Talk:Electrical muscle stimulation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natwijesinghe, Alexancj4764.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This article mis-represents the results of the study it cites

The study cited in the reference section clearly states that EMS is ineffective. The article sounds far more like an advertisement than an unbiased encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.202.109 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this section be deleted, since the criticism was almost 10 years ago, and in the meantime the article has been completely rewritten with completely new bibliographic soutces?--Gciriani (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The study is simply not misrepresented.

According to the study cited in the reference section:

"The stimulation group had a 58% increase in abdominal strength, whereas the control group did not change. The stimulation group also had a 100% increase in abdominal endurance versus a 28% increase in the control group. Waist circumference decreased by of 3.5 cm in the stimulation group compared to no significant change in the control group. All 24 subjects in the stimulation group felt that their midsections were more “toned” and “firmed” and 13/24 (54%) felt that their posture had improved as a result of the stimulation. None of the control group subjects reported changes in these parameters. There were no significant differences in body weight, BMI, or skinfold thickness over the course of the study in either group. NMES, as used in the current study, resulted in significant improvements in the muscular strength and endurance of the abdominal region, as well as subject’s perceived shape and satisfaction of the midsection."

Furthermore:

"This study found that the use of the Slendertone FLEX TM belt significantly increased abdominal strength and endurance, decreased waist girth, and improved self-perceived abdominal firmness and tone. The results probably can be attributed to the strength of the electrically induced muscle contractions made possible by the quality of the electrodes utilized in the belt system, as well as the stimulator itself."

Investigation by the FTC (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/05/projectabsurd.htm) has shown that quite a few of these belts are more or less totally useless. However, Slendertone Flex - and, presumably, Slendertone Flex Max - clearly shouldn't be lumped in with them.

Only glass (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Misdirected Editing

I disagree with the edit of June 13 by Mojo-chan. This is done by a person who has no familiarity with sports medicine, and therefore is not qualified. Whole references to scholarly written and peer-reviewed articles, which were the results of research, were deleted. In place of these deletion, a pseudo rationalization going against that article has been written by a person who has no familiarity with sport-medicine and training.

In addition, this article made references to FDA-certified devices, which having withstood the scrutiny of the FDA, implicitly portray valid research.

The editor also deleted entire portions of the article without paying attention to references or other entries. For instance one entry reference was left, but the content of the entry was eliminated. This is incorrect protocol and demeans the seriousness of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gciriani (talk • contribs) 02:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think are misunderstand the problem here. Maybe there is some evidence for the claims made in the old article, but they were totally unreferenced and read like an advert.

As for the FDA stuff, my understanding is that the FDA certified some devices as being safe but did not support their effectiveness. In fact, the FDA web site (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/ems.html) states "While an EMS device may be able to temporarily strengthen, tone or firm a muscle, no EMS devices have been cleared at this time for weight loss, girth reduction, or for obtaining "rock hard" abs.".

I agree the article needs further improvement, but I checked the research cited in the old text and it either didn't support the claims being made or was rather obviously funded by interested parties. Mojo-chan (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The article didn't make reference to rock hard abs. The FDA certifies some devices with the understanding that they improve muscle properties, such as strength, explosive strength, endurance, and recovery. These claims are part of the documentation submitted for devices that have been certified. But worse of all was the corrections that replaced basically the whole article with explanation on EMS by Mojo-chan based on thin air. You have to be qualified to make a statement, or you must have read scholar research and counteract it with other scholar research. Any CSCS (Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist) can tell you that you can exercise muscles just applying force statically (i.e. isometrically). Therefore the analogy with push-ups is completely wrong. If you do not understand that, then you shouldn't engage in a discussion on the rest of research on EMS. I have now added a number of research references to the article. If you want more, I have 100 more, and they are all from people with PhD. But I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for research articles, and too many references would confuse the regular user. If you have doubts or want more references, please contact me or buy one of the books referenced at the end of the article and read it for yourself. Do not arbitrarily change the article with pseudo-rationale.Gciriani (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, let's remove all uncited material and start from just the basics. If you can reliably cite stuff, let's keep it in. Mojo-chan (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there is a double standard here. The uneducated rationale written previously by Mojo-chan didn't need any citation to be posted; on the contrary the article that I distilled from books and research papers written by scholars of this subject, needs to have citations sentence by sentence. Who is doing a disservice to Wilkipedia? In addition if one read only a few of the references already contained in this article, those referenced articles would answer all of the additional citations requested. It seems very unfair that one separate citation is requested for each of several sentences, when just one at the end of the paragraph should suffice. Also the two books referenced cover by themselves, each one alone, all of the content of this article. You cannot be incredulous against science, then not read supporting material, and then post publicly to a community of readers that the supporting arguments still need further evidence. Gciriani (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the current citations is that they are mostly in journals, and thus very hard for most editors to verify. We need to get an expert independent editor to verify. I'll see about making a request.

PS. Gciriani, please stop harassing me and any unlucky person who happens to have chosen a similar user name to me. Mojo-chan (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How about that for double standards: you didn't verify with any expert that your uneducated statement on push-ups was correct. I have here a link to some papers and abstracts. They are not the same I referenced in the article, but they contain plenty of evidence for the training effects of electro muscle stimulation. I have more articles, but I have not obtained authorization from the publisher to post them; how can I upload them to Wikipedia please?

I think you are missing the point a bit. I'm not saying your references are invalid, I'm saying that they are very hard to check. As such, we could do with some more references that can be verified. A lot of scientific papers get posted on the internet these days, so it should be possible. Mojo-chan (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't harrass anybody, I was looking for a person with your username to open a adialogue, and I sent a message asking if this person was the Mojo-chan who had posted entries in Wikipedia. My name is by the way Giovanni Ciriani. You can find me in the website.--Gciriani (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You sent an email to someone on YouTube who happens to share my user name! They then contacted me to let me know what was happening. I googled your name and you seem to be heavily involved in this subject. As such, I think it would be a good idea to get an independent editor to review the article. Mojo-chan (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a further idea. I'm sure that you are a nice person; I just need to educate you on the subject. I have copied one paragraph from chapter four of the book that gave me some of the citations. By reading it you will probably find the origins of your incredulity. I also will also allow you to download the book from an not public page of my website: once in it click on textbook.

Chapter 4 of Textbook - When looking at Electrical Stimulation (sometimes known as ES, or EMS, or NMES) and its applications, a primary focus must inevitably be on the development of reliable and readily available machines that can deliver biologically appropriate impulses to living tissue. Since the 1950s, with the emergence of mass produced circuit boards and battery controlled devices, a variety of systems have not only been made available to research scientists, doctors and therapists, but also to the general consumer. Indeed, the launch of one of the very first commercially available battery operated stimulators for the general public was in the UK. The small four channel units were safe, portable battery operated systems that used carbon graphite embedded in rubber pads (electrodes) as a way to conduct the signal safely. The operating instructions were simple and designed for individual home use as a method for figure control and body shaping. As a consequence, electrical stimulation entered the world of the consumer before being generally used or accepted by the majority of the scientific research community. This has been both a help and a hindrance to the development of electrical stimulation. On the one hand, good market potential for stimulation devices has assured a steady flow of high quality and reasonably priced machines that offer more and more sophisticated and safe applications. On the other hand, the scientific community has perhaps viewed electrical stimulation with a certain amount of disdain and suspicion, as some health and figure shaping benefits have been over emphasized to maximize the selling potential of these machines in a highly competitive market. We are in the unusual position of having a vast choice of stimulators available to us, both for therapists and home users, yet the question “does it really work” is still uppermost in many people’s mind.--Gciriani (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is all very nice but again it doesn't really help. Trying to "educate" editors is not a good idea, you simply need to provide good references. I note that the Journal Of Sports Science and Medicine which you reference has a web site (http://www.jssm.org/) which contains the full text of all published articles, so you could link directly to them. I'm a bit hesitant to recommend that journal because the web site looks commercial (advertising opportunities are prominently advertised for example) but if the references appear well researched, well cited themselves and properly peer reviewed then of course they will be accepted.

There are journals with advertising and journals without; it depends on the choices of the publisher and the if circulation can sustain the journal. What is important is whether the panel of peer-reviewers is independent or not. --Gciriani (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason we have these standards is because anyone can self-publish a book or paper, and there are lots of "journals" containing "research" that is actually commercially funded and thus not of use to us. I'm not saying all your references are like that, I'm saying it's important to verify that they are not when you are making medical claims based on them.

The textbook I referenced is published by Verlag, a large publisher with a good reputation in scientific publishing. The textbook was published for colleges in sport-medicine. --Gciriani (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I also recommend reading the Wikipedia help documents on style and tone. Mojo-chan (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I recognize that my English is far from perfect, and that I'm inexperienced at Wikipedia. I took a look at the style and tone guide, but I would sincerely appreciate if you pointed out a couple of the most important style and tone guidelines I'm deficient in.--Gciriani (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Precautions

Eliminating the list of authorized uses (which by the way appeared only in a note), and adding a whole section Precautions section seems a bit of an overkill. I don't think it does anything for NPOV, actually it expresses a negative POV of EMS. The paragraph added comes from the FDA guidelines. FDA asks manufacturers to list precautions, warnings, contraindications in the user manual, which is done for any drug or device in the market. I have not seen this standard applied to drug articles in Wikipedia. I propose instead to mention that there are precautions without writing a whole paragraph.

In addition the phrase used as prescribed by a practitioner is a caution label, not a precaution, and is incorrect: it misrepresents a whole category of EMS devices that are authorized by the FDA for sale without prescription and without supervision from a practitioner. Overall, I have the impression that the various corrections by NJGW were done without knowledge of this subject. I prefer to discuss it here rather than entering into a correction war. We can discuss this by e-mail giovanni dot ciriani at gmail dot com.--Gciriani (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I reworked it a bit. There was a concern at the fringe notice board that this article was overly positive. I reworked the paragraph a bit, specifically mentioning the existence of over-the-counter versions. I see no harm however in the paragraph as a whole.

I do think, however, that this isn't the normal Fringe issue. That is to say that it doesn't look like junk or pseudoscience. If there are sources which specifically show some of the precautions to be overstated then I would obviously have no problem with those statements being toned down or removed. I just wouldn't want someone to consider these devices completely safe when they might not be. NJGW (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all you took away the list of approved indications for use, which are far more important than the precautions to understand EMS. So your editing did a disservice to Wikipedia. The FDA Guidance Document for Powered Muscle Stimulator, which you consulted, is a guide for manufacturers for what should be included in the manual of devices sold to the public. It is not a guide to advantages and risks of using EMS. If you look at what this article was, before I completely revamped it, it was a turf war between biased marketeer on one side, and biased Wikipedia police on the other side. It took me quite some effort to rewrite a balanced article, looking up bibliography, reading material and research on EMS. I understand your good intentions, but it takes more than reading the FDA document. For instance you put precautions together with things that are not precautions. You mislead the reader into thinking that Non-Prescription devices do not need precautions. The list could go on, but I'm just trying to make the point that you need to better understand the subject. I hope that you let me make later on some changes including precautions, but with a balanced approach, not by having an out of proportion section by itself.--Gciriani (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Electro Muscle Stimulation → ? — The article should not stay where it is right now, because a) "electro" is not a word in this context but an abbreviation, b) the capitalisation is ugly to say the least c) the whole title sounds a bit off to me. A better place would probably be neuromuscular electrostimulation as this type of stimulation by neccessity (I think) stimulates nerve endings (at least this is what is stated in my Cefar-Compex NMES device manual), or perhaps electric muscle stimulation, electromyostimulation or just anything that looks more sane than the current title. — Where next Columbus? (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but let's look both at ways it is cited in articles, as well as by the community that uses them. Let's make a compilation of these source, and then have the most popular all point at the same.--Gciriani (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Naming Statistics

I have moved this article from "electro muscle stimulation" to "electrical muscle stimulation" because the latter is much more common terminology: gbooks hits/gscholar hits:

• "electrical muscle stimulation" 662/2050
• "electro muscle stimulation" 30/21

Xasodfuih (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Electro myostimulation" is also very uncommon at 9/20, whereas "electromyostimulation" gets more hits: 182/441. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, neuromuscular electrostimulation seems to be the more common term in terms of books/scholar hits: 759/about 19,800. Another problem with the current title, however, is the capitalization, which goes against the naming convention, so no matter what title is correct, it should be moved anyway. Where next Columbus? (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you failed to use quotes: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="neuromuscular+electrostimulation" gives only 78 hits for "neuromuscular electrostimulation". Xasodfuih (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. :D Well, unless anyone has another suggestion, I'll go ahead and lowercase the title (but I'll wait for comments, so as to not need moving it around even further, because I suspect there are already several double and perhaps triple redirs to be resolved...). Where next Columbus? (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and moved it to normal caps. Where next Columbus? (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we moving too fast? I tried electrostimulation: 1,860/15,200--Gciriani (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Electrostimulation is not specific enough in my view. TENS and ECT qualify as electrostimulation. Can you find a source that equates electrostimulation with EMS? Xasodfuih (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a good point. I do have several examples that equate electrostimulation with EMS though. See for example Maffiuletti 2006. I've read tens of articles on EMS, both scholarly and review articles, and it seems to me that different clusters of authors gravitate around different naming preferences. Uneducated but influential authors even come up with misnomers like electronic muscle stimulation, which used to be the title of this article before I started editing it. I guess that Electrical Muscle Stimulation makes most sense (sorry, I prefer title case, which is more readable). Thanks for your contribution in helping improving this article.--Gciriani (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree title case looks better when in a title, but it however is harder to link to as all links must use title case as well, which doesn't look as good in the midst of a paragraph of prose. Also, if one links to the article with normal case, a link would be needed to redirect to title case. That's why I changed it to normal case as per the relevant naming convention. Where next Columbus? (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are niche papers, e.g. the first one you cite is titled "... in electrostimulation resistance training", so it's clear from the context what type of electrostimulation it's talking about. To title this article simply electrostimulation some general reference is needed to support electrostimulation=EMS, e.g. a medical dictionary, a medical encyclopaedia, a general book on electrotherapy etc. For instance Bioimpedance and Bioelectricity Basics only calls EMS "electrotherapy of muscles". A more therapy-oriented book Electrotherapy: Evidence-based Practice distinguishes NMES from EMS in an intersting way: innervated vs denervated muscle, but doesn't equate either with electrostimulation. They do however point out that "investigators have used the following terms interchangeably, and sometimes the precise form of electrical stimulation is gleaned only by careful review of the particular paper." Terms listed are: NMES, FES/FNS, TES, ES, and later warns that "the meaning of the generic term, electrical stimulation (ES), is further complicated by the expanding use of electrical stimulation." They seem to prefer NMES throughout that chapter though. Electrotherapy explained also seems to prefer NMES as terminology, but they consider TENS a low power NMES too. Also "neuromuscular electrical stimulation" gets 612/2410 google books/scholar hits, so it's on par with "electrical muscle stimulation". It should probably be added to the 1st sentence. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

pubmed counts: "neuromuscular electrical stimulation" 240, "electrical muscle stimulation" 115. It looks like NMES is preferred in professional circles after all. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) So... should we move the thing to neuromuscular electrostimulation, then? I'm beginning to feel a bit like Willy on Wheels here, if you know what I mean. Thank $(DEITY) disk is cheap, though. Where next Columbus? (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I know what yo mean :) I've added "neuromuscular electrical stimulation" (NMES) as alias in the lede (note that "neuromuscular electrostimulation" is uncommon). It think it's okay the way it is given that lay sources prefer EMS (about 64K web ghits) to NMES (about 31K), so most of our readers would probably search for EMS rather than NMES. If somebody comes along and feels strongly that it should be called "neuromuscular electrical stimulation", I won't object either. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added an extra redir to cover all bases. Where next Columbus? (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I second what Xasodfuih wrote: that lay users are familiar with EMS and not NMES.--Gciriani (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Francis??

This is the best (or only) top flight coach folks could come up with? That is kind of like saying Hitler used a particular kind of Krupps oven (OK, over the top example, but you get my drift). Almost any other named coach would be better.--Fizbin (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Fizbin, this is the best example I knew of. Whom do you propose to add?--Gciriani (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I would have given up a name if I had one. I have no idea who uses or promotes these devices - I was reading the article to learn, not because I know anything about these. All I know as a T&F fan is that the name Charlie Francis is tainted far beyond redemption of any kind. Using him as an example is basically saying 'Charlie Francis, known long-term pusher of drugs in sports, uses this, so you should to.' Even if he is correct in this case, he is a terrible example. In lieu of another example I'd kill the sentence. Just saying.--Fizbin (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Confusing NPOV

I came to this article seeking basic information on the subject and general validity of medical and physical therapy claims. The material presented reads like several competing points of view mashed together with "neutral" language. Information and tone is conflicting. I briefly looked up the various articles cited as references and the majority of them are poorly-cited (often fewer than 15-20 other papers make reference to the cited article). While citations alone are not a measure of quality, it does lend weight to the interest the article has generated within it's field. It also is a good measure of how many peers have reviewed and possibly validated the research presented.

I understand this article is marked for low priority and not being knowledgeable I cannot offer any useful edits myself. Can an editor at least clean out the alternating bias and perhaps make it just a simple encyclopedic description of what EMS is? It certainly couldn't be any less useful than it is now. TJW (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Where can I check references' citation by others? Also is it possible that there are only a few because this is a very small niche? Some of the scientists whose research I cited are at the top of the food chain in the field.--Gciriani (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I see where your poorly-cited impression comes from: I cross referenced some of the articles at PubMed. In my opinion the relatively low count of references is due by the fact that this is a niche of medicine, therefore there are relatively fewer researcher conducting research in this field. I also think the POV tag could be removed, as the complaint was more about the lack of taking sides for or against electrical muscle stimulation, rather than about neutrality.--Gciriani (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor who proposed POV review agreed in his talk page that the article looks OK.--Gciriani (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Electrical muscle stimulation machines

More information is needed on the machines that use electrical pulses to stimulate muscles to grow. These use pads fixed to the skin. How effective are they, and what are the disadvantages of using them compared to weight training and strength training? Are they safe to use? Do they sometimes damage muscles or disfigure them? Wsmss (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I don't remember for sure but this book might have some information on the topic. Happy hunting and don't forget to cite your sources. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a tall order, easier said than done ITasteLikePaint. I also doubt that the Draper book you referenced contains any comparison of different machines. Although electrons are a commodity, their effect is extremely dependent on the stimulation parameters and how well the waveform is generated. There are probably very few people able to pass judgement, and for sure any judgement would be regarded as unfair endorsement by others.--Gciriani (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and quoted some relevant material regarding effectiveness. I haven't found anything yet regarding safety, perhaps because it is a non issue.--Gciriani (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove Globalize/US tag

I'm proposing to remove the Globalize/US tag. This tag was introduced by User:UltraMagnus on May 30, 2010, suggesting a discussion in the talk page. Nobody ever did that until now, not even the proponent. After reading the article, it seems that citations used in the article come from many different places around the world. The only section that is exclusively US, is the one on the US FDA regulatory aspect. That section has been counterbalanced by a perspective on European regulations and views.--Gciriani (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Electrical muscle stimulation link deletion

New talk topic from User_talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2013/January#Electrical_muscle_stimulation_deletion, copied into this talk as it is relevant to this article.

I agree with you about the deletion in the Electrical muscle stimulation article of the spam link to the Russian company. However, I think the other link to the EMS Digest is not spam. I'm not sure if you went through the document, but it is a useful and complete guide for those who want to learn more about the use of that technique in sport training.--Gciriani (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how a Google Docs document can be considered an authoritative document that meets Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:External links. We are an encyclopaedia, not a linking service, we should be applying rigorous tests, I was tempted to rip out more. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to the Wikipedia rules. I went through them and it seems to me the document fits the bill for inclusion. (1) The link is not in the body of the article and is not a citation. (2) The document contains a relevant bibliography section on which it is based. (3) The document is informative and factual; it reflects in abbreviated form this book: Gianpaolo Boschetti. CHE COS`E` L`ELETTROSTIMOLAZIONE. Libreria dello Sport; 2000. Available at: http://www.libreriadellosport.it/libri/che-cos-e-l-elettrostimolazione.php. This book is not available in English unfortunately. (4) WP:ELMAYBE The material contains information about the subject from knowledgeable sources: it is integrated with information taught by the author during a workshop; it is augmented with appendices written by world caliber specialists; if you go through the material you will see the name of a contributor who is triathlon world record champion in his age group, and who uses electrical muscle stimulation while teaching its use professionally. (4) The material is neutral accurate and relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject matter. The same document is hosted by other companies that have no financial link with the writer: EMS Digest hosted by Hammer Nutrition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gciriani (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Google docs falls under ...

“ Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) ”

... so if you think that it should be be included, then look to put it into a "Further reading" section, utilise {{cite book}} template but NOT inside <ref> tag, and put it into a proper context. As it is, it is nude and not sufficiently contextulised to demonstrates that the author it is authoritative. Also clearly stating that it is a Google Doc, and if possible, the size. (no surprises) — billinghurst sDrewth 06:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

NMES vs. EMS

Hello, I wanted to comment on the opening statement of electrical stimulation. I'm in a physical therapy program and everything I have been learning contradicts the opening statement about NMES and EMS being the same thing or referred to as the same thing. From my understanding EMS and NMES are not the same type of treatment and should not be referred to synonymously. Neuromuscular stimulation uses the peripheral nerve to stimulate muscular contractions with parameters that affect the motor fibers. Whereas, electrical muscle stimulation is used in treatments of denervated muscles with parameters that surpass motor-level stimulation.I would be happy to provide more specification and/or known parameters to elicit these effects if interested.--Hob10 (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct from the point of view of your class. I help teach the practical portion of the modality class of a master program in physical therapy at a reputable university, and what you are saying is what the professor teaches in the that class too. However, in every day's parlance many practitioners refer to it as EMS, and it's important to explain in the article both scientific and lay synonyms. There are also several scientists who refer to it occasionally as EMS, and others as simply ES (while we know that ES could refer to other types of stimulation that have nothing to do with muscle). I have several examples in my bibliography of research articles and textbooks using EMS, so I think the opening statement is appropriate. You can also take a look at the discussion Naming Statistics for more.--Gciriani (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

ES or EMS was generally how I have heard people refer to it as well. I guess I questioned if it would be misleading from a denervated muscle standpoint, where ES is not really strengthening the muscle, but more so retarding atrophy.--Hob10 (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

External Link - Casting New Energy onto Broken Limbs

The external link "Casting New Energy onto Broken Limbs", doesn't seem to fit the article and out of the blue. It smells of indirect advertising, and I propose to delete it.--Gciriani (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Make it so number one -ITasteLikePaint (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Gciriani (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Popular culture

In my opinion, popular culture should be a paragraph with citations rather than a section. It also seems that the use by Bruce Lee is a legitimate use rather than popular culture; however, I don't have a citation available to be able to do so. Further ideas on how to modify this section or absorb it into the main text?--Gciriani (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Reversal of major edit of use section

I don't understand why you Cherrin5 deleted so much material from the Use section of the article. I think you need to broaden your understanding of the subject before doing something like that. You could for instance read some of the references cited in the article. I'm giving you here the link of one resource that I hope will help you understanding why I'm reversing your edit: Maffiuletti NA, Minetto MA, Farina D, Bottinelli R. Electrical stimulation for neuromuscular testing and training: state-of-the art and unresolved issues. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(10):2391-2397. The article was leading a cluster of presentations at the XVIII Congress of the International Society of Electrophysiology and Kinesiology (ISEK 2010) that took place in Aalborg, Denmark on 16–19 June 2010.--Gciriani (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Two similar articles

I do not know how similar FES Functional electrical stimulation is to EMS Electrical muscle stimulation, but they seem the same to me. A merge of the two articles may be necessary.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

FES and EMS are very different from each other. FES is done with the intent to help disabled people to move their own limbs (the muscle contracts the limb moves). EMS is mainly done on able bodied individuals, and is mostly done in an isostatic manner (the muscle contracts but the limb doesn't move).--Gciriani (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved here

As poorly reffed

"===Popular culture ===

• The 1996 Star Wars novel Shadows of the Empire describes a 'myostim' chair that artificially stimulates muscles to build muscle mass and strength.
• The science fiction movie The Matrix contains a scene in which Neo's muscles are activated by means of acupuncture needles and EMS after being 'cocooned' for a long time aboard the ship Nebuchadnezzar.
• In a documentary about Bruce Lee one of his friends states in an interview that Bruce Lee used electrical wires to increase his muscle development (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hSzyjPfoRY).
• In the anime Boku Dake ga Inai Machi an EMS device is used upon the main character during his 15 year coma.
• In the book Earth Unaware by Orson Scott Card and Aaron Johnston, Victor Delgado used an EMS device to keep his muscles from degenerating during his flight through space on a quickship, which lasted 6 months and 3 weeks.
• In the 2002 film Jackass: The Movie, Johnny Knoxville, Chris Pontius, Dave England, and Ehren McGhehey each test out the stimulator on their cheeks, fingers, and finally on Chris's testicle."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Relax-A-Cizor merge

I was looking at the Relax-A-Cizor portion of the article, and it seems to me disproportionate compared to the content of the original article on Electrical muscle stimulation. There are several other devices that have been routinely taken off commerce or warned against by the FDA. Policing the market place is one of the things they do, and that device is one of many they pursued. I would like to propose to drastically remove most of the Relax-A-Cizor content. It even sounds as reverse-advertising by substitute products that see EMS as a detrimental to their own market niche. I would even eliminate the Slendertone paragraph of the section, if there is support.--Gciriani (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks well referenced. Section could be expanded. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Well referenced doesn't make it proportioned to the article. First of all the section is called devices, not device rejections/prohibitions. Then we have to take into account that there there are so many devices out there OTC electrical muscle stimulator devices, 89 as of now according to the link I gave you. With such a premise, the Relax-A-Cizor portion would seem advertising if it weren't for the fact that it was sanctioned bu the FDA.--Gciriani (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)