Study/review saying EMS is awesome

one lead to the large pad and one to the small pad

Dr William J. Kraemer is the chief editor of the JSC. Most Sport Science graduates would have Exercise Physiology textbooks by Kraemer. One of the major issues with research published in the JSC, is that a number of studies are not randomised controlled trials. Potential bias are likely to be greater for non randomised trails, so results should be viewed with caution.

What study are you referring to?

It is the job of the peer reviewer to reject studies or recommend corrections to the author if the study is biased or not random.

The American College of Sports Medicine ( ACSM) list several studies to support multi set programs to single set programs in both previously untrained subjects, untrained long subjects, and resistance-trained individuals. However, many of these studies have methodological concerns.

Berger, Effect of varied weight training programs on strength, conducted a study with no control for sets or reps, and subjects were not randomised. In fact the results demonstrated no significant difference between multi set v single set.

Sanborn, Short-Term Performance Effects of Weight Training With Multiple Sets Not to Failure vs. a Single Set to Failure in Women. Subjects were randomised. However, when testing vertical jumps, the multi set groups were given different technical instruction to the single set group.

Stone, A short term comparison of two different methods of resistance training on leg strength and power. The high set group reported to have greater improvements in squat and vertical jump. However, there was no significant difference for leg press strength, no significant increase as power (vertical jump and Lewis Formula), and no difference in lean muscle mass. No pre and post training data was provided.

Stowers, The Short Term effect of three different strength-power training methods. This study did not list intensity for the varied group v the 1 set or 3 set group.

Chief editor of the journal of strength and conditioning Dr Kramer. Published a number studies which were based on football players. The data was taken out of database over a decade later. One study didn’t have any controls, and subjects had there adherence tested by survey. Subjects used a particular protocol at home or in a gym.

Pharmaceutical companies for instance, can be very persuasive on the effectiveness of their product. A number of published studies have made various claims. For instance Vioox and came out in 1999 as new type of drug for treating Arthritis. They claimed not have side effects on gastrointestinal illness, however when later examined, one other Cox 2 inhibitor Celebrex showed no significant difference compared to Voltaren. More seriously, thousands of patients died of stroke and heart attack. Vioox was pulled from the market by Merck, conveniently after profiting three billion dollars in annual sales.

Historically there have been many other drugs (Laetrile, Interferon, etc ) which claimed to treat cancer. The studies were published, however studies were uncontrolled trials. Subsequent controlled studies showed Laetrile to be a toxic drug and not effective. Laetrile therapy gained enormous popularity in American, even though there was no proper evidence of patient benefit.

I think you misunderstood my question. I asked “What study are you referring to?” because there are two studies that we have discussed in this thread.

I partly agree with you, and I’m not denying that there are studies that have problems. But that does not mean that every study reaches incorrect conclusions. We should judge things based on facts. If, by listing all the studies claimed to have problem, you imply that the studies we discussed in this thread have a problem too, you make the same mistake. Every study has to be judged according to facts: its merits and its faults. Please let’s try to stick to the subject of this thread which I believe are two studies about EMS.

I was referring to a number of other studies in the JSC. Which were published under the review chief editor Dr Kraemer. I didn’t 't mean to imply that all studies have incorrect conclusions. The criticism is in relation to Sports Science research and particular studies published in the JSC.

The first clinical trial in medicine with a properly randomised control group was for the streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tubersculosis ( 1948). Comparatively early research in Sport Science , were non randomised and with no controls. However many strength and conditioning textbooks base there guidelines on poorly designed studies.

Over the last 30 years there has been a enormous growth in properly planned, executed and reporting of research in medicine. Sport Science in contrast has been much slower to adopt the standards of research in medicine.

In regards to the two EMS studies , I am examining the findings and will provide some thoughts shortly.