Quick Overview
Scientists at Chukyo University and Kyoto University asked how using EMS can help sprint interval training.
Fifteen healthy men did two 30-second Wingate sprints. A four-minute break sat between them. One break used neuromuscular electrical stimulation plus easy pedalling at 43.6 watts. The other used matched easy cycling alone. Blood lactate ran higher with EMS: mean 17.4 versus 16.2 mmol/L (P=0.011), peak 18.7 versus 17.4 (P=0.036). Peak power, mean power and fatigue did not drop. Heart rate and oxygen use stayed matched.
The 2024 International Journal of Sports Medicine paper (Thieme, Germany) is peer-reviewed. Those numbers suggest extra lactate stimulus without lost sprint output.
The full post has the protocol, recovery curve and lab detail.
We always provide direct links to the original research at the end of every article so you can review the evidence yourself.
Japanese sports scientists tested a simple idea:
Could EMS add extra training punch between all-out sprints?
They did not guess.
They measured it.
The work came from the Laboratory of Neuromuscular Biomechanics at Chukyo University.
Kyoto University researchers joined the team.
Lead author Dr Ryosuke Takeda and colleagues published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine.
That journal is issued by Thieme in Germany.
The paper was peer reviewed, accepted in January 2024, and published online in April 2024.
Fifteen healthy young men took part.
Mean age was 23.
They visited the lab three times, a week apart.
Each man completed two Wingate tests.
Those are 30-second all-out bike sprints.
A four-minute block sat between the sprints.
One visit used neuromuscular electrical stimulation plus easy pedalling.
The team called that mix VOLES.
The other visit used easy pedalling alone.
They matched oxygen use between the two.
That easy load averaged 43.6 watts.
They tracked power, fatigue, heart rate, breathing, muscle oxygen, and blood lactate.
Sprint output held up.
Peak power did not fall with EMS.
Mean power did not fall.
The fatigue index did not rise.
Condition differences were not significant.
All those tests sat above P = 0.300.
Blood lactate told a different story.
Mean recovery lactate reached 17.4 mmol/L with EMS.
It reached 16.2 mmol/L without it.
That gap was significant (P = 0.011).
Peak lactate hit 18.7 mmol/L with EMS.
It hit 17.4 mmol/L without it (P = 0.036).
So the extra lactate arrived without extra drop-off in sprint power.
Why does that matter for training?
Sprint interval training already lifts aerobic capacity in short programmes.
Lactate is one signal linked to mitochondrial building in muscle.
More of that signal, without losing sprint quality, is the bright finding.
On a screening day, EMS alone raised lactate by 0.9 mmol/L.
During the easy four-minute block, lactate looked similar in both conditions.
The bigger difference showed after the second sprint.
Recovery lactate stayed higher with VOLES.
Heart rate and oxygen use stayed matched.
That means the extra lactate was not just from harder breathing work.
The device used a modest current.
Electrodes sat in fitted shorts over thighs and glutes.
This was an acute lab test, not a long training trial.
The group was young untrained men only.
Still, the measured pattern is clear.
EMS plus light cycling did not blunt the second sprint.
It did raise and hold blood lactate higher than matched easy cycling alone.
That is the purpose of the paper in plain terms.
Can neuromuscular electrical stimulation add a lactate stimulus inside sprint interval training without costing power?
In this design, the numbers said yes on lactate, and no harm on the sprints.
The authors call that a possible new way to add stimulus when easy recovery work stays light.
The data are public, dated, and attached to named university labs and a long-standing sports journal.
Featured Product
ORIEMS FIT ULTIMATE KIT 💪 is a 100% Australian award-winning product.
Voted YEAR’S BEST ⭐ for 2024 and 2025.
It is a wide-range targeted muscle stimulator enhanced with EMS technology, designed to support your fitness and relaxation routine. 🌟
Trusted by more than 10,000 happy users with over 450 five-star Google reviews. 😊
Check availability.
Product Disclaimer:
This product is designed only to support fitness and relaxation routines. It is not a medical device and has not been evaluated or registered by the TGA. It is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease or medical condition. It may not be suitable for everyone. Please consult your doctor or healthcare practitioner before using it.
Like this Research Digest? 📚
Share it with your friends 💬👇https://bit.ly/4gPrJQt
About Our Health Research Digest
We bring you the latest and most important health research papers — simplified and easy to understand.
Each study is broken down into clear, concise summaries and engaging podcasts, with direct links to the original research so you can explore further whenever you like.
We also create content based on your requests. If you’re curious about a specific health topic or would like us to find relevant studies, simplify the findings, and turn them into a podcast, just let us know.
Don’t hesitate to reach out — we’re here to help make health research accessible and useful for you. Contact us anytime.
More EMS Research Scientists Are Studying
1. Can EMS reduce fat?
2. Can EMS increase calorie burn while sitting?
3. Can EMS support muscle toning and muscle gains?
4. Can EMS improve athletic training?
5. Can EMS play a role in muscle loss & frailty?
6. Can EMS reduce pain?
7. EMS vs TENS: What are the differences?
8. Can EMS play a role after stroke?
Research Summary
| Topic | What the paper reports |
|---|---|
| Study title | Can Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Enhance the Effect of Sprint Interval Training? |
| Purpose | To test how using EMS with light cycling between two all-out sprints changes blood lactate and sprint output versus matched easy cycling alone. |
| Research team | Ryosuke Takeda, Hiroya Nojima, Taichi Nishikawa, Masamichi Okudaira, Tetsuya Hirono and Kohei Watanabe. |
| Labs | Laboratory of Neuromuscular Biomechanics, Chukyo University (Toyota), plus Kyoto University Health and Sport Sciences. |
| Journal and publisher | International Journal of Sports Medicine, 2024; 45: 672–677. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany. |
| Review path | Accepted 22 January 2024. Accepted manuscript online 29 January 2024. Published online 22 April 2024. Peer-reviewed sports science paper. |
| Design | Randomised crossover. Three lab visits, at least one week apart. Visit 1 set the easy-cycling load. Visits 2 and 3 compared the two conditions. |
| Who was tested | 15 healthy young men. Age 23 (4) years. Height 169.6 (4.9) cm. Body mass 63.4 (8.0) kg. |
| Session flow | 9-minute warm-up, 1-minute rest, first Wingate sprint, 4-minute intervention, second Wingate, then 10 minutes of easy recovery pedalling. |
| The two conditions | VOLES: neuromuscular electrical stimulation plus free-weight cycling. VOL: easy cycling alone at 43.6 (8.0) watts, set to match oxygen use. |
| How EMS was applied | Shorts-style stimulator over anterior thigh, posterior thigh and gluteal muscles. Screening day EMS alone raised lactate by 0.9 (0.5) mmol/L. |
| What they measured | Peak power, mean power, fatigue index, heart rate, oxygen use, ventilation, vastus lateralis deoxygenation, and blood lactate at baseline, mid-intervention, and 1, 3, 5 and 10 minutes after the second sprint. |
| Lactate finding | Recovery mean lactate was 17.4 [2.3] versus 16.2 [2.5] mmol/L (P = 0.011). Peak lactate was 18.7 (2.4) versus 17.4 (2.6) mmol/L (P = 0.036). Higher with EMS. |
| Sprint finding | Peak power, mean power and fatigue index did not differ between conditions. Condition and interaction tests were all P > 0.300. Sprint output held. |
| Why the paper is checkable | Heart rate and oxygen use were not different between conditions, so the extra lactate was not from a harder aerobic load. Original study: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2256-0285 · PubMed 38286427 · Thieme abstract thieme-connect.com |
Disclaimer
This article is published for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice, health advice, diagnosis, or treatment of any kind.
All content on this website, including any studies, research, or information mentioned, is provided for informational purposes only and does not imply or guarantee any specific health outcomes.
We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected in any way to any researchers, universities, research centres, journals, or institutions referenced in any article. No reference to any study, researcher, or publication should be interpreted as an endorsement or recommendation of any products sold or featured on this website.
Our products (and any products featured or linked in this article) are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, prevent, or manage any disease or medical condition. Individual results may vary significantly. No guarantees or warranties are made regarding effectiveness, safety, or specific outcomes.
Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before using any product mentioned on this website or making any changes to your health routine, especially if you have a pre-existing medical condition, are pregnant, breastfeeding, have a pacemaker, or are taking medication.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, ORIEMS FIT, its directors, employees, authors, affiliates, and agents disclaim all liability for any loss, damage, cost, expense, or injury (whether direct, indirect, consequential, special, or incidental) arising from the use of, or reliance upon, any information in this article or from the purchase or use of any products featured or sold on this website.
© [ORIEMS FIT] – All Rights Reserved.
