Why We Publish the Load and Almost Nobody Else Does
Medically reviewed by
4 independent reviewers
Andrew Conrad Barile, PT, DPT
Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) | Licensed Physical Therapist (PT) | CEO and Founder, Xtreem Pulse LLC
Read bio
Dr. Andrew Conrad Barile is a Doctor of Physical Therapy and the CEO and Founder of Xtreem Pulse LLC, the engineering company behind PureLift. He earned his Doctorate in Physical Therapy from Daemen College and is a licensed physical therapist.
He brings over two decades of clinical and entrepreneurial experience across physical therapy, craniosacral therapy and medical device innovation, built on a working knowledge of human anatomy and muscle physiology.
For PureLift LAB he reviews how current is delivered across all ten levels, from sub-sensory nanocurrent and skin-level microcurrent to motor-level EMS, and how the Infuse pass fits into the same ten-minute routine.
Bertica M. Rubio, M.D.
Board-Certified Physician, Dartmouth Medical School | Medical Director, Antiaging Regenerative Medicine Clinic
Read bio
Dr. Bertica M. Rubio is a board-certified physician and Medical Director of the Antiaging Regenerative Medicine Clinic in Redlands, California. She earned her Doctor of Medicine from Dartmouth Medical School and completed her pediatrics residency at UC Irvine Medical Center.
With decades of clinical experience, she specialises in age management medicine, regenerative medicine, wound healing and growth factor therapies, and her practice integrates evidence-based medical science with advanced aesthetic treatment.
For PureLift LAB she reviews articles for medical accuracy across the whole dial, from the gentle nanocurrent and microcurrent settings through to muscle-level EMS and the Infuse pass.
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS
Board-Certified Otolaryngologist | Head and Neck Surgeon | Fellow, American College of Surgeons | Mount Sinai
Read bio
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS is a board-certified otolaryngologist and head and neck surgeon at ENT and Allergy Associates in West Nyack, New York. He earned his medical degree from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.
He completed his otolaryngology residency at New York University Medical Center, serves as Assistant Clinical Professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and is a Fellow of both the American College of Surgeons and the American Academy of Otolaryngology.
For PureLift LAB he brings a wider clinical lens, connecting at-home facial stimulation from microcurrent to EMS to the anatomy underneath, with the same rigour we apply to every device specification.
Prof. Dr. med. Ivo Buschmann
Chair of Angiology, Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg | Clinic Director, University Clinic for Angiology
Read bio
Prof. Dr. med. Ivo Buschmann is Chair of Angiology at the Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane and Clinic Director of the University Clinic for Angiology at the Brandenburg University Hospital.
He trained at the University of Hamburg, was a Max Planck Society Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, and held senior consultant posts at the Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin before his appointment as Chair in 2016.
One of Europe's leading authorities on arteriogenesis, with over 150 peer-reviewed publications and US and EU patents, he reviews for PureLift LAB how the evidence on electrical stimulation is read and where its limits lie.
Share
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.