Flux Health Forum

Which PEMF mat?

PEMF Basics
#1

Sup legends.

I have 2 PEMF mats I am interested in but don’t know which one makes more sense.
These two devices are:

  1. iMRS Prime (With FIR and Brainentrainment googles + Biofeedback)
  2. Celler8

So they both offer the same waveform (squarewave), and lets assume the slew rate is the same. They differ in intensity and frequency range.

iMRS Intensity: 0.1–70 microTesla (~0.001–0.7 Gauss) for the mat and 0.1–3 Gauss for the spot applicator.
Frequency Range: 0.5–25 Hz (with FIR mat overlaying PEMF)

Celler8 Intensity: 50 Gauss for the mat and 100 Gauss for the spot applicator. Frequency Range: 1–99 Hz

I know its not all about intensity. I am not trapped in the “More power means better” narrative.

The iMRS is legit twice as expensive versus the celler8. I am torn between the two. I want to sue the mat for personal use and also clinical use for the future.

Thanks for helping me out <3

#2

Gaus is the wrong measurement for PEMF and tells you nothing. Often discussed here. More is NOT better. ICES runs on a battery, even the C5.

This is, being polite, my take on the iMRS.

I make some comments in comparison to the M1/C5. I think you will get the message :wink:

1 Like
#3

Thank for this. I gave it a read and you seem to have a positive stance on the iMRS. However in that particular article, I didn’t find your mentioned M1/C5 comparisons. Perhaps that is part of another article you wrote?
But yes the iMRS is EXCEPTIONALLY expensive, which is why I am asking for some clarity.

#4

I mention ICES several times and once there is a link to my ICES-articles. But I don’t try to do it to visible , since it is still an article about the iMRS :wink:

Here is a link-list for all what I have discussed in my blog.

You will find reviews on M1, B5/C5 and P9.

1 Like
#6

Yes haha, I actually found all of the articles shortly after posting. Looks like buying a ICES device is a no brainer after reading. Its WAY cheaper, smaller, more portable and more effective. It’s a triple win compared to other devices. I also read that it certainly helped you the most compared to other devices you’ve experimented with.

The way I see it is that these ICES devices are great “spot applicators” for local injuries. I do still want a full body, systemic option mat though, as an added bonus and benefit to the ICES spot. Will probably go for the Celler8 since it is legit 3x cheaper than the iMRS… and slew rate of the square waves on both devices are probably the same or similar. Cant justify paying that much more just for FIR and the possibility of the exagon googles being effective.

And I will probably pick up the C5 because this way I can locally treat two areas at once.

Thanks for the guidance btw. I appreciate it :slight_smile:

#7

You have summarized what I think about ICES :slight_smile:

In the end, I do not use my fully body often anymore and sell it, because of the space it uses. My wife would object, because she likes the PEMF+IR combination that much!

At any time you are hooked at one idea and follow that path, look for “the best” only to figure out later, that there is another universe of things. Today I would only go for ICES. If you do not need it, it does not need much space.

Best,
hans

1 Like
#8

That is such a true phrase. I found that to be especially true for PEMF, lol.

So we have deduced that high intensity is not what matters. But just for interest sake - if I had a friend who is in pain, and I want to yield him the most results/relief in the shortest amount of time while he is visiting me. And the only option I could have is a low intensity mat or medium/high intensity (No ICES device). Would the higher intensity mat yield quicker relief, given the slew rate, waveform and the spike in slope and drop off are consistent between both?

#9

I think this goal is not realistic with PEMF. The advantage of ICES is, that you can wear it ALL THE DAY LONG! There is for me no “quick” with PEMF. Its no magic wand.

Best,
Hans

1 Like
#10

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

#11

Gauss is for static magnets! This is a measure that does not tell anything to anyone as often discussed here.

#12

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

#13

a review of 92 publications between
the years 1999 and 2019. These publications were all studying the cell
responses and exchanges in humans and animals when applying PEMFs.
They concluded that out of all of these studies the flux densities between
1 and 10 mT (10-100gauss), and chronic exposure more than 10 days would
be more effective in establishing a cellular response

#14

I’ve read him, also his book. He says dB/dt is relevant - in simplified terms “slew rate”, but this is not exactly the same. Unfortunately most manufacturers do not state this measure, because they may not really understand PEMF.

You are suspiciously new there, post product links in the first posts and do not seem to follow the discussions here in regard to PEMF characteristics “that matter”.

If possible please tell us the dB/dt measure in Gauss per Second (G/s) or Tesla per second (T/s) of that product you endorse.

Also most PEMF studies I’ve read are vague in regard of details to replicate them. There are tendencies, yes - but details stay often opaque. Especially if it is a meta-study of divers mix quality studies, where generalized statements are further generalized.

Best,
Hans

1 Like
#15

I am not “endorsing” a product, I have zero financial interest. I’m stating the info as I interpret it, but keep rejecting my posts as you choose. Here’s one more: Research that shows benefits for specific health conditions consistently use high intensity machines, those with magnetic fields greater than 30 to 50 Gauss (3-5 mT). Very low intensity systems, producing 100 micro Tesla (1 gauss or 0.01mT), for instance, were not found to provide much benefit to chronic health conditions.

Research also reinforces the idea that intensity is perhaps more important than any other component of a therapeutic magnetic field, including frequency or waveform, which still rely on the intensity of the PEMF signal. For most PEMF devices, the higher the frequency, the lower the intensity produced.

Those with chronic conditions may turn to medication more often if a lower intensity system is used. One study that compared a 0.5 gauss (50 microTesla) PEMF with a 15 gauss (1,500 microTesla) PEMF system used for six hours per day for 90 days in the treatment of arthritis found that NSAID use was 26% in the higher intensity group and 75% in the lower intensity group.

#16

Your first posts here as a new member have nothing to do with ICES but point / endorse other products as recommended by Meyers which earns a living on comissions.

Most important you do not answer my question regarding dB/dt.

Key point, as also stressed by Meyers is: It is the rate (note: the rate of change/increase in magnetic flux density) and time (in which the rate-change happens) that matter (-> dB/dt -> T/s), but the peak value (Tesla) is simply the product of the two. Thus, ‘Tesla’ (or Gauss) is not fundamental to the biological efficacy of PEMF; it is a byproduct.

Those who do not understand that, can not really understand PEMF in its classical definition. This is also valid for a lot of PEMF studies as often discussed here and elsewhere. There are aspects that go beyond, but basically no one discusses them.

It may be not simple to understand, because its real physics which is on B.Sc level, and even there most do not grasp it.

Best,
Hans

1 Like