Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: EMS Theory - Continued

  1. #31

    Re: EMS Theory - Continued

    For the famous CF 10s ON 50s OFF protocol, I have just bought a Genesy 1200pro that enable me to program my own set-up

    this is what I have for now...

    Warm-up
    Total duration: 5min
    Frequency: 25hz
    Width: 400μs????????

    Stimulation MaxS
    Total duration: 10min
    Frequency: 90Hz
    Ramp up: 2s
    Contraction time: 10s
    Width:400μs
    Ramp down: 1s
    Rest: 47s (4Hz)

    Active Recovery
    Total duration: 5min
    Frequency: 9Hz
    Width:400μs????????

    It would be very helpful If someone know which width I should go with

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    750

    Re: EMS Theory - Continued

    I think the wider the pulse width the better for the lower body, from what I recall from the thread that Ku2u#2 heavily contributed to about a year back. I think 450μs is the recommended pulse width for the quads. Here is the thread:

    http://www.charliefrancis.com/commun...-Buying-an-EMS

    I think you also want to decrease the ramp-up time to under 0.5 seconds- a 2 second ramp time is too long. I have mine set at 0.1 seconds on the programmable unit I have. Perhaps you could start at 0.5 to be conservative, and lower it by .10 each session.

    Also, does the ramp time count as contraction time? Because if it's at less than full power for 2 full seconds of the 10 second contraction time, that's 20% of your potential work time not being optimized.

    As a folluwup to the earlier thread, I bought a Compex Sport, and it is indeed less painful to use on the quads than my Neurotrac Sport XL. The additional power of the Compex is noticeable and welcome. If you have the dough, go for one of these or the Compex units. The only annoying downside is the lack of a "10 on 50 off" Max Strength program.

    The Neurotrac XL remains a great el-cheapo option for Active Recovery.
    Last edited by T-Slow; 04-28-2013 at 02:56 PM.

  3. #33

    Re: EMS Theory - Continued

    thanks for the answer T-Slow,

    I was wondering If the width would be the same for the warm-up and the active recovery phase?

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    750

    Re: EMS Theory - Continued

    I would suspect so. If you read through the thread carefully there may be an answer. I'm sure gciriani can answer your question. He usually seems to monitor EMS threads.

  5. #35
    Member gciriani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    West Hartford, CT - USA
    Posts
    213

    Re: EMS Theory - Continued

    I would like to touch on a characteristic of EMS that is often (if not always) neglected: the maximum voltage provided by an EMS machine.

    A customer who had bought this machine from one of my competitors, found that contractions were not as strong as he wanted. After trying one of my machines and experimenting the substantial difference in intensity contraction, ended up returning the former. But why the big difference? In a nutshell, understand what the specs are really claiming.

    1) If you scroll through the link of that machine it says (below the video): 120 mA. We know after all that the most reputable brands claim 120 mA, and that it's almost impossible to get to that level. Well let's read further: peak to peak, which means they have 60 mA positive and 60 mA going in the opposite direction when the waveform flips over to the negative side.

    2) They claim 500 Ohm is the load under which the current was measured. Ohm's law says V = I x R: voltage equals current intensity times resistance (or impedance). With the units of measure we deal with in EMS it's easier to use the following units V (volts) = mA (milli-amps) x kilo-Ohms. So we have now learnt that that machine from that web-site reaches a maximum 60 mA x 0.5 kilo-Ohms = 30 Volts.

    The problem is that when one puts the pads on quads the resistance of the quads is much higher: in the neighborhood of 2-2.5 kilo-Ohm. So if you do the calculation again, but solving for the maximum current this time, you obtain V / kilo-Ohms = mA you obtain 30 V / 2 kilo-Ohms = 15 mA. This is not enough to obtain appreciable results!

    So that machine is limited by the maximum voltage it is able to provide which equals 30 V. You can rest assured that if they had been able to provide a higher current they would not have used the trick of giving the peak to peak and to specify 500 Ohms for h=the load under which that maximum current had been calculated.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •