F.R.P. Gives The Athlete The Competitive Edge And Helps Restore Function Quicker With Less Pain For the Injured Athlete.

 

     The process of achieving the competitive edge over another competitor,  or of restoration of full function,  is a dual process of exercise and electrical stimulation in concert with each other.   Electrical stimulation of muscle nerves has an ultimate outcome of increased torque or power.   This process is achieved by volitional contractions accompanied by muscle fiber recruitment with electrical stimulation.   

      The Infrex FRM actually excites the closest and largest muscle fibers first, while exercising, and with the intensity increased during exercise recruits more distant and smaller muscle fibers.   This process aids in function restoration and increased range of motion for higher torque.   The targeted fibers are stimulated by the 8,000+ frequency of the Infrex FRM thus allowing stimulation not available with other stimulation devices.   

       

  The FRP  video below ( coming soon) explains how the world class athlete, weekend golfer, professional tennis player or NBA star

 

1.  expands range of motion,

 

2.  increases torque for greater strength, and

 

3.  delays fatique for a competitive advantage.

Table of Contents

Study on Premodulation and Regular Interferential Therapy Print E-mail

  Pre-modulation is the process of mixing the electrical currents inside the interferentail device before it is administered to the patient.  This contrasts with the classic theory of allowing the currents to cross inside the patient. 

 

The Infrex Plus is a pre-modulated device.

 

 

A comparison of true and premodulated interferential currents.

Ozcan J, Ward AR, Robertson VJ.

School of Physiotherapy, La Trobe University, Victoria, Australia.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare true and premodulated interferential currents (IFCs) in terms of sensory, motor, and pain thresholds; maximum electrically induced torque (MEIT); and comfort.

DESIGN: Repeated-measures design.

SETTING: Laboratory setting.

PARTICIPANTS: University student and staff volunteers.

INTERVENTIONS: Participants were exposed to 4 different conditions, chosen to evaluate 2 fundamental differences between true and premodulated IFCs. The conditions were different combinations of (1) premodulated or constant-amplitude currents applied at the skin and (2) crossed or parallel current paths.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensory, motor, and pain thresholds; MEIT; and subjective reports of relative discomfort were recorded for each of the 4 conditions. Motor to sensory threshold ratios were subsequently calculated to assess depth efficiency of stimulation.

RESULTS: The major findings were that crossed currents (true IFC) had no advantage over parallel currents (premodulated IFC) in terms of motor to sensory threshold ratio, MEIT, or comfort, and that premodulated currents produced higher torque values and less discomfort than constant-amplitude currents (true IFC). These results contradict the claimed superiority of true IFC.

CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that premodulated IFC, delivered via 2 large electrodes, may be clinically more effective than the traditional true IFC arrangement in terms of depth efficiency, torque production, and patient comfort.

 

ShareThis!

RocketTheme Joomla Templates