Skip to main content

Emsculpt Neo Vs. CoolSculpting

By September 10, 2021January 18th, 2022No Comments

The field of non-surgical body sculpting has experienced immense improvements and popularity within recent years. Given its non-invasive nature, it has been an increasingly utilized tool in the health and fitness industry.

As technology advances, there are more and more products and procedures available. One of the newest methods is Emsculpt Neo, which has remarkably different characteristics and results compared to the conventional CoolSculpting technique. In this blog, we will be examining the following factors to help determine which body sculpting technique is the best option for you:

  • Results
  • Comfort
  • Time
  • Safety & Side Effects

Emsculpt Neo Vs. Coolsculpting: Results

When comparing results, Emsculpt Neo displays numerous advantages over CoolSculpting. For example, while CoolSculpting is shown to remove up to 22% of body fat, Emsculpt Neo removes up to 30% while simultaneously increasing muscle mass by 25%.

After comparing the effectiveness of the two devices, the overall benefit that the Emsculpt Neo provides makes it a far more desirable choice.

Emsculpt Neo Vs. Coolsculpting: Comfort

There is a remarkable difference between the two procedures when comparing comfort levels during and following the procedure. Due to its colder temperature-based function, Coolsculpting users report experiencing numbness or tingling during and after the procedure. For individuals who are not comfortable with these sensations, CoolSculpting is not a viable option.

In contrast, Emsculpt Neo does not operate on a temperature basis. Therefore, there are no reported cold-related feelings of tingling or numbness. In addition, Emsculpt Neo patients do not report experiencing significant feelings of discomfort in general, except muscle soreness and feelings of soreness after exercise.

Therefore, when comparing the comfort level of each product, Emsculpt Neo is a more viable option.

Emsculpt Neo Vs. Coolsculpting: Time

Time commitments for each device may vary. On average, CoolSculpting can be between 35 to 60 minutes per session, with 2 to 6 sessions at least a month apart. For Emsculpt Neo, the average time is between 5-30 minutes; and requires four sessions total at least 5-10 days apart.

For the time window required to use their respective devices, Emsculpt Neo is shown to be a better option given its ability to be used more frequently and for a shorter time frame.

Emsculpt Vs. Coolsculpting: Safety & Adverse Effects

While Emsculpt Neo and Coolsculpting are both FDA-approved, Emsculpt Neo is deemed to be a much safer option. Recent studies have exposed the damages done by Coolsculpting devices. Reports have come out from a class action lawsuit stating that some users of CoolSculpting devices can develop Paradoxical Adipose Hyperplasia (or PAH), which consists of permanent tissue damage that causes deformities in a patient’s body.1

While it has only been used for only a few years (as opposed to CoolSculpting’s 5-year track record), seven clinical trials were conducted on the safety of this product before being released to the public. Emsculpt Neo patients have not reported any safety hazards. 

After comparing both devices: Emsculpt Neo is a far safer option.

Who’s the Winner: Emsculpt Neo or CoolSculpting?

After examining the different factors, it is apparent that the better overall product is the Emsculpt Neo. If there are any minor advantages that CoolSculpting has, they are immediately outweighed by their potential risks and the overall outperformance by the Emsculpt Neo.

Upward Regenerative Medicine is dedicated to providing the safest and most effective procedures and technology for our clients. After examining the difference between these two devices, we provide Emsculpt Neo as part of our services.

If you’re ready to get started with the Emsculpt Neo, contact us here or give us a call at (208) 563-3595 to get your free consultation today!

  1. The CoolSculpting PAH Tissue Damage Class Action Lawsuit is Chubchai et al., v. AbbVie, Inc, Case No. 3:21-cv-04099, in the U.S. District Court Northern District Of California San Francisco Division.

Leave a Reply