In 2026, a randomized, IRB-approved human study evaluating HAELO’s pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) technology was published in SportLogia, a peer-reviewed sports science journal. The study examined whether a single 22-minute session of HAELO’s “Recover” program influenced post-exercise recovery across a defined 72-hour window.
It provides controlled human data on measurable performance output and perceived soreness: two critical dimensions of recovery.
Scientific Executive Summary
This randomized, placebo-controlled human study evaluated the effects of HAELO PEMF on post-exercise recovery in recreationally trained adults across a 72-hour window.
Primary observations
- Greater magnitude peak power improvements were observed in the PEMF group at 24, 48, and 72 hours.
- At 24 hours, peak power change scores were 11–385% greater compared to placebo and control.
- A statistically significant reduction in perceived soreness (Likert scale) was observed at 72 hours (p = 0.015).
- The PEMF group was the only group to demonstrate directional reductions in soreness at every post-intervention time point.
Between-group differences did not reach statistical significance. Findings suggest that PEMF may support aspects of recovery within the parameters studied.
Study Scope
This study evaluated a single 22-minute session of HAELO’s “Recover” program across a 72-hour recovery window in recreationally trained adults. Objective performance metrics and validated soreness scales were used to assess recovery trajectory. Findings reflect the parameters of this protocol.
Study Design
Thirty recreationally trained adults completed a multi-stage Yo-Yo fatigue protocol designed to induce neuromuscular stress. Participants were randomized into:
- Active HAELO PEMF
- Placebo (device inactive)
- Control (rest only)
Recovery interventions were administered immediately post-fatigue and repeated at 24, 48, and 72 hours. The PEMF group received a single 22-minute session of HAELO’s “Recover” program at each time point. No additional HAELO programs were evaluated.
Outcome measures included
- 6-second peak power output
- Peak cadence
- Vertical jump performance
- Isometric leg/back strength
- Visual analogue and Likert soreness scales
Key Data Insights
Randomized. Placebo-controlled. Peer-reviewed.
Peak power recovery
- At 24 hours post-fatigue: 11–385% greater peak power change vs placebo and control.
- Directional advantages continued at 48 and 72 hours.
Interpretation: Explosive output trended toward faster restoration with PEMF.
Perceived soreness
- At 72 hours: statistically significant reduction in soreness (p = 0.015).
- Across all checkpoints (24, 48, 72 hours): only the PEMF group showed consistent directional soreness reductions.
Interpretation: PEMF may influence recovery trajectory, particularly in later-stage soreness.
Strength recovery
- At 24 hours: 21–54% greater leg/back strength change scores.
Interpretation: Early neuromuscular rebound trends favored PEMF.
Performance findings in context
Peak power — measured via a 6-second cycling sprint — served as the primary performance marker. Across all groups, performance declined immediately post-fatigue and gradually recovered over time. While no statistically significant interaction between groups was observed, magnitude trends consistently favored PEMF.
At 24 hours, the PEMF group demonstrated peak power change scores 11–385% greater than placebo and control. Directional advantages continued at 48 and 72 hours. In performance environments where marginal differences matter, magnitude trends in explosive output are relevant, particularly within compressed recovery windows.
Perceived soreness
Recovery is not solely mechanical. Perception influences readiness, training quality, and competitive confidence. At 72 hours, the PEMF group demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in perceived soreness (p = 0.015). Additionally, it was the only group to demonstrate directional reductions in soreness following each intervention at 24, 48, and 72 hours.
Strength and neuromuscular measures
Isometric leg/back strength was evaluated as an indicator of force production. At 24 hours, the PEMF group demonstrated 21–54% greater strength change scores compared to placebo and control. These differences were not statistically significant but directionally favored PEMF. No significant differences were observed in vertical jump performance.
Individual response variability
Large standard deviations were observed across several outcomes, indicating variability in individual response. As seen in many areas of recovery science, response magnitude may differ between individuals. Understanding responder profiles represents a meaningful direction for future research.
Publication and Research Significance
- Evaluated in a randomized human trial
- Approved through IRB oversight
- Published in a peer-reviewed journal
- Compared against placebo and control
- Measured using objective and subjective recovery markers
Recovery unfolds across time. It varies between individuals. It can be assessed through measurable performance and perception. This publication contributes controlled human evidence to the evolving science of PEMF and post-exercise recovery.
Study citation
Lockie, R.G., Dawes, J.J. & Sanchez, K.J. (2026). The effects of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy on recovery from strenuous exercise. Sportlogia. DOI: 10.63356/spl.2026.001.
