Ad description

A paid-for Instagram ad for Bodystreet, a fitness centre, seen on 25 July 2024, featured text stating, “Just one 20-minute session per week is equivalent to 3 one-hour sessions at a regular gym”. The ad also featured images of people exercising whilst wearing a vest that appeared to have electrodes attached to it.

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the claim “Just one 20-minute session per week is equivalent to 3 one-hour sessions at a regular gym” was misleading and could be substantiated.

Response

Bodystreet Franchise (UK) Ltd t/a Bodystreet believed their claim was supported by various studies about the impact of electrical myostimulation (EMS) training, and that their claim was an understatement rather than an exaggeration.

They explained that, according to a YouTube video produced by the manufacturer, whole-body EMS delivered 85 muscle contractions per second, whereas with a conventional workout each muscle contraction would take between 1 and 1.5 seconds. They said that, in a conventional workout, each set of 10–15 muscle contractions with a two-minute rest period would be required to affect results. They did not believe that was the case with whole-body EMS training. They believed that EMS training worked muscles 40% harder and said that both the agonistic and antagonistic muscles were worked at the same time in EMS training, further reducing the workout time.

They submitted five studies, one article written by a research institute providing an overview of EMS and a document summarising six unpublished diploma theses on whole-body EMS from a university.

They also provided a fact sheet produced by an EMS device manufacturer, which stated, “EMS training sessions last 20 minutes. This 20-minute workout delivers the same benefits as two and half hours of conventional strength training, and two hours of high intensity training (HIT)”.The Bodystreet said that they had removed the claim from their ad.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claim to mean that one 20-minute session at Bodystreet per week would provide an individual with the same physiological results, such as weight loss, cardio and muscle improvements, as three one-hour sessions at a regular gym and could therefore be used as a time saving alternative to a traditional gym workout.We accepted that when electrical stimulation (EMS) devices were applied to the abdominal region they could temporarily tighten and tone muscles, and that this could be maintained with repeated use. However, claims that muscle stimulators could be used as a slimming application, could facilitate weight and inch loss, reduce fat, help break down cellulite or fatty deposits, tighten and tone sagging body muscle, enhance muscles, restore muscle strength or change fat into muscle were unlikely to be acceptable without robust clinical trial evidence. We considered that a substantive body of relevant evidence, consisting of clinical trials conducted on humans that had been published and peer-reviewed, was needed to substantiate the claim.We assessed the evidence provided by Bodystreet.

The first study looked at 30 postmenopausal women aged 55 and older, and compared the effects of exercising whilst wearing a whole-body EMS device on resting metabolic rate, body composition and maximum strength against traditional training methods. Whilst improvements in strength and abdominal fatness were reportedly higher for the EMS group compared to the traditional training group, we considered that the study had a small cohort of a sub-group of people not representative of the general population and that the results did not show that one 20-minute session of EMS per week was equivalent to three one-hour sessions at the gym. We therefore considered the study was not adequate substantiation for the claim.

The second study was a randomised controlled trial comparing the effects of exercising whilst wearing a whole-body EMS device to high intensity resistance (HIT) training on body composition and muscle strength in a cohort of 48 men between 30 and 50 years of age. The study reported that there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of improvements in body composition and muscle strength. Notwithstanding that, we also considered that there were limitations with the study, in particular the cohort was small and limited to a sub-group of people not representative of the general population. We therefore considered the study was not adequate substantiation for the claim.

The third study looked at the effects of whole-body EMS training on strength, sprinting, jumping and kicking measures in 22 elite football players over a period of 14 weeks and compared these with traditional training methods. Whilst the study reported significant differences between the two groups, with those in the EMS group achieving significantly greater improvements in the outcome measures, we considered that the cohort was small and not representative of the general population. Also, the study did not show that one 20-minute session of EMS per week was equivalent to three one-hour sessions. We therefore considered it was not adequate substantiation for the claim.

The fourth study, again involving professional football players and therefore not representative of the general population, reported the effect of whole-body EMS on human red blood cell deformability. We considered that the outcome measures were not sufficiently relevant to the claim in the ad and therefore the study was not adequate substantiation for the claim.

The fifth study measured the effect of a 12-week whole-body EMS training programme compared to traditional training on physical performance and cardiometabolic markers in 28 obese females aged around 18 years. Although significant outcomes were reported in the EMS group compared with the control group, the study was limited by the size of the cohort and was not representative of the general population. Furthermore, the results did not show that one 20-minute session of EMS per week was equivalent to three one-hour sessions. For those reasons, we considered the study was not adequate substantiation for the claim.

We considered that the article by a research institute, which provided an overview of EMS training, including the risks and guidelines, was not adequate substantiation for the claim.

We considered that the document summarising six unpublished diploma theses on whole-body EMS from a university was not adequate substantiation for the claim because the document provided summaries and not the full studies. Also, the theses had not been peer-reviewed.We considered that the factsheet and YouTube video from an EMS device manufacturer was not adequate substantiation for the claim.

For those reasons, we considered that the claim “Just one 20-minute session per week is equivalent to 3 one-hour sessions at a regular gym” had not been substantiated and concluded that the ad was therefore misleading. We welcomed the Bodystreet’s assurance that they had removed the claim from their ad.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Bodystreet Franchise (UK) Ltd not to claim that one 20-minute session per week was equivalent to three one-hour sessions at a regular gym, unless they held adequate substantiation for the claim.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.7     3.11    


More on