgical low back pain.

    SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:
    Results of spinal manipulation treatments of nonsurgical low back pain are equivocal. Nearly 40 years of SMT studies were not informative.

    METHODS:
    Studies were chosen on the basis of inclusion in prior evidence syntheses. Effect sizes were converted to standardized mean effect sizes and probabilities of recovery. Nested model comparisons isolated nonspecific from treatment effects. Aggregate data were tested for evidential support as compared with shams.

    RESULTS:
    Of 84% acute pain variance, 81% was from nonspecific factors and 3% from treatment. No treatment for acute pain exceeded sham’s effectiveness. Most acute results were within 95% confidence bands of that predicted by natural history alone. For chronic pain, 66% of 98% was nonspecific, but treatments influenced 32% of outcomes. Chronic pain treatments also fit within 95% confidence bands as predicted by natural history. Though the evidential support for treating chronic back pain as compared with sham groups was weak, chronic pain seemed to respond to SMT, whereas whole systems of clinical management did not.

    CONCLUSION:
    Meta-analyses can extract comparative effectiveness information from existing literature. The relatively small portion of outcomes attributable to treatment explains why past research results fail to converge on stable estimates. The probability of treatment superiority matched a binomial random process. Treatments serve to motivate, reassure, and calibrate patient expectations–features that might reduce medicalization and augment self-care. Exercise with authoritative support is an effective strategy for acute and chronic low back pain. [emphasis mine]

    My comments:
    This was an great paper and I think better than the Cochrane reviews I blogged on recently that questioned the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for both acute and chronic low back pain. In this paper the author J. Michael Menke, DC, PhD (I like pointing out that he’s a chiropractor) actually has both the intelligence and intestinal fortitude to follow the findings all the way towards their logical conclusion. Rather than calling for yet more research and a cost analysis, he basically said enough’s enough and why bother. He had some great quotes that I don’t think I can word any better.

    “…96% (81/84) of acute pain improvement in the first 6 weeks was unrelated to treatment. Attention placebo nearly doubled the pB [probability of recovery] shown in the difference between attended and unattended physiotherapies…”

    “Acute pain treatment evidence never exceeded sham”

    “NMC analysis of chronic pain established 98% of outcome variance, of which 32% was from treatment and 66% from everything else. Furthermore treatment evidence beat shams. Figure 2 illustrates the comparative effectiveness in g for 6 treatments of chronic pain.”

    “From 1974 to 2010, 8400 SMT patients were observed at least 13,000 times in research costing from $32 to $80 million.

    More research is not the answer. That which is already known about SMT for back pain is quantifiably all that is worth knowing.

    “When all treatments seem equally effective but none stands out, more research will not help. Under these conditions cheap treatments will always be the most cost effective. But for cost-effectiveness you first need effectiveness. What decision can be made when ineffective chiropractic care is more cost effective than ineffective medical care?

    “Social support is the long ignored link between personal responsibility and professional care. For patients coping with pain and change, psychological support is necessary. The difference between sham effect size g = 0.77 and waiting list g = -0.13 illustrates the difference between attention and neglect.”[emphasis mine]

    I don’t have a lot to add, good exercise with social support seems the way to go. I think that social support should include a fair amount of patient education about environmental influences to low back pain, how to avoid pathological stresses with better postures and motor control, both of which can be influenced positively with exercise as already mentioned.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Notes from My Year of Electric Muscle Stimulation

    “My own results have been so favorable that I am not interesting in debating whether or not EMS works but rather in optimizing the use of EMS in the training of elite athletes.” Charlie Francis

    About August or September of 2013 I got really interested in the capabilities of electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) for strengthening. I had just read the Charlie Francis training system, found  charliefrancis.com where Giovanni Ciriani was posting a lot of advanced EMS information and then some. Also I had just read the 2-part review papers in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research on EMS parameters for strength, and EMS for athletes. The Truth about EMS article by Charlie Francis on T-nation was definitely worth a read as well. So yeah Charlie Francis was pretty influential.

    I had used TENS for pain and EMS with patients with nerve damage before, having learned about both in physical therapy school, but never having been taught the real potential of either device. So learning what I had about parameters, not finding any of my current stimulators adequate, I ordered a couple machines, an EV-906 and some 2 channel Russian Stimulation unit. The Russian stimulator turned out to be weak sauce, so I sent it back, but the EV-906 turned out to be pretty good. I remember the first time I put it on my abdominal muscles and went up to about 60 mA I thought to myself, “if I turn this up anymore I’m going to have a hernia.” I had never felt an abdominal contraction that intense, and spent years working out as a competitive bodybuilder and weightlifter so hard abdominal work was something I was accustomed to.

    When reading the research, there were no long term studies with EMS for strength and fitness in normal subjects, with the longest being in the ballpark of 8-12 weeks (generally successful). There were some studies longer than a year but they were done with spinal cord injury patients (again generally successful), so I figured why not quit lifting weights for a year and try electric stimulation instead. I knew it wouldn’t be a controlled study, lots of potential confounding variables, potential for bias, etc., but I had never heard of anyone doing the same and I figured it would at least give me a general idea of what the new machines were capable of. I figured it would also help me help others with its use as I worked through the practical problems of training all major muscle groups with EMS, and help me work out what I thought were the best electrode placements, best parameters, machines, accessories etc. After about 6 months I got a Globus Genesy 1100, wondering if it was worth the extra cost (for me it was). My year was up in October of 2013 and I learned a ton by doing so. I’m currently writing a book tentatively titled Electric Stimulation for Sport, Fitness, and Rehabilitation in which I hope to combine the practical knowledge I gained on myself and working with my patients (for whom I put EMS on better than 90% of them regardless of diagnosis) integrated with what I have learned reading a considerable number of research studies.

    I’m still working on the book but I thought it would be a good idea to share the notes I took over the year regarding the things I tried and how I thought it worked.

    After one year my comments are thus:

    Overall, I thought the year was very worthwhile. Next to exercise, electric muscle stimulation is by far the most effective modality available to physical therapists. If you are a physical therapist and you don’t agree, it’s because you don’t know how to use it. Applied properly it’s immediately obvious. As Terence McKenna would say, it doesn’t require any faith.

    Results: Better than expected, I quit weightlifting and did EMS instead for my leg muscles and it seems my muscle mass and strength largely held. I was a bit disappointed in how much I was able to clean (95 kg) after having not trained in a year, but when I looked back at my workout log book I hadn’t done cleans since 2012, so I probably wasn’t lifting 115 kg (what I did in 2012) when I started the EMS near the end of 2013. My body weight dropped from 192 to 183 pounds but my percent body fat dropped from 11% to 7.15%. I’m sure the fat loss was at least as much related to diet as the the EMS towards the latter half of my year as I made an effort to eat less. So my fat free mass went from 171 lb to 170 lb after a year of electric stimulation, which is well within the margin for error in skinfold caliper measurements. If measured well, I lost 8 lb of fat and 1 lb of muscle, which I think is pretty good for a year without lifting weights. Most of my muscle circumferences changed very little, largely I think because I stopped lifting weights and started doing EMS instead so one was offsetting the other. My neck circumference increased almost a full inch, from 15 ⅞” to 16 ¾ at my peak I think because I wasn’t doing any weight training for neck and I wanted to see what EMS would do. Yes, I know that every EMS unit has a warning saying not to stim the front of the neck, and yes I placed electrodes directly over my carotid sinus. I did it often and I did it intensely just to see what would happen. Nothing bad happened to me except my neck got bigger and stronger. I don’t suggest anyone do the same based on my results as I’m just one person. I do plan on talking more about EMS to the neck in my book and in upcoming blogs, but I just wanted to let everyone know I’m aware of the recommended precautions with EMS use and sometimes I broke them on myself. I didn’t think it would be appropriate to do so on anyone else first.

    Conclusions:
    Tier 1: EMS clearly better than exercise
    Overall I thought EMS was pretty awesome (better than weights or any other exercise) for strengthening the core, in particular abdominals (for which I think any real exercise I have ever tried doesn’t even come close to EMS).

    Nothing is as good as abs, but the neck is up there. Every precaution says not to do it, but I found EMS a very effective neck strengthener, and my neck was neutral throughout, putting my cervical discs in less risk than if I had done wrestling bridges. So I’m not telling anyone else to stim their neck, everyone else it seems disagrees with me, but I do it.

    Also, I thought hand and foot intrinsic muscles were better trained with EMS than any exercise I can think of.

    Tier 2: As good or almost as good as exercise
    EMS was really good for hip muscles, quadriceps and hamstrings, probably not as good as squats, lunges and RDLs, but EMS is no slouch. Biceps, triceps, forearms, I could train real hard, but if not for my bad shoulder I would have thought it just as easy to lift weights as I thought it was a pain to one handedly strap electrodes onto my other arm. Tibialis anterior was trained really well with EMS.

    Tier 3: OK, but clearly not as good as exercise
    What makes quads and hamstrings, and most other muscles train well with EMS, is I can oppose them with some other muscle. I would generally train quads and hamstrings together, hip adductors and abductors together, abdominals and back extensors together, etc. That way, one muscle group would oppose the other and the joint would feel balanced. With calves however, the opposing muscle (tibialis anterior), no matter how hard it is stimmed can’t balance out a hard EMS-induced calf contraction, so my calf would flex hard, and even in standing would lift me off the ground. I once braced myself into my leg press and worked up to a full 120 mA on my globus, and it was intense, not pleasant, and I was there for 10 minutes, so I would have rather just done calf raises.

    The other muscle I could never get to contract well enough was pecs. I’m not sure why, but I could get fair contractions at best.

    So below you are reading my notes, written simultaneous with my stim sessions, not my recommendations. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! If you have any questions or wants some clarification, please feel free to ask.

    What happened after my year: I took a break for a while, did some EMS as I felt like it, but now I’m back doing a number of new tests on myself, looking at other applications other than strength, like making EMS cardiovascular and burning fat, plus working to make it more efficient, maybe integrating it with weights. So I’ll probably have a new set of notes next year with ideas to maybe work into my book.

    From the beginning:

    10/10/2013
    I’ve been playing with the EMS for a few weeks now, learning a lot with regards to applying it to myself for strength/fitness, and I think I better start writing down what I’m learning for posterity and to see how well it works.

    I’m definitely developing my favorite stim placements that seem to work the best, but I think it is good to change things up periodically, put stim crosswise, linear, front to back, all with efforts to target different muscle fibers. I do notice a change in DOMS after changing the position of pads and also changing the position of limbs with joints flexed or extended. Working agonist and antagonists together I’m usually able to tolerate both extension and flexion during stim relatively equal. I think ideal might be to change days with flexion, extension, and halfway in between. Maybe, as you get more used to stim, you can change position between shocks, but it’s a little inconvenient to do so when I generally do my stim sitting and watching TV.

    The idea gradually came after I read about sprint coach Charlie Francis using it with his athletes.

    Why I think I’m a particularly good subject for this “study.”

    Over the years I have accumulated a number of orthopaedic injuries that will not heal.
    I’m a physical therapist that graduated Summa Cum Laude. I know muscle anatomy as well as anybody.

    I’m a physical therapist that used to be a competitive bodybuilder and Olympic weightlifter combined for >15 years so I know strength training as well as anybody.
    While I think the weightlifting exercises has more application to sports I think my bodybuilding experience gave me more to go on regarding the effective targeting of particular muscles, and a good feeling for what exercises work exactly what muscles, and what delayed onset muscle soreness feels like for each exercise. With that, I think I can feel better than most whether a given stim pattern or intensity works a muscle or group better than others. Placebo-controlled double-blind studies would be better, but I expect it will take better than 50 years for better science to catch up, and until then, my observations are better than nothing and it will be interesting to see at a later date how much I am right and wrong about.

    Why I think my results might not be applicable to everyone.

    I have a history of A LOT of weight training so I have what is in layman’s terms called ‘muscle memory’ such that I don’t have to lift weights that much to get a good result. I’m building back muscle that I had before, which empirical evidence suggests is a lot easier than building muscle that you have never had before. I certainly notice it is easier and faster to gain strength back that I have lost, then it was to build it in the first place as I started out very ectomorphic but to look at me now, I appear to be a mesomorph.
    I had used electrical stimulation every once in a great while in PT school, and demoing stimulation on older stim units over the years and either due to a high pain tolerance, or just experience with stim, had little initial fear of turning the machine up, really high right from the start.

    My body fat was 11% which is relatively low and I have a better amount of muscle mass than average to start with, and research and anecdotal reports indicate that both should make the stimulation more effective for me that for someone with lesser muscle and greater amounts of fat.

    Since there are no long term studies on the effects of electric stimulation on regular people, I decided I would try it for strengthening instead of weight lifting for an entire year and see what I learn by doing so. I’ll just write down my observations as I go. I started stimming a few body parts in September and gradually developed a nearly whole body routine for it. I wasn’t doing much upper body weights anyway because of shoulder arthritis from an old motorcycle crash, and the shoulder limited my ability to do a lot of my favorite leg exercises like front and back squats, cleans, etc. 9/11/2013 was my last weight training workout with my legs, as it felt like the stim was working me hard enough and I wanted to see what happened. I kept doing cardio and short sprint/agility drills for the lower body for cardiovascular health and speed, and I wanted to see how the stim affected my various speed and agility drills, if it helped or hindered in comparison to when I was doing strength training.

    11/25/2013
    I noticed when I was demoing a calf stretch at the office that my calves feel tighter. I suspect it is due to doing stim with calves in neutral and contracted but never stretched. This makes me think that stim should be combined with occasional stretches, unlike weights which you can stretch during. You might also want to set up stim with muscles in a stretched position to prevent any shortening, but it could be advantageous to shorten an overstretched muscle, maybe, as I had theorized about before to foot intrinsics and posterior tib muscles in a contracted position.

    11/26/2013
    Neck circumference has increased ⅜” larger from 15 ⅞” to 16 ¼”. I think my neck circumference is going to be a good baseline measurement since I don’t do any other exercises that work it, unlike my legs where I do sprints, bike, and stepmill.

    11/28/2013
    Stimmers are getting twitchy. I can’t tell if it is the wires or pads. I suspect the pads, as it seems to be happening on various machines, but sometimes the pads I think are bad still work when I try them later.

    12/4/2013
    A while into it I decided my rear delts were visually under developed and likely my external rotators of the shoulder so, I decided to make upper body just rear delts, later adding the external rotators as I could feel my shoulder was better stabilized when I did so. Just rear delts alone felt like my shoulder was subluxing, but adding the infraspinatus and teres minor at the same time made the contractions felt stronger and the shoulder joint more stable. I’ll definitely keep that in mind going forward when doing FES on shoulder patients. If and when my rear delts look symmetrical with the front I’ll do a more balanced upper body routine.

    12/4/2013
    Repeated and pretty strong DOMS makes me think that DOMS is not only caused by eccentric contractions. Also, pretty good soreness 48 hours after makes me think that 2 days rest between workouts might be as good or better. As I recall, there is research that says 3x per week treatment works better than 2 times per week, but perhaps as you take more intense stimulation, combined with more muscle/less body fat, would make 2.5 times per week as good or better, like how a powerlifter or bodybuilder often ends up training each bodypart less frequently as he advances in strength/muscle mass. Soreness is definitely not as bad as you go and you continue to train just as with weightlifting, but you definitely feel it if you miss a week and return, just like weightlifting. DOMS really feels like what you get after intense weightlifting. I will have to research.

    I have noticed my patients who are not strong and max out the machine on the first day never complain of muscle soreness afterwards. I think either because the smaller/sicker muscles/nerves don’t react as well to the stim, or the lesser muscle muscle mass does not contract hard enough to get sore. I’ve observed this in older patients especially who were relatively lean, in the calf/TA region. While the younger girls can’t take the intensity.

    12/23/2013
    So I’ve been running 2 EMS units with a total of 8 channels and 16 pads for a couple weeks. I used to think I would want to run 3 machines with a total of 12 channels but I think managing the wires would be near impossible with 3 machines. With 2 machines it’s doable and cuts down your workout time considerably but managing the wires is tedious. Such that it makes you more likely to just skip a workout and put it off until tomorrow. Doing small muscle groups, like neck or rear delts, that only requires 2 or 1 channels seems really easy so I at least am a lot less likely to procrastinate.

    1/29/2014
    I think electric stimulation is a bit like exercise in general, as easy as you make it, it’s still something you need to make time for and if you start missing workouts you can get out of the habit. Training core, abs in particular is really easy but lets admit that it is a bit of a PITA and hurts more at high intensity if you don’t do it regularly.

    Regarding neck training, I am still unable to find any studies or even case reports indicating any deleterious events putting over your SCM muscle/carotid sinus, but I did have some neck pain for a day after a hard session, likely from not keeping my neck “neutral” when the hard contraction went. In follow up sessions I have been careful to keep my neck strait during the contractions and to let my shoulders shrug up rather than resisting the motion as it seems to put more compression on the neck. Also, tonight I tried a diagonal electrode placement with channel 1 being on the right-front and left-back of my neck and channel 2 being on the left-front and right-back, which felt more even to me and better on the neck, than my prior method of channel 1 being right and left-front and channel 2 being right and left-back.

    I still haven’t found a better machine than my EV906 for the price, or for more than the price, but one of my patients told me they noticed that the machine worked harder when plugged into an outlet rather than when using batteries. Testing it on myself, it feels like he is right. Next time I think about it I will try testing batteries vs outlet on my voltmeter and see if it measures different. [measured ~10% stronger when plugged in]

    Also, a number of my patients have been bringing in their TENS machines and it seems they are all pretty powerful, and equal to the EV906, but what none of them have done so far is have 4 channels so you can work an adequate number of muscles at once, and more importantly, none of them let me vary the contraction time on and time off to prevent fatigue and get the contraction I want for strength, muscle hypertrophy, and pain relief. My patients are consistently reporting that the classic Russian stim pattern of 10 seconds on, 50 seconds off, for 10 (11 or 12) repetitions decreases pain better than traditional high or low frequency TENS patterns, such that I think it would make for a pretty interesting study.

    Last, at this point I am three for three on eliminating or significantly reducing migraine headache pain with the Russian stim pattern at the highest intensity tolerated, with 2 pads on the suboccipital region. Patient one reported 10/10 pain reduced to 0/10, patient two said her pain went from 8 to 2/10, and patient 3 reported pain went from 4/10 to 0/10 and vision problems completely cleared. I’ll continue to record the results going forward with anyone I know with a headache.

    3/14/2014
    I got the flu, got a new office manager and had 2 large pistol matches to prepare for, so I have been slacking on the EMS this last month. So as I mentioned before it’s just like exercise, and in the last month I haven’t been doing my cardio either. I kept up pretty well on my neck and rear delt stim. Just like exercise the smaller body parts are more convenient to train.

    Also, I tried 4 electrodes on hamstrings today and only 2 on quads. It felt like a significantly stronger contraction in the hamstrings so if hams are a relative weakness, they might be worth 4 pads. I recently tested my ham/quad ratio and had a .59 which is weaker than I would have expected, though I had been doing 4 pads on quads and 2 pads on hams since September ,so maybe that’s to be expected. I think going forward I will alternate 4 on quads and 2 on hams, and vice versa.

    I’m also thinking, and today experimenting with an optimal lower leg pad placements. I put black pad over posterior tib and red under central dorsum of the foot. It feels good, but I also want calf and TA involved but I just trained calves and want to see if I have any differing DOMS so I am doing my right foot only for the foot and posterior tib muscle. I worked to 100 mA with foot flat on the floor in sitting which feels pretty strong. Also, I want to budget 4 pads per leg, I kind of want two pads on calves and one on TA, so I will have to give something up, probably a calf pad. For patients I will likely budget the calf vs TA strength with regards to the relative strength of their calf and TA. I don’t think the stim pattern is worth it for me, but I am just experimenting for use in patients with neuropathy, posterior tib tendinopathy, and acquired flat foot deformity.

    Still, I don’t know if my “10-on, 50-off” is best, but I tried a “3-on, 10- or 15- (can’t remember) off” on core 3 weeks back and had increased soreness after, but I will try again after a few steady 10-50 treatments. It might be good to change it up to prevent adaptation and to perhaps train more muscular endurance instead of strength.

    Still, I need to come up with faster and more convenient ways to apply pads, but my new 4” straps without buckles are pretty effective, the best I have used thus far.

    3/15/2014
    Follow up on yesterday’s stimulation of posterior tibial tendon and sole of foot on the right compared to the left. Both have mild DOMS, so I think the electrode placement was effective in comparison to just putting 2 pads on the gastrocnemius. Probably a good bit of the lower calf DOMS is the soleus muscle as the pad is right over it as well in attempt at targeting the posterior tibial muscle. Seems like it might be effective if I were looking to treat/prevent plantar fasciitis/posterior tibial tendinopathy/acquired flat foot deformity. I think the goal would be to start the stim at the first sign of PF or PTT, before the two degenerate into AFFD. I do want to investigate the role that the tibialis anterior plays in these conditions to see if it is worth placing an electrode over that muscle as well.

    3/18/2014
    I revisited large carbon electrodes (4” diameter circle) vs small sticky ones (1.5” square) that come with the machine). Left hip I put the carbon, right hip the sticky one’s. I was able to get to 100 mA intensity faster with the larger electrodes, but I still got there with the smaller one, but it had more of a stinging sensation and it felt like the muscle contractions were not as strong. The differences were smaller than I expected, however, it felt like the smaller pads just hit a smaller area of muscle. At this point I’m becoming fairly insensitive to stim, and can take more amperage than most of my coworkers or patients, so I’ll do a bit more experimenting on them, probably having them put 2 pads on each calf muscle with the large and small pads and record what intensity they reach on each, and have them rate the pain and contraction intensity on a 10-point scale.

    3/21/2014
    So I think I have figured out how you can tell when your rubber carbon electrodes are wearing out: the stim starts to sting. I think I noticed it over the last couple sessions, but today’s core workout definitely had stinging under the electrodes. I even re-wet them, and they still stung. I didn’t quite make it to 100 mA either in my workout due to the stinging, and afterwards I had some redness of my skin, which looks like irritation that I never used to get. So I’m going to continue using these electrodes for my next workout and if they sting at the start, I’m going to replace them and see if that fixes the problem. I’ve probably been using these electrodes for a couple months now, so if I replace them I will track how many uses I get out the the next ones. I’ve heard varying recommendations on the web about how often they should be replaced and have had some in my clinic I used for years, so it will be interesting to get some actual use data out of them, and maybe compare brands to see if there is a difference. I did notice that I was able to ruin some real fast by washing them with alcohol and various disinfectants.
    … follow up, I just replaced the pads that stung, 2 of them, and it felt better. Cheaper than replacing them all.

    3/24/2014
    I got a Globus MyStim to play with. It’s not programmable but I learned a lot about it running through all 55 programs yesterday on my left calf while riding on a jeep trip with my girlfriend. Initial impressions are that it feels like a high quality unit, but the fact that it is not programmable is very annoying. Also, I think the number of programs is a marketing ploy as many of them feel the same and are just minor variations between various and common forms of TENS and EMS. Still, there are some things I like, such that if it were programmable it would be a favorite. Since it is not, I still prefer my EV-906.

    What I thought I would test was the concept, I think called cronaxie (?) that says that legs require a greater pulse width and arms a lesser one, such that pulse widths should vary and this is why the Globus and Compex units have differing programs for upper and lower body and sometimes different individual muscles depending on which unit you buy and how many programs it has. I have not seen anything in the research about optimizing chronaxie, but rather the fact that a longer pulse width delivers more current to the muscle and should result in a better contraction per mA regardless of the muscle. So I’m hooking up the Globus to my biceps and triceps right now and will run the upper and lower body. Program 21 (increasing mass lower limbs) I was able to work up to 61 mA, and it felt really strong. Program 32 (increasing mass upper limbs and pecs) I got to 70 mA and it felt about as strong. Maximal power lower limbs (program 7) it got to 50 mA, and Maximal power torso and upper limbs (program 10) I got to 76 mA. Putting the machine on my calf muscle and repeating the above…

    program 32 – 68 mA
    program 21 – 54 mA
    program 10 – 69 mA
    program 7 – 61

    EV-906 @ 300 uS on calf (without changing the pads) 100 mA (pretty strong but maybe 90% of what I felt with the Globus
    EV-906 @ 50 uS on calf was anemic and just caused a mild muscle contraction, but that contraction increased rapidly as I ramped up to 300 uS, which is where the EV-906 maxes out.
    EV-906 on biceps/triceps I got to 86 mA at 300 uS before I had to stop due to wrist pain from intense UE contraction
    EV-906 to biceps/triceps at 50 uS I got to 39 mA before I could even feel a mild tingle and at 100 mA I felt a mild contraction of biceps/triceps but I’m typing this with both hands with it on, and I was able to ramp up to 270 uS before my tolerance was reached. Every 10 uS jump (the intervals on the EV-906 machine) lead to a pretty noticeable increase in muscle contraction, which felt at least equal to a 10 mA increase in intensity.

    The Globus pulse width is supposed to max out at 450 uS, and I think that is where the extra power comes from, but with the machine being non-programmable, you don’t know what you are getting with each program. So I wish Globus, and probably Compex too (though I have yet to use one) would make their low price electric stimulators programmable, as obviously Everyway Medical can for a fraction of the cost. Or I would like Everyway Medical to increase the limits of its pulse width to 450 mA.

    So I conclude that pulse width (uS) is just as important amplitude (mA) for eliciting muscle contractions, and I suspect for lessening pain for TENS treatments, and that this is the same regarding UE and LEs, with more being better than less if you hope to increase muscle, strength and lessen pain.

    Someone has probably already done this work, but mA x uS probably yields some value with relation to effect and it would be interesting to know if there is any optimization to be had. If not done, this would make for a really good study. I’ll have to do a search to see if it has been done.

    3/25/2014
    Globus is “symmetric biphasic” alternate current ,which I gather means the alternating current is equal both positive and negative. When I step on my flip flop electrodes the amount of stim in each foot feels equal. The EV-906 and most other EMS/TENS units I have used is “asymmetric biphasic” alternate, which in practice means that the negative (black) electrode causes a stronger muscle contraction than the positive (red) electrode which feels weaker. So in practice I generally put the black electrode on the larger muscle or over the muscle I am trying harder to bring up. I know some research on wound healing and transcranial electric stimulation specifies placements of negative and positive electrodes, so that might be a plus for the asymmetric biphasic currents though I have not yet done much research into the latter. For general strengthening I don’t think that it makes a lot of difference one way or another. I’ve been using the asymmetric currents for 7 months now and they are plenty effective.

    I tried Globus “max power lower extremity” on core today. It was pretty strong. I skipped the warm-up, skipped the cool-down and worked to 45 mA on abs and 58 on obliques and lumbar. At the last minute I upped it to 48 and 61 mA. I’m sure I could work to more, but I’m pretty sure I could not max it out. The recover pulses between intense stims are a bit annoying. I do like the ability to increase the intensity on all the channels together and I like how the stim stays on when doing so, so you don’t have to change from S to C or get the increases done during a burst like on the EV-906. The rest periods feel awfully short though so this feels like a lot more work than doing 10-10-50. 6 seconds on-15 seconds off, feels like it would build more endurance than power however. Hips I started off at 45 mA and worked up to 60 mA.

    Rate feels considerably lower on their muscle/power building programs than the 120 Hz I program in per Charlie Francis’ recommendations on his sprinters.

    I just did a right calf intensity test with EV-906 and got to 100 mA and it felt like a pretty strong contraction. Tried my new sample 4 channel EMS and it pushed my leg back at 100 mA and it felt real strong. Then I did the same with my Globus MyStim and full weight on my right leg and it lifted me up involuntarily on my toes that I could not come down on and cramped up the calves the 2nd interval such that I had to turn it off, so it’s a lot stronger at 100 mA. I think I will have to get a programmable Globus like the Genesy 500 Pro, which maxes out at 120 mA and I feel that will be strong enough that I might never max it out. All the machines at 100 mA were comfortable, maybe the Globus was the most by a little bit, with the muscle cramping being what caused the majority of the discomfort. I would like to try out the Globus on more of my patients with nerve damage.

    3/26/2014
    Globus MyStim workout on quads and hamstrings. Since my calves are both sore from all the testing I have done over the last couple days, today I’m training both quads and hams, 4 pads, each in a diagonal pattern for the first time with the Globus. With my EV-906 I get a great workout and can set the pattern I want, but I am able to max out the machine at 100 mA but just barely. With the Globus on program 7, (skipping the warmup and cool down) I was able to tolerate 46 mA on quads and 33 mA on hams and work to 63, 63 quads and 54, 61 mA hams.

    4 pads on the quads and 4 on the hams with the knee extended feels pretty good. The contraction feels balanced with minimal knee stress. It makes me think this might be the way to go going forward, as the most pain during leg strengthening is the cramps you get in the calves. I’m too lazy to stand such that my bodyweight helps to prevent the calf strain for my right leg and left leg separate, but maybe combined will be worth it and I’ll have 2 more electrodes per leg to put on the tibialis anterior and soleus/posterior tibialis. So, I’ll try that out next time, as well as try 1 on the gastroc, one on the posterior tibialis, one on the anterior tibialis and one on the foot intrinsics. My plan is to try each one one leg and see which feels like the best workout.

    One thing I am noticing about the Globus preset programs on the MyStim, is that the short rests and frequent contractions are mentally fatiguing compared to the 10-10-50 I prefer. I’m not sure at this point if there is any more gain to go with the increased frequency of pain.

    3/29/2014
    I’m nowhere close to maxing out the Globus MyStim on intensity on program 7 on core. I think I got up to the 60’s on low back and obliques. Glutes I started at 50 and hip in and out’s at 40, working up to 65-55.

    I do notice with the power program on the globus with the short rests that my muscles fatigue faster, and it seems I can then turn the machine up more. So I’m not sure if that’s good or not. The Russian stim parameters 10-50-10 give you more rest so each contraction hits harder as the muscle fibers are better rested. The Globus Mystim power duty cycle has less rest such that the fibers fatigue faster, but maybe that is good because you can turn up the machine intensity more, perhaps hit deeper muscle fibers, more fatigue those fibers and get more results in strength, power, hypertrophy, etc. Unfortunately I am unaware of any research that compares the different duty cycles to see which results in better gains. Presumably the Russians (Kotz) did such research, but none of that is available in english that I have found. I’ve seen a couple summaries but even they were sketchy. Charlie Francis had a lot to say about the good results his athletes got with the Russian 10-50-10.

    3/30/2014
    I’m trying criss cross (front to back) on right thigh using program 7 with Globus MyStim, 35 mA to 50. Mid-thigh contractions maybe felt a bit soft compared to keeping channels on the front and back separate. My right thigh certainly felt fatigued afterwards. Criss cross (front back & top bottom) seems to get a lot of lateral contraction and contraction directly under the electrodes, but almost none in mid thigh. I don’t see any definition in the mid-quad and it is palpably soft. It didn’t feel as comfortable either as (criss cross front and back) or (criss cross high and low, still my favorite). It feels like it has hyperextended my knee and you can’t control quads vs ham contraction as precisely as when keeping the channels paired on each muscle. I started with 25 mA and worked up to 43 mA.

    Calf, feet, TA and TP. TA on right: start 20 mA, heels started to lift at 35 mA, worked to 46 mA. Right foot toes curling more. Right foot had calf and posterior tib paired together and foot-TA paired. I think it would be good to try to pair calf-TA, and foot-PT and see how that feels next time. I do think having the TA stimmed separate will help with Acquired Flat Foot Deformity (AFFD), plantar fasciitis, and PT tendinopathy, not to mention balance and neuropathy. 2 pads on the foot as I had done before seems like it might be overkill given the small amount of muscle there. I still hate to lose 2 pads on the gastroc, but maybe a larger electrode there might get more muscle fibers as it does not seem like I am lacking for mA with the Globus. 14” strap works well on the foot, and 3” strap when doubled around barely makes it on me so probably a 4 foot strap could be kept looser making application of the pads easier.

    I will see if there is any diff in DOMS tomorrow for both thighs and lower legs.

    4/1/2013
    Hamstrings are a little sore from 2 days ago, calves real sore, but can’t feel any difference between right and left. The pad on my gastroc was put central on muscle and that’s where the muscle soreness is with palpation, not on medial and lateral gastroc where there previously would be a pad each.

    4/3/2014
    My-Stim program 7 on neck, worked up to 45 mA. Warmup and cooldown on neck are annoying.
    Post delt 59 mA, wrist extensors and hand 30 mA on left. Left wrist was sore afterwards even with electrode on extensors. On my right forearm I placed an electrode on the extensors and flexors, skipped the hand, and got to 58 mA on the forearm. I had only slight wrist pain afterwards (I think from prior workouts where I isolated one side). My hand intrinsics felt like they were contracting but not as much as with the grip electrode, grip pressure was immense and a hand grip to prevent finger cramping was absolutely mandatory. The metacarpal region was a little sore afterwards so I think the increase on time of program 7 might be overkill, and I think it might be better to try a split electrode on the forearm (front and back) shared with a grip electrode on the hand (or vice versa) for the best of both worlds, and lower the frequency of contractions 10-50-10 to prevent overstressing the joints of the hands. Good thing my Globus Genesy 1100 is supposed to arrive today, which like my EV-906 and unlike my My-Stim, is programmable.

    4/4/2014
    I did calves program 7, 51 mA at start, with 2 pads lateral on calves. It lifts me up on toes partially while standing, and I worked to 75 mA. Next time I will try this same pattern on calves with other channel on foot intrinsics and TA. It might be best to skip stim on PT unless there is indication of flat foot, PTT, or PF. Quads sore from yesterday, perhaps from switching back to x pattern stim on them, and perhaps from stimming them with knees flexed ~90 degrees. Hamstrings are not that sore though, when stimmed with same pattern, whatever that means.

    I stimmed core start at 40 mA and worked to 50 on front and 55 on back and sides. Hips 50 mA to 57.

    4/5/2014
    I just got a Globus Genesy 1100 in the mail today. I programmed 10-50-12 into it with a 1 second ramp, 120 Hz and 450 uS. Rest has a 1 Hz mild pulse that I can’t figure how to get rid of, but I guess I can live with that. For some reason it lists 51 seconds rest, but maybe it counts the 1 second rest on to that. I guess I’ll see by doing. I got rid of the warm up and got my workout time down to 12 minutes so that’s cool.

    Thigh workout today, did calves yesterday, which is out of sequence so I will have to get the back with thighs, but I guess it doesn’t matter if I do them with abs and hips. The right started at 30 mA and worked to 46, the left from 30 to 50 mA. Immediately afterwards my thighs felt deeply fatigued, maybe more than with the longer program 7 on the My-Stim. I only got to 50 mA, which is far short of the 120 mA the machine goes to, so I don’t see myself maxing it out any time soon, if ever.

    On my first time doing stim on abdominals I was able to reach _____. It felt like the hardest abdominal contractions I have ever felt and like I was going to get a hernia if I turned the machine up any further.

    4/6/2014
    I did my neck with Genesy 1100, put channel 1 on front and channel 2 on back, as opposed to my normal criss cross pattern on neck. I don’t feel a lot of difference either way, maybe because it’s a lot of electrodes in a small area. I started with 30 mA, with my favorite program 10-50-12, and I like that the machine tells you where you are with seconds countdown. I have mixed feelings about the 10 seconds on getting extended because I add intensity during the burst. I got to 36 on the front, and had to back down to 33 because I felt like it was going to dislocate my hyoid. My back got to 40 mA without much problem. I felt like if I went to 120 mA I would likely injure something, so people should keep safety in mind, and with the neck, if the stim wants to shrug your shoulder, let them shrug.

    Going back to 10-50-12, the muscle hit harder each time, but you don’t end up turning the machine as high (because those muscles are hitting harder) so it might be good to do some workouts with shorter rest periods, so you can tolerate more current and thus reach deeper untapped muscle fibers, perhaps.

    4/7/2014
    Core- 30 mA front, 40 mA sides and back to 43-53 mA. Hips started at 40 mA, worked to 45 mA..

    4/8/2014
    Calves worked to 53 mA, TA and foot to 35 mA. Quads and hams in the 40’s.

    I think with the Genesy 1100 every time you up the contraction intensity it adds 2 seconds to your contraction time.

    4/9/2014
    Neck, criss cross to 35 mA. Post delt 48, forearm front and back 39 mA. No wrist pain.

    4/10/2014
    Core 34, hips 40 mA

    4/14/2014
    I did quads 10-50-12 and worked from 45 to 50 mA. I noted that quads do seem to fatigue during the last 4 seconds of the 10 second contraction. Maybe 6 seconds on would be better. For calves (lateral), TA and foot, I got to 59 and 38 mA, respectively. mA limitation on feet is not pain but the ability to keep the stable even when leaning against the wall. Contractions on calves and feet don’t seem to fatigue like the thighs do, but that may be because I’m not able to get a maximum contraction. (I will try braced on leg press at work and see how much I lift, but I don’t think that will be practical.

    I think the best pattern for feet and calves, with 4 electrodes, is to do a pad each on foot (I will try flip flops next) and TA each time, and alternate between lateral and vertical alignment on calves.

    I’ve been working on a forearm pattern and 2 pads on extensors and 1 gripper and one pad on flexors works really well without being overpowering. Next time I will try 2 pads on the flexors and one each on extensors and hand, but I’m not sure if the flexors will overpower the hands that way.

    My body weight is 190 today and I’m starting creatine today to see what happens when combined with ES.

    4/16/2014
    Today I did posterior shoulders, forearms and hands. My fingers feel uncoordinated several minutes after stim and it is mildly difficult to type. My shoulders got to 60 mA and felt really strong with the Genesy 1100. Hands and forearms I paired hand grip with extensor pad, and 2 pads on forearms and it worked really well. I got to 32 mA (flexors) and 34 mA on grip and extensors on left and 38-38 mA for both on right. The stim felt reasonably balanced and flexors did not overpower extensors even with the 2 pads on the flexors, if anything my wrist felt biased into extension. Even with fairly neutral force felt across the wrist, the intensity I was at put me on the edge with regards to mild wrist strain/pain.

    My entire upper back felt fatigued after just doing my basic posterior delt program at 60 mA with 1100 with 450 uS width contractions.

    I missed a day training so today I’m doing 2 workouts.

    For core I got to 50 mA in the front, 55 on the sides and back, and it felt really strong but I could have suffered through more. Hips started at 40 mA and stayed there because I was reading, but I could have and should have moved up.

    Thinking about an optimal pattern for dysphagia, I think you would maybe want a 1-2 seconds ramp up, 2-3 seconds on, half second ramp down and 5-10 seconds rest for 12-15 minutes.

    The first try was at a 2 second ramp, 3 second contraction, 1 second down ramp and 10 second rest for 12 minutes (with 300 uS and 120 Hz so I could compare apples to apples between Globus and EV) felt on the money. I started at 25 mA and worked up pretty steady to 50 mA as muscles fatigued and I could take more stim without cranking my neck (at 50 mA I started feeling sensations traveling up to my ears that remained for the last few minutes). If treatment was longer I probably could have gone higher, but I can’t imagine I would need to for effective swallowing treatment, perhaps done daily. I would expect this to be considerably more effective than the Vitalstim machine/program used for dysphagia. This pattern felt like it might be good for headaches as well.

    The above pattern worked on my first 2 headaches and decreased pain, but when I tried it with EV, the on time felt a lot less than stated on the machine so it didn’t feel like what I programmed into Genesy. When I set the ramp of EV to 2s and on time to 6s, off 10s it felt about right and was on for what I timed as 6 seconds total, including ramp. It felt comfortable though up to 60 or so mA ,and I tried over my Adam’s apple to simulate dysphagia placement. It felt like it was doing something different and I worked up to 81 mA. My throat was kind of sore and tender after, so maybe it did something. 2 pads on front didn’t feel that strong. I think criss-cross front and back of neck like my normal thing feels like the best combination of comfort and intensity, but if patients have their own home machine they could try all the placements on different days if they wanted.

    4/17/2014
    My theoretical dysphagia program yesterday worked pretty well as I have pretty good DOMS throughout my neck and upper traps. Today I’m training legs with my current preferred criss cross pattern of 4 electrodes on both quadriceps and hamstrings. I’m doing it with the knee flexed better than 90 degrees sitting at a couch as I type this. I do think changing the joint angle changes the effects of the stim and better strengthens the muscle through a full range of motion, quads contracted and hamstrings stretched one day and the opposite the next. I was able to start at 30 mA for 10-50-12 and worked to 45 quads and 40 hams in that position by the finish on my right. My left started at 33 mA and worked to 51 and 43.

    4 electrodes on the quads and 4 on the hamstrings at the same time does feel “right”, it feels balanced and more comfortable than when I was alternating which muscle got 4 and 2 before, and I think this will correct the muscle imbalance I was getting by always doing 4 on quads and 2 on hamstrings. The downside is I don’t have 2 free pads to put on calves. Speaking of calves, I did the vertical arrangement on gastroc and soleus/post-tib combined with TA and flip flop pads for feet. The flip flop pads felt pretty good, but the setup was a PITA because I had to change out the 2 electrodes, keep my wires straight and use another strap to hold the PT electrode in place. I think that’s the major challenge going forward with electric stim for fitness, making all the hook-ups fast, easy, and still effective. Standing against the wall while hooking up pads on feet will be challenging for those with LBP so its probably best done in sitting on your couch or heavy chair that you can stand and lean against once it’s all set up.

    I learned that the Globus does not currently let you alternate between channels like my EV does, which is too bad because on calves, even when standing, the Globus picks me up on my toes limiting how intense of stim I can take, so I figured if I alternated between channels I could put all my weight on one foot as the stim activates to better hold me down, then shift that weight over the other foot when it goes. My EV-906 let me alternate, but I never needed to do so as the intensity wasn’t enough to pick me up when standing. The EV-906 felt plenty intense however when sitting or having my foot braced against my coffee table, so I think the discomfort felt when doing so was the muscle cramping rather than contracting or the amount of stim.

    My forearm flexors have moderate DOMS from yesterday’s EMS session, unlike a lot of my other muscles my forearms almost never get sore, so I think the pad placement I did will be my new standard unless I come up with something better.

    4/18/2014
    My quads are super sore today upon awakening from yesterday’s EMS session. The only thing different from usual was having the knees flexed during treatment thus stimming the muscle fibers from a more stretched position, and maybe changes which muscle fibers/motor nerves are within the electrical field. This further confirms my thoughts that stim should be done periodically from different joint angles and perhaps different pad placements. The pad placements I’m a bit conflicted on, however, as I do develop my favorites and I don’t like to spend as much time trying things that don’t feel like they work as well.

    I’m raining core today and trying a vertical rather than criss cross pattern on rectus abdominus and will see if that feels different tomorrow. It feels like a good workout today, but no better than usual.

    I started at 35 mA and worked up to 50 mA on Globus Genesy 1100.

    The battery charge indicator is at ~⅓, which seems more graduated than the Globus My-Stim which shut off soon after it indicated a half charge. I haven’t had to recharge it since I purchased it on 4/4/2014. Not too graduated though because it went from ⅓ to none during my following 10 minute treatment, still stimming strong though with 3 minutes to go so we’ll see if it lets me finish, then I’ll charge it full. Made it. CHARGE AT ~⅓!

    4/20/2014
    Using the Genesy 1100 on my neck I started at 30 mA, and progressed to 35 (I felt the stim go into my teeth). Perhaps this was a bit much as I felt a lot of compression. The left delt I started at 55 mA and on my forearm and grip started at 35 mA working up to 58/38 mA.

    4/21/2014
    My quads are still a little sore from the last time. I trained with knees extended this time and got to 50 mA, calves,TA/feet to 45 mA.

    4/26/2014
    For lower legs, I think my favorite is 2 pads lateral on each calf, 1 on TA and 1 on the sole of the foot. I worked to 56 mA on calves and 42 mA on feet. It uses 2 straps: one for feet and one for calves and TA. If I go with a vertical placement on calves, I would need a third strap which is a PITA to put on. Doing the stim against a couch seems most practical, better than a wall because it’s easier to put the pads on and you can sit down between bursts if you want. With the calves up against the couch it helps to stabilize you during the burst. Still, I lift up on toes uncontrollably around 50 mA, so a better way of bracing would let you work the muscle harder without cramping. I would maybe have to do that on a leg press or calf machine, but that’s not practical for home use. I do think I could take a lot more stim if I could better stabilize my ankles during the stimulation.

    For my neck I did 5-20-12. I changed to try some other parameters, still 450 uS, 5 on 20 off. 150 Hz didn’t feel much different than 120 but more comfortable than 75 for which you can feel the separate impulses. They don’t hurt, but a higher rate feels more smooth. A 2 second ramp feels less sudden and more comfortable than 1 second. I started at 35 mA, moved to 41 mA.

    I tried another forearm pad placement and it felt both balanced and effective. I paired 2 pads on on prox fl and ex and another pair on grip and distal flexor. I worked to 41 mA on the forearms and I got to 62 mA on rear delt/infraspinatus placement. It is normal for me to get higher with the shoulder than the forearms, which is the opposite of what I feel when I do proximal leg vs calves. Though forearms may be limited more by too much stim causing wrist joint strain, rather than stim tolerance of muscles. Still, I’m nowhere close to maxing out my Genesy 1100.

    With 5 on 20 off you certainly feel like you are working harder, and the time passes slower than with 10 on 50 off. I’m not sure if it works better, or if it is good to alternate between different programs.

    4/28/2014
    My wrist extensors are moderately sore from last time’s session. It may be something to new stim pad placements; it may be new favorite.

    5/1/2014
    Doing core with Genesy 1100, what can I get to? Start at 50 mA, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 75, 75, 75, 80, 80, 80 mA. With more time, I think I could have worked to 85 mA, but I think you can only do that as muscle fibers fatigue and thus give more force. At 85 mA I felt some stinging under the electrodes, but not bad at all, the thing that kept me from going higher was just the overall force of the contractions, which felt like an extreme valsalva maneuver. Contraction intensity felt extreme the whole way from 50 mA, up. I imagine blood pressure increases considerably during. Inhalation is out of the question during contractions. I didn’t feel like I was going to tear muscles and get a hernia like it did when I first started. It will be interesting to see if and how sore my abs get after, as the highest I have been with the Genesy 1100 prior on core was 50 mA on front and 55 mA on back. Thinking about gate control theory of pain, I should say that when the 80 mA was going, it constituted 100% of my attention span for those 10 seconds. I would have to think that nociceptive fibers would have no chance of being noticed under such a barrage. I’m becoming of the opinion based on experience and research, that if you are going to exploit gate control theory to reduce pain, EXPLOIT THE THEORY.

    Hips got to 45 mA.

    5/2/2014
    I woke up today and my abs are pretty sore (DOMS). Not extreme, but I can definitely tell yesterday’s core workout did more than usual. I will see if it gets worse tomorrow. As the day went on they got a bit more sore, but not really suffering.

    I did my right thigh with my knee flexed to 90 degrees, what can it get to? Start at 30 mA, 33, 35, 42 quads/40 hams. (When my hamstrings felt cramped I was able to increase quads a lot, then it felt more comfortable to increase hams), 45/40, 50/45, 53/48, 55/50, 60/55, repeat (that’s it). Left 36/31 (I noticed having x-electrode placement across quads, my intermedius does not appear to be contracting as hard as the quadrants, maybe I need to find a more medial dead center placement at least once in a while, maybe arrange electrodes in a + pattern rather than x.) 44/37, 50/37, 53/38, 60/42, 65/47, 70/52. All contractions were real strong, but I didn’t go to where I was climbing the walls.

    Bilateral calves, TA and foot intrinsics, unsupported, what can I get to? 21 mA, 22, calves/TA feet 30/22 (sucks!), (sucks!), (sucks!). I’m not moving up because it feels like it’s going to break my left big toe. Unsupported might help to build arch. I tried again after and got to 35 mA pretty easy with calves turned off, and toes went more into extension than hyperflexion. Maybe for fallen arches it would be good to stim unsupported. I’m not sure about adding a pad to TP muscle unsupported though. I will have to try that later. The foot sure curls up though with one pad on the instep and another on TA.

    Cosmetically I notice my rear delts have come up a long way. Not quite as full as I want, but I would say about 80%. I might start increasing the reach of my upper body workouts now that weakness is nearly brought up.

    5/3/2014
    My abs are still sore today, but no worse. My legs are sore but not extreme. I trained neck and was getting a pretty good jolt. I increased preset ramp time from 1.0 to 1.5 sec on my 10-50-12 program. I started at 35 mA and worked up to 50 mA, which was made a lot easier with the extra half second ramp. At 45 mA my ears were ringing. At 50 it tickled my throat and caused me to cough once per contraction. With the slight increase in ramp time, the higher intensity felt a lot more gentle with regards to my cervical vertebrae. My work stimulators don’t have as fine an adjustment of ramp time, but I might increase them all from 1 second to 2 seconds. My neck circumference is now 16.5” (started at 15 ⅞”) and I want to see if EMS can get it to >17”, so the increased comfort with ramp time may allow me to get there, as previously I have been holding back on intensity to prevent strain on the vertebrae which did feel like it was occurring at as little as 35 mA with my new machine. My prior amplitude record was 41 mA, so today got a lot higher. I know I once got to 100 mA with EV machine at 300 uS.

    Also, now that my rear delts are catching up, I’m starting to think about what else I want to add into my workout program. I have an extra channel on each posterior delt/forearm/hand workout so that seems like a no brainer to add the extra channel to biceps and triceps. I’ll just have to test to make sure it does not hurt my right shoulder to do so.

    5/4/2014
    For my L UE I started at 60 mA on the rear delt, 31 the rest, and worked to 65/36, then 70/40. For my RUE I went straight to 70/40 which felt severely strong but not particularly painful. Higher than 40 mA on forearms I think would overstrain my wrists. I added a pad to biceps and triceps, which is the first time I trained biceps and triceps in months. It didn’t seem to overstrain my arthritic right shoulder. Funny as biceps felt like they were winning the cocontraction war but triceps felt especially worked afterwards. Also, I kept biceps and triceps at 40 mA, equal to my forearms which are limited by wrist pain/strain. Next time I’ll try to work them up to intensities more equal to my posterior delt (closer to 70 mA than 40 mA.)

    Applying pads to the arms is harder than everything else because you only have one hand to do it. Straps work but are a PITA. I need something better but have no known better options. I’m still thinking of a way to best strap and hold pads in place for pecs. Maybe I’ll add a chest and back workout or maybe I’ll add pecs with neck without adding a workout. I want to add only 1 workout to core day so it’s 3 workouts daily. So I could have an entire back workout. I could also add rear delts to my back program, and pecs to arms, but I’m not sure I want my pecs working unopposed as it might be too much strain on my shoulder capsules.

    5/7/2014
    For my neck I got to 45 mA before I was stopped by what felt like cramping around the hyoid region. I relaxed and later got to 50mA at my usual 450 uS. I have to think this intensity would really have me training my swallowing ability if I had dysphagia. I haven’t tried the Genesy 1100 directly over the throat like they do with the VitalStim.

    My triceps are sore from 2 days ago.

    5/8/2014
    I did stim on one arm last night (triceps still sore bilateral) and this morning did the other arm and DOMS felt the same as far as I could tell. So another stim session does not seem to have much effect on DOMS, about the same as lifting weights again.

    5/31/2014
    It has been awhile since I have blogged. Not a lot of changes, but went on a road trip to Zion National Park so I missed some EMS workouts. I brought my Globus 1100 with me and still did some neck workouts and read some studies on EMS and lymphedema, edema and cerebral palsy that I will have to blog about later. One change I am playing with is trying a 5 on 15 off for 12 minutes (5-15-12) program rather than my prior favorite of 10-50-12. My patients with back pain, neuropathy, and headaches (who all liked the 10-50-12) say they like the new program better and maybe for pain it is, because the stim is on more often. But maybe it just feels like it is, because 10-50-12 was very effective. For strength I don’t know if one is better or not, but I’m going to try it for a while. I expect I still won’t be able to tell, but I’m curious to see if it lets me work to higher intensity of stimulation due to what I expect will be greater fatigue. So I’ll compare mA levels to what I achieved below. For my neck I just got 53 mA at 450 uS pulse with, my prior best was 50 mA on 10-50-12 so it was a little more. My hypothesis is that the 5-15-12 would be better for increasing muscle endurance, if not strength, due to the shorter rest times and the stim being on 25% of the time instead of 16.7% with the 10-50-12 program. It might be I’ll adopt a few favorite programs and alternate through them similar to what some non-linear periodization programs do with strength. Part of what got me thinking about this is I just purchased the SpeedCoach programs for my Globus 1100, which comes with a linear periodized plan to vary electric stimulation programs in conjunction with speed and strength training for sports. Since I’m not trying to peak for any particular event, I think, for me at least, it’s best just to alternate though my favorite duty cycles, trying different things out, and trying to see if I can tell any difference. I have to admit that at this point I think EMS (much like weightlifting) is a blunt instrument and I don’t expect small variations to have much effect on performance or sport outcomes, so I’m suspicious that attempts to periodize training with EMS by fine tuning the parameters will lead to much if any change in performance. However, the variation does keep it interesting, but I expect I’m not going to discern much difference so I will have to hope that randomized controlled trials start testing various EMS protocols against each other with regards to strength, endurance, and hypertrophy, of which there has been very little of so far.

    For my right UE I worked to 75 mA on post shoulder, biceps and triceps and 55 on forearm and hand (forearm and hand intensity by perceived wrist strain and my wrist was sore afterwards. Prior record with 10-50-12 protocol was 70 mA on my shoulder and 40 on my forearm and hand. 75 mA on my shoulder and upper arm definitely stung, and the stinging/pain feeling under the electrodes is something I only notice when using >60 mA at 450 uS. I have a feeling this might be when the intensity gets high enough to depolarize nociceptors, which in theory do take higher levels of stimulation than do motion and pressure receptors and more than it takes to depolarize muscle. I brought some of my (much) larger electrodes home because I want to see if larger than my current favorite 4” round rubber carbon electrodes, will let me take the Globus comfortably higher. This was never a problem with my EV-906, I think, because the machine just wasn’t strong enough. The difference might be academic, however, as the problem I noticed before when I was using the super large pads (4” x 6” and 5.5 x 7.5”) was that while they were more comfortable, they were just too large to put many of them on a muscle. So in quads where I prefer 4 of the 4” pads, there just isn’t enough room to fit 4 of the larger pads on my quads, so overall current is less. The left upper extremity got to 90 mA on my posterior shoulder, biceps and triceps and 55 mA on my forearm and hand (and my left wrist was sore afterwards as well). 90 mA is the highest I have taken the Globus Genesy 1100 on any body part so maybe there is something to the 5-15-12 protocol. However, I should be cautious about any conclusion because I have a feeling if I put the machine on continuous I could bring it it up to the max 120 mA over time as my muscles fatigue, and I expect that would not do much to build muscle (which would be as dumb as the VitalStim protocol used for dysphagia).

    Another thing I’m working on is optimizing the strap situation. With my 4” straps, with 4” wide velcro I found out they attach end to end very well and have no trouble holding firm. In fact, the velcro is, at times, annoyingly strong. When I last ordered straps I ordered many different sizes from 16” to 48”, and they all pile together in a big mess. Plus, the variety of sizes does not let me lessen costs much with a bulk purchase. So I’m thinking about getting rid of the larger straps and just linking together several of the shorter ones to make a “do everything” set up for a single lesser price. So 5 of the 24” just worked pretty well for arms and neck and I expect will work well for everything else, but I’ll test that out in the coming weeks as I’ll be having to make a new order soon since I am running low in the 36” straps that a lot of my patients are buying to work “core” at home. The 24-inchers linked together I think will work just as good, be more universal, work better on arms and legs, and with a bulk purchase will likely be a less expensive option. So far, the best thing I have noticed is I can link them all together and fold them up real nice, being both neater and taking up less space than my pile of assorted sizes. That lessens the PITA factor, which I think is the primary deterrent to EMS use at home.

    6/1/2014
    On my core I got to 75 mA on 5-15-12 which is not as high as my best of 80 mA that I got to on 10-50-12.

    6/2/2014
    On my right thigh I got to 50 mA, which is about the same as what I get to with 10-50-12.

    6/5/2014
    After a few days training with 5-15-12 I can’t tell that it’s better or worse than 10-50-12, but it does feel different. I have started alternating them, which feels like a good compromise. I switched over to 5-15-12 on my patients as well, some liked it more, some less, some said it felt about the same. So if 5-15-12 is at the high end of duty cycle (25%) and 10-50-12 the low end (16.7%) in the research for strength gains, I might play around with some programs in the middle. Also, I am not sure if duty cycle is everything or if there is much difference between a 5 and 10 second on time. 10 seconds on really does feel like it wrings the muscle out, more so than 5 seconds, so maybe a 10 on and 20-30 second off would be good to try, maybe particularly so with my headache patients as it might better stimulate/fatigue the occipital nerve.

    Also, I want to try some of the endurance protocols again with my Globus. I was not that impressed when I tried them before with my EV-906 but as I recall, my pulse width was weaker than what the researchers used (400 uS), but my Globus goes up to 450 uS. I don’t expect it to be a great workout cardiovascularly, but it might be better than nothing. My last attempt at an electric stimulation cardiovascular workout felt only marginally better than nothing.

    Also, I’m reading papers on electric stimulation and diabetic neuropathy and just tried out my flipflop electrodes again with the Globus. With one channel and one wire per foot at 450 uS, I was only able to tolerate 30 mA on the first couple pulses. I’m sure I could work up to more over 12 minutes, but the machine was pretty strong. I felt very strong foot contractions, as well as paresthesias up to my knees, and contractions up to my of both calves and TA (that were weaker). So I think there might be some benefit from splitting a channel between legs, particularly for those with nerve problems. With two electrodes under the ball and heel of the foot, Charlie Francis style, the contraction felt entirely localized to the intrinsic muscles of the foot, the stim felt sharper, but the muscle contractions surprisingly did not feel stronger even though I was able to go straight to 35 mA. Trying the flip flops again (again to 30 mA), it still felt like foot intrinsics were going stronger, but it’s likely my toes were just curling more because the flip flops got more of the extrinsic foot muscles. Flip flops still felt like the best workout.

    Also, I tried 2 pads on one foot (top and bottom) and was able to get to 50 mA immediately, with what felt like weak localized contractions. So either the foot intrinsics, if targeted alone, aren’t that strong, or the top-bottom electrode placement had a lot of the current just go from electrode to electrode through the skin but not the muscle. Last, I tried closing the tops of the flip flops but there was no way, so I just cut the straps off with a scissors to get them out of the way. They’re still a bit small for me, but usable. I have another style at the clinic and will probably cut those straps off too as they just get more in the way than anything else.

    6/8/2014
    I wanted to try out electrode placement above my eyes as done in the percutaneous stimulation studies for migraine headaches with my 5-15-12 and headache/dysphagia (ha/dys) protocols and at 450 uS, just 10 mA feels pretty strong and 15 mA was all I could take at first and each additional mA felt like a substantial increase. I worked up to 20 mA and anything above 15 mA was painful, 18mA and above and it started making my teeth clench. After 20 mA, going back down to 15 was a pleasant buzz. I will have to create a program that mimics that headband thing to see how that feels but this felt pretty stout and will have to try it out on my headache patients. Stimulation felt strong but superficial with no noticeable brain effects, though I can’t say I know what that would feel like anyway.

    6/10/2014
    Set up Cefaly parameters in Globus, (Constant TENS, 60 Hz, 250 uS (16 mA max) for 20 minutes)over the supraorbital nerves and it felt pretty strong at 15 mA. 16 mA was unpleasant, at least at first, using a pair of my larger 10 cm round electrodes (total area 157 square cm). They used a single 3 x 9.4 cm electrode = 28.2 square cm. What was interesting was that with the constant current at 15 to 16 mA, if you decreased 1 mA you could not feel a thing, so I think you accommodate to the constant TENS pretty quick. If you go down to 1-2 mA and work back up you feel it again, but top down feels like nothing. I suspect, however, that at 16 mA a lot of people will find it painful. I got used to 16 mA after a few minutes to where it didn’t hurt. I tried again with a pair of 4 cm x 4 cm (total 32 cm) to better mimic the Cefaly headband and it hurt a little more at first but I got used to it the same as with the larger ones, being less of a difference than I expected. I’m pretty stim tolerant so I expect a lot of headache sufferers won’t like 16 mA, and in the study that was a big complaint. One potential problem with the Cefaly device was that it was described as going up to 16 mA automatically unless you stopped it, and apparently none of the people who didn’t like it knew to do so, so rather than limit the mA they turned it off. I think it might be better if they could manually control the increase (like on a normal TENS machine), rather than have to stop an automatic increase.

    6/12/2014
    EMS neck 10-50-12 got to 55 mA (new record), holy shit! It sure feels like it will put my bloodpressure up and not down. Swallowing was impossible during the “on” phase.

    6/13/2014
    I maxed out Globus Genesy 1100 today with 120 mA (had to work up to it) with 450 uS on 5-15-12 on my calves with 2 pads placed lateral on each gastrocnemius. I did it on leg press with my calves braced with 450 lb to prevent cramping. It worked and probably is the way to do it going forward. That amount of EMS was very extreme but tolerable with feet braced to prevent cramping. I would not have been able to tolerate it at home with just bodyweight bracing the calf.

    My neck has only slight DOMS from 2 days ago.

    I’m working on pecs and a lateral placement of 10 cm round electrodes on my right pec does not feel like it gets the full pec. I got to 50 mA for 10-50-12 without much difficulty. It feels like it misses the muscle fibers above and below the line of fire (so to speak). I can’t figure out how to strap a more high-low electrode placement so I will try larger electrodes. For my left pec I used super large electrodes, one on pec and one posterior on lat. It felt better and I got to maybe 65 mA ,but flatter coverage felt like a more complete contraction. I might want a wider strap to go with wider electrode, maybe 6-8”. I will see what left vs right DOMS feels like in the next 2 days.

    6/14/2014
    My calves are getting sore but not extreme. I did core 5-15-12 and got to 70 mA at the end without a lot of difficulty. It was pretty strong, but if I were trying harder on the way up I think I would have gotten higher. Actually, 2 days and 3 days later, DOMS got bad enough that I was limping slightly, so it was pretty intense. Not the worst it has been, but the worst it has been in a long while. Sitting on the leg press for 12 minutes taking 120 mA, however did not seem to be any easier or faster than just doing calf raises there.

    6/23/2014
    I got to 85 mA on core with 10-50-12. I started at 35 and kept working myself up. I didn’t really feel any stinging sensation this time until 75 mA. My hips got to 72, starting to sting around maybe 65.

    6/27/2014
    I’m reading a paper about EMS and intermittent claudication in which they used a Compex stimulator set up at 250 uS for 20 minutes. So on my Globus I wrote a similar protocol, but set the pulse duration at 450 uS, figuring that would be stronger and better, with 2 horizontally placed electrodes on my gastrocs. I went up to 54 mA and let the machine run and definitely felt some muscle burn at 3-4 minutes in. I thought about turning the machine down but will try to keep it up to see how I feel after.

    I worked up to 93 mA for a brief period, came back down, and then went up to 120 mA for a few seconds. It was definitely painful, with pain getting bad as I crossed 90 mA, but I was able to get there and there was no foot cramping or noticeable joint stress because the twitches were so brief.

    The legs do just twitch so I don’t get the cramping I do with the high frequency EMS settings. After 11 minutes, the burning feeling in my calves went away, perhaps due to fatiguing muscles producing less lactic acid as they began to give up the ghost, so I increased the mA to 70 and felt the burn again, which lasted the rest of the 20 minutes. Active twitching lasted the entire 20 minutes.

    I may not be cramped up, but my feet are definitely plantarflexed during and it’s difficult to actively dorsiflex during, which felt like it would be a pretty fair dorsiflexion exercise to actively try to dorsiflex during.

    I wrote a new program immediately after, but with 250 uS pulse duration as used in the Compex, and it felt like it would work just as well. I had to go up to 100 mA to make it feel like the 70 mA at 450 uS. As a treatment, I think I would rather have the 450 uS so I have the increased power available if needed, as I think at 250 I might eventually max it out as tolerance increases. For my patients with nerve or muscle damage, I suspect 250 mA would not get a powerful enough contraction. It might be worth a test though because all I would have to do is program in 2 separate treatments and try one or the other on them.

    Also, I tested out my trigger finger treatment EMS brace and it felt like it would work, but I think it can be improved with padding to better support the fingers, prevent slipping, and maybe hold the pads in place without need of straps. I still need to figure out how to hold the boards shut. For my test I just pinched them between my knees, which was a PITA, but definitely felt like I was getting a lot of tendon pull without putting any stress on the finger pulleys.

    Incidentally, I hooked up the EV-906 to my core yesterday at work, showing patients and staff how I could go immediately to 100 mA, and let the treatment run since I was hooked up. It did not feel as hard as my Globus, but it certainly wasn’t meaningless, and today I have DOMS in my anterior abdominal muscles. I have to say the smaller machines are still pretty good, and there is something to 5-15-12

    6/28/2014
    I wrote an hour long program on Globus at 6 Hz@450 uS. The maximum length of a program is 30 minutes so I added a second phase and put 30 minutes on that. I’m doing only my left calf as I want to know DOMS differences, if any, compared to treatment of both of my legs from last night. I started at 60 mA and that got me about a ¼” heel bounce off of the floor while sitting. After 9 minutes I moved to 70 mA. At 15 minutes in I moved to 80 mA (ouch). I went down after 15 or so minutes to 70 mA which was mildly uncomfortable. 60 mA was completely comfortable with no pain at all. It didn’t feel like the contractions weakened over time, more like a constant bounce the whole hour. It felt reasonably aerobic to the calf muscle, though my breathing and heart rate did not increase noticeably. My “C” pads are just over 6” in diameter, and I think another 1-2” would maybe be better so I’ll try to get some samples of a larger size if available.

    7/3/2014
    I tried out the “chest” or “C” electrodes on pecs and they seemed to work pretty well. I got up to 65 mA, which was comfortable, but 68-70 mA started to sting pretty good. I think a wider than 4” strap would make them work even better. They felt like reasonably strong contractions with no noticeable shoulder stress with my arms at my sides. I wonder if with the close proximity of the electrodes more of the stim just goes through skin and does not get as deep in the muscles. It was a lot easier to setup the dual pads than using singles front and back. I think I’ll stick with them for a while and see what happens. Probably I will pair this pec protocol (bilateral using 4 electrodes) with my neck that also uses 4 electrodes to increase workout efficiency. I think I will have to try a front and back compared with C pads on right vs left side to see what difference I feel.

    7/8/2014
    I’m going to try daily neck stim starting today and see if that increases hypertrophy. I’m at 16.5” right now and have been static at that point for a few months. Interestingly, 5-15-12 pumped up neck ¼” to 16.75” immediately after. I’ll have to compare that to some other parameters. I tried a 3-12-12 to see how that feels with a shorter contraction, shorter rest, but a 20% duty cycle which would be intermediate between the 16% of 10-50-12 and the 25% of 5-15-12. It seemed cool. Also, I tried a 2-2-12 on hip musculature and it made me sweat with house at 72 degrees. I tried 2-2-12 on my calves and worked to 42 mA (unsupported). It felt like it would really increase circulation. Maybe I can test different protocols on calves and see how much pump I get on different days or different protocols on right vs left. My calves felt tight/pumped/fatigued for a while afterwards, more than I would expect for such a light intensity without foot support.

    7/9/2014
    I tried 2-2-12 on my neck. It felt pretty strong the entire time. I worked up to 50 mA at 7 minutes and got to 52 mA at 10 min. My neck felt fatigued after and post stim to 16 & 11/16”, but didn’t do a pre-measurement.

    7/10/2014
    My neck circumference was 16 ¾ ” in the morning, and in evening I did 5-15-12 parameters. I worked to 60 mA. I only gained 1/16” of pump after though.

    7/12/2014
    I tried a moderately light intensity (up to 40 mA) 2-2-12, on thighs, knees bent and laying sideways. I would not say it was comfortable, but not painful; I don’t think I could fall asleep to it. My calves are still sore from the last time on 7/8/2014. My neck circumference is a solid 16 ¾ cold. Neck stim at 25 mA I did fall asleep with.

    7/19/2014
    I think I figured out how I like stimming my pecs. Just use one channel, criss-cross the straps, and use two extra large electrodes (~4”x6.5” rectangular), one on each pec. Interestingly, I was able to work up to 120 mA (10-50-12) surprisingly comfortably, I think due to the extra large electrodes. With smaller ones I don’t get anywhere near that high, which confirms my earlier suspicions that even with my 4” circular electrodes (that are pretty big) at some point (around 70 mA) I think you start stimulating nociceptors. With larger still electrodes you can get higher. The only problem with larger electrodes is it gets hard to fit them on a muscle. Still, I might have to try and get some 5” circles and maybe more of these 4×6.5”s.

    7/23/2014
    I did 2-2-12 at 450 us on my neck today up to 70 mA, and it was pretty intense, felt tingling bilaterally in my hands over 60 mA. Also, I’ve been losing weight due to eating less: my bodyweight is down to 182 lb (from 186-192 in weeks prior) and tested my bodyfat at 7.6% which is a new low for me in recent years. Due to the fat loss, much of my double chin is gone, which looks better, but my recent increase in neck circumference is gone too, now back to 16.5”, which is good given the less fat but not good in that I wanted to increase neck circumference to 17” with the use of EMS. The last few weeks I have been doing daily or nearly so neck EMS, but I don’t think it makes much difference and probably every other day is just as well, as is shown in the research, so I think for the neck I will go back to every other or every 3rd day as I was doing before, with the extra EMS time I was putting on the neck probably better spent on pecs or UEs.

    8/6/2014
    In hindsight, playing with a number of different duty cycles, if I were to only allowed one, my favorite I think is 10-50-12. It works real hard, even if I take a few days off, I subjectively notice it tones me up at least as well if not better than the others, and I just worked up to 90 mA on core with it, which is a new record. The muscle contractions felt, in a word, immense at 90 mA. I still get a stinging sensation under the pads over ~75 mA, and at 90 mA on the core it’s one hell of a valsalva maneuver. I would imagine my blood pressure is going through the roof due to such a strong isometric contraction. I think my earlier idea that I could work higher with a 2-2-12 or 5-15-12 (with the idea that lesser rest would increase fatigue and let me work higher) seem unsubstantiated. So maybe Yakov Kots and later Charlie Francis were on to something.

    Also, in the hours after my 90 mA core workout I felt considerably more muscle fatigue and soreness than I get with a typical workout of 50-60 mA, so for me at least, I feel like the stim is continuing to work me harder, and not at all like the 50-60 mA gets all there is to get with the core musculature.

    8/7/2014
    My abs are pretty sore from 90 mA yesterday, with DOMS and/or some other pain a solid 2” up into ribs. Lateral calf placement got to 70 mA in standing which put me up on toes. I could flatten on one leg with the cramping not too bad on unloaded leg, maybe you just need to get used to it. I did a top and bottom foot intrinsic placement unloaded and got to 42 mA on 5-15-12 and it felt pretty intense. The stim is still more comfortable, as I recall, when I stand on them. I again think unloaded might be better if you are trying to restore the arch of the foot as you are not already flattened out to the max if you overpronate. The thing I don’t like with the top-bottom placement is that even with 4” electrodes, it feels more focused (like 1”) in the foot and does not feel like it’s maximally working the entirety of the foot intrinsics the same way it does when you stand on the electrodes. It is nice to not have to stand during the treatment though, so maybe a mixture is ideal.

    I tried my largest electrodes (5.5×8”) with one channel shared on my pecs with lateral 8” strap, placed lateral over shoulder, and I still get poor contact but was able to get to an early 65 mA but does not seem immediately much better than with my blue (4.5×7”) electrodes. I still need to press them down with my hands to get the best contact and contractions, but even at 80 mA it does not feel that strong. I will try a criss-cross with 8” straps next time to see if it’s better but this way it is hard to turn up the machine intensity while you are using both hands to keep good electrode/skin contact. I think I could get to 120 mA with relative ease but perhaps not better than with the blue electrodes. Maybe a front-back electrode placement with the pink electrodes on pecs and blue electrodes on rear delt/post RTC would work better also. Afterwards (of 5-15-12) my pecs did not feel that fatigued so I think they really need 120 mA, but I’m starting to think the pecs are not an ideal muscle to try and work with EMS. It may be better to just do regular exercise if that is an option, but I’ll keep working on it.

    8/9/2014
    My abs were only a little sore but lower ribs are still tender to the touch and were worse yesterday than abdominal musculature. I’m not sure if the high tension at 90 mA stressed the ribs themselves, the attaching abdominal tendons, or if it recruited my lower intercostals and they got DOMS. It does not feel at all serious but certainly feels worked like never before.

    I’m still working on an idea for a plantar fasciitis stim pattern, and again tried the Charlie Francis method of standing on 2 pads and worked up to 40 mA (5-15-12) which is a little less than the 42 mA I got with the unloaded top/bottom foot placement. Then I tried standing with a single huge electrode under each foot (8×5.5”) like the flip flops and it felt considerably stronger at only 32 mA (with a lot more toe curling) than either electrodes under the feet or top/bottom placement. Maybe that’s the ticket for plantar fasciitis, as I felt like I was getting a pretty strong calf and TA contraction and was having difficulty standing up straight, with my shins wanting to push backwards. It felt stronger with just the single large electrode under the feet than when I added an extra channel one leg with electrodes over TA and TP muscles. The 8” long electrodes were a little short so I had my feet diagonally on them which worked but might not work so well for people with larger feet. I’m a size 10. A padded surface under the soft but flat electrodes might give even better contact.

    8/16/2014
    The other day’s work testing on electrode placement for a plantar fasciitis condition has my lower calves real sore, not so much my gastrocs but lower in the soleus, toe flexor, posterior tibialis region so I might be on to something with the flip flop to TA channel combined with the 2 lateral placements on the gastrocnemius. Unfortunately or fortunately I also retested (but only for a couple minutes not an entire workout like the prior) the split flip flops one per leg and it felt every bit as strong by itself, but I don’t think I had it on long enough to be responsible for today’s DOMS.

    8/17/2014
    I did arms today for the first time in a few weeks with 10-50-12 settings. I tried to do some different electrode placements, actually the same placements as my favorites but changed up wires to keep the channels as far apart as possible to hopefully get some deeper contractions. I just finished and it’s hard to say how well it worked, felt at least of regular strength, but fingers sure feel fatigued and it is hard to type afterwards.

    8/26/2014
    I tried just 2 channels/4 pads, but big pads (8”x5.5”) placed on quads and hams with blue on distal quad and proximal ham, and orange on distal ham and proximal quad to criss cross through the leg. It felt strong, worked to 85 mA (with stim feeling comfortable with big pads), felt like good central contractions on the right, and felt really fatigued afterwards. On the left I put channel 1 on quads and channel 2 on hams to compare after (should have done concurrently). On the left I worked to 75 mA and it felt less comfortable, maybe with contractions feeling less deep, and I felt less fatigued after. I will see if there is a difference in DOMS in the next few days.

    8/27/2014
    I tried calf (lateral), TA, and foot flat placement of electrodes and split all pairs between right and left leg on 5-15-12 to see if it felt stronger like just the foot ones alone do. It was pretty strong and at 29 mA my heels first started to lift up. I did a big calf raise up at 30 mA, at 31 mA, I got another big up, slipped, and fell on my a-s- s. I still worked up to 33 mA after, but I had to hold onto the table to maintain balance. My impression is that splitting up the foot electrodes does a lot, but I’m not sure that splitting up the other ones made as much of a difference, so I think I would have to try each individual muscle independently. Also of interest is that while I feel paresthesias up to my knees by just standing on the electrodes, having them higher on calves did not make the paresthesias go higher, with them still feeling like they stopped at the knees. Still felt like a pretty good workout but for me, I think I would still have to brace my calves in a leg press to prevent cramping. I think I want to try the split feet electrodes reclined with my feet up to see if cramping is intolerable or if it’s something I could work up to.

    9/3/2014
    I’m experimenting with more criss-crossing of pads from right side to left on hips creating an “X” pattern on gluteus maximus and combining right hip abductors and left hip adductors and vice versa. Using 10-50-12 the stim feels comfortable but strong at 40 mA and real strong at 50 mA. It felt different, like it might be stimming deeper and hitting more or different muscle fibers than my prior way, which I generally used ~50 mA, but once worked up to 72 mA. Ideal might be to move it around a bit. I think next time I want to try right hip extensors crossed with left hip ad and abductors.

    On my thighs I tried a criss-cross right-left, quad to ham pattern, with 4” pads working both thighs at once and got to 55 mA, which felt like it was working both legs pretty hard. With my central placement with 2 pads vs quadrilateral it felt like I was getting central muscles better, but I felt like it would have been better still with the super large pink electrodes. The only problem is that I need to get 4 more of them to test it out. Still, as I worked up the stim it felt like the contractions were pretty complete for the mA level and only 2 pads per quad and 2 per ham, so I think I’m really starting to like crossing sides of the body to keep each channel as far apart from each other as possible. I’m still not ready to say that’s the way it should be done all the time, but going forward for the time being I’ll continue with it some, if not most of the time. I do like getting both thighs done at once as it saves workout time and hassle, making me more likely to do it.

    This got me thinking, what would happen if I did the exact same as the above but instead of placing the pads anterior and posterior (4 per leg), what if I did medial and lateral? It might get some real good contractions right under/nearer the IT band, and maybe hit adductors a little different as well. I expect it might be dumb because I’m already hitting quads and hams hard and they are what’s right near the IT band, but it will be interesting to try it and see what I feel, so next time.

    9/5/2014
    I took 1.5 weeks off from stim, wasn’t eating as much and lost 5 lb, and when I got back on my stepmill was unable to do my normal level 12 intervals for 20 minutes on 2 consecutive workouts. I did near total body stim over the weekend and gained 6.5 lb the following day and got all 20 on stepmill with relative ease. I maybe ate a bit more but not 6.5 lb in the time off, so I wonder if the EMS caused an increase in glycogen synthesis and thus increased water weight and perhaps that helped with the stepmill performance. I know there is a couple of studies related to EMS (but more of a TENS pattern) and recovery in sports performance with the increased recovery being unexplained could be related to glycogen and perhaps some muscle “potentiation” whatever that is. All I know is if I don’t do the stim for longer than a week my muscles appear to deflate and I have less energy and just one EMS session and I look and feel pumped back up, in bodybuilder terms.

    9/5/2014
    I did calves with 2 pads lateral to each other, non-weight bearing, and split channels per leg. I got to 40 mA on 10-50-12 and it felt pretty intense, it was all I could tolerate. It would be a good comparison to do the exact same protocol but with one channel per leg instead of split. I felt real sore/tight immediately afterwards.

    9/8/2014
    I did calves just as last time but with one channel per leg, non-split. It felt as strong as splitting and only got to 37 mA, not 40 mA like the last time, but afterwards did not feel as fatigued so I’m not exactly sure what to make of that.

    9/14/2014
    Continuing with my theme of doing EMS with electrodes on a single channel as far apart as possible I did core, but paired low back left with abs right, and vice versa, and oblique left with abs right and vice versa. It feels fairly strong at the start with only 34, at 40 mA feels real strong and ‘different’ and I was able to work up to 65 mA without trying my hardest. Afterwards I would say it felt different, it felt like it was working well, but I can’t say that it felt like it was working better or worse than what has been my go to pattern. Still, I think it might be worth switching it up with an effort to reach different muscle fibers for an overall greater treatment effect.

    9/16/2014
    I did regular calves, lateral pad placement with one channel per leg, but unsupported. I only got to 37 mA and thought the cramping feeling was most unpleasant. Not a lot of difference in mA reached vs splitting the pads, but I didn’t feel like my muscles were working that hard.

    I immediately redid the treatment but split the channels between right and left and the stim immediately felt stronger throughout the lower leg with paresthesias well into the feet at a lower mA (BIG difference). I think you get a better overall contraction, recruitment of more muscle fibers with a lesser feeling of cramping. Maybe with the closer electrodes you get more cramping of fewer muscle fibers. Splitting the electrodes the second time I got to 39 mA. Maybe the increased paresthesias from splitting the electrodes masks the uncomfortable cramping feeling you get when they are not split. I felt like I was getting muscle contractions throughout the lower leg besides the calves with the split electrodes. The intensity was still limited by the cramping feeling with the split electrodes, it just felt like I was getting a lot more out of the workout for the same level of pain.

    I stood up and walked a few seconds after the non-split electrode treatment and my calves felt almost normal. I stood up after the split treatment and felt a feeling of immense muscular fatigue in the calves, very similar to what I reported when I did the same on 9/5/2014 when I split the channels, but not on 9/8/2014 when they were non-split. I’m talking about a BIG, UNMISTAKABLE difference! So it’s resolved, splitting the channels between legs leads to a much stronger feeling workout, with no increase in discomfort during that workout. Very interesting! I’m going to have to try that now with my arms. Maybe my shoulders first as it’s hard/impossible to control the machine when both arms/hands are cramping.

    9/17/2014
    For foot intrinsics with the EV-906, the EMS felt slightly stronger with the black electrode on the ball of the foot and the red on the heel, Charlie Francis style. Splitting the channels between right and left legs the stim felt much stronger up to about the knees but a localized foot intrinsic muscle contraction may be felt stronger with the Charlie Francis placement of one channel per foot. I think with the Globus being so much stronger of a machine it might not matter but I will have to try it again.

    I did rear delts today splitting channels between right and left and it did feel stronger than my normal way. I was only able to work up to 38 mA, compared to 60-70 as before. It might be that there are times you want to split the channels and times you don’t.

    9/22/2014
    I did calves unsupported 5-15-12, with split right and left (SRL) and only worked up to 23 mA today. I’m curious as to how I feel after since I haven’t done 5-15-12 in a while. I felt moderately fatigued immediately after, either because I didn’t get as high as the last time or 5-15-12 isn’t as good as 10-50-12.

    I did 10-50-12 SRL on quads and hams getting both legs worked together. I got to 41 mA and it felt pretty damn strong. I think this would be the bomb with the super large electrodes but I’m having trouble ordering more from China. Even with the 4” circles it feels pretty strong and comfortable. It definitely feels like a lot more muscle contraction per mA delivered compared to one leg at a time, even with half the number of electrodes (4 vs 8) per leg. I will have to try this with the EV-906 to see how strong it feels with this workout but if I’m only getting to 41 mA with the Genesy the EV-906 might still be pretty good. I definitely like getting both thighs done at once instead of one at a time.

    With hips I did 10-50-12 with a new SRL pattern and got to 46 mA. It felt pretty strong; it felt like it was causing more involuntary hip extension than my prior pattern, even at 37 mA. It made me work up a sweat just sitting on the couch typing, so I imagine I’m probably burning some number of calories.

    I got to 70 mA on 10-50-12, for the 2nd time ever and it was pretty hard and I had to be careful not to bite my tongue because I could not open my mouth when the stim was going. I didn’t feel the paresthesias go into my hands this time though.

    9/23/2014
    I did SRL posterior delts and shoulder external rotator pattern I only got to 40 mA compared to 60-70 mA with my prior pad placement. The contractions felt plenty strong but were limited by right shoulder pain, (arthritis related rather than stim related) but felt fine immediately after.

    I did the Charlie Francis pad placement on my feet with 5-15-12 and worked up to 47 mA and got a very localized-feeling contraction of the foot intrinsics. I could see my foot arch rise and fall with every contraction. I followed it up with SRL immediately after and I did not notice my foot arch rise so much but it certainly felt more globalized (everything below the knee), but perhaps less focused and intense on the foot intrinsics themselves, though their contraction/foot motions might be masked by the overall intensity of stimulation feeling and co-contractions of other muscles. It’s hard for me to say which is best, with both feeling of value, so it might be best to trade off. I’m sure the foot intrinsics are contracting with the SRL because everything else is, they just may not be going as hard. Got to 38 mA on SRL with 2 4”pads under each foot just like placement but with wires switched to SRL. Now that I am finished, both seem good, so I would probably switch off the different pad placements when treating plantar fasciitis, posterior tib issues, shin splints, or trying to build up the arch for patellofemoral pain, but would go with the SRL when treating neuropathy or intermittent claudication. The contractions felt as good to me with the 4” electrodes as with the flip flop pads, but you use an extra channel on the machine to do so. I think a single channel on the Globus works just fine to power the flip flops, but the EV-906 (not being as strong) is much better with the pair of 4” electrodes per foot.

    9/26/2014
    Core yesterday with a SLR pad placement. I got to 100 mA for the first time, which is my new record and it felt pretty intense, and I did it in standing and had to hold onto a table for support when the stim went. I did the 10-50-12 program with the Globus Genesy 1100. Waking up this morning my abs are sore already but not terrible. My low back muscles have a little DOMS too, which is something I don’t recall feeling before. My abs have been sore a lot, but not my erector spinae to my recollection.

    9/27/2014
    My core still fairly sore from 2 days ago, and the lower 3” of my ribs are sore too.

    I did thighs with the new SLR electrode placement as I did last time, but with the EV-906 instead of the Globus Genesy and it felt reasonably strong. Probably more than most people can take, but I was able to get to 100 mA right from the start, with it not feeling as strong as when I put 8 electrodes on each leg with the same machine. Towards the end of the workout I found that with effort I could both bend and flex my knees with the stim on and I couldn’t do that with the Globus at 41 mA. I put 8 electrodes on my one leg immediately after and it was considerably stronger stim so the increase in electrode distance doesn’t feel like it compensates for less channels and total current in this case with the less powerful machine. I was still able to get to 100 mA right from the start though.

    After the left thigh workout, it didn’t feel that hard and my muscles didn’t feel that fatigued, in contrast to the 100 mA I did on my core with the Globus yesterday. I suspect for strengthening that you eventually get used to a given current level, like you would get used to a given resistance level when weight training, and if you stay at that level you would just maintain, with either the weights or the EMS, but if you want to continue to gain, you have to continue to increase the EMS intensity just as you would want to continue to increase your weights when weightlifting.

    9/28/2014
    I’m going for a new record on neck at 10-50-12 with Globus Genesy. My old record was at 70 mA, at 60 mA my biceps start contracting, not hard but they started flexing against gravity. Ok, I’m stopping at 75 mA with 6 minutes to go because I can’t inhale. Ok, I went to 80 mA on the next blast with 5 min to go, I just held my breath. It’s starting to make me cough. Exhaling was ok (it was real hard not to), inhaling was impossible. My eyes squinted and vision blurred during stim. I won’t go higher today, I mean it this time. It’s not at all painful, just one hell of a buzz! Coughing at the end or after each blast. I think I have reached a safety limit. I felt fine immediately after though. My neck circumference increased from 16 ¾ to 17” immediately after so it seems there is a bit of a pump, which I think I have measured before.

    9/29/2014
    Addendum to 9/27/2014 workout: I awoke today with my left thigh having some DOMS (not bad), but none in my right so 8 pads with the EV-906 is still a reasonable workout for me, 4 pads not so much I would surmise. Still, the Globus is a lot stronger.

    Bodyweight 183 lb, 7.15% bodyfat.

    10/20/2014
    So my year long experiment is over but I’m continuing to do EMS as a workout. Perhaps not exclusively without any other strength training, but I figure I’ll keep at it because A) I think it works really well, and B) it’s convenient. I’ve worked up to higher and higher intensity levels to where I can’t say it’s easy. Also I rewrote a new program to start using with my Globus Genesy 1100. Instead of 10-50-12, I’m doing 10-50-10, which is the workout recommended by the Russian scientist Yakov Kots, and popularized by sprint coach Charlie Francis (whose book sold me on it. When I was using the EV-906 I set up a 12 minute treatment because it took me a minute or two to get everything set up right as I can only increase the intensity of one channel at a time. With the Globus I can bring up all 4 channels at once with one button, so I don’t think I need the extra 2 minutes. Shortening the treatment by 2 minutes isn’t a big deal, but it does make everything a little shorter and adds up when doing multiple bodyparts. I imagine there has to be some reason Kots came up with a 10 rep workout and not a 30 rep workout. My hips got to 65 mA and calves 50 mA (my normal lateral electrode placement) unsupported, which is about as good as I get with normal weight bearing.

    I did arms separating electrodes including grip on the left arm then more normal opposing muscle group pattern (biceps triceps etc) on the right and the latter felt like harder muscle contractions. It was not a pure criss cross because i need to operate machine with one hand, and it may be that for criss cross to work best, it needs to cross right and left sides of the body. It maybe works better for larger muscle groups in the legs rather than the smaller muscles in the arms. Though, I don’t get to test bilateral criss cross on arms as mentioned before because I can’t operate the machine that way. I could maybe couple distal UE on one side with proximal muscles on the other side and still work the machine. I will have to try that.

    10/21/14
    Last time I did criss cross on thighs, I noticed my central quads felt real tight but the quadrants, proximal and distal to the electrodes, my vastus medialis in particular felt soft, so tonight I hit thighs again with 4 electrodes on quads and 4 on the hamstrings and it felt very intense doing 10-50-12 and the contraction in the quads in particular felt more complete. I got to 55 mA on quads and 60 mA on hamstrings for right, 70 and 75 for left on quads and hams respectively. It seems like the 2nd leg always takes more mA, probably because my body is used to it. I should probably then switch up which leg I start with. The left leg definitely felt more fatigued after so the extra mA made a difference.

    Calves criss cross unsupported got to 42 mA compared to 50 regular. I’m getting fairly used to this unsupported stuff.

    10/22/2014
    It is interesting that this is the second time this has happened, the last time on my 9/5/2014 entry. I got to Level 13 intervals on my stepmill a couple weeks ago on accident for the first time, then after taking a break from stim for 2-3 weeks after my year trial was up, plus having missed a week of stepmill, I was unable repeat my performance, lasting only 10-12 minute per attempt in the prior week. Then, over the weekend I did total body EMS, came back to the gym and my bodyweight had increased from 181 to 184 and I lasted the full 20 minutes at level 13. I don’t think it was stim helping recovery, rather I think it was stim helping endurance performance outright, perhaps due to increasing muscle glycogen and water weight, and perhaps due to some sort of muscle potentiation that helps with endurance activities. Again I was using EMS, rather than more of a TENS pattern used in the endurance recovery studies that I am a bit skeptical of, not with regards to results anymore, but rather with regards to the explanation as to why.

    10/23/2014
    Did my neck 10-50-10 and noticed with the 2 minute shorter workout time that I was trying to up my intensity faster. I started at 50 mA on the first blast, then 55, 60, 70. At 70 mA I could not inhale or exhale (AT ALL) when prior I had worked up to 70 mA I could, I think because my muscles were fresher, contracting harder because they were not fatigued, but the last couple minutes I could breath a little but with more effort than it was worth.

    I did RDLs for the first time yesterday (110 kg for 10 reps, lunges 3x10ea leg with 50 lb dumbbells, and hip outs with 210 lb for 3 sets of 20. The latter 2 exercises were exactly what I was doing in training prior to my year of EMS. They maybe felt a little harder, but not much. RDLs I hadn’t done very heavy at all says my log book, probably because my shoulder was bothering me then. I was only training with 80 kg, which is light for me, and I am pretty sure that EMS didn’t add 30 kg to my max. It does seem like it did a reasonable of helping me hold onto my strength over the year. I need to test front squat as I did have relatively heavy numbers (for me) in the months prior to starting EMS exclusively.

    After RDLs I noticed a lot of DOMS in my upper back, where I hadn’t been stimming, but my low back, hamstrings and quads were not noticeably more sore than I was getting from the EMS itself, maybe a little. Therefore, I think the DOMS you get from EMS does insulate you to some degree from later PRE, which to me indicates the contractions/intensity have some similarity.

    Core tonight went right to 55 mA on the first blast and it wasn’t too bad. 70 mA on the 2nd blast, 75 mA 3rd, was hard at first then felt easier the latter half of the 10 seconds. Heck, I might make 100 tonight, 85 next (real hard), 90 (feels like enough for tonight but 6 minutes to go), 90, 95 (almost feels unsafe), 3 minutes to go, 100 (just pushed it up even though I thought I shouldn’t, 105 mA (NEW RECORD), USING MY NEW CRISS CROSS CORE PATTERN, AND I THINK I LIKE IT BETTER. 105 mA for the last full blast was very intense. I was definitely holding my breath and bracing myself during. Last time I did 100 mA I was standing, this time I’m just relaxing (well not really) on my couch. My Globus Genesy goes to 120 mA at 450 uS and since I’m only 15 mA away, I think I will get there eventually. I think progress beyond that point can still be had by getting to higher intensity levels earlier in the workout rather than gradually adding on at the end. I’m not sure how much harder it needs to get because my abs now feel like they are the strongest they have ever been. Immediately afterwards I sat down to read my book and got up to turn the fan on, no temperature change in the house and thermostat at 73 F, but I felt hot afterwards, not dripping sweat or anything but definitely felt like I had been doing something afterwards.

    10/28/2014
    Maxed out on front squat, got 115 kg for a single, and I had to go back in my workout log book to 1/21/2013 where I did 120 kg for 5 reps and I stopped at that point, (~8 months prior to starting EMS) due to right shoulder pain. So probably my front squat wasn’t very different one year prior when I had started my experiment. Which reminds of one of the main reasons I wanted to do EMS in the first place, because of my old dirt bike accident resulting 3 shoulder surgeries, and front squats hurting my shoulder.


    [Update 5-11-17]

    I’m slow in doing so but I just put up my continued electric stimulation notes since from 2014 onward. It’s not planned out like above, but it’s what I’m continuing to learn by researching, trying and applying electric stimulation (with a greater emphasis on things other than standard strength training). Anyway, it’s RIGHT HERE.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Electrical Stimulation for Paraplegia (Good News and Bad)

    Muscle biopsies show that FES of denervated muscles reverses human muscle degeneration from permanent spinal motoneuron lesion. Kern H, Rossini K, Carraro U, Mayr W, Vogelauer M, Hoellwarth U, Hofer C.  J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005 May-Jun;42(3 Suppl 1):43-53.

    Abstract
    This paper presents biopsy analyses in support of the clinical evidence of muscle recovery induced by a new system of life-long functional-electrical-stimulation (FES) training in permanent spinal-motoneuron-denervated human muscle. Not earlier than 1 year after subjects experienced complete conus cauda lesion, their thigh muscles were electrically stimulated at home for several years with large skin surface electrodes and an expressly designed stimulator that delivered much longer impulses than those presently available for clinical use. The poor excitability of long-term denervated muscles was first improved by several months of twitch-contraction training. Then, the muscles were tetanically stimulated against progressively increased loads. Needle biopsies of vastus lateralis from long-term denervated subjects showed severe myofiber atrophy or lipodystrophy beginning 2 years after spinal cord injury (SCI). Muscle biopsies from a group of 3.6- to 13.5-year denervated subjects, who underwent 2.4 to 9.3 years of FES, show that this progressive training almost reverted long-term muscle atrophy/degeneration.

    My comments
    This paper is a bit of a follow up to my last one on using EMS for aerobic exercise, which I thought wasn’t particularly enjoyable for able bodied people, but might be just the ticket for those with injuries, particularly quadriplegia. I noted, however, that I did not expect the parameters used in that paper, or used in my own experiment, to work with paraplegia. The above paper however outlines the EMS parameters apparently being used successfully in ongoing experiments in Europe.

    Classically, electrical muscle stimulation works well for upper motor neuron lesions typical of cervical spinal cord injury because the sensory and motor neurons between the muscles and the spinal cord is intact. What is missing is input from the brain turning on, or off in the case of clonus or spasticity, muscle contractions. Because the spinal cord ends at at ~L1-2, at which point spinal nerves exit the cord forming the cauda equina, an injury here disrupts the reflex arc between the leg muscles and the spinal cord. Since electric muscle stimulation (EMS) generally works by first activating the motor nerves, which then indirectly activate their respective muscles, and those nerves are damaged with lower motor neuron injuries, EMS is generally not effective for non-spastic paraplegia. NMES (neuromuscular electrical stimulation pays homage to the nerve-muscle distinction in it’s name. EMS seems to have won out in the terminology/popularity war. The presence of spasticity in the leg muscles, however, is an indication that those nerves are still intact and conventional EMS should then work. EMS with complete spinal cord injury has not been shown to restore function, but benefits do include preserving muscle health, increasing cardiovascular health, increasing bone mineral density, provide some muscle cushion to lessen risk of pressure ulcers. All are good things that would be great if they could be extended to those with lower motor neuron injuries.

    So this group reportedly did it with four phases of treatment a custom made muscle stimulator with the following parameters used in each phase:
     
    Phase 1: “Early Twitch Stimulation”

    • Waveform: biphasic rectangular
    • Pulse Duration: 150-200 ms (this is the MASSIVE difference) milliseconds (ms) rather than miroseconds (uS), 1 ms = 1000 uS and the strongest machine I know of available in the USA are the Globus units which top out at 450 uS. This machine in the same units has a pulse duration of 200,000 uS making it up to 444 times stronger.
    • Intensity: up to 200 mA (my Globus, that I love, tops out at 120 mA)
    • Rate: 2 Hz
    • Duty Cycle: 4 seconds on, 2 seconds off, progressed to 5 on 1 off with 3-5 min stimulation with 1-2 min rest
    • Treatment Length: 15 min per day
    • Training Frequency: 5 days per week
    • Training Length: few months
    • Electrodes: large 180 cm squared, per their 2010 paper

    Phase 2: “Late Twitch Stimulation”

    • As above but with pulse duration shortened to 80-100 mS (still 80,000 to 100,000 uS)

    Phase 3: “Burst Stimulation for Long-Term Spinal-Motor Neuron-Denervated Muscles”

    • Pulse shortened to 40 mS (40,000 uS), frequency increased to 20 Hz, for 2 seconds on 2 seconds off, 3-5 min stimulation with 1 min rest 3-5 times a session, twice a day, 5 days per week.

    Phase 4: “Force/Endurance Stimulation”

    • After 9-12 months of training, they started doing tetanic contractions (frequency not given but I would guess >50 Hz would start to work), pulse width and intensity not given, for leg extensions for 8-12 reps with 4-6 sets, 2 minutes rest, twice a week with cuff weights progressing up to 5 kg.

    The authors did note that with the extreme high levels of electric stimulation that there were risks of “skin lesions,” particularly in the early phases of rehabilitation. The results certainly sound promising, which is the good news. The bad news is that I have yet to see an EMS machine capable of delivering anywhere close to the above parameters in the USA.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Electrical Stimulation for Aerobics

    Neuromuscular electrical stimulation can elicit aerobic exercise response without undue discomfort in healthy physically active adults. Crognale D, Vito GD, Grosset JF, Crowe L, Minogue C, Caulfield B. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Jan;27(1):208-15.[Free Full Text]

    Abstract

    Recent studies have suggested that subtetanic neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) protocols applied to the quadriceps and hamstrings may have potential as an alternative aerobic exercise modality. However, its tolerability and effectiveness in the physically active population has been questioned. The primary purpose of this study was to measure physiological and subjective responses to a modified subtetanic NMES protocol in a physically active adult population. Furthermore, the effect of habituation to stimulation on tolerability, the repeatability of response on separate days, and the differences in male and female responses to stimulation were assessed. Oxygen uptake (V[Combining Dot Above]O(2)), heart rate (HR), blood lactate (BLa), rate of perceived exertion, and subjective discomfort were measured in 16 participants (8 men and 8 women) throughout a subtetanic NMES protocol performed at incremental intensities to subjective comfort threshold on 2 separate days, before and after 9 NMES habituation sessions. Peak physiological responses observed at subjective comfort threshold were consistent with therapeutic aerobic exercise intensities (51.5 ± 10.9% V[Combining Dot Above]O(2)max; 72.0 ± 10.9% HRmax; 4.7 ± 2.7 mMol BLa). Peak V[Combining Dot Above]O(2) and current intensity achieved were significantly higher (p < 0.05), yet perceived discomfort was unchanged, after the period of habituation. However, physiological and subjective responses at equivalent stimulation intensities remained unchanged on different days. Male participants showed higher values than female participants. These results suggest that subtetanic NMES can elicit a consistent aerobic exercise response without undue discomfort and could be considered as an alternative exercise modality. [emphasis mine]

    My comments:

    I read this paper maybe a year ago when I was somewhere into my year of electric stimulation instead of weights for exercise and was unable to reproduce their results. I was using my Globus Genesy with 2 pads on each quadriceps and 2 pads on each hamstring as described in this paper and it didn’t work. When upping the intensity my heart rate would maybe increase 10 beats per minute (BPM) but after a couple minutes drop back down to my baseline when it felt like my muscles fatigued out.
     
    The difference I think was due to the type of stimulator. The researchers in this study were using a BioMedical Research Ltd. NT2010 stimulator for which has a unique computer programmed activation such that the same electrodes are not activated together each time but “with a different combination of electrodes from the array being involved in delivery of each of the 4 pulses in a burst” with the idea that varying the pairing of electrodes keeps the muscle contracting without fatiguing out so that heart rate is increased and on the first session they were able to get heart rate from ~78 BPM to 114 BPM and when retested on the 12th session they were able to get the average heart rate up to 134.8 BPM. They did 60 total minutes of treatment per session with of which 10 minutes was a warmup, 10 minutes a cooldown, with 40 minutes at a constant work rate.
     
    A big problem however is that as far as I can tell the NT2010 is a research electrical stimulation machine that is not commercially available, at least not that I can find in the United States so I had no way of verifying the results or using it on myself or with my patients. However, I thought about it and figured the problem with my early attempt using my Globus is that I wasn’t able to get enough muscle mass activated to raise my heart rate up and the muscle fibers I was getting were fatiguing and thus not contracting as hard over the 30 minutes I was setting my machine up for. My solution was larger electrodes, A LOT LARGER! I had some ~5.5×8 inch rubber carbon electrodes, which I think are originally marketed as dispersive, non active and so large as not to be felt, with a normal TENS machine, but with a Globus Genesy programmed with a 450 uS pulse duration, you can sure still feel them. Also I split my channels between right and left legs to keep my electrodes far apart for what feels like deeper more global muscle activation (hoping to lessen fatigue) putting channel 1 on glutes, 2 on quads, 3 on hamstrings and 4 on calves. I’m not a big believer in warm ups or cool downs with EMS so I just start as high as I can take and move up from there. The authors said they found 5 Hz better tolerated than 4 Hz, and I tried 6, 5, and later 4 Hz and they were all equally uncomfortable at high intensities. 5 Hz did get my heart rate up the most, increasing with increased EMS intensity as found in this paper. My results at 5 minute intervals being as follows.

    • 0 minutes, 0 mA, HR 55
    • 5 minutes, 70 mA, HR 105
    • 10 minutes, 70 mA, HR 100
    • 15 minutes, 75 mA, HR 116  (turned on fan because I was sweating)
    • 20 minutes, 80 mA,, 121 mA (hard to read, hurts a lot 7.5/10 pain)
    • 25 minutes turned glutes down to 77 mA, HR 120 (thirsty)
    • 30 minutes same mA, HR 126

    126 beats per minute is 71% of my max heart rate making it aerobic exercise which I’m sure was burning calories and pretty sure was burning fat, but to be honest it hurt worse than exercise does. Larger electrodes still might make it feel better but I used the largest I was able to find commercially. A different waveform might be more comfortable but so far I am unaware of a better one that the 5 Hz. 5 Hz is basically a low rate TENS pattern sometimes used for pain control, but if you can program your machine to a pulse width of 450 the contractions are pretty stout. The idea being at 5 Hz (plus or minus) you are mimicking the shivering, and with so many muscles going as you sit it kind of feels like you are riding a horse as you literally are bouncing up and down. It was actually pretty interesting to be sitting on a couch reading, breathing hard and sweating. When I got up my couch was wet, which I thought was actually pretty gross, so for later experiments I put down a towel and had the fan running. So it worked.
     
    Did I like it? Not really, but at lower intensities it would feel better and probably still get circulation going well enough to be helpful for those with injuries. Also I intend to try it on patients with quadriplegia as alternative the the electric stimulation bicycles, which are prohibitively expensive and very difficult to set up. A couple of the papers I read using the NT2010 agreed with my experience that the subjects for the most part would rather do real aerobic exercise so EMS for cardio might be best used where regular exercise isn’t possible or advisable. Such as when injured, in a hospital bed, or for space travel. For all such purposes I would expect it to be very effective. I’d still like to try it with some larger electrodes, maybe 7” x 10” to see what that does about getting the comfort level up. As an aside I once tried riding an electric stimulation bike, an Electrologic Orion, and lasted maybe 15 seconds before stopping it because the pain was unbearable. So I think the Globus 4 channel with big pads might be the answer to cardiovascular exercise and maintaining LE muscle health in those with quadriplegia. Unfortunately due to the lower level spinal cord injury with paraplegia I don’t expect any of the devices discussed would be effective.
     
    For uninjured people I think EMS for aerobics has promise but isn’t yet worked out well enough to be practical. It’s something I want to continue to read about, work on, and experiment with but it’s tough because it’s painful. It feels considerably sharper than EMS for strengthening and my favorite strengthening protocols only run 10 minutes long. For cardio I do a 30 minute program for which the last 10 minutes are particularly punishing. So it needs work and unfortunately that work isn’t particularly pleasant so it’s hard to stay motivated. I’ve done literally hundreds if not thousands of self treatments with EMS for strength, but for aerobics I have only done 5.
     
    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Tennis Elbow and Treatment Frequency

    Changes in pain, dysfunction, and grip strength of patients with acute lateral epicondylitis caused by frequency of physical therapy: a randomized controlled trial. Lee S1, Ko Y1, Lee W1. J Physical Therapy Science. 2014 Jul;26(7):1037-40. [Free Full Text]

    Abstract
    [Purpose] The purpose of this study was to investigate the changes in pain, dysfunction, and grip strength of patients with acute lateral epicondylitis and to suggest the appropriate treatment frequency and period. [Subjects] The subjects were divided into three: 2 days per week group (n=12), 3 days per week group (n=15), and 6 days per week group (n=13). [Methods] All groups received conventional physical therapy for 40 minutes and therapeutic exercises for 20 minutes per session during 6 weeks. The outcome measurements were the visual analogue scale (VAS), Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), and grip strength. [Results] The results of this study were as follows: at 3 weeks, there were no significant differences in VAS and PRTEE in the 3 groups, but at 6 weeks, 6 days per week group significantly decreased these two outcomes. Grip strength was significantly increased in 3 and 6 days per week groups at 6 weeks. [Conclusion] In conclusion, physical therapy is needed 3 days per week for 3 weeks in patients with acute lateral epicondylitis. After 3 weeks, 6 days per week is the most effective treatment frequency.

    My comments:
     
    I was hoping this paper would be better than it was, but I think it still gave some useful data. Based on the description of the treatment (which wasn’t 100% clear), I think they came to some spurious conclusions at 3 weeks, but I expect their 6 week findings are correct. Also I think these researchers should be commended as this is the first tendinitis/tendinopathy study to look at treatment/exercise frequency that I am aware of. Given that recommendations for exercise and tendinopathy often range from 3 times per week to 2 or more times per day I think it’s a pretty important variable to be testing.
     
    They report that for the first 3 weeks of treatment it didn’t matter much what the exercise frequency was with 2, 3, and 6 days per week treatment being the same. The problem with the study however is that they split the rehabilitation into two “stages”, and didn’t say how long each stage was. Maybe it was 3 weeks per stage? The first stage was considered “pain control” and was very light exercise and modalities that I would expect to not make much difference, regardless of how often they were done. For example, I would not expect 6 days per week of ineffective treatment to work much better than 2-3 days per week of ineffective treatment. The second stage included some isotonic strengthening exercises, which is when I think real physical therapy began, and it seems when they started noticing improvements as well. In the 2nd stage both concentric and eccentric (separated out- I’m not sure why) strengthening exercises were performed 3 sets of 10-15 reps at which point the 2 day per week treatment resulted in no further improvement in pain, strength, and function, while 3 days did better and 6 days better still. In my own tennis elbow/epicondylitis treatment program (and for tendinitis/tendinopathy in general) I find 3 days per week works, but daily works better, at least until strength is fully restored and pain reduced substantially. Generally, a physical therapist will get referrals for physical therapy 2-3 days per week, so a home exercise program with daily resistance exercises will likely speed progress. Alfredson’s eccentric exercise protocol for Achilles tendinitis calls for 6 sets of 15 reps 2 times per day, which in my experience is overkill, but it would have been good to see that frequency tested in comparison to the 2, 3, and 6 day protocol.
     
    My main disagreement is that they reported no difference resulting from treatment frequency in the first 3 weeks. I notice my patients progressing substantially and immediately when therapy begins without a “pain control” stage, and in fact, I notice the heavier resistance exercise used in my tennis/golfers elbow treatment IS WHAT reduces the pain. I think if this study would have omitted the easy pain control stage, it would have been both more effective and have yielded more usable data. Also, they should have better described the exercises and intensities used.
     
    Last, the study had subjects perform 20 minutes of exercise after 40 minutes of physical therapy modalities which I think for tendinitis are useless or nearly so (20 minutes heat, 5 minutes ultrasound, and 100 hz TENS).
     
    Improvements at 6 weeks for pain on 10 point (VAS), patient rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE) and grip strength in kilograms between groups were as follows.

    • 2 times per week: VAS (6.6 to 5.7), PRTEE (48.6 to 46.4), Grip Strength (27.1 to 27.0)
    • 3 times per week: VAS (7.0 to 4.6), PRTEE (54.4 to 40.2), Grip Strength (29.2 to 35.4)
    • 6 times per week: VAS (6.8 to 2.6), PRTEE (50.8 to 26.5), Grip Strength (26.7 to 38.2)

    So overall, those results sound reasonable to me, but I think they should have happened 3 weeks earlier with the magnitude of gains at 6 weeks being better if they had skipped the pain control stage. I expect they would have done better still if they had focused on more strengthening, skipped the heat and ultrasound entirely, and maybe substituted EMS for their TENS.
     
    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Manipulation & Mobilization for Chronic Low Back Pain, Not Worth the Effort

    Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain: an update of a Cochrane review. Rubinstein SM, van Middelkoop M, Assendelft WJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Jun;36(13)

    Abstract
    STUDY DESIGN:
    Systematic review of interventions.

    OBJECTIVE:
    To assess the effects of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for chronic low-back pain.

    SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:
    SMT is one of the many therapies for the treatment of low-back pain, which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention.

    METHODS:
    Search methods. An experienced librarian searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple databases up to June 2009. Selection criteria. RCTs that examined manipulation or mobilization in adults with chronic low-back pain were included. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. Data collection and analysis. Two authors independently conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence.

    RESULTS:
    We included 26 RCTs (total participants = 6070), 9 of which had a low risk of bias. Approximately two-thirds of the included studies (N = 18) were not evaluated in the previous review. There is a high-quality evidence that SMT has a small, significant, but not clinically relevant, short-term effect on pain relief (mean difference -4.16, 95% confidence interval -6.97 to -1.36) and functional status (standardized mean difference -0.22, 95% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.07) in comparison with other interventions. There is varying quality of evidence that SMT has a significant short-term effect on pain relief and functional status when added to another intervention. There is a very low-quality evidence that SMT is not more effective than inert interventions or sham SMT for short-term pain relief or functional status. Data were particularly sparse for recovery, return-to-work, quality of life, and costs of care. No serious complications were observed with SMT.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    High-quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority. [emphasis mine]

    A couple additional quotes from the paper:

    One objection typically raised by clinicians is the lack of respect to the type of manipulative therapy delivered (e.g. high-velocity low-amplitude manipulation versus mobilization) or profession of the therapist (e.g. chiropractor versus manual therapist or physiotherapist). Sensitivity analyses were conducted in order to distinguish whether this resulted in a different effect; however, those results suggest that neither the technique nor profession of the therapist had a profound influence on the overall pooled effect.

    Surprisingly, many of the studies published in the last decade did not have a published protocol and to our knowledge, had not registered their study in one of the many trial registries, indicating that many trials conducted in the 21st century still do not conform to international procedure. In the absence of 100% conformity, it remains difficult to ascertain to what extent studies do not publish their findings because the results prove less than favourable.

    My comments:

    My comments regarding this Cochrane review could be almost identical to that of my earlier blog regarding manipulative therapy for acute low back pain however this one looked at people with back pain with lasting longer than 12 weeks. The authors are the same and the results are pretty much the same. So I would encourage reading the former and I’ll try to make this one a little different.

    I would reword the above abstract to say there is a lot of research done already, ⅔ of the research has a high risk of bias (bias in medicine is generally in favor of a positive result) and even so there is no indication that the treatment works better than placebo. The primary author (who is a chiropractor who uses manipulation as part of his daily practice) admits as much, so I question his suggestion for further research regarding a cost benefit analysis.

    The paper does indicate that manipulation/mobilization has been shown to work as well as other conventional treatments. However I don’t think the latter should be much of a surprise since a good number of studies indicate that a good number of conventional treatments don’t work either. The parallel I would draw would be with McKenzie Method (arguably a conventional treatment) for the treatment of low back pain, where it compares favorably to Williams flexion exercises (another conventional treatment) but was found to be no better than advice to stay active. The reason likely being that spine flexion stretches (which is what Williams Flexion exercises always are and McKenzie stretches occasionally are) is the stress that causes disc bulges, herniations and degeneration.

    The researchers reported several forms of bias potentially present in the research. Only 3/26 papers attempted to blind the subjects with a sham treatment. None of them attempted to blind the administers of the treatment, which unfortunately is impossible. Only half of the studies provided an overview of subject drop outs. Published/registered protocols were available for only 5/26 papers allowing the opportunity for selective reporting and publication bias. Given the small effects, I would be surprised if the various biases didn’t explain every bit of the admittedly small benefits.

    As for more time and money being put into researching a cost-benefit analysis, that just seems like time and money wasted. If potentially biased research shows no effect or (at best) effects so minimal as to be of no practical significance, my conclusion would be to stop wasting healthcare dollars on it and certainly stop wasting valuable research dollars on it. Otherwise one of my favorite Nietzsche quotes seems apt:

    “…they spend their day sitting at swamps with fishing rods, thinking themselves profound: but whoever fishes where there are no fish, I would not even call superficial.”

    Rather I would suggest that such dollars for the treatment and prevention of low back pain and disability be better spent optimizing exercise programs, ergonomics, motor control, etc.  preventing back pain stresses, which are no secret, and for which vertebral mobilization and manipulation is powerless to affect.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Manipulation vs Mobilization for Acute Low Back Pain, Neither Work

    Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low-back pain. Rubinstein SM, Terwee CB, Assendelft WJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12;9

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    Many therapies exist for the treatment of low-back pain including spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), which is a worldwide, extensively practiced intervention. This report is an update of the earlier Cochrane review, first published in January 2004 with the last search for studies up to January 2000.

    OBJECTIVES:
    To examine the effects of SMT for acute low-back pain, which is defined as pain for less than six weeks duration.

    SEARCH METHODS:
    A comprehensive search was conducted on 31 March 2011 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature. Other search strategies were employed for completeness. No limitations were placed on language or publication status.

    SELECTION CRITERIA:
    Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization in adults with acute low-back pain were included. In addition, studies were included if the pain was predominantly in the lower back but the study allowed mixed populations, including participants with radiation of pain into the buttocks and legs. Studies which exclusively evaluated sciatica were excluded. No other restrictions were placed on the setting nor the type of pain. The primary outcomes were back pain, back-pain specific functional status, and perceived recovery. Secondary outcomes were return-to-work and quality of life. SMT was defined as any hands-on therapy directed towards the spine, which includes both manipulation and mobilization, and includes studies from chiropractors, manual therapists, and osteopaths.

    DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
    Two review authors independently conducted the study selection and risk of bias (RoB) assessment. Data extraction was checked by the second review author. The effects were examined in the following comparisons: SMT versus 1) inert interventions, 2) sham SMT, 3) other interventions, and 4) SMT as an additional therapy. In addition, we examined the effects of different SMT techniques compared to one another. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Authors were contacted, where possible, for missing or unclear data. Outcomes were evaluated at the following time intervals: short-term (one week and one month), intermediate (three to six months), and long-term (12 months or longer). Clinical relevance was defined as: 1) small, mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale or standardized mean difference (SMD) < 0.4; 2) medium, MD = 10% to 20% of the scale or SMD = 0.41 to 0.7; and 3) large, MD > 20% of the scale or SMD > 0.7.

    MAIN RESULTS:
    We identified 20 RCTs (total number of participants = 2674), 12 (60%) of which were not included in the previous review. Sample sizes ranged from 36 to 323 (median (IQR) = 108 (61 to 189)). In total, six trials (30% of all included studies) had a low RoB. At most, three RCTs could be identified per comparison, outcome, and time interval; therefore, the amount of data should not be considered robust. In general, for the primary outcomes, there is low to very low quality evidence suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared to inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. There was varying quality of evidence (from very low to moderate) suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with other interventions, with the exception of low quality evidence from one trial demonstrating a significant and moderately clinically relevant short-term effect of SMT on pain relief when compared to inert interventions, as well as low quality evidence demonstrating a significant short-term and moderately clinically relevant effect of SMT on functional status when added to another intervention. In general, side-lying and supine thrust SMT techniques demonstrate a short-term significant difference when compared to non-thrust SMT techniques for the outcomes of pain, functional status, and recovery.

    AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS:
    SMT is no more effective in participants with acute low-back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. SMT also appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of studies per comparison, outcome, and time interval. Therefore, future research is likely to have an important impact on these estimates. The decision to refer patients for SMT should be based upon costs, preferences of the patients and providers, and relative safety of SMT compared to other treatment options. Future RCTs should examine specific subgroups and include an economic evaluation.

    My comments:
    “Spinal manipulative therapy” in this review, which was pretty exhaustive, included both manipulation (frequently used by chiropractors, but also osteopaths and more and more physical therapists) are the high velocity short amplitude thrusts that often result in that audible “crack.” Mobilizations are usually of larger ranges of motion with slower passive movements, popularized among physical therapists by Geoffrey D. Maitland. What does it matter you ask? Not much because according to this Cochrane review neither have any effect, at least compared to sham (fake treatment) or placebo (also fake treatment) with regards to lessening pain or disability in those with acute (less than 6 weeks) low back pain.

    I talk with patients and colleagues about manipulation and mobilizations all the time and often say, given what we know about the mechanisms and causes of spinal pathologies (excluding magic or placebo), what would or even what could a manipulation/mobilization do? Funny that I never get an answer. You would think a doctor who uses such methods (DC, DPT or DO) could answer that. This paper said it MIGHT work by two principle means. One mechanical mode of action to lessen a vertebral subluxation, is a hypothesis which has already been largely discredited. The second being neurophysiologic explanation that just sounds like a  weak use of gate control theory, which does seem to be a real phenomenon, but whether manipulations/mobilizations can effectively exploit gate control theory is another matter. The authors concluded the mechanism of action was “remains debatable” but considering the primary finding of this review I think a better question is, “since back pain isn’t reduced any better than with a sham/placebo treatment, is there any further mechanism of action that needs explaining?” To me saying, “it’s probably all in your head” really sums it up best.

    Another interesting finding was that though manipulation and mobilization didn’t work any better than sham or placebo treatments, it compared favorably to other conventional treatments for low back pain. This was puzzling to the authors. I have already blogged on Mckenzie Method of physical therapy with research showing that it was no more effective than advice to stay active, but better than Williams flexion stretches. I often comment that if you go to a Chiropractor for manipulation for low back pain he may not help you but at least he won’t make you worse. Contrast this with a lot of physical therapists who are going to treat back pain with a lot of stretching, often immediately having the patient lay on their back and stretch their knees to their chests. Well that knee to chest stretch might loosen some tight muscles but that’s spine flexion and spine flexion is the principle cause of vertebral disc bulges, herniations and CAUSES tight muscles. Following up the knee to chest stretch with a bunch of rotation stretching bringing the knees side to side and physical therapy absolutely can make you worse.

    With acute back pain, the hippocratic oath seems a good place to start, “First do no harm.” Stretches and aggressive exercises are likely going to worsen the patient, however light motor control exercises which place minimal stress on the spine and teaching patients to keep the spine neutral, bend at their hips, and use good lumbar support when sitting will go a long way towards allowing the spine to heal. Later more aggressive core, hip and leg exercises can begin. Electric muscle stimulation actually does do a good job at lessening pain via gate control theory and helps strengthen core muscles, and my patients frequently report it lessens the feeling of muscle spasms as well, but I’ll have to look the latter up to see if there is any evidence to support that. [edit to add, it does]

    The abstract conclusion above makes the paper sound as if results are preliminary. In the paper itself, the authors (the principle is a chiropractor who uses manipulation in his daily practice) are more blunt:

    “At least one lesson should be drawn from this review, continuing in the same vein seems pointless. After all, there are currently more than 100 RTTS of SMT for low back pain (Rubinstein 2012). Despite the disappointing quality of the evidence examined here, a more precise estimate of the effect of SMT for acute low-back pain, a condition with a rather benign natural history, does not appear to be the way forward. Preventing the onset of chronic low-back pain, which is disabling and expensive may be a much more clinically relevant question.”

    All I can say is, “here here,” however there has been a good bit of research over the last couple decades that helps answer that question. The best answer being to teach patients with acute back pain to avoid what probably caused their acute pain in the first place. That generally being to avoid repeated or sustained spine motions in extension, twisting and most frequently flexion. Don’t slouch, set up chairs with adequate lumbar support to avoid sustained spine flexion. Exercise to be fit enough to do the former without fatigue, preferably using exercises that teach good motor control, and avoid said aggravating spine motions. How does manipulation/mobilization help with any of that? It doesn’t.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFITyoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Intermittent Fasting (16/8) Improves Stroke Recovery

    Intermittent fasting attenuates increases in neurogenesis after ischemia and reperfusion and improves recovery. Manzanero S, Erion JR, Santro T, Steyn FJ, Chen C, Arumugam TV, Stranahan AM. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2014 May;34(5):897-905 [FREE FULL TEXT]

    Abstract
    Intermittent fasting (IF) is neuroprotective across a range of insults, but the question of whether extending the interval between meals alters neurogenesis after ischemia remains unexplored. We therefore measured cell proliferation, cell death, and neurogenesis after transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) or sham surgery (SHAM) in mice fed ad libitum (AL) or maintained on IF for 3 months. IF was associated with twofold reductions in circulating levels of the adipocyte cytokine leptin in intact mice, but also prevented further reductions in leptin after MCAO. IF/MCAO mice also exhibit infarct volumes that were less than half those of AL/MCAO mice. We observed a 30% increase in basal cell proliferation in the hippocampus and subventricular zone (SVZ) in IF/SHAM, relative to AL/SHAM mice. However, cell proliferation after MCAO was limited in IF mice, which showed twofold increases in cell proliferation relative to IF/SHAM, whereas AL/MCAO mice exhibit fivefold increases relative to AL/SHAM. Attenuation of stroke-induced neurogenesis was correlated with reductions in cell death, with AL/MCAO mice exhibiting twice the number of dying cells relative to IF/MCAO mice. These observations indicate that IF protects against neurological damage in ischemic stroke, with circulating leptin as one possible mediator.

    My comments:

    I have already talked a bit about decreasing neuronal damage in stroke models in animals with caloric restriction and intermittent fasting with benefits leaning towards fasting being more protective than calorie restriction. However this was an interesting study for me for a few other reasons.

    First the cell proliferation after the stroke was less in intermittent fasting (IF) mice than in ad libitum mice (AL), which to me sounds worse for fasting, but the researchers reported that this was due to their being a lot less cell death secondary to the stroke in the fasting mice in the first place. They also reported they thought the protective benefits of fasting diets was likely mediated by leptin in the blood, which was less at baseline in the fasters but increased after the stroke was induced. While in the AL mice leptin was higher at baseline but dropped off dramatically after the stroke was induced. Functionally the impairments after the stroke were considerably worse in the AL group in comparison to the fasters.

    What was particularly interesting was that rather than using an every other day feeding form of intermittent fasting (which I expect no human would want to do for long) they did an 8 hour window of eating every day followed by a 16 hour fast, which is a type of intermittent fasting which has been termed “time restricted feeding” where you eat only during certain hours each day. This is similar to the Fast 5 diet I’m trying out right now, which differs only slightly in that it’s a 5 hour eating window rather than an 8 used in this study. The researchers in this study reported that the strain of mice used is the C57BI67, which I’m not sure if it’s the same or not as the C57B/6, but it sounds pretty close. The latter strain of mice when put on alternate day feeding, at almost twice as much such that they didn’t lose weight, but still had neuroprotective benefits. This study where the mice ate every day in the 8 hour window did eat less and did have lesser weight in comparison the AL mice. Such that the authors thought this type of diet would perhaps give the best of both worlds, combining the health benefits of both intermittent fasting and caloric restriction. So I think that may be an advantage for the “time restricted feeding” as compared to the “every other day” fasting schedule. I’m on day 28 of what I decided will be a 41 day fast and so far, subjectively for me, time restricted feeding isn’t really that difficult.

    The downside of this study was that the fasting was done for 3 months prior to the stroke so it does not say as to whether fasting after a stroke has any benefits. I would expect starting a fast after suffering a stroke would be too late to prevent neuronal damage but I would expect it to result in further neuronal survival later on and prevent additional neuron loss normally associated with age and/or if there is a 2nd stroke. Also this study is done on mice rather than people as people don’t usually want to be given a stroke just to see what happens. The good news is that most of the metabolic benefits seen with caloric restriction/intermittent fasting in animals, for the most part, does seem to hold true for humans when tested.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Physical Therapy for Parkinson’s Loses to Strength & Conditioning

    Comparison of strength training, aerobic training, and additional physical therapy as supplementary treatments for Parkinson’s disease: pilot study. Carvalho A, Barbirato D, Araujo N, Martins JV, Cavalcanti JL, Santos TM, Coutinho ES, Laks J, Deslandes AC. Clin Interv Aging. 2015 Jan 7;10:183-91.

    Abstract
    INTRODUCTION:
    Physical rehabilitation is commonly used in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) to improve their health and alleviate the symptoms.

    OBJECTIVE:
    We compared the effects of three programs, strength training (ST), aerobic training (AT), and physiotherapy, on motor symptoms, functional capacity, and electroencephalographic (EEG) activity in PD patients.

    METHODS:
    Twenty-two patients were recruited and randomized into three groups: AT (70% of maximum heart rate), ST (80% of one repetition maximum), and physiotherapy (in groups). Subjects participated in their respective interventions twice a week for 12 weeks. The assessments included measures of disease symptoms (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS]), functional capacity (Senior Fitness Test), and EEG before and after 12 weeks of intervention.

    RESULTS:
    The PD motor symptoms (UPDRS-III) in the group of patients who performed ST and AT improved by 27.5% (effect size [ES]=1.25, confidence interval [CI]=-0.11, 2.25) and 35% (ES=1.34, CI=-0.16, 2.58), respectively, in contrast to the physiotherapy group, which showed a 2.9% improvement (ES=0.07, CI=-0.85, 0.99). Furthermore, the functional capacity of all three groups improved after the intervention. The mean frequency of the EEG analysis mainly showed the effect of the interventions on the groups (F=11.50, P=0.0001).

    CONCLUSION:
    ST and AT in patients with PD are associated with improved outcomes in disease symptoms and functional capacity.

    KEYWORDS:
    Parkinson’s disease; functional capacity; physical exercise; physical therapy; quality of life

    My comments:

    This was an interesting study confirming much what I would expect. Exercise principles of overload that work for increasing fitness in normal subjects work better than traditional “physical therapy” calisthenic type exercises.  So heel slides, straight leg raises, bridges, and mini-squats are about as useless as they appear to those of us with backgrounds in strength and conditioning. Supervision by a physical therapist in this study didn’t seem to help, which is evidence that intensity of effort, weights, treadmill speed, and incline are every bit as important as exercise technique. In short, effort/progression counts, and counts a lot and “physical therapy” exercises for Parkinson’s probably should include progressive harder aerobic treadmill training and progressive resistance exercise with weights.

    The aerobic training program in this study was 30 minutes of treadmill walking at 70% of the max heart rate, with the speed and incline on the treadmill increased over time as fitness increased to maintain the required heart rate. The strength training group did just 2 sets of 12 reps on a number of isolation type exercise machines, that I think leaves a lot of room for improvement, but it still worked. Both the machine weight training and treadmill trounced the physical therapist led calisthenics, stretches, and gait training with regards to restoring motor function.

    I’m sure I’m biased but I think if you have Parkinson’s disease and you enter a physical therapy clinic that has rows of massage tables, stretch bands, and balls instead of gym equipment you have probably made a mistake.  The good news is that exercise programs for Parkinson’s don’t have to be particularly complex and can often be maintained at fitness centers after formal physical therapy is over. The results of this study would also suggest that joining a gym after physical therapy treatment is over is the best idea, because calisthenic type home exercise programs likely won’t cut it. Last I think the main take home message for physical therapists is that they really don’t want to have their therapeutic exercise programs so weak as to be useless and those therapists backgrounds in yoga or Pilates really should be learning all they can about weight training and conditioning, maybe by getting their CSCS certification or joining a CrossFit gym.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.

  • Calorie Restriction Prevents Peripheral Nerve Damage

    Lifelong calorie restriction alleviates age-related oxidative damage in peripheral nerves. Opalach K1, Rangaraju S, Madorsky I, Leeuwenburgh C, Notterpek L. Rejuvenation Res. 2010 Feb;13(1):65-74. 

    Abstract
    Aging is associated with protein damage and imbalance in redox status in a variety of cells and tissues, yet little is known about the extent of age-related oxidative stress in the peripheral nervous system. Previously, we showed a drastic decline in the expression of glial and neuronal proteins in myelinated peripheral nerves with age, which is significantly ameliorated by lifelong calorie restriction. The age-related decline in functional molecules is associated with alterations in cellular protein homeostatic mechanisms, which could lead to a buildup of damaged, aggregated proteins. To determine the extent of oxidative damage within myelinated peripheral nerves, we studied sciatic nerves from rats of four different ages (8, 18, 29, and 38 months) maintained on an ad libitum or a 40% calorie-restricted diet. We found a prominent accumulation of polyubiquitinated substrates with age, which are associated with the conglomeration of distended lysosomes and lipofuscin adducts. The occurrence of these structures is notably less frequent within nerves of age-matched rodents kept on a lifelong reduced calorie diet. Markers for lipid peroxidation, inflammation, and immune cell infiltration are all elevated in nerves of ad libitum-fed rats, whereas food restriction is able to attenuate such deleterious processes with age. Together these results show that dietary restriction is an efficient means of defying age-related oxidative damage and maintaining a younger state in peripheral nerves.

    My comments:

    I love an article where I can link free full text and this one is worth clicking on just to see the graphs with the difference in peripheral nerve oxidative damage with age being DRAMATICALLY less with caloric restriction. The rats in this study were on lifelong calorie restriction which is a limitation as most people have eating a lot of calories, for a long time, before they start worrying about peripheral nerve damage issues like carpal tunnel syndrome, neuropathy or intermittent claudication. It also makes me wonder if there are benefits for those with sciatica.

    I thought this article was an interesting follow up after seeing the study showing that caloric restriction attenuates muscle loss with age. I have had really, really good results treating my physical therapy patients with neuropathy from the outside with electric stimulation (based on what’s becoming a fair amount of research). Ditto for intermittent claudication. So this study makes me wonder if and how much the improvements might be further enhanced by treating the body/nerves from the inside with caloric restriction or intermittent fasting diets. Though this study found caloric restriction effective, another one I looked at suggests that intermittent fasting (which may or may not also entail caloric restriction) may be better still, specifically for protecting neurons from insult. Based on piles of studies I have on caloric restriction and intermittent fasting the big side effects are just that you stay healthier, age slower, and live longer. Like research on exercise, caloric restriction appears to be pretty much win win all the way around.

    Thanks for reading my blog. If you have any questions or comments (even hostile ones) please don’t hesitate to ask/share. If you’re reading one of my older blogs, perhaps unrelated to neck or back pain, and it helps you, please remember SpineFit Yoga for you or someone you know in the future.


    Chad Reilly is a Physical Therapist, obtaining his Master’s in Physical Therapy from Northern Arizona University. He graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.S. Exercise Science also from NAU. He is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, and holds a USA Weightlifting Club Coach Certification as well as a NASM Personal Training Certificate. Chad completed his Yoga Teacher Training at Sampoorna Yoga in Goa, India.