Does Microcurrent Increase ATP in Skin
Medically reviewed by
4 independent reviewers
Andrew Conrad Barile, kinésithérapeute, DPT
Doctorat en physiothérapie (DPT), physiothérapeute agréé (PT)
Read bio
Le Dr Andrew Conrad Barile est docteur en physiothérapie et PDG ainsi que fondateur de Xtreem Pulse LLC. Il a obtenu son doctorat en physiothérapie à Daemen College et possède plus de vingt ans d'expérience clinique et entrepreneuriale en physiothérapie pédiatrique, thérapie craniosacrale et innovation en dispositifs médicaux. Sa profonde connaissance de l'anatomie humaine, de la physiologie musculaire et des technologies thérapeutiques offre une approche scientifique précieuse pour le rajeunissement du visage et les solutions anti-âge.
Bertica M. Rubio, M.D.
Directeur Médical, Clinique de Médecine Régénérative Anti-âge | Médecin Certifié par le Conseil | École de Médecine de Dartmouth
Read bio
Le Dr Bertica M. Rubio est une médecin certifiée et directrice médicale de la clinique de médecine régénérative anti-âge à Redlands, en Californie. Elle a obtenu son Bachelor of Science à l'Université Loyola Marymount et son Doctorat en médecine à la Dartmouth Medical School (Geisel School of Medicine). Elle a effectué sa résidence en pédiatrie au UC Irvine Medical Center.
Forte de plusieurs décennies d'expérience clinique, le Dr Rubio est spécialisée en médecine de gestion du vieillissement, médecine régénérative, cicatrisation des plaies et thérapies par facteurs de croissance. Sa pratique intègre la science médicale fondée sur des preuves avec des traitements esthétiques et régénératifs avancés, aidant les patients à atteindre une santé optimale et une vitalité juvénile.
Le Dr Rubio est passionnée par l'éducation des patients sur la science derrière les soins de la peau, le rajeunissement du visage et les technologies non invasives comme l'EMS (stimulation électrique musculaire) pour le tonus facial. Ses articles pour PureLift LAB allient connaissances médicales rigoureuses et conseils pratiques pour obtenir des résultats réels et durables.
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS
Otolaryngologiste et chirurgien de la tête et du cou certifié par le conseil | Membre, American College of Surgeons | Professeur clinique adjoint, Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Read bio
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS, est un oto-rhino-laryngologiste certifié par le conseil et chirurgien de la tête et du cou chez ENT and Allergy Associates à West Nyack, NY. Il a obtenu son diplôme de médecine au Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, a effectué sa résidence en oto-rhino-laryngologie au New York University Medical Center, et est professeur clinique adjoint à la Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Il est membre de l'American College of Surgeons et de l'American Academy of Otolaryngology.
La perspective chirurgicale de la tête et du cou du Dr Grinberg offre aux lecteurs de PureLift LAB une vision clinique élargie — reliant la pratique EMS à domicile à l'anatomie médicale sous-jacente avec la même rigueur scientifique que celle que nous appliquons à chaque spécification d'appareil.
Prof. Dr med Ivo Buschmann
Président d'Angiologie, Hochschule Medizinische Brandenburg | Directeur de clinique, Clinique universitaire d'angiologie, Hôpital universitaire de Brandebourg | Ancien consultant principal, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin
Read bio
Le Prof. Dr. med. Ivo Buschmann est titulaire de la chaire d'angiologie à la Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane (MHB) et directeur de la clinique universitaire d'angiologie à l'hôpital universitaire de Brandebourg. Il a effectué sa formation médicale à l'Université de Hambourg, a été boursier de la Société Max-Planck à l'Institut Max-Planck de recherche sur le cœur et les poumons, et a occupé des postes de consultant principal à la Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Virchow avant d'être nommé titulaire de la chaire à la MHB en 2016.
Le Prof. Buschmann est l'une des principales autorités européennes en arteriogenèse — la croissance et le remodelage des vaisseaux sanguins induits par le flux — avec plus de 150 publications évaluées par des pairs et plusieurs brevets américains et européens sur des dispositifs stimulant la croissance des vaisseaux collatéraux par une thérapie contrôlée du taux de cisaillement. Ses recherches relient la stimulation mécanique et électrique à l'adaptation vasculaire, à la microcirculation et à la perfusion tissulaire.
Les contributions du Prof. Buschmann apportent aux lecteurs de PureLift LAB une perspective en biologie vasculaire qui complète notre expertise clinique, en physiothérapie et en anatomie chirurgicale — expliquant comment la stimulation EMS engage non seulement les muscles faciaux mais aussi la microcirculation qui les alimente, et pourquoi une administration intelligente est aussi importante au niveau du flux sanguin qu'à celui de la contraction musculaire.
Partager
One 1982 study on rat skin found ATP rose several fold at low currents and fell at higher ones, and that single paper is the source of almost every ATP claim made in this category today.
This article sets out what to check before you start, such as:
- where the 400 percent figure actually comes from
- what the 1982 study measured and in what tissue
- the detail about higher currents that nobody quotes
- why ATP is not the same as a visible result
- what we do and do not claim about our own devices
and many more!
We would rather show you the source and let you judge it than repeat a number whose origin almost nobody checks.
Key Points:
The ATP claim traces to Cheng and colleagues, published in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research in 1982, volume 171, pages 264 to 272.
It was performed on rat skin, not human skin, and not on a living human face.
The same study found that ATP rose at low microamp currents and decreased at currents above roughly one milliamp, which is the half nobody quotes.
ATP is cellular energy currency. More of it in a tissue sample is not the same as a visible change in a face, and no study has connected the two.
We do not make an ATP claim for our devices, because we have never measured ATP on one.
Where the number comes from
One paper, repeated for forty-four years
Search almost any microcurrent brand page and you will find a claim that the technology increases cellular energy, often stated as up to 400 percent more ATP.
Trace the citations and they converge on a single source: Cheng N, Van Hoof H, Bockx E and colleagues, The Effects of Electric Currents on ATP Generation, Protein Synthesis, and Membrane Transport of Rat Skin, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 1982, volume 171, pages 264 to 272.
That is one paper, from 1982, in an orthopedics journal, and it is carrying the mechanism story for an entire consumer category in 2026.
We are not saying it is a bad study. We are saying you should know that this is what the claim rests on.
What it actually studied
The tissue was rat skin rather than human skin, and the work was laboratory bench science rather than a clinical trial.
The context was wound healing and tissue repair, which is why it appeared in an orthopedics journal rather than a dermatology one.
Nobody in that study was trying to find out whether a jawline looked more defined after twelve weeks.
Kolimechkov and colleagues in 2023, a narrative review published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology, describes the rat skin finding as a three to five fold rise in ATP in the microamp range, which is the same source reported accurately.
The half of the finding nobody quotes
The study did not find that more current produces more ATP without limit. It found a curve.
ATP generation rose in the low microamp range and then decreased as the current was pushed higher, with the decline appearing above roughly one milliamp.
That detail matters commercially, because it argues against the idea that a stronger device produces a better cellular result. If anything it argues the opposite.
It also sits awkwardly alongside the way the figure is normally used, which is to justify buying a more powerful device. We publish our own output figures and we address this directly in our article on why more microamps do not mean better results.
Why ATP is not a result
What ATP is
Adenosine triphosphate is the molecule cells use to move energy around. Every cell in your body makes it and spends it constantly.
More ATP in a tissue sample means the cells in that sample had more available energy at the moment of measurement.
That is a biochemical observation, not a cosmetic outcome.
The gap between the two
To get from more ATP to a visibly better face, you would need a chain of evidence: ATP rises in human facial skin, that rise drives increased collagen or improved muscle function, and that change is visible and lasting.
No link in that chain has been demonstrated in a human face. The first link has not even been measured.
The strongest human finding in this field remains Kavanagh and colleagues in 2012, 108 women over twelve weeks, an 18.6 percent increase in cheek muscle thickness measured by ultrasound. That study measured muscle, not ATP, and it did not propose ATP as the mechanism.
So we have a human outcome with no mechanism attached and a rat mechanism with no human outcome attached, and the category routinely glues the two together.
What the recent reviews say
Kolimechkov and colleagues in 2023 reviewed microcurrent in exercise and sport, covering muscle adaptation, body composition and recovery. It is a narrative review rather than primary research, it concerns limbs rather than faces, and the author's own central caveat is that protocols vary so much that optimal settings cannot be identified.
Jonik and colleagues in 2025 is also a narrative review, covering clinical microcurrent for wound healing, pressure injuries and pain. It contains nothing on facial aesthetics, lifting or collagen.
Both rank on the first page of Google for people searching whether microcurrent works, which means a lot of readers are landing on papers that never studied a face.
Both are genuinely useful on safety, where they report very low rates of adverse effects, and we cite them for that in our safety article.
What we claim and what we do not
We do not claim an ATP increase for our devices. We have never measured ATP on a PureLift device and neither, as far as we can find, has any brand in this category.
What we publish instead is output. Face and Pro deliver up to 7 mA at 500 ohms, Pro Edition up to 7.7, and Pro Plus and GLOW up to 9, with a 4 microsecond pulse width and ten levels on one dial.
A figure stated at a stated load is checkable. A cellular claim borrowed from rat skin in 1982 is not.
This is the same position we take on ingredient penetration, where we cite the delivery science and state plainly that we have not measured it on our own hardware, covered in our galvanic article.
How to read any mechanism claim
Ask what tissue it was measured in. Rat skin, cell culture and human skin are three different answers.
Ask whether it was measured in a living body or in isolated tissue.
Ask what year it was published and whether anything has replicated it since.
Ask whether the outcome measured is the outcome you care about, since cellular energy and a visible jawline are not the same measurement.
We walk through this process on a real example in our article on reading a study.
Frequently asked questions
Does microcurrent really increase ATP by 400 percent
That figure traces to a 1982 study on rat skin published in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. It was not measured in a human face, and no study has shown that an ATP change produces a visible cosmetic result.
What is the Cheng 1982 microcurrent study
Cheng and colleagues measured ATP generation, protein synthesis and membrane transport in rat skin under applied electrical currents. It is the single most cited source behind ATP claims in the facial device category.
Does more current mean more ATP
No. The 1982 study found ATP rose in the low microamp range and decreased at higher currents, above roughly one milliamp, which argues against the idea that a stronger device produces a better cellular result.
Is there human evidence that microcurrent increases ATP in skin
Not that we can find. The ATP work in this field is animal and laboratory based, and human facial trials have measured muscle thickness and skin appearance rather than cellular energy.
Why do brands keep citing a 1982 rat study
Because it is the only study that directly supports the cellular energy story, and no one has replaced it with human facial data in forty-four years.
This article 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.