Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A website, www.bodystreet.co.uk, for Bodystreet, a fitness studio in Eastcote, featured the text “Bodystreet is an innovative workout studio that combines expert personal training with the buzz of Electro Muscle Stimulation (EMS)”. It explained that “At Bodystreet you wear a special training suit that helps your muscles work harder”. It stated, “We are Europe’s leading provider of EMS training”.
Other text stated, “You can reach all your health & fitness goals with Bodystreet Eastcote - the fitness studio where 20 minutes of exercise is enough for the week!”. Under the heading, “Only 20 minutes”, the website stated, “In conventional exercise your muscles work between 40 to 70% of their capacity. During a Bodystreet workout your muscles work to more than 90% of their capacity. And that's with every contraction. With a Bodystreet workout using our high-tech suit you are able to achieve 85 contractions (reps) per second. This makes the training both intensive efficient and effective - hence only 20-minutes per week”.
Elsewhere the website read, “This revolutionary fitness system is so effective that one 20 minute workout a week is enough to meet most people's goals and approximately 95% of our members at Bodystreet Eastcote train only once a week to achieve their fitness or weight loss goals […]. With Bodystreet all it takes is 20 minutes a week […]”.
The website also stated, “EMS training doesn't just exercise and build up your muscles. It also stimulates the metabolism, which leads to a significant reduction in body fat within a very short time”.
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
- 20 minutes of exercise at their studio was enough for the week because EMS worked muscles at greater capacity than conventional exercise and achieved more contractions;
- the training “stimulates the metabolism, which leads to a significant reduction in body fat within a very short time”; and
- they were “Europe’s leading provider of EMS training”.
Response
1. & 2. Bodystreet Franchise (UK) Ltd t/a Bodystreet said they understood the volume and level of evidence required to substantiate claims in their advertising. They submitted a meta-analysis, a systematic review, a combined systematic review and meta-analysis and three studies. They also provided an article on electrical muscle stimulation (EMS), a research-institute overview and two pieces of guidance from the NHS. They said their primary target customer base consisted of middle-aged or older adults, people returning to exercise after a long break, individuals with limited time or mobility, and people who found conventional gyms unapproachable or unsuitable. They believed that the cohorts within the studies provided were representative of their target customer base.
Bodystreet explained that guidelines for safe use of EMS stipulated it should not exceed 20 minutes for all but the most athletic, due to intensity and recovery time, and to avoid the risk of muscle damage. They said that the statement that one session per week was sufficient was grounded in widely accepted industry guidance which cautioned against using EMS more than once per week. They said that this guidance came from the equipment manufacturer, their franchisor and an industry association. They were concerned that removing the reference to one session per week could encourage unsafe training frequency and expose consumers to health risks from excessive EMS usage.
It was their operational experience that significant weight loss had been achieved through adherence to the Bodystreet method with only one session per week. They said that was supported by extensive member feedback across their studios and that 95% of their members trained once a week. They said that EMS training had been associated with various health and fitness benefits, including increased muscle strength, improved body composition, and enhanced physical performance. Bodystreet said that EMS could stimulate all major muscle groups simultaneously with adjustable intensity, making it time effective and, because of its low mechanical impact EMS was suitable for individuals regardless of age, size, mobility and fitness level, including those with joint problems.
Bodystreet believed EMS induced short-term changes in muscle metabolism, as well as long-term improvements in muscle function and reductions in intramuscular fat. They said that increasing muscle mass through strength training sped up metabolic rate, made the body more efficient at burning calories and could lead to fat loss, when combined with a balanced diet.
3. Bodystreet believed they were the first company to introduce EMS boutique fitness studios and an EMS studio franchise model in 2007. They said they led the market with equipment innovation and workout methods. That was the basis of their claim to be Europe’s leading provider of EMS training. Notwithstanding that was the basis of the “leading” claim, they also said they had the most number of studios and memberships in Europe, and could also rely on size to make the claim. They provided a 2025 report on the European health and fitness market, produced by a non-profit organisation representing the European fitness sector, in conjunction with a consultancy firm. They said that they had been consistently recognised in this annual report as the leading EMS studio operator in Europe. They believed none of the other operators listed in the 2025 report specialised in EMS-only studios and that this substantiated their claim to be Europe’s leading provider.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand claims such as “one 20 minute workout a week is enough to meet most people's goals and approximately 95% of our members at Bodystreet Eastcote train only once a week to achieve their fitness or weight loss goals” to mean that one 20-minute EMS session at Bodystreet per week would provide an individual with the same physiological results, such as weight loss, cardio and muscle improvements, as a longer weekly session or multiple sessions at a traditional gym, and could therefore be a time-saving alternative. We considered that consumers would interpret it as an efficacy claim rather than a caution against using EMS more frequently. We acknowledged Bodystreet’s comments regarding their target customer base, however the claim referred to “most people” and therefore any evidence supporting that claim needed to be relevant to the general population.
We considered that consumers would understand the claim “stimulates the metabolism, which leads to a significant reduction in body fat within a very short time” to mean EMS training would lead to a reduction in body fat in a very short time compared to a traditional gym workout because it stimulated the metabolism. As above, we considered that because the claim was not qualified to apply to particular groups of people, the evidence supporting it needed to relate to the general population.
A substantive body of relevant evidence, consisting of clinical trials conducted on humans that had been published and peer-reviewed, was needed to substantiate both claims. We assessed the evidence provided by Bodystreet.The meta-analysis considered the results of five trials which measured the effects of whole-body EMS (W-BEMS) on people who had been classified as being at moderate to high cardiometabolic risk. The trials recorded the effects of W-BEMS on the participants’ metabolic syndrome score which included measurements for blood pressure, triglycerides, abdominal circumference and insulin resistance. We considered that cohort did not represent the general population, and the measurement outcomes were not relevant to the claims that one 20-minute session of EMS would provide equivalent benefits to longer sessions at a conventional gym or that EMS stimulated the metabolism to reduce fat in a very short time. We therefore considered the meta-analysis was not adequate substantiation for the claims in the ad.
The systematic review covered 21 peer-reviewed studies that had applied electrical stimulation in lower and upper limbs simultaneously. The review authors observed that the studies exhibited a moderate to high risk of bias and noted a lack of randomised controlled studies on the subject. They commented that the limited amount of scientific evidence found did not allow for definitive conclusions about the effects of WB-EMS. We therefore considered that the systematic review was not adequate substantiation for the claims.
The combined systematic review and meta-analysis covered 16 studies with 897 participants. The studies included some controlled trials, and WB-EMS trials with at least one exercise group and one control group. Across the studies, cohorts were of various ages, body mass indexes and physical conditions, although many studies focused on specific cohorts or conditions such as obesity or back pain. The authors acknowledged this restricted the extent to which the outcomes could be generalised. While WB-EMS was the only intervention in most of the studies, two combined WB-EMS with other interventions. This included a study on people with metabolic syndrome where participants had a calorie-restricted diet. The review reported some positive effects of WB-EMS effects on muscle mass and strength but not on total body fat. Furthermore, the results would apply predominately to moderately old to older, untrained or at least non-athletic cohorts, rather than the general population. The training frequency and duration of the interventions varied across the studies, from one to five sessions per week and were not limited to one 20-minute session of WB-EMS per week. Due to those limitations, we considered that the combined systematic review and meta-analysis was not adequate substantiation for the 20 minutes per week or metabolism-stimulation claims in the ad.
The first of the three studies looked at the effect of EMS training on intramuscular fat in older adults. The cohort of 19 comprised nine women and 10 men, aged between 61 and 78. They performed EMS training of a specific muscle group on the front thigh three times per week for 12 weeks with each session lasting 30 minutes. Because the study had a small, unrepresentative cohort, exercised only one part of the body, lacked a control group, had more frequent and longer sessions than 20 minutes per week, and the only outcome measure was intramuscular fat, we considered it was not adequate substantiation for the claims.
The second study looked at the effect of exercise training on fat loss. As it did not refer to EMS, we considered that it was not adequate to substantiate the claims.
The third study looked at metabolic responses and muscle fatigue during whole body WB-EMS, voluntary exercise and their combination. It was partly funded by a manufacturer of fitness products and used a custom-made stimulator, based on a commercially developed device, for 15-minute exercise sessions. The cohort comprised 13 healthy men aged around 20. While the study suggested that the combination of W-BEMS, with low to middle intensity exercise could enhance metabolic response to a level equivalent to high intensity exercise, we considered that this did not equate to the claim that it stimulated the metabolism in such a way as to lead to a significant reduction in body fat in a very short time compared to a traditional gym workout. Furthermore, the study’s cohort was small and not representative of the general population. Also, the study did not include a control group and it was unclear whether the device used was the same as, or equivalent to, Bodystreet’s device. We therefore considered that the study was not adequate substantiation for the claims.
We considered that the article, research-institute overview and NHS guidance, which provided generic information, some of which was unrelated to EMS, were not adequate substantiation for the claims.
We concluded that the claims that 20 minutes of training at Bodystreet’s studio was enough for a week and therefore would provide an individual with the same physiological results, such as weight loss, cardio and muscle improvements, as a longer weekly session or multiple sessions at a traditional gym had not been substantiated. Neither had the claim that it stimulated the metabolism leading to a significant reduction in body fat in a very short time been substantiated, We therefore concluded the claims were misleading.
On those points, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
3. Upheld
We understood that Bodystreet had intended the claim “We are Europe’s leading provider of EMS training” to be a first-to-market claim. However, the claim was not qualified and we considered, in that context and in the absence of further explanatory text, consumers were likely to understand it to mean they were the market leader in Europe and therefore had the largest turnover.
We acknowledged Bodystreet’s comment that they had the most number of studios and memberships in Europe, and we considered the report provided by them. The report was published in 2025, after the ad was seen. Notwithstanding that, whilst the report stated that Bodystreet had a large number of clubs in Europe (284), it did not state that Bodystreet was the largest provider of EMS training in Europe. Furthermore, the report did not cover all fitness chains in Europe and it stated that the information provided within it had not been verified or audited. We therefore considered that the report was not adequate substantiation for the claim. We concluded that the claim “We are Europe’s leading provider of EMS training” had not been substantiated and was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Bodystreet Franchise (UK) Ltd t/a Bodystreet not to claim that 20 minutes of exercise at their studio was enough for a week or that their EMS training stimulates the metabolism sufficient to reduce body fat within a very short time, unless they held adequate substantiation for the claims. We also told them not to claim they were Europe’s leading provider of EMS training, unless they held adequate substantiation for the claim.
