Effects of Foam Rolling on Vertical Jump Performance

Abstract

Background: Foam rolling is a popular activity utilized by strength and conditioning coaches as it is believed to increase muscle length and break up fibrous adhesions located in connective tissue. However, there is little research investigating the effects of foam rolling on athletic performance. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of lower body foam rolling on vertical jump performance. Methods: Twenty males (age 24.05 ± 2.02 years; height 177.43 ± 6.31 cm; mass 81.41 ± 8.76 kg) volunteered to participate. Subjects completed three days of testing, separated by at least twenty-four hours. Day one consisted of baseline vertical jumps on a force plate, followed by familiarization with foam rolling and control protocols. Subjects returned on days two and three and performed 30-second bouts of lower body foam rolling or mimicked foam rolling movements on a skateboard followed by vertical jumps on a force plate. The highest jump from each day was used for statistical analyses. Results: Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed no significant differences in Jump height, impulse, relative ground reaction force, or take-off velocity between conditions. Conclusion: 30-second bouts of lower body foam rolling do not improve vertical jump performance.Keywords: Dynamic Warm-Up, Foam Rolling, Vertical Jump

Full text

fa International Journal of Kinesiology & Sports Science
ISSN 2202-946X
Vol. 3 No. 3; July 2015
Australian International Academic Centre, Australia
Effects of Foam Rolling on Vertical Jump Performance
Andrew Jones
Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton
800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA 91306
E-mail: jones.andrew11@gmail.com
Lee E. Brown (Corresponding author)
Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton
800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA 91306
E-mail: leebrown@fullerton.edu
Jared W. Coburn
Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton
800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA 91306
Guillermo J. Noffal
Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton
800 N. State College Blvd., Fullerton, CA 91306
Received: 05-06- 2015 Accepted: 25-07- 2015 Published: 31-07- 2015
doi:10.7575/aiac.ijkss.v.3n.3p.38 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijkss.v.3n.3p.38
Abstract
Background: Foam rolling is a popular activity utilized by strength and conditioning coaches as it is believed to
increase muscle length and break up fibrous adhesions located in connective tissue. However, there is little research
investigating the effects of foam rolling on athletic performance. Objective: The purpose of this study was to
investigate the effects of lower body foam rolling on vertical jump performance. Methods: Twenty males (age 24.05 ±
2.02 years; height 177.43 ± 6.31 cm; mass 81.41 ± 8.76 kg) volunteered to participate. Subjects completed three days of
testing, separated by at least twenty-four hours. Day one consisted of baseline vertical jumps on a force plate, followed
by familiarization with foam rolling and control protocols. Subjects returned on days two and three and performed 30-
second bouts of lower body foam rolling or mimicked foam rolling movements on a skateboard followed by vertical
jumps on a force plate. The highest jump from each day was used for statistical analyses. Results: Repeated measures
ANOVAs revealed no significant differences in Jump height, impulse, relative ground reaction force, or take-off
velocity between conditions. Conclusion: 30-second bouts of lower body foam rolling do not improve vertical jump
performance.
Keywords: Dynamic Warm-Up, Foam Rolling, Vertical Jump
1. Introduction
Coaches, athletes, and personal trainers commonly use a warm-up prior to competition or physical activity. A traditional
warm-up typically consists of submaximal aerobic exercise or static stretching. However, static stretching may be
detrimental to sprint and jump performance (Kistler, 2010; Sim, 2009; Vetter, 2007). The research literature has
suggested a dynamic warm-up, consisting of exercises that improve dynamic range of motion and simulate specific
movements of the sport or activity (Faigenbaum, 2012), is preferential to maximize performance (Aguilar et al., 2012;
Carvalho, 2012; Frantz & Ruiz 2013; Gelen, 2010; Little & Williams, 2006; McMillian et al., 2006; Pagaduan et al.,
2012; Perrier et al., 2011). There are many types of dynamic warm-ups used to increase performance but controlled
scientific studies examining critical variables are lacking.
In addition to traditional warm-up methods, massage has been used prior to and after participation to enhance
performance and aid recovery (Callaghan, 1993). Similar to static stretching, pre-performance massage may negatively
affect performance (Arabaci, 2008; Arazi, 2012; Arroyo-Morales, 2011; Fletcher, 2010). In recent years, foam rolling
has become a popular self-massage activity used by clinicians, strength coaches, and personal trainers. Foam rolling is
believed to replicate myofascial release, a manual therapy technique that is believed to increase muscle length and break
up fibrous adhesions located in the fascia (Barnes, 1997). Recent research has suggested that foam rolling and roller
massage devices might improve flexibility (Halperin et al., 2014; MacDonald et al., 2013; MacDonald et al., 2013;
Mohr et al., 2014; Roylance et al., 2013; Sullivan et al., 2013). Though its popularity has increased, research
investigating its potential impact on performance is limited. Two previous studies have found that foam rolling, using a
Flourishing Creativity & Literacy

IJKSS 3(3):38-42, 2015 39
multilevel roller consisting of a polyvinyl chloride core and surrounded by foam, had no effect on performance (Healey,
2013; MacDonald, 2013). Similar to a foam roller, research has investigated a handheld roller massager which uses an
individual’s upper body to apply force to the muscles (Sullivan, 2013) and found them to be ineffective in improving
performance (Mikesky, 2002; Sullivan, 2013). One study found that a handheld roller massage device improved
isometric maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) of the plantar flexor muscles when compared to static stretching, but
had no effect on electromyography (EMG) (Halperin, 2014).
Many types of pre-participation warm-ups are utilized prior to performance with dynamic and foam rolling being two of
the most popular. However, there is limited evidence related to foam rolling. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
investigate the effects of lower body foam rolling on vertical jump performance.
2. Methods
2.1 Participants
Subjects consisted of twenty recreationally trained males (mean ± SD; age 24.05 ± 2.02 yrs; ht 177.43 ± 6.31 cm; mass
81.41 ± 8.76 kg) with no lower body injuries within the past 6 months. All subjects were kinesiology students recruited
from classes and received no incentive to participate. They were instructed to refrain from lower body exercise 48 hours
before testing. All testing and conditions were performed in a laboratory setting. This study was approved by the
University institutional review board and all subjects read and signed an informed consent prior to participation.
2.2 Overview of the experiment
Day 1. Upon arrival, subjects were measured for height and mass using a stadiometer (SECA, Ontario, CA, USA) and
an electric scale (ES200L, Ohaus, Pine Brook, NJ, USA), respectively. They then completed a dynamic warm-up
consisting of high knee pulls, Frankenstein’s, and forward gate swings for twenty meters each and were familiarized
with the testing protocol (Avila, 2015). Immediately after the dynamic warm-up, they performed three maximal
countermovement vertical jumps with arm swing on a force plate. A vertical jump station (EPIC Athletic Performance
Inc., Colorado Springs, CO, USA) was used to encourage subjects to jump maximally. Prior to jumping, they were
instructed to step on to the force plate, place their hands in front and stand still. When told to jump, they bent their
knees and hips while swinging their arms down, and performed a maximal jump, reaching for the vanes of the device.
Three jumps were recorded and the highest jump was used for analysis (Avila, 2015). Jump height data from the EPIC
vertical jump station was recorded, but not used for data analysis. After completion of the jumps, subjects were
familiarized with the foam rolling and control protocols.
Day 2-3. Subjects performed the same dynamic warm-up as day 1. After completion of the dynamic warm-up, they
performed the foam rolling protocol or control protocol in a counterbalanced fashion, separated by 48 hours. After
completion of the days condition, they immediately performed three countermovement vertical jumps, identical to day
1. All three jumps were recorded and the highest jump was used for analysis.
2.3 Foam rolling and control protocols
Foam rolling was performed using a thirty-six inch high-density foam roller (80233-EI-RO, Power Systems, Knoxville,
TN, USA). The protocol consisted of one 30-second bout for each of four muscles: gastrocnemii, quadriceps,
hamstrings, and glutei, in that order. The right and left sides were foam rolled simultaneously. The control protocol
required subjects to perform the same movements as foam rolling, except on a rolling skateboard that replaced the foam
roller. Rolling on the skateboard mimicked the foam rolling action without the addition of self-massage that the foam
roller provided. They rolled back and forth on the foam roller and skateboard to the beat of a metronome set to 40 beats
per minute and were required to switch directions at the sound of each beep, resulting in ten repetitions.
To foam roll the gastrocnemii, subjects sat on the floor with the foam roller underneath them with their hands on the
ground to the side and feet in the air. They foam rolled from the top, just below the knee joint, to the bottom, just above
the ankle joint, and returned to the top, using their hands to guide the foam roller. For the quadriceps, subjects lied face
down on the floor with the foam roller at the top of their quadriceps and their forearms on the ground. They foam rolled
from the top to the bottom, just above the patella, and returned to the top, using their forearms to guide the foam roller.
For the hamstrings, they sat on the floor with the foam roller underneath them and placed it at the top of the hamstrings
with their hands on the ground to the side and feet in the air. They foam rolled from the top of the hamstrings to the
bottom, just above the knee joint, and returned to the top, using their hands to guide the foam roller. For the gluteus
maximus, they sat on the floor and placed the foam roller at the top of the gluteus maximus with their hands and feet on
the ground. They foam rolled from the top of the gluteus maximus to the bottom and returned to the top, using their
hands and feet to guide the foam roller.
The control protocol required them to perform the same movements they did while foam rolling, except on a rolling
skateboard that replaced the foam roller. To mimic foam rolling of the gastrocnemii and hamstrings, they placed their
heels on the middle of the skateboard with their knees fully extended and glutei off the ground then rolled back and
forth, using their hands to guide the skateboard. To mimic foam rolling of the quadriceps, they laid prone on the floor
and placed their knees on the middle of the skateboard with their feet hanging off the end and in the air then used their
forearms and elbows on the ground to roll the skateboard back and forth. To mimic foam rolling of the glutei, they sat
on the skateboard with their hands and feet on the ground and used their feet to roll the skateboard back and forth.

IJKSS 3(3):38-42, 2015 40
2.4 Vertical jump measurement
Vertical jumps were performed on an AMTI force plate (Advanced Technology Inc., Watertown, MA, USA), sampling
at 1,000 Hz, and interfaced with a computer running custom LabVIEW data collection and analysis software (version
2013, National Instruments Corporation, Austin, TX, USA). Estimated jump height (using the time in the air equation),
relative ground reaction force (rGRF), impulse, and take-off velocity (TOV) were recorded (Burnett, 2015).
2.5 Statistical Analyses
All values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Four 1x3 repeated measures ANOVAs analyzed the variables of
jump height, rGRF, impulse, and TOV for differences between conditions. Mauchly’s test of sphericity was performed
for each ANOVA. An a-priori alpha of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance. All analyses were performed
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 20.0).
3. Results
Sphericity was not violated for any analysis. There were no significant differences between conditions for any
dependent variable.
Table 1. Means ± SD of vertical jump variables by condition. (rGRF-relative ground reaction force; TOV-take off
velocity)
Baseline Foam Rolling Control p-value
Jump Height (cm) 47.38 ± 7.26 47.73 ± 7.22 47.88 ± 6.78 0.57
Impulse (N*s
-1
) 262.745 ± 33.50 263.09 ± 33.82 264.61 ± 34.32 0.22
rGRF (N*kg
-1
) 24.64 ± 2.15 24.67 ± 2.15 24.55 ± 1.93 0.89
TOV (m*s
-1
) 3.00 ± .20 3.03 ± .21 3.03 ± .217 0.23
4. Discussion
In recent years, foam rollers have become popular tools and are believed to increase tissue length and remove fibrous
adhesions located in the fascia (Barnes, 1997). To date, there have been few studies investigating the use of foam rollers
on performance. The results of this study suggest that the addition of foam rolling after a dynamic warm-up does not
acutely improve vertical jump performance. However, baseline vertical jumps, immediately following a dynamic warm-
up, were not significantly different from foam rolling or control conditions suggesting there was no detrimental effect of
foam rolling.
Our study was similar to previous investigations on the effects of foam rolling that have also shown it did not improve
performance (Healey, 2013; MacDonald, 2013). These studies used a multilevel roller, rolled different muscle groups
and used different durations of time a particular muscle group received treatment but still did not see differences
(Healey, 2013; MacDonald, 2013). Handheld roller massage devices were also not shown to improve performance in
athletic test performance (Mikesky, 2002) or isometric hamstring performance (Sullivan, 2013). In contrast, Halperin
(2014) found that use of a handheld roller massager improved maximal voluntary contraction of the plantar flexors ten
minutes after application when compared to static stretching. However, one minute after application of the roller
massager or static stretching, there were no significant differences. This was confirmed in our study as performance was
not different immediately following the three conditions.
Different durations of foam rolling or handheld roller massage have also been investigated and have demonstrated no
increase in performance. Similar to the current study, Healey et al. (2013) foam rolled for 30s per muscle group, while
MacDonald et al. (2013) foam rolled the quadriceps for two, 1-minute bouts. These results differ from studies that have
investigated the acute effect of massage on performance where five to six minutes of lower body massage negatively
affected performance (Arabaci, 2008; Arazi, 2012; Arroyo-Morales, 2011). Additionally, one minute of massage to the
gastrocnemius, hamstrings, gluteals, and quadriceps and thirty seconds to the tibialis anterior also negatively affected
20-meter sprint performance (Fletcher, 2010). Arroyo-Morales (2011) concluded that the negative effects of massage on
isokinetic knee extensor performance could be due to an increase in parasympathetic nervous system activity.
The sequence of warm-up activities used in the present study did not increase vertical jump performance, but it did not
negatively affect it either. We had subjects perform a standardized dynamic warm-up prior to foam rolling or control
conditions, then immediately vertical jump. Similarly, Healey (2013) had subjects perform a standardized dynamic
warm-up prior to foam rolling and planking conditions while MacDonald (2013) had subjects perform a five minute
cycle ergometer warm-up prior to foam rolling and control conditions. Previous studies investigating pre-performance
massage have found that it negatively affected performance (Arabaci, 2008; Arazi, 2012; Arroyo-Morales, 2011;
Fletcher, 2010). Perhaps performing a warm-up after massage could minimize the negative effects (Fletcher, 2010;
Goodwin, 2007). Other possible limitations of the current study were the type of foam rollers used and the duration of
rolling. Since vertical jump performance was not hampered by the addition of foam rolling, further manipulation of
these factors may lead to jump increases.

IJKSS 3(3):38-42, 2015 41
Though it was not the aim of this study and was not measured, foam rolling and handheld roller massage devices have
been shown to increase flexibility (Halperin, 2014; MacDonald, 2013; Mohr, 2014; Roylance, 2013; Sullivan, 2013). As
little as five seconds of application of a handheld massage device increased flexibility of the hamstrings (Sullivan,
2013). Also, adding foam rolling to a static stretching or postural alignment program significantly increased flexibility
in subjects who had less than average flexibility (Roylance, 2013) while foam rolling and static stretching also
increased flexibility in subjects with less than 90 degrees hip flexion range of motion (Mohr, 2014). Therefore, foam
rolling may result in changes in flexibility that are unrelated to performance.
5. Conclusion
The results of this study indicate that the addition of foam rolling after a dynamic warm-up does not increase acute
vertical jump performance. Given the relatively small amount of data on foam rolling’s effects on performance, future
investigations should consider different types of rollers and materials. Furthermore, longer rolling durations and
different performance measures should be studied.
References
Aguilar A.J., DiStefano L.J., Brown C.N., Herman D.C., Guskiewicz K.M., Padua A.P. (2012). A dynamic warm-up
increases quadriceps strength and hamstring flexibility. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(4), 1130-
1141.
Arabaci R. (2008). Acute effects of pre-event lower limb massage on explosive and high-speed motor capacities and
flexibility. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 7, 549-555.
Arazi H., Asadi A., Hoseini K. (2012). Comparison of two different warm-ups (static stretching and massage) effects
on flexibility and explosive power. Acta Kinesiologica, 6(1), 55-59.
Arroyo-Morales M., Fernandez-Lao C., Ariza-Garcia A., Toro-Velasco, I., Winters, M., Diaz-Rodriguez, L., Cantarero-
Villanueva, I., Huljbregts, P., Fernandez-De-Las-Penas, C. (2011). Psychophysiological effects of preperformance
massage before isokinetic exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(2), 481-488.
Avila B.J., Brown L.E., Coburn J.W., Statler T.A. (2015). Effects of imagery on force production and jump
performance. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 18(4), 42-48.
Barnes M.F. (1997). The basic science of myofascial release: morphologic change in connective tissue. Journal of
Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 1(4), 231-238.
Burnett K.A., Brown L.E., Kersey R.D., Tsang K.W. (2015). Effect of ankle bracing vs. taping on vertical jump
performance. Journal of Athletic Enhancement, 4(1).
Callaghan M.J. (1993). The role of massage in the management of the athlete: a review. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 27, 28-33.
Carvalho F.L.P., Carvalho M.C.G.A., Simao R., Gomes, T.M., Costa, P.B., Neto, L.B., Carvalho, R.L.P., Dantas,
E.H.M. (2012). Acute effects of a warm-up including active, passive, and dynamic stretching on vertical jump
performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(9), 2447-2452.
Faigenbaum A.D. (2012). NSCA’s Guide to Program Design. Illinois: Human Kinetics, (Chapter 3).
Fletcher I.M. (2010). The effects of precompetition massage on kinematic parameters of 20-m sprint performance.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(5), 1179-1183.
Frantz T.L., Ruiz M.D. (2011). Effects of dynamic warm-up on lower body explosiveness among collegiate baseball
players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(11), 2985-2990.
Gelen E. (2010). Acute effects of different warm-up methods on sprint, slalom dribbling, and penalty kick performance
in soccer players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(4), 950-956.
Goodwin J.E., Glaister M., Howatson G., Lockey R.A., McInnes G. (2007). Effect of preperformance lower-limb
massage on thirty-meter sprint running. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1028-1031.
Halperin I., Aboodarda S.J., Button D.C., Andersen L.L., Behm D.G. (2014). Roller massage improves range of motion
of plantar flexor muscles without subsequent decreases in force parameters. The International Journal of Sports
Physical Therapy, 9(1), 92-102.
Healey K.C., Hatfield D.L., Blanpied P., Dorfman L.R., Riebe D. (2013). The effects of myofascial release with foam
rolling on performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(1), 61-68.
Kistler B.M., Walsh M.S., Horn T.S., Cox R.H. (2010). The acute effects of static stretching on the sprint performance
of collegiate men in the 60- and 100-meter dash after a dynamic warm-up. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 24(9), 2280-2284.
Little T., Williams A.G. (2006). Effects of differential stretching protocols during warm-ups in professional soccer
players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(1), 203-207.

IJKSS 3(3):38-42, 2015 42
MacDonald G.Z., Penney M.D.H., Mullaley M.E., Cuconato, A.L., Drake, C.D.J., Behm, D.G., Button, D.C. (2013).
An acute bout of self-myofascial release increases range of motion without a subsequent decrease in muscle activation
or force. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(3), 812-821.
MacDonald G.Z., Button D.C., Drinkwater E.J., Behm D.G. (2014). Foam rolling as a recovery tool following an
intense bout of physical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 46(1), 131-142.
Mikesky A.E., Bahamonde R.E., Stanton K., Alvey T., Fitton T. (2002). Acute effects of the stick on strength, power,
and flexibility. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16(3), 446-450.
Mohr A.R., Long B.C., Goad C.L. (2013). Foam rolling and static stretching on passive hip flexion range of motion.
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 23, 296-299.
Pagaduan J.C., Pojskic H., Uzicanin E., Babajic F. (2012). Effect of various warm-up protocols on jump performance
in college football players. Journal of Human Kinetics, 35, 127-132.
Perrier E.T., Pavol M.J., Hoffman M.A. (2011). The acute effects of a warm-up including static or dynamic stretching
on countermovement jump height, reaction time, and flexibility. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(7),
1925-1931.
Roylance D.S., George J.D., Hammer A.M., Rencher, N., Gellingham, G.W., Hager, R.L., Myrer, W.J. (2013).
Evaluating acute changes in joint range-of-motion using self-myofascial release, postural alignment exercises, and static
stretches. International Journal of Exercise Science, 6(4), 310-319.
Sim A.Y., Dawson B.T., Guelfi K.J., Wallman K.E., Young W.B. (2009). Effects of static stretching on repeated sprint
performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(7): 2155-2162.
Sullivan K.M., Silvey D.B.J., Button D.C., Behm D.G. (2013). Roller-massage application to the hamstrings increases
sit-and-reach range of motion within five to ten seconds without performance impairments. The International Journal of
Sports Physical Therapy, 8(3), 228-236.
Vetter R.E. (2007). Effects of six warm-up protocols on sprint and jump performance. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 21(3), 819-823.