Research Article Effects of Whole-Body Electromyostimulation versus High-Intensity Resistance Exercise on Body Composition and Strength: A Randomized Controlled Study Wolfgang Kemmler, 1 Marc Teschler, 1 Anja Weißenfels, 1 Michael Bebenek, 1 Michael Fröhlich, 2 Matthias Kohl, 3 and Simon von Stengel 1 1 Institute of Medical Physics, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-N¨ urnberg, 91052 Erlangen, Germany 2 Department of Sports Science, University of Kaiserslautern, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany 3 Department of Medical and Life Sciences, University of Furtwangen, 78048 Schwenningen, Germany Correspondence should be addressed to Wolfgang Kemmler; wolfgang.kemmler@imp.uni-erlangen.de Received 3 November 2015; Revised 8 January 2016; Accepted 11 January 2016 Academic Editor: Tomas Lundeberg Copyright © 2016 Wolfgang Kemmler et al. Tis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. High-intensity (resistance) exercise (HIT) and whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) are both approaches to realize time- efcient favorable changes of body composition and strength. Te purpose of this study was to determine the efectiveness of WB- EMS compared with the gold standard reference HIT, for improving body composition and muscle strength in middle-aged men. Forty-eight healthy untrained men, 30–50 years old, were randomly allocated to either HIT (2 sessions/week) or a WB-EMS group (3 sessions/2 weeks) that exercised for 16 weeks. HIT was applied as “single-set-to-failure protocol,” while WB-EMS was conducted with intermittent stimulation (6 s WB-EMS, 4 s rest; 85 Hz, 350 ms) over 20 minutes. Te main outcome parameters were lean body mass (LBM) as determined via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and maximum dynamic leg-extensor strength (isokinetic leg- press). LBM changes of both groups (HIT 1.25 ± 1.44% versus WB-EMS 0.93 ± 1.15%) were signifcant ( = .001); however, no signifcant group diferences were detected ( = .395). Leg-extensor strength also increased in both groups (HIT 12.7 ± 14.7%,  = .002, versus WB-EMS 7.3 ± 10.3%,  = .012) with no signifcant ( = .215) between-group diference. Corresponding changes were also determined for body fat and back-extensor strength. Conclusion. In summary, WB-EMS can be considered as a time-efcient but pricy option to HIT-resistance exercise for people aiming at the improvement of general strength and body composition. 1. Introduction Time constraints are frequently reported as the main hin- drance for frequent exercise; thus, time-saving exercise pro- tocols are attractive to people seeking to increase their perfor- mance, attractiveness, and health. With respect to resistance exercise, low volume, high-intensity training (HIT) protocols seem to be the most time-efcient method to improve mus- cle mass and strength, independent of the ongoing debate whether resistance exercise with higher volume may be more efective in general [1–5]. However, alternative training technologies tailored to commercial applications may dispute this position. Tis includes in particular whole-body elec- tromyostimulation (WB-EMS), which is becoming increas- ingly popular in Europe. Unlike the well-known local EMS application, WB-EMS technology is able to stimulate all the main muscle groups with dedicated intensity simultaneously. HIT and WB-EMS are ofen regarded as being similarly time efcient and safe; however, the few studies comparing the efects of both methods on muscle mass and/or strength did not show consistent results [6–10]. Nevertheless, commercial suppliers advertise “outcome efects” of up to 18-fold higher compared with conventional resistance exercise training. Tis promise is, however, primarily based on the misinterpretation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine Volume 2016, Article ID 9236809, 9 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/9236809