Why We Publish the Load and Almost Nobody Else Does
Medically reviewed by
4 independent reviewers
Andrew Conrad Barile, Physiotherapeut, Doktor der Physiotherapie
Doktor der Physiotherapie (DPT), Lizenzierter Physiotherapeut (PT)
Read bio
Dr. Andrew Conrad Barile ist Doktor der Physiotherapie sowie CEO und Gründer von Xtreem Pulse LLC. Er erwarb seinen Doktortitel in Physiotherapie am Daemen College und bringt über zwei Jahrzehnte klinische und unternehmerische Erfahrung in der pädiatrischen Physiotherapie, Craniosacraltherapie und medizinischen Geräteinnovation mit. Sein tiefes Verständnis der menschlichen Anatomie, Muskelphysiologie und therapeutischen Technologie bietet einen wissenschaftlich fundierten Ansatz für Gesichtsverjüngung und Anti-Aging-Lösungen.
Bertica M. Rubio, M.D.
Medizinischer Direktor, Anti-Aging-Regenerationsmedizinische Klinik | Facharzt | Dartmouth Medical School
Read bio
Dr. Bertica M. Rubio ist eine zertifizierte Ärztin und medizinische Leiterin der Anti-Aging-Regenerationsklinik in Redlands, Kalifornien. Sie erwarb ihren Bachelor of Science an der Loyola Marymount University und ihren Doktortitel in Medizin an der Dartmouth Medical School (Geisel School of Medicine). Ihre Facharztausbildung in Pädiatrie absolvierte sie am UC Irvine Medical Center.
Mit jahrzehntelanger klinischer Erfahrung spezialisiert sich Dr. Rubio auf Altersmanagement, regenerative Medizin, Wundheilung und Wachstumsfaktor-Therapien. Ihre Praxis verbindet evidenzbasierte medizinische Wissenschaft mit fortschrittlichen ästhetischen und regenerativen Behandlungen, um Patienten zu optimaler Gesundheit und jugendlicher Vitalität zu verhelfen.
Dr. Rubio ist leidenschaftlich daran interessiert, Patienten über die Wissenschaft hinter Hautpflege, Gesichtsverjüngung und nicht-invasiven Technologien wie EMS (Elektrische Muskelstimulation) zur Gesichtstonung aufzuklären. Ihre Artikel für PureLift LAB verbinden fundiertes medizinisches Wissen mit praktischen Anleitungen für echte, nachhaltige Ergebnisse.
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS
Facharzt für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde und Kopf-Hals-Chirurgie | Fellow des American College of Surgeons | Assistenz-Professor für Klinische Medizin, Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Read bio
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS, ist ein von der Ärztekammer zertifizierter Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Arzt und Kopf-Hals-Chirurg bei ENT and Allergy Associates in West Nyack, NY. Er erwarb seinen medizinischen Abschluss an der Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, absolvierte seine Facharztausbildung in Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde am New York University Medical Center und ist Assistenzprofessor an der Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Er ist Fellow sowohl des American College of Surgeons als auch der American Academy of Otolaryngology.
Dr. Grinbergs Perspektive als Kopf-Hals-Chirurg bietet den Lesern von PureLift LAB eine erweiterte klinische Sichtweise — er verbindet die EMS-Anwendung zu Hause mit der zugrunde liegenden medizinischen Anatomie mit derselben wissenschaftlichen Genauigkeit, die wir auf jede Gerätespezifikation anwenden.
Prof. Dr. med. Ivo Buschmann
Lehrstuhl für Angiologie, Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg | Klinikdirektor, Universitätsklinik für Angiologie, Brandenburgisches Klinikum | Ehemaliger Oberarzt, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Read bio
Prof. Dr. med. Ivo Buschmann ist Lehrstuhlinhaber für Angiologie an der Medizinischen Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane (MHB) und Klinikdirektor der Universitätsklinik für Angiologie am Brandenburgischen Universitätsklinikum. Er absolvierte seine medizinische Ausbildung an der Universität Hamburg, war Max-Planck-Gesellschaft-Stipendiat am Max-Planck-Institut für Herz- und Lungenforschung und hatte leitende Oberarztpositionen an der Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Virchow inne, bevor er 2016 zum Lehrstuhlinhaber an der MHB berufen wurde.
Prof. Buschmann ist einer der führenden europäischen Experten für Arteriogenese – das durch Fluss angetriebene Wachstum und die Umgestaltung von Blutgefäßen – mit mehr als 150 begutachteten Veröffentlichungen und mehreren US- und EU-Patenten für Geräte, die das Wachstum von Kollateralgefäßen durch kontrollierte Scherkräfte-Therapie stimulieren. Seine Forschung verbindet mechanische und elektrische Stimulation mit vaskulärer Anpassung, Mikrozirkulation und Gewebeperfusion.
Die Beiträge von Prof. Buschmann bieten den Lesern von PureLift LAB eine gefäßbiologische Perspektive, die unsere bestehenden Autoren aus den Bereichen Klinik, Physiotherapie und chirurgische Anatomie ergänzt – und erklären, wie EMS-Stimulation nicht nur die Gesichtsmuskeln, sondern auch die Mikrozirkulation, die sie versorgt, aktiviert und warum eine intelligente Anwendung auf der Ebene des Blutflusses ebenso wichtig ist wie die Muskelkontraktion.
Teilen
A current figure without the resistance it was measured against is not a specification, and almost nobody in this category publishes both.
This article explains what is actually happening, such as:
- why the same device can honestly claim two different output numbers
- what 500 ohms represents and why it is the figure to ask for
- how many devices in the category publish anything at all
- why the real numbers usually sit in FDA filings rather than on product pages
- the three questions to ask before you spend anything
and many more!
This is the piece we would least like a competitor to write about us, which is why we wrote it first.
Key Points:
Current through skin depends on resistance, so an output figure means nothing until you know the load it was measured against.
Of the 33 devices we track, six publish an output figure on their own pages and two state a load.
Most of the real figures in this category exist, but in FDA filings the buyer never sees rather than on the page where the device is sold.
PureLift publishes 7 mA at 500 ohms for Face and Pro, 7.7 mA for Pro Edition and 9 mA for Pro Plus and GLOW, with a 4 microsecond pulse width.
Ask any brand for output, load and pulse width, and you will learn as much from whether they answer as from the answer.
Why one number is not enough
Electrical current through tissue follows a simple relationship: the current that flows depends on the voltage applied and the resistance it meets.
Skin resistance is not fixed, since it changes with how wet the skin is, how much serum is on it, where on the face you are working and even the time of day.
So a device measured into a low resistance produces a higher current reading than the same device measured into a high one, and both readings are true.
That is why a maximum output quoted with no load attached tells you almost nothing, and why two devices quoting the same number can behave very differently on a face.
The convention in electrical stimulation is to state the load, and 500 ohms is the common reference point because it sits in the range of real skin contact through a conductive serum.
What the category actually publishes
We looked at 33 devices across 24 brands and counted what each brand puts on its own product pages.
Six publish an output figure: FOREO at 680 microamps for BEAR 2, Therabody at 500 microamps, Skin Gym at 10 to 500 microamps, 7E Wellness at 350 microamps for the MyoLift QT, Omnilux at about 30 mW/cm² and HigherDOSE at 50 mW/cm².
Two state the load or distance the figure was measured at, which is the detail that makes a figure comparable.
The rest publish wavelengths, LED counts, mode names and programme counts, all of which sound like specifications and none of which tell you how hard the device works.
The numbers exist, they are just not where you are shopping
Here is the part that surprised us when we ran the research.
Ya-Man publishes no output on its consumer pages, and its FDA filing under K220198 publishes 3.22 mA at 500 ohms, with pulse widths and a full frequency list.
NuFACE publishes no figure on its site, and its filing for the MINI+ under K201680 gives 335 microamps and a range from 70 to 335, though even there no load is stated.
Shark publishes no wavelengths or irradiance on the CryoGlow page, and its filing under K242796 gives 630, 415 and 830 nm, a total of 128 mW/cm² and delivered doses up to 431 J/cm².
So the category is not secretive so much as selectively public, because the regulator gets the engineering and the customer gets the adjectives.
We think that is the wrong way round, since the regulator can read a specification and a buyer standing in front of two devices cannot read anything at all.
What we publish and why
PureLift Face and Pro publish 7 mA at 500 ohms, Pro Edition 7.7 mA, and Pro Plus and GLOW 9 mA, all at the same load, with a 4 microsecond pulse width across the range.
GLOW publishes 1.13 W/m² of irradiance and 678 J/m² delivered over ten minutes for its light layer, which converts to 0.113 mW/cm² and 0.068 J/cm².
That last conversion does not flatter us against a dedicated LED mask, and we publish it anyway, because a figure you only print when it wins is not a specification, it is an advertisement.
Clearance numbers are K190269 for Face, K230506 for Pro and Pro Edition, K221443 for Pro Plus and K243587 for GLOW, and the devices are made in Japan in an ISO 13485 facility.
Three questions to ask any brand
Ask what the maximum output is, and at what load, and expect a number and a resistance in the answer.
Ask what the pulse width is, because a short pulse at a given current delivers far less charge than a long one, and charge is what the tissue responds to.
Ask for the clearance number, then look it up, which takes about two minutes and is set out in our guide to running the check.
A brand that answers all three has nothing to hide, and a brand that answers none of them is selling you a feeling rather than a device.
What this does not prove
Publishing a figure does not make a device work, and there are good devices in this category whose makers publish nothing.
Higher output is not automatically better either, since comfort decides whether you keep using a device, which is why we run PDM underneath the current across 361 frequency points rather than holding one fixed frequency.
What transparency does is let you compare, and let you hold us to what we said, which is the only basis on which any of this is worth reading.
This comparison sits inside our full map of the category, where we set out all 33 devices we track, what each one carries and what each brand publishes: Nine Technologies on One Dial, What the Rest of the Market Actually Carries.
Figures verified on 17 September 2026 against each brand's own published material and the FDA 510(k) database.