Why We Publish the Load and Almost Nobody Else Does
Medically reviewed by
4 independent reviewers
Andrew Conrad Barile, Fisioterapeuta, Doctor en Terapia Física
Doctorado en Terapia Física (DPT), Fisioterapeuta Licenciado (PT)
Read bio
El Dr. Andrew Conrad Barile es Doctor en Terapia Física y CEO y Fundador de Xtreem Pulse LLC. Obtuvo su Doctorado en Terapia Física en Daemen College y aporta más de dos décadas de experiencia clínica y empresarial en terapia física pediátrica, terapia craneosacral e innovación en dispositivos médicos. Su profundo conocimiento de la anatomía humana, la fisiología muscular y la tecnología terapéutica ofrece un enfoque invaluable respaldado por la ciencia para la rejuvenecimiento facial y soluciones antienvejecimiento.
Bertica M. Rubio, M.D.
Director Médico, Clínica de Medicina Regenerativa y Antienvejecimiento | Médico Certificado por la Junta | Escuela de Medicina de Dartmouth
Read bio
La Dra. Bertica M. Rubio es una médica certificada y Directora Médica de la Clínica de Medicina Regenerativa y Antienvejecimiento en Redlands, California. Obtuvo su licenciatura en Ciencias en la Universidad Loyola Marymount y su título de Doctora en Medicina en la Escuela de Medicina de Dartmouth (Geisel School of Medicine). Completó su residencia en pediatría en el Centro Médico UC Irvine.
Con décadas de experiencia clínica, la Dra. Rubio se especializa en medicina para el manejo de la edad, medicina regenerativa, cicatrización de heridas y terapias con factores de crecimiento. Su práctica integra la ciencia médica basada en evidencia con tratamientos estéticos y regenerativos avanzados, ayudando a los pacientes a alcanzar una salud óptima y vitalidad juvenil.
La Dra. Rubio siente pasión por educar a los pacientes sobre la ciencia detrás del cuidado de la piel, el rejuvenecimiento facial y las tecnologías no invasivas como EMS (Estimulación Eléctrica Muscular) para el tonificado facial. Sus artículos para PureLift LAB combinan un conocimiento médico riguroso con orientación práctica para lograr resultados reales y duraderos.
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS
Otorrinolaringólogo y cirujano de cabeza y cuello certificado | Miembro, Colegio Americano de Cirujanos | Profesor clínico asistente, Escuela de Medicina Mount Sinai
Read bio
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS, es un otorrinolaringólogo certificado por la junta y cirujano de cabeza y cuello en ENT and Allergy Associates en West Nyack, NY. Obtuvo su título de médico en la Facultad de Médicos y Cirujanos de la Universidad de Columbia, completó su residencia en Otorrinolaringología en el Centro Médico de la Universidad de Nueva York y es profesor clínico asistente en la Escuela de Medicina Mount Sinai. Es miembro de la American College of Surgeons y de la American Academy of Otolaryngology.
La perspectiva quirúrgica de cabeza y cuello del Dr. Grinberg ofrece a los lectores de PureLift LAB una visión clínica más amplia, conectando la práctica de EMS en casa con la anatomía médica subyacente con el mismo rigor científico que aplicamos a cada especificación del dispositivo.
Prof. Dr. med. Ivo Buschmann
Cátedra de Angiología, Hochschule Médica de Brandeburgo | Director de Clínica, Clínica Universitaria de Angiología, Hospital Universitario de Brandeburgo | Ex Consultor Senior, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlín
Read bio
El Prof. Dr. med. Ivo Buschmann es Catedrático de Angiología en la Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane (MHB) y Director Clínico de la Clínica Universitaria de Angiología en el Hospital Universitario de Brandeburgo. Completó su formación médica en la Universidad de Hamburgo, fue becario de la Sociedad Max-Planck en el Instituto Max-Planck de Investigación Cardiaca y Pulmonar, y ocupó cargos de consultor senior en la Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Virchow antes de ser nombrado Catedrático en la MHB en 2016.
El Prof. Buschmann es una de las principales autoridades europeas en arteriogénesis — el crecimiento y remodelación de los vasos sanguíneos impulsados por el flujo — con más de 150 publicaciones revisadas por pares y varias patentes en EE. UU. y la UE sobre dispositivos que estimulan el crecimiento de vasos colaterales mediante terapia controlada de tasa de cizalladura. Su investigación conecta la estimulación mecánica y eléctrica con la adaptación vascular, la microcirculación y la perfusión tisular.
Las contribuciones del Prof. Buschmann aportan a los lectores de PureLift LAB una perspectiva de biología vascular que complementa nuestra autoría clínica, de fisioterapia y de anatomía quirúrgica existente — explicando cómo la estimulación EMS activa no solo los músculos faciales sino también la microcirculación que los abastece, y por qué la administración inteligente es tan importante a nivel del flujo sanguíneo como en la contracción muscular.
Compartir
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.