Why We Publish the Load and Almost Nobody Else Does
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
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.