Quick Overview
A University of Turin study compared Whole body EMS and traditional resistance training in 20 sedentary women for 10 weeks.
Researchers tracked 1-RM squat, hammer curl, and plank time every two weeks.
Both groups gained similarly: squat +36% vs +34%, curl +42% vs +33%, plank +103% vs +65%. No time × group interaction appeared.
This evidence suggests EMS can help build comparable strength in only 20 minutes weekly instead of two hours in the gym. The supervised, repeated-measures design supports credibility. Read the full post for methods, limits, and who should try EMS.
We always provide direct links to the original research at the end of every article so you can review the evidence yourself.
20 Minutes of EMS a Week Matched Hours of Gym Strength Training
EMS is having a moment in gyms. A new Italian study helps explain why.
Researchers at the University of Turin asked a simple question. Can a short EMS session match a longer gym workout for strength?
They published the answer in a peer-reviewed journal. The work came from a specialist neuromuscular lab. Senior authors included Prof. Alberto Rainoldi and Assoc. Prof. Gennaro Boccia.
That pedigree matters. Turin is a major research university in Italy. Italy has a long record in physiology and sport science. The paper went through ethics review first. Volunteers signed consent. The journal listed the full methods in public.
Here is what they did.
Twenty young women joined. All were sedentary. Their average age was about 20. None had been training for at least six months.
Ten chose whole-body EMS. Ten chose normal resistance training. A trainer supervised every session.
The EMS group trained once a week. Each session lasted 20 minutes. They used a full-body suit on major muscle groups. Settings followed published EMS guidelines. Frequency was 85 Hz. Work and rest each lasted four seconds.
The gym group trained about twice a week. Sessions ran 60 to 90 minutes. They used familiar lifts for legs, arms, and core.
Scientists tested both groups every two weeks. They did this for 10 weeks. That gave five check-ins after the start.
They estimated 1-RM on the back squat. They estimated 1-RM on the hammer curl. They timed a forearm plank to exhaustion.
Those numbers tell the story.
Squat rose in both groups. The EMS group went from 47.0 kg to 64.0 kg. That was a 36% jump. The gym group went from 52.7 kg to 70.4 kg. That was a 34% jump.
Hammer curl rose too. The EMS group moved from 7.3 kg to 10.0 kg. That was a 42% gain. The gym group moved from 12.4 kg to 16.6 kg. That was a 33% gain.
Plank time climbed fastest. The EMS group started at 79.4 seconds. They finished at 161.2 seconds. That was a 103% increase. The gym group improved by 65%.
Both groups got stronger. The gap between methods was not statistically significant. Progress showed up early. It kept rising through week 10.
No injuries were reported in the trial.
So how can EMS help? In this study, it helped untrained women add strength with far less clock time. Twenty minutes once a week tracked with hours of conventional lifting. The tests were the same. The gains moved in the same direction.
That is the bright side. EMS packed a lot of muscle work into a short, supervised session. People who hate long gym blocks may find that useful. People who want a compact full-body hit may find that useful.
This article is based on that paper, not on gym rumours. The scientists named their lab. They named their university. They named the device protocol. They published the raw pattern of change.
EMS is still training, not magic. This trial was small. Volunteers chose their own group. It studied young sedentary women, not every body type. Diet was not controlled.
It is not medical treatment. It is not a diagnosis tool. It does not replace a doctor. People with implants, pregnancy, epilepsy, or heart devices were outside this work. A qualified trainer should run the current. Intensity should rise slowly.
Used that way, the Turin data point to a clear fitness upside. Short EMS sessions can support real strength progress. The measurements said so, week after week.
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/4qOIIqD
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
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Study title | Comparative Efficiency of Whole-Body EMS and Resistance Training in Enhancing 1-RM |
| Authors | Valentina Grgic, Ludovico Grossio, Anna Mulasso, Gennaro Boccia, Alberto Rainoldi |
| Corresponding author | Assoc. Prof. Gennaro Boccia (gennaro.boccia@unito.it) |
| Research centre | Neuromuscular Function Research Group, School of Exercise and Sport Science |
| University and country | University of Turin (Università degli Studi di Torino), Italy |
| Journal and publisher | Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology; MDPI, Basel, Switzerland |
| Publication record | Received 16 May 2025; accepted 19 June 2025; published 26 June 2025. Vol. 10, 243 |
| Ethics approval | University of Turin Institutional Ethics Committee, protocol 0432975 (21 July 2023); Declaration of Helsinki |
| Aim | Compare WB-EMS with traditional resistance training for strength gains in sedentary women |
| Participants | 20 sedentary women; mean age 20 ± 3 years; BMI 18–25; inactive for at least 6 months; 10 per group; self-selected allocation |
| Timeline | 10-week programme; tests at weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 |
| EMS protocol | One 20-minute session a week; Miha Bodytec suit; 85 Hz; 4 s impulse / 4 s pause; 350 µs; supervised |
| Gym comparison | About 2 sessions a week; 60–90 minutes each; 5–8 exercises; 1–3 sets of 8–20 reps; supervised |
| What was measured | Estimated 1-RM back squat; estimated 1-RM hammer curl; plank time to exhaustion |
| Main results and conclusion | Squat +36% (EMS, 47.0 to 64.0 kg) vs +34% (gym). Curl +42% vs +33%. Plank +103% vs +65%. Similar gains; no significant method-by-time gap. EMS matched gym strength progress in far less time. No injuries reported. Original study: https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk10030243 |
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.
