Impact of 10-Minute Interval Roller Massage on Performance and Active Range of Motion

Abstract

Hodgson, DD, Quigley, PJ, Whitten, JHD, Reid, JC, and Behm, DG. Impact of 10-minute interval roller massage on performance and active range of motion. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2017-Roller massage (RM) has been shown to increase range of motion (ROM) without subsequent performance deficits. However, prolonged static stretching (SS) can induce performance impairments. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of combining SS and RM with and without subsequent RM on ROM and neuromuscular performance. Subjects (n = 12) participated in 5 sessions: (a) SS only (SS_rest), (b) SS + RM (SS + RM_rest), (c) SS with RM at 10 and 20 minutes after stretch (SS_RM), (d) SS + RM with RM at 10 and 20 minutes after stretch (SS + RM_RM), and (e) control. For the SS conditions, the quadriceps and hamstrings received passive SS for 2 × 30 seconds each. For the SS + RM conditions, SS was applied to the quadriceps and hamstrings for 30 seconds each, and RM was performed for 30 seconds per muscle. SS_RM and SS + RM_RM conditions received an additional 30-second RM at 10 and 20 minutes after warm-up, whereas sessions without additional RM rested for the same duration. Testing measures included hip flexion (HF) and knee flexion (KF) active and passive ROM, hurdle jump height and contact time, countermovement jump height, and maximal voluntary isometric contraction force. Initial KF and HF ROM improvements provided by SS_RM and SS + RM_RM were sustained up to 30 minutes after intervention. Furthermore, SS_RM exhibited greater ROM compared with sessions lacking additional RM in active and passive HF as well as active and passive KF. Similarly, SS + RM_RM elicited greater KF and HF ROM improvements than SS_rest. In conclusion, active KF and HF ROM improvements were prolonged by additional RM, whereas neuromuscular performance remained relatively unaffected.

Full text

NUMBER 1OF1
AUTHOR QUERIES
DATE 10/10/2017
JOB NAME JSCR
ARTICLE JSCR-08-9293
QUERIES FOR AUTHORS Hodgson et al
THIS QUERY FORM MUST BE RETURNED WITH ALL PROOFS FOR CORRECTIONS
Please confirm the given names (pink) and surnames (blue) of authors have been identified correctly.
AU1) Please note that as per the style, the running head should contain only 50 characters; the given running head exceeds
50 characters. Please check.
AU2) Please note that the affiliation provided has been considered as common for all the authors. Please check and
confirm.
AU3) Please provide the department/unit (if any) in affiliation.
AU4) Please spell out the forename of the authors “Hodgson D.D., Quigley P.J., Whitten J.H.D., and Reid J.C.”
AU5) Please provide the age ranges of all subjects mentioned in the Subjects section if you have not already. If any subject
was ,18 years of age, please confirm that written parental consent was obtained. Please also confirm, if you have not
already, that signed informed consent documents were obtained for all subjects.
AU6) Please confirm that this study was approved by an institutional review board. Please also confirm the institution’s
name if not already stated.
AU7) Please provide city, state, and country of the manufacturers “Monark, Omega Engineering, Inc. and Biopac Systems,
Inc.”
AU8) Please provide the volume number and page range in references 8, 16, and 41.
AU9) Please update reference 16.
AU10) Please provide complete details of reference 45.

IMPACT OF 10-MINUTE INTERVAL ROLLER MASSAGE
ON PERFORMANCE AND ACTIVE RANGE OF MOTION
D.D. HODGSON,P.J. QUIGLEY,J.H.D. WHITTEN,J.C. REID,AND DAVID G.AU2 BEHM
School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland, CanadAU3 a
ABSTRACT
Hodgson, DD, Quigley, PJ, Whitten, JHD, Reid, JC, and Behm,
DG. Impact of 10-minute interval roller massage on perfor-
mance and active range of motion. J Strength Cond Res XX(X):
000–000, 2017—Roller massage (RM) has been shown to
increase range of motion (ROM) without subsequent perfor-
mance deficits. However, prolonged static stretching (SS) can
induce performance impairments. The objective of this study
was to examine the effects of combining SS and RM with and
without subsequent RM on ROM and neuromuscular perfor-
mance. Subjects (n= 12) participated in 5 sessions: (a) SS
only (SS_rest), (b) SS + RM (SS + RM_rest), (c) SS with RM
at 10 and 20 minutes after stretch (SS_RM), (d) SS + RM with
RM at 10 and 20 minutes after stretch (SS + RM_RM), and (e)
control. For the SS conditions, the quadriceps and hamstrings
received passive SS for 2 330 seconds each. For the SS +
RM conditions, SS was applied to the quadriceps and ham-
strings for 30 seconds each, and RM was performed for 30
seconds per muscle. SS_RM and SS + RM_RM conditions
received an additional 30-second RM at 10 and 20 minutes
after warm-up, whereas sessions without additional RM rested
for the same duration. Testing measures included hip flexion
(HF) and knee flexion (KF) active and passive ROM, hurdle
jump height and contact time, countermovement jump height,
and maximal voluntary isometric contraction force. Initial KF and
HF ROM improvements provided by SS_RM and SS +
RM_RM were sustained up to 30 minutes after intervention.
Furthermore, SS_RM exhibited greater ROM compared with
sessions lacking additional RM in active and passive HF as
well as active and passive KF. Similarly, SS + RM_RM elicited
greater KF and HF ROM improvements than SS_rest. In con-
clusion, active KF and HF ROM improvements were prolonged
by additional RM, whereas neuromuscular performance re-
mained relatively unaffected.
KEY WORDS foam rolling, flexibility, stretching, jumps, strength
INTRODUCTION
Static stretching (SS) involves achieving and sustain-
ing a stretch sensation by passively lengthening
a muscle until the point of discomfort (POD) is
reached or approached (4). Indeed, the beneficial
effects of SS on acute flexibility are well documented and
have gained tremendous support from the scientific commu-
nity (3,4,25,26,38). These improvements are likely due to
changes in stretch tolerance (30,32), neurophysiological
reflex inhibition (17–19,41), viscoelasticity (30), or from acute
reductions in muscle and tendon stiffness (17,34,43). More
recently, however, SS has been under scrutiny based on re-
ports of its association to subsequent performance deficits.
Ample research has emerged claiming that sustained bouts
of SS lead to acute impairments in neuromuscular tasks (i.e.,
force, power, balance, sprint speed, running economy, and
others) (3,4,26), although there is evidence for a dose-
response relationship in which SS leads to impairments prin-
cipally when sustained for .60 seconds (4). Hence, further
research is necessary to identify alternative strategies for
improving range of motion (ROM) without inducing perfor-
mance impairments over a prolonged period.
Foam rolling (FR) and roller massage (RM) are manual
therapy techniques, each involving the manipulation of
a hard cylinder (often wrapped in dense foam) over the
surface of muscles and fascia. Among other purported
benefits, FR/RM has been proposed as a method capable
of replacing or supplementing SS as a means for acutely
improving flexibility. Thus, a recent, but relatively consistent
base of literature has emerged, with many researchers
(2,7,9,20,24,28,29,33,36,40) supporting FR/RM as a capable
means of acutely enhancing ROM. Furthermore, there is
a growing body of evidence that FR/RM does not signifi-
cantly impair (2,20,21,31,40) or may enhance (36) subse-
quent neuromuscular performance.
Despite promising reports associating FR/RM with
improved flexibility, greater improvements in ROM are
typically documented with SS for a similar stimulus volume,
a notion supported by studies directly comparing SS with
FR/RM (20,33,39). Limited research has examined whether
a combination of FR/RM can elicit similar ROM improve-
ments to SS. Mohr et al. (33) reported greater hip flexion
(HF) ROM improvements after 3 minutes of both FR and SS
(23.6%) than 3 minutes of either on their own (FR: 6.9%; SS:
Address correspondence to Dr. David G. Behm, dbehm@mun.caAU4 .
00(00)/1–12
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2017 | 1
Copyright ª2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

12.3%). Similar findings were reported by ˇ
Skarabot et al. (39),
who elicited greater ankle dorsiflexion ROM improvements
with 90 seconds of both FR and SS (9.1%) than 90 seconds
of either on their own (FR: no change; SS: 6.2%). In both
studies, the total volume was doubled for the combined
intervention, and neither study monitored changes in perfor-
mance. Thus, it remains unknown how combining FR/RM
and SS affects ROM and neuromuscular performance com-
pared with the same volume of either intervention alone.
Further research is required to determine whether adding
RM to a relatively short-duration stretching routine would
augment stretch-induced ROM improvements. Further-
more, it is not known whether performing RM at intervals
after the stretching routine would prolong the ROM
increases. Maintaining improved ROM after a warm-up
would benefit athletes such as basketball, soccer, and football
players who substitute into the game from the bench.
Prolonged rest periods may cause the positive effects of
their warm-up to deteriorate, subjecting these athletes to
a greater risk of injury and less than optimal performance.
Hence, the first objective of this study was to compare
similar volumes of an SS-only routine to a combined SS and
RM protocol. A second objective was to examine the effects
of adding additional RM at 10-minute intervals to the
aforementioned routines on ROM and neuromuscular
performance measures. It was hypothesized that combining
SS and RM would provide similar ROM improvements as
the same total volume of SS alone and that these enhance-
ments would remain more evident after 30 minutes when
additional RM was incorporated compared with sessions
instead involving a rest period. Neuromuscular performance
measures were not hypothesized to be affected by SS or by
the inclusion of RM.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
This research used a within-subject, repeated-measures
design during which participants completed 5 testing con-
ditions on separate days, in a randomized order (
T1 Table 1).
Experimental conditions included (a) SS only (SS_rest), (b)
SS and RM (SS + RM_rest), (c) SS with additional RM after
10 and 20 minutes (SS_RM), (d) SS and RM with additional
RM after 10 and 20 minutes (SS + RM_RM), and (e) con-
trol. Testing measures were performed before, as well as
immediately, 10, 20, and 30 minutes after intervention
(before additional RM in the SS_RM and SS + RM_RM
conditions) and included hurdle jumps, countermovement
jump (CMJ), and active (aROM) and passive (pROM) hip
and knee flexion (KF) ROM in that order. Knee flexion and
extension maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC)
were also measured after all other tests before, immediately
after intervention, and 30 minutes after intervention. Each
round of testing took approximately 2.5 minutes when
MVICs were not included (post-10 and post-20), or 4.5 mi-
nutes when MVICs were included (pre, post, and post-30).
Post-10 and post-20 measurements during sessions with
additional RM lasted approximately 5 minutes (including
the RM). After post, post-10, and post-20 measurements,
the subject then rested in a comfortable seated position for
the remainder of each 10-minute segment.
Subject AU5s
AU6A previous statistical power analysis to determine sample
size was conducted based on similar studies (1,5,37) measur-
ing ROM and MVIC force. Based on this analysis, it was
determined that between 4 and 30 participants would be
needed to achieve an alpha level of 0.05 and a statistical
power of 0.8. Thus, 12 volunteers, including 7 men (26.6
years, 180.6 cm, and 89.8 kg) and 5 women (25.6 years,
165.3 cm, and 60.8 kg) from the university population, were
recruited to participate in this study. Participants were
between the ages of 18 and 30 years, reported to be recrea-
tionally trained (participate in physical activity $3 time-
s$wk
21
), and had no neurological conditions or history of
lower-body injury during the past 6 months. Participants
signed a consent form approved by the Health Research
Ethics Authority at Memorial University of Newfoundland
(file no. 20170222), in addition to completing the Physical
Activity Readiness Questionnaire (Canadian Society for
Exercise Physiology 2011). Before any testing session, par-
ticipants were asked to avoid vigorous physical activity and
refrain from alcohol consumption for 24 hours. All testing
sessions were completed, with consistent temperate condi-
tions within the laboratory (;228C; 35% relative humidity).
Interventions
All participants completed a dynamic warm-up on a cycle
ergometer (Ergomedic 828E; Monar AU7k) at 60–70 rpm with
a resistance of 1 kp (70 W) for 5 minutes. After pretest
measurements, subjects completed 1 of 5 additional warm-
TABLE 1. Order of intervention sessions
completed.*
Subject SS_rest
SS +
RM_rest SS_RM
SS +
RM_RM Control
124351
213254
312453
443521
554312
625431
741325
851432
914352
10 2 5 1 3 4
11 1 5 4 2 3
12 2 3 4 1 5
*RM = roller massage; SS = static stretching.
Roller Massage Subsequent to Static Stretching and Roller Massage Warm-ups
AU1
2
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright ª2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

up protocols, selected randomly by rolling a standard 6-sided
dice until a session number (1–5) was rolled which the sub-
ject had not yet completed.
All warm-up interventions other than control included SS
of the hamstrings and quadriceps. The SS condition only
involved SS with no RM either in conjunction with or
subsequent to the stretching. Hamstring stretches were
performed with the subject lying supine with both knees
fully extended. The researcher then passively raised 1 limb to
increase the ROM until the subject indicated that the POD
had been reached. The quadricep stretch was performed
with the subject in a lunge position with the front limb fixed
at 908HF, KF, and ankle flexion. The rear hip was extended
as far as possible with the knee resting on a foam pad. A
metal frame was provided to hang onto for stability. The
researcher then flexed the knee joint, raising the rear foot,
until the POD was reached. Subjects were asked to provide
feedback during all stretches, allowing the researcher to
adapt to changes in the POD. All stretches were held for 2
repetitions of 30 seconds in a randomized order for the ham-
strings and quadriceps of each limb. This duration is sup-
ported by recent reviews, suggesting that SS #60 seconds
per muscle group can be performed before activity without
compromising neuromuscular performance (4,6,26).
Two interventions included both SS and RM of the
hamstrings and quadriceps during the warm-up (SS +
RM_rest and SS + RM_RM). The previously described SS
protocol preceded the RM protocol except with only 1,
TABLE 2. Range of motion (ROM) reported in degrees for each condition measured at 5 time points relative to the
intervention.*†
Pre Post Post-10 Post-20 Post-30
Hip flexion active ROM (larger
numbers reflect ROM
increase)
SS_rest 92.0 615.0 92.4 613.9 92.1 614.4 93.2 614.7 91.1 613.6
SS + RM_rest 92.5 614.6 93.5 612.6 93.7 614.0 92.6 617.2 92.3 616.5
SS_RM 91.5 616.0 93.3 615.8z94.0 616.5z95.5 616.7z§ 94.3 615.8z§
SS + RM_RM 92.0 618.9 93.8 617.4z93.2 616.9 93.5 616.5 94.5 617.8z§
Control 92.7 615.6 94.3 617.7 92.1 616.5 92.4 615.6 93.9 617.1
Hip flexion passive ROM
(larger numbers reflect
ROM increase)
SS_rest 101.2 622.2 105.4 622.9zk 105.1 624.4zk 104.1 625.5z105.4 624.9z
SS + RM_rest 99.6 619.9 106.1 622.4z106.5 624.0zk 104.8 624.9z105.5 625.9z
SS_RM 101.0 624.3 106.6 625.0zk 106.8 623.9zk 107.8 623.1z§k¶ 107.6 623.7zk
SS + RM_RM 98.5 624.6 104.8 625.8z103.3 624.5z105.5 624.9z106.3 624.8zk
Control 101.2 622.3 102.8 622.9 102.7 623.6 104.0 623.0 103.5 623.7
Knee flexion active ROM
(smaller numbers reflect
ROM increase)
SS_rest 53.2 65.2 50.0 67.9z51.4 65.0z52.0 64.8 52.3 66.8
SS + RM_rest 53.8 67.4 51.7 64.4 51.8 66.7 52.0 65.1 52.0 66.6
SS_RM 53.0 65.7 49.2 65.0zk 49.2 64.0zk 47.7 63.5z§k¶ 48.9 64.6z§k¶
SS + RM_RM 57.1 69.6 52.7 67.3z52.9 66.8z52.8 67.0z51.5 66.0z
Control 54.8 68.6 54.3 68.9 54.2 67.9 52.8 67.6 51.7 66.0z
Knee flexion passive ROM
(smaller numbers reflect
ROM increase)
SS_rest 41.6 67.9 34.0 66.6zk 36.0 66.6z37.6 65.9z37.1 66.3z
SS + RM_rest 37.5 65.9 33.4 65.9zk 34.0 65.8z33.9 66.0zk 34.4 67.1z
SS_RM 37.5 66.9 31.3 65.5zk 33.0 65.1z31.3 64.1z§k31.4 63.4z§k
SS + RM_RM 40.9 67.3 35.2 66.8zk 37.8 66.9z33.7 65.9z§k32.4 66.1z§k
Control 39.9 611.3 39.2 67.9 37.7 67.7z37.8 67.3 36.3 66.9z
*RM = roller massage; ROM = range of motion; SS = static stretching.
†Values demonstrating significant relationships between sessions with additional RM vs. sessions with rest are highlighted. N= 12.
zValues are significantly different from prevalue.
§Values are significantly different from SS_rest value at the same time point.
║Values are significantly different from control value at the same time point.
¶Values are significantly different from SS + RM_rest value at the same time point.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2017 | 3
Copyright ª2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

rather than two 30-second SS bouts per muscle group. Roller
massage was then performed passively by the researcher
using the Roller Massager by TheraBand, a portable rolling
device wrapped with dense ridged foam. With 1 set of SS
and RM each in the combined conditions (SS + RM_rest
and SS + RM_RM), the intervention volume durations were
equal (60 seconds) in all experimental conditions. Subjects
were positioned prone (for hamstring RM) or seated on the
edge of a chair (for quadriceps RM) with their knees fully
extended while RM was applied over the full length of the
intended muscles, without crossing any joint. All RM was
performed for 1 repetition of 30 seconds per muscle group
(to match the total volume of the SS-only conditions) in
a randomized order to a cadence of 60 b$min
–1
. This
cadence allowed 1 full cycle to be completed every 2 seconds
(1 second from distal to proximal, 1 second returning from
proximal to distal). The researcher applied pressure eliciting
a perceived pain of 7/10 on the visual analog scale (VAS-10)
as indicated by the subject.
Two conditions applied additional RM after SS only
(SS_RM) and SS and RM (SS + RM_RM) at 10 and 20 mi-
nutes after intervention. This interval was selected to ensure
that a sufficient rest period would be provided after each
round of testing and additional RM. These supplementary
bouts were performed by the researcher as previously
described, for 30 seconds per muscle group at 60 b$min
–1
,
and were always performed after the completion of other
tests and measurements.
The control condition consisted of a 5-minute rest period
between pretest and posttest measurements and then
proceeded with additional measurements at 10, 20, and
30 minutes with no SS or RM at any point.
Measurements
Countermovement Jump. A Vertec measuring device was used
to assess CMJ height (Vertec; Sports Imports, Hilliard, OH,
USA). The height of the device was adjusted until the
fingertips of the subject’s dominant arm extended overhead
and brushed against the bottom vane. Subjects were in-
structed to leap vertically from a 2-foot stance as high as
possible, reaching with 1 arm to slap the Vertec at their peak.
Although no steps were permitted before the leap, it was
acceptable for subjects to squat (countermovement without
pausing at the bottom) and swing their arms during the
movement, thus making the task as natural as possible.
The highest vane displaced (measured in ½00 intervals) was
counted as their CMJ height.
Hurdle Jump. The hurdle jump is a modified version of the
test first described by Cavanaugh et al. (8). The test requires
the subject’s maximum CMJ height to be established. This
was measured immediately after the dynamic warm-up at
the beginning of each testing session using a Vertec measur-
ing device while subjects performed 2 CMJs, the better of
which was used. A hurdle was then set to 75% of the
TABLE 3. Condition 3time interactions with range of motion (ROM) significantly increased over pretest values at 30 minutes.*†
Conditions (N= 12) Hip flexion active ROM Hip flexion passive ROM Knee flexion active ROM Knee flexion passive ROM
SS_RM p= 0.001, ES: 0.176, 3.1% p= 0.001, ES: 0.334, 6.5% p= 0.001, ES: 0.792, 7.7% p= 0.001, ES: 1.184, 16.2%
SS + RM_RM p= 0.015, ES: 0.136, 2.8% p= 0.001, ES: 0.316, 7.9% p= 0.003, ES: 0.718, 9.9% p,0.0001, ES: 1.269, 20.8%
SS_rest p= 0.008, ES: 0.178, 4.1% p= 0.003, ES: 0.634, 10.8%
SS + RM_rest p= 0.010, ES: 0.258, 5.9% p= 0.009, ES: 0.477, 8.2%
*RM = roller massage; ROM = range of motion; SS = static stretching; ES = effect size.
†Additional rolling increased ROM for both passive and active measures, whereas the lack of additional rolling only increased passive ROM measures.
Roller Massage Subsequent to Static Stretching and Roller Massage Warm-ups
4
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright ª2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

maximum value and placed 600 away from a force plate (AM-
TI, Watertown, MA, USA). The hurdle jump required sub-
jects to leap over the hurdle starting with a 2-foot stance
from a distance of 600, land with both feet on the force plate,
and immediately launch into a vertical CMJ, landing again
on the force plate. Subjects were instructed to perform the
task as quickly as possible while leaping as high as possible.
Vertical jump height and contact time were assessed using
force plate analysis. A sampling rate of 2,000 Hz and a gain
of 1,000 were used for force plate data.
Range of Motion. Active and passive hip flexor ROM was
measured using a large protractor designed on the wall of
the laboratory. Subjects were positioned supine on the floor
against the wall with their hip joint placed against the center
of the protractor. During the initial measurement, tape was
placed on the floor marking the heel position to ensure
consistent positioning of the subject during subsequent
measurements. All measurements were taken from the
dominant limb while the nondominant hip and knee were
held securely on the floor. For aROM, the participant was
asked to raise their leg as far as possible without bending
their knee. For pROM, the researcher passively raised the
subject’s leg, maintaining neutral ankle flexion and a fully
extended knee, until the end of the ROM was indicated by
the subject. The maximum angle of HF achieved was re-
corded. Active and passive KF ROM was measured for the
dominant limb with the subject placed in a lunge position as
described in the SS protocol. Measurements were recorded
using a handheld goniometer while the subject (aROM) or
the researcher (pROM) raised the rear foot to the end of the
ROM (16,36).
Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction. To perform MVICs,
subjects were seated on the edge of a table with a backrest
and a handle on either side. Their torso and upper legs were
strapped securely in place, and the ankle of their dominant
leg was inserted into a padded strap attached by a high-
tension wire to a Wheatstone bridge configuration strain
gauge (LCCS 250; Omega Engineering, Inc.). The knee joint
angle was fixed at 1208for KF and 908for knee extension
MVICs. Subjects were instructed to rapidly flex (KF) or
extend (knee extension) their knee joint to achieve maximal
force as quickly as possible. Each attempt was held for 3–5
seconds once an appropriate plateau in force was observed
by the researcher. The greater of 2 attempts was accepted
during pretesting, whereas 1 attempt was performed at post
and 30 minutes after intervention. Data collected with the
strain gauge were sampled at 2,000 Hz, amplified (DA 100,
and analog to digital converter MP100WSW; Biopac Sys-
tems, Inc.), and analyzed using a commercially designed
software program (Acq-Knowledge III; Biopac Systems,
Inc.). Strain gauge data were used to measure peak force
(PF) and the F100 (force generated in the first 100 ms of
the contraction).
TABLE 4. Table illustrates between condition 3time effects with additional rolling (top row) that had significantly greater ROM than those without additional
rolling (first column) with the identified measures at 20 and 30 minutes after test.*
ROM measures (N= 12) SS_RM (post-20 min) SS_RM (post-30 min) SS + RM_RM (post-20 min) SS + RM_RM (post-30 min)
Active hip flexion SS_rest p= 0.055, ES: 0.146, 2.4%; p= 0.004, ES: 0.218, 3.4% p= 0.034, ES: 0.217, 3.6%
Passive hip flexion SS_rest p= 0.017, ES: 0.152, 3.4%
Active knee flexion SS_rest p= 0.003, ES: 1.04, 8.3%; p= 0.035, ES: 0.596, 6.5%;
Passive knee flexion SS_rest p= 0.003, ES: 1.26, 16.8%; p= 0.001, ES: 1.175, 15.4% p= 0.002, ES: 0.66, 10.4%; p,0.0001, ES: 0.76, 12.7%
Passive hip flexion SS + RM_rest p= 0.011, ES: 0.125, 2.8%
Active knee flexion SS + RM_rest p= 0.002, ES: 1.000, 8.3% p= 0.034, ES: 0.554, 6.0%
*RM = roller massage; ROM = range of motion; SS = static stretching; ES = effect size.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2017 | 5
Copyright ª2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses were computed using SPSS software
(version 22.0; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Dependent
variables underwent assumption of normality (Shapiro-Wilk
test) and sphericity (Mauchly’s test), and if violated, the cor-
rected value for nonsphericity with Greenhouse-Geisser
Epsilon was reported. A 2-way analysis of variance (AN-
OVA) was conducted (5 35) to determine the existence
of significant differences between the 4 warm-up conditions
and the control condition (SS_rest, SS + RM_rest, SS_RM,
SS + RM_RM, and control) and the 5 time periods (pre,
post, 10-post, 20-post, and 30-post). To determine whether
adding RM to SS augmented ROM immediately after the
warm-up, the 2 conditions using SS only (SS_rest and
SS_RM) were combined and compared with conditions
using a combination of SS and RM (SS + RM_rest and SS
+ RM_rest) and the control condition. A 2-way repeated-
measures ANOVA (3 warm-up conditions 32 times [pre vs.
post]) was performed. An alpha level of p= 0.05 was con-
sidered statistically significant. If significant main effects were
demonstrated, Bonferroni post hoc analysis was conducted.
The magnitude of change was calculated and reported as
trivial (,0.2), small (0.2–0.49), medium (0.5–0.79), or large
($0.8) effect sizes (ES) (Cohen, 1988). Reliability was calcu-
lated with Cronbach’s alpha interclass correlation coefficient.
Descriptive statistics include mean 6SD and SEM. Mini-
mally clinically important or meaningful differences can be
observed by examining the SEM or whether the difference is
classified as a trivial ES (,0.2). Because the SEM is the
variation in scores due to unreliability of the measure,
a change that is less than the SEM is likely due to measure-
ment error rather than a true observed change (11).
RESULTS
Range of Motion
Active and passive KF, and HF ROM improvements were
prolonged by additional RM. Within-condition 3time in-
teractions showed that initial improvements provided by
SS_RM and SS + RM_RM were sustained up to 30 minutes
after intervention for all measures after additional RM
TABLE 5. Table illustrates significant improvements in range of motion (ROM) with main effects for initial warm-ups of
either SS only (SS_rest and SS_RM) or SS + RM (SS + RM_rest and SS + RM_RM).*†
ROM measures (N= 12) Static stretching (SS) only (SS_rest and SS_RM)
SS and roller massage (RM)
SS + RM_rest and SS + RM_RM
Active hip flexion p= 0.045, ES: 0.076, 1.2% P= 0.025, ES: 0.093, 1.6%
Passive hip flexion p,0.0001, ES: 0.211, 4.8% p,0.0001, ES: 0.282, 6.5%
Active knee flexion p,0.0001, ES: 0.588, 6.5% p= 0.007, ES: 0.450, 5.9%
Passive knee flexion p,0.0001, ES: 1.008, 17.4% p,0.0001, ES: 0.755, 12.6%
*ES = effect size.
†Both initial warm-up conditions (SS only and SS + RM) improved ROM with no significant difference between SS only and SS +
RM.
Figure 1. Pre-post knee flexion active range of motion (aROM) with conditions pooled for initial warm-ups of static stretching (SS) only vs. SS + RM. Smaller
numbers reflect range of motion (ROM) increase. N= 12. *Value is significantly different from prevalue. 8Value is significantly different from control value at the
same time point. RM = roller massage.
Roller Massage Subsequent to Static Stretching and Roller Massage Warm-ups
6
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright ª2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

(Tables 2 and 3). Meanwhile, ROM improvements were evi-
dent only for KF passive and HF passive ROM after 30 mi-
nutes of
T2 rest compared with respective pretest values with
SS_rest and SS + RM_rest conditions (Tables
T3 2 and 3).
Between-condition 3time interactions revealed signifi-
cantly greater ROM improvements for SS_RM compared
with sessions lacking additional RM in active and passive
HF as well as active and passive KF. Similarly, SS + RM_RM
elicited greater ROM improvements than SS_rest in active
HF and passive KF (Tables 2 and
T4 4).
Main effects for warm-up combinations (initial SS only vs.
combined SS + RM) demonstrated that with both initial SS-
only conditions (SS_rest and SS_RM) or SS + RM com-
bined (SS + RM_rest and SS + RM_RM), HF active and
passive and KF active and passive ROM were all improved
(Table T55; Figures 1–3). Significant warm-up combination 3
time F1 F3interactions revealed that sessions with initial warm-ups
including SS only (aROM: p= 0.019, pROM: p= 0.001) and
SS + RM (pROM: p= 0.010) improved KF ROM, whereas
no differences emerged between SS and SS + RM (Figures 1
and 2).
Significant main effects for time indicate improved post-
test ROM compared with pretest for HF (aROM: p= 0.014,
pROM: p,0.001) and KF (aROM: p= 0.001, pROM: p,
0.001), whereas there were no main effects for condition.
Jump Measures
With the initial 2-way ANOVA, a significant main effect for
the 5 conditions demonstrated that CMJ height was
compromised in SS_rest (p= 0.05, ES: 0.309, 23.9%)
Figure 2. Pre-post knee flexion passive range of motion (pROM) with conditions pooled for initial warm-ups of static stretching (SS) only vs. SS + RM. Smaller
numbers reflect range of motion (ROM) increase. N= 12. *Value is significantly different from prevalue. 8Value is significantly different from control value at the
same time point. RM = roller massage.
Figure 3. Pre-post hip flexion passive range of motion (pROM) with conditions pooled for initial warm-ups of static stretching (SS) only vs. SS + RM. Larger
numbers reflect range of motion (ROM) increase. N= 12. *Value is significantly different from prevalue. RM = roller massage.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2017 | 7
Copyright ª2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

compared with control. Significant main effects for time re-
vealed that CMJ height was impaired at post (p= 0.005, ES:
0.218, 22.6%), post-10 (p,0.0001, ES: 0.259, 23.1%), post-
20 (p,0.0001, ES: 0.288, 23.5%), and post-30 (p= 0.006,
ES: 0.318, 23.9%) compared with pretest. There were sig-
nificant but small magnitude differences between pretest
measures for SS_rest (p= 0.036, ES: 0.260, 23.3%), SS +
RM_rest (p= 0.025, ES: 0.344, 24.3%), and SS_RM (p=
0.023, ES: 0.389, 24.7%) compared with control. Condition
3time interactions illustrated that jump performance was
impaired at post, post-10, post-20, and post-30 compared
with pretest for all conditions with the exception of SS +
RM_RM during which no significant CMJ differences were
found at posttest or post-30 (Table T66).
With the second 2-way ANOVA for SS-only vs. SS + RM
combined and control warm-up conditions, significant con-
dition effects indicate reduced posttest CMJ height com-
pared with control for sessions containing SS only (SS_rest
TABLE 6. Jump performance reported at 5 time points relative to the intervention.*†
Pre Post Post-10 Post-20 Post-30
CMJ height
SS_rest 18.125 62.2 17.750 61.9z17.458 62.0z17.625 62.0z17.375 61.8z
SS + RM_rest 17.942 62.1 17.375 62.2z17.542 62.4z17.167 62.1z17.208 62.4z
SS_RM 17.875 61.9 17.417 61.9z17.250 62.0z17.250 62.1z17.333 62.2z
SS + RM_RM 18.208 62.1 17.917 62.3 17.708 62.3z17.625 62.5z17.792 62.7
Control 18.750 62.6 18.125 62.1z18.125 62.3z18.083 62.3z17.667 62.3z
Hurdle jump height
SS_rest 0.244 60.060 0.220 60.054 0.235 60.059 0.224 60.055 0.223 60.069
SS + RM_rest 0.233 60.054 0.220 60.063 0.219 60.065 0.217 60.049 0.231 60.062
SS_RM 0.245 60.061 0.227 60.068 0.231 60.063 0.228 60.045 0.222 60.052
SS + RM_RM 0.246 60.065 0.233 60.064 0.229 60.067 0.224 60.072 0.232 60.073
Control 0.246 60.066 0.231 60.081 0.233 60.073 0.243 60.073 0.231 60.072
Hurdle jump contact time
SS_rest 0.236 60.049 0.229 60.048 0.249 60.048 0.226 60.038 0.230 60.039
SS + RM_rest 0.224 60.033 0.236 60.044 0.228 60.034 0.228 60.030 0.235 60.023
SS_RM 0.221 60.031 0.231 60.039 0.232 60.038 0.231 60.030 0.224 60.026
SS + RM_RM 0.226 60.049 0.249 60.042 0.244 60.033 0.233 60.036 0.246 60.035
Control 0.240 60.045 0.231 60.035 0.243 60.044 0.239 60.031 0.238 60.033
*CMJ = countermovement jump; RM = roller massage; SS = static stretching.
†CMJ and hurdle jump height reported in inches, hurdle jump contact time reported in seconds. N= 12.
zValues are significantly different from prevalue.
Figure 4. Pre-post countermovement jump (CMJ) height with conditions pooled for initial warm-ups of static stretching (SS) only (SS_rest and SS_RM) vs. SS
+ RM (SS + RM_rest and SS + RM_RM). N= 12. *Value is significantly different from prevalue. RM = roller massage.
Roller Massage Subsequent to Static Stretching and Roller Massage Warm-ups
8
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright ª2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

and SS_RM) (p= 0.012, ES: 0.275, 23.5%) and SS + RM (SS
+ RM_rest and SS + RM_RM) (p= 0.017, ES: 0.224, 23.4%)
in the initial warm-up. However, there were no interactions
between SS only and SS + RM (Figure 4). The combined
condition analysis revealed interactive effects for conditions
3time with SS only (SS_rest and SS_RM), SS + RM (SS +
RM_rest and SS + RM_RM), and CONTROL CMJ height
(SS: p= 0.001, ES: 0.215, 22.3%; SS + RM: p,0.0001, ES:
0.202, 22.4%; CONTROL: p,0.0001, ES: 0.272, 23.3%)
demonstrating impairments after test (Figure
F4 4). Main time
effects demonstrated a reduction in CMJ height from pretest
to posttest (p,0.001, ES: 0.231, 22.7%).
There were also significant main effects for time-revealing
deficits in hurdle jump height at posttest (p= 0.009, ES:
0.267, 27.0%) and post-20 (p= 0.034, ES: 0.266, 26.6%)
only, whereas there were no significant changes in contact
time (Table 6).
Knee Extension and Flexion Maximal Voluntary Isometric
Contraction Force Measures
Significant main effects for time indicate a reduction in knee
extension PF at posttest (p= 0.002, ES: 0.152, 23.8%) and
post-30 (p= 0.024, ES: 0.170, 24.3%) only. There were no
significant differences found in KF PF and f100, or in knee
extension f100.
Reliability Coefficients
Interclass correlation coefficient reliability coefficients for
hamstrings active (0.98; 3.18 SEM) and passive (0.993; 4.51
SEM) ROM, CMJ (0.98; 0.45 SEM), quadriceps MVIC (0.98;
3.05 SEM) and F100 (0.92; 2.49 SEM), hamstrings MVIC
(0.97; 1.71 SEM) and F100 (0.91; 1.08 SEM), hurdle jump
height (0.96; 0.012 SEM), and contact time (0.91; 0.0085
SEM) were all categorized as excellent. Moderate reliability
correlations were found for quadriceps active (0.68; 1.56
SEM) and passive (0.74; 1.72 SEM) ROM.
DISCUSSION
The most important findings in this study were that applying
RM 10 and 20 minutes after SS (SS_RM) or after a combi-
nation of SS + RM (SS + RM_RM) prolonged KF and HF
aROM and pROM improvements up to 30 minutes. There
were also passive but not active ROM improvements with-
out additional rolling provided by SS (SS_rest) and combin-
ing SS and RM (SS + RM_rest) that persisted up to
30 minutes. However, all active and passive ROM enhance-
ments provided by SS_RM and SS + RM_RM were main-
tained or augmented with additional RM. Main condition
interactions demonstrated that SS_rest was the only condi-
tion to impair CMJ height, whereas conditions involving
RM (SS + RM_rest, SS_RM, SS + RM_RM) did not
adversely affect subsequent performance measures com-
pared with control. Sessions grouped by initial warm-up
(SS only or SS + RM) generated similar improvements in
pretest to posttest ROM, while eliciting similar decrements
to CMJ height.
Initial KF (18.3%) and HF (4.1%) pROM improvements
brought about by SS_rest remained evident throughout the
30-minute recovery period (10.8 and 4.1%, respectively).
Initial KF aROM improvements (6.0%) with SS_rest per-
sisted for 10 minutes (3.4%) but returned to baseline before
20 minutes. Passive ROM has been demonstrated to persist
for #3(
12), #5(44), #10 (6,39), #30 (15,32,35), #90 (27),
and #120 minutes (39) after acute SS; therefore, this study
joins a relatively conflicting pool of literature. These varian-
ces are likely due to inconsistent protocols such as stretching
duration and intensity or different muscle groups examined.
Similar to SS_rest, initial KF (10.9%) and HF (6.6%)
passive ROM improvements elicited by SS + RM_rest re-
mained significantly improved after 30 minutes of rest (8.2
and 5.9%, respectively). However, there were no significant
improvements in active ROM throughout the postinterven-
tion testing periods when there was no additional rolling
(SS_rest and SS + RM_rest). The effect of additional rolling
may be to provide less reflexive activity during the dynamic
muscle contractions allowing the muscles to achieve
a greater active ROM. Previous massage (23) and roller
(45) studies have shown decreased Hoffman reflex activity
indicating a decreased afferent excitability of the spinal mo-
toneurons (13). This is the first study monitoring the effects
of combined SS and RM over time. These findings suggest
that SS + RM may exhibit similar lasting effects on passive
ROM to SS alone. The scant pool of research on this topic
exposes a need to further probe into the time course of
effects brought about by acute SS + RM. This information
would be of particular interest to athletes who endure pro-
longed rest between warm-up and intense exercise.
Considering this uncertainty, a strategy to sustain acute
active and passive ROM improvements after a warm-up may
be beneficial for athletes entering a game from the bench.
This study is the first to report on RM applied subsequent to
an SS or SS + RM routine. Whereas sessions involving
a postintervention rest period showed persistent improve-
ments in passive ROM measurements over 30 minutes, ses-
sions including RM at 10 and 20 minutes after intervention
demonstrated maintained or greater passive and active ROM
after 30 minutes (Table 2). Initial improvements in KF (aR-
OM: 7.1%, pROM: 16.5%) and HF (aROM: 2.0%, pROM:
5.5%) ROM for SS_RM remained elevated at 30 minutes
(KF aROM: 7.7%, pROM: 16.2%; HF aROM: 3.1%, pROM:
6.5%). Similarly, initial ROM improvements brought about
by SS + RM_RM for KF (aROM: 7.7%, pROM: 14.1%) and
HF (aROM: 2.0%, pROM: 6.4%) were sustained at 30 mi-
nutes (KF aROM: 9.9%, pROM: 20.8%; HF aROM: 2.8%,
pROM: 7.9%). Thus, additional RM seems capable of pro-
longing or augmenting active and passive ROM improve-
ments elicited during warm-ups involving SS and SS +
RM. Roller massage (or FR) on its own has been reported
to elicit enhancements to ROM that return to baseline (20)
or remain to a smaller extent (29) after 10 minutes. These
findings are in contrast to the current study, which indicates
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2017 | 9
Copyright ª2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

that RM, when combined with SS (SS + RM_rest), or when
performed at 10-minute intervals (SS_RM, SS + RM_RM),
can exhibit active and passive ROM improvements at 30 mi-
nutes. It remains unknown whether RM alone, with or with-
out subsequent RM (e.g., RM_rest and RM_RM), is capable
of providing a similar warm-up effect to combined SS + RM
routines. The optimal frequency of additional RM intervals
to maximize ROM while minimizing impairments is also
unclear. Therefore, future investigations should deploy
warm-ups comparing SS, RM, and SS + RM with subse-
quent RM performed at varying intervals. Furthermore, it
may be beneficial to investigate the effects of additional
RM after intense dynamic exercise. This would simulate
athletes resting during a game or at intermission and help
determine whether ROM can be effectively maintained
using RM while they wait to resume activity.
In addition to ROM measurements, neuromuscular per-
formance was also monitored. According to a main condi-
tion effect, SS_rest exhibited significantly impaired CMJ
height (23.9%) compared with control. This is the lone
intervention (SS_rest) containing no RM at any point,
whereas the remaining 3 conditions were not significantly
different than control. When warm-up conditions were com-
bined to SS only (SS_rest and SS_RM) and SS + RM (SS +
RM_rest and SS + RM_RM), control conditions had signif-
icantly less CMJ height impairment after test than the exper-
imental conditions. Despite indications that performance
deficits occur mainly with SS .60-second duration
(4,25,26), the 60 seconds of SS performed in this study was
enough to elicit minor impairments to CMJ height. The
finding of jump impairments with 60 seconds or less of SS
is not uncommon though, with deficits reported for squat
jumps and CMJ (10,14,22,42). It is unclear if the inclusion of
additional RM in other sessions was responsible for counter-
balancing the negative effects of SS. Main time effects dem-
onstrate impaired CMJ height at all times compared with
pretest; however, the absence of condition effects or condi-
tion 3time interactions suggests that impairments to CMJ
height were primarily a result of testing effects or fatigue,
rather than RM or SS. The SS + RM_RM condition dem-
onstrated no impairments at posttest or post-30 (Table 2).
This is the condition with the greatest volume of RM. It is
possible that the larger volume of RM in SS + RM_RM was
accountable for masking these testing effects,
thus minimizing performance deficits for this condition.
One previous study (36) reported improved performance
(i.e., +7.8% vertical jump height) after 30 seconds of FR.
Hence, it is not unreasonable to suggest that RM played
a role in abating the impairments brought about by the SS
routine. It would be beneficial for future investigations to
further investigate whether RM can improve performance,
or even simply mask the negative effects of SS.
Trivial deficits in hurdle jump height at posttest and post-
20 and knee extension PF at posttest and post-30 were
strictly main effects for time, and the lack of condition effects
(Table 3) suggests that these reductions were a result of the
testing procedure rather than the intervention. Furthermore,
there were no significant changes in hurdle jump contact
time, KF PF or f100, or knee extension f100. These findings
are consistent with those of previous reports
(2,20,21,29,31,40), illustrating no changes in maximal
strength or power tasks after FR or RM.
Another research objective was to compare the immediate
effects of SS and SS + RM. Sessions involving an initial
intervention of SS + RM (30 seconds each), and those con-
sisting of SS only (60 seconds total), each provoked HF and
KF active and passive ROM improvements that were not
significantly different (Table 5). This is in contrast to Mohr
et al. (33) and ˇ
Skarabot et al. (39), who reported greater
improvements in KF and ankle dorsiflexion, respectively,
after SS + FR/RM compared with SS alone. This discrep-
ancy is likely due to differences in the total intervention
volume. Both aforementioned studies combined their FR/
RM and SS protocols, thereby doubling the total volume, for
the combined condition, whereas in the current study, the
duration of SS was reduced by half to accommodate an
equal volume of RM and maintain a consistent total volume
compared with the SS-only conditions. This is the first study
to directly compare equal volumes of SS to combined SS +
FR/RM. The results suggest that both warm-ups provide
similar ROM improvements, while neither produced adverse
performance decrements. Whether longer duration com-
bined with warm-up routines would counterbalance impair-
ments from prolonged (e.g., .60 seconds) SS remains
unclear. Thus, future research should aim to elicit significant
performance impairments with prolonged SS and compare
the effects to conditions with equal and double duration
combined protocols and to RM on its own.
The small sample size (n= 12) may be a limiting factor for
this study; however, it was determined that between 4 and
30 subjects were required to achieve an alpha level of 0.05
and a power of 0.8 based on similar previous studies (1,5,37).
Furthermore, although all subjects reported being at least
recreationally active, the findings of this study may be of
interest to competitive athletes. The relationship of these
effects between recreational and highly trained athletes is
unclear. Another limitation to the current study is the
absence of sessions including RM only (e.g., RM_rest and
RM_RM). Inclusion of these conditions would allow direct
comparison of RM, SS, and SS + RM, and this concept may
be ideal for future investigations. Finally, the control condi-
tion did provide increased ROM in 2 measures. Although
the experimental conditions provided statistically signifi-
cantly greater ROM improvements than control, the control
improvements with active and passive HF indicate that the
ROM testing played a small role for improving flexibility.
In summary, the current study suggests that although SS
and SS + RM warm-up routines can elicit passive ROM
increases lasting up to 30 minutes, the maintenance of active
ROM can be maximized or augmented with additional RM
Roller Massage Subsequent to Static Stretching and Roller Massage Warm-ups
10
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright ª2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

applied at 10-minute intervals. Furthermore, SS and com-
bined SS + RM routines of equal total duration can provide
similar ROM improvements. Finally, the combination of SS
+ RM, or the addition of subsequent RM to an SS or SS +
RM routine, does not seem to exert adverse effects on neu-
romuscular performance.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This research may be of benefit to athletes who are exposed
to prolonged rest before entering (e.g., from the bench)
a game after a warm-up. Because athletes need functional
flexibility, the improvements in active ROM (ROM achieved
while the muscles are contracting) would play a more
important role than improved passive ROM during a sport
activity. Athletes should periodically (at least every 10 mi-
nutes) roll the applicable muscles for at least 30 seconds
each.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
REFERENCES
1. Bacurau, RFP, Monteiro, GA, Ugrinowitsch, C, Tricoli, V, Cabral,
LF, and Aoki, MS. Acute effect of a ballistic and a static stretching
exercise bout on flexibility and maximal strength. J Strength Cond Res
23: 304–308, 2009.
2. Behara, B and Jacobson, BH. The acute effects of deep tissue foam
rolling and dynamic stretching on muscular strength, power, and
flexibility in division I linemen. JStrengthCondRes31: 888–892, 2017.
3. Behm, DG and Chaouachi, A. A review of the acute effects of static
and dynamic stretching on performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 111:
2633–2651, 2011.
4. Behm, DG, Blazevich, AD, Kay, AJ, and McHugh, M. Acute effects
of muscle stretching on physical performance, range of motion, and
injury incidence in healthy active individuals: A systematic review.
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41: 1–11, 2016.
5. Behm, DG, Bradbury, EE, Haynes, AT, Hodder, JN, Leonard, AM,
and Paddock, NR. Flexibility is not related to stretch-induced
deficits in force or power. J Sports Sci Med 5: 33–42, 2006.
6. Behm, DG, Plewe, S, Grage, P, Rabbani, A, Taghi Beigi, H, Byrne,
JM, and Button, DC. Relative static stretch-induced impairments
and dynamic stretch-induced enhancements are similar in young
and middle-aged men. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 36: 790–798, 2011.
7. Bradbury-Squires, AJ, Notfall, JC, Sullivan, KM, Behm, DG, Power,
KE, and Button, DC. Roller-massager application to the quadriceps
and knee-joint range of motion and neuromuscular efficiency during
a lunge. J Athl Train 50: 133–140, 2015.
8. Cavanaugh, MT, Aboodara, SJ, and Behm, DG. Intra-and inter-
session reliability of quadriceps’ and hamstrings’ electromyography
during a standardized hurdle jump test with single leg landing. J
Strength Cond Res 2017. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001631
AU8 .
9. Cho, S, Kim, S, and Park, D. The comparison of the immediate
effects of application of the suboccipital muscle inhibition and self-
myofascial release techniques in the suboccipital region on short
hamstring. J Phys Ther Sci 27: 195–197, 2015.
10. Chtourou, H, Aloui, A, Hammouda, O, Chaouachi, A, Chamari, K,
and Souissi, N. Effect of static and dynamic stretching on the diurnal
variations of jump performance in soccer players. PLoS One 8:
e70534, 2013.
11. Copay, AG, Subach, BR, Glassman, SD, Polly, DW, and Schuler,
TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: A
review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7: 541–546, 2007.
12. DePino, GM, Webright, WG, and Arnold, BL. Duration of
maintained hamstring flexibility after cessation of an acute static
stretching protocol. J Athl Train 35: 56–59, 2000.
13. Enoka, RM, Hutton, RS, and Eldred, E. Changes in excitability of
tendon tap and Hoffman reflexes following voluntary contractions.
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 48: 664–672, 1980.
14. Fletcher, IM and Monte-Columbo, MM. An investigation into the
possible physiological mechanisms associated with changes in
performance related to acute responses to different preactivity
stretch modalities. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 35: 27–34, 2010.
15. Fowles, JR, Sale, DG, and MacDougall, JD. Reduced strength after
passive stretch of the human plantarflexors. J Appl Physiol 89: 1179–
1188, 2000.
16. Grabow, L, Young, JD, Alcock, LR, Quigley, PJ, Byrne, JM,
Granacher, U, ˇ
Skarabot, J, and Behm, DG. Higher quadriceps roller
massage forces do not amplify range-of-motion-increases or impair
strength and jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 2017. In press AU9.
17. Guissard, N and Duchateau, J. Effect of static stretch training on
neural and mechanical properties of the human plantar-flexor
muscles. Muscle Nerve 29: 248–255, 2004.
18. Guissard, N and Duchateau, J. Neural aspects of muscle stretching.
Exerc Sport Sci Rev 34: 154–158, 2006.
19. Guissard, N, Duchateau, J, and Hainaut, K. Muscle stretching and
motoneuron excitability. Eur J Appl Physiol 58: 47–52, 1988.
20. Halperin, I, Aboodarda, SJ, Button, DC, Anderson, LL, and Behm,
DG. Roller massager improves range of motion of plantar flexor
muscles without subsequent decreases in force parameters. Int J
Sports Phys Ther 9: 92–102, 2014.
21. Healey, KC, Hatfield, DL, Blanpied, P, Dorfman, LR, and Riebe, D.
The effects of myofascial release with foam rolling on performance.
J Strength Cond Res 28: 61–68, 2014.
22. Hough, PA, Ross, EZ, and Howatson, G. Effects of dynamic and
static stretching on vertical jump performance and
electromyography activity. J Strength Cond Res 23: 507–512, 2009.
23. Huang, S, DiSanto, M, Wadden, K, Cappa, D, Alkanani, T, and
Behm, DG. Short duration massage at the hamstrings
musculotendinous junction induces greater range of motion. J
Strength Cond Res 24: 1917–1924, 2010.
24. Jay, K, Sundstrup, E, Sondergaard, SD, Behm, DG, Brandt, M,
Særvoll, CA, Jakobsen, MD, and Anderson, LL. Specific and cross
over effects of massage for muscle soreness: Randomized controlled
trial. Int J Sports Phys Ther 9: 82–91, 2014.
25. Kallerud, H and Gleeson, N. Effects of stretching on performances
involving stretch-shortening cycles. Res Sports Med 43: 733–750,
2013.
26. Kay, AD and Blazevich, AJ. Effects of acute static stretch on
maximal muscle performance: A systematic review. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 44: 154–164, 2012.
27. Knudson, D. Stretching during warm-up: Do we have enough
evidence? J Phys Ed Rec Dance 70: 24–27, 1999.
28. MacDonald, GZ, Button, DC, Drinkwater, EJ, and Behm, DG.
Foam rolling as a recovery tool after an intense bout of physical
activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 46: 131–142, 2014.
29. MacDonald,GZ,Penny,MDH,Mullaley,ME,Cuconato,AL,Drake,
CDJ,Behm,DG,andButton,DC.Anacuteboutofself-myofascial
release increases range of motion without a subsequent decrease in
muscle activation or force. J Strength Cond Res 27: 812–821, 2013.
30. McHugh, M, Magnusson, S, Gleim, G, and Nicholas, J. Viscoelastic
stress relaxation in human skeletal muscle. Med Sci Sports Exerc 24:
1375–1382, 1992.
31. Mikesky, AE. Acute effects of the stick on strength, power, and
flexibility. J Strength Cond Res 16: 446–450, 2002.
32. Mizuno, T, Matsumoto, M, and Umemura, Y. Viscoelasticity of the
muscle-tendon unit is returned more rapidly than range of motion
after stretching. Scand J Med Sci Sports 23: 23–30, 2013.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 00 | NUMBER 00 | MONTH 2017 | 11
Copyright ª2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association

33. Mohr, AR, Long, BC, and Goad, CL. Effect of foam rolling and
static stretching on passive hip-flexion range of motion. J Sport
Rehabil 23: 296–299, 2014.
34. Morse, CI, Degens, H, Seynnes, OR, Maganaris, CN, and Jones, DA.
The acute effect of stretching on the passive stiffness of the human
gastrocnemius muscle tendon unit. J Physiol 586: 97–106, 2008.
35. Murphy, JR, Di Santo, MC, Alkanani, T, and Behm, DG. Aerobic
activity before and following short-duration static stretching
improves range of motion and performance vs. a traditional warm-
up. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 35: 679–690, 2010.
36. Peacock, CA, Krein, DD, Silver, TA, Sanders, GJ, and Von Carlowitz,
KA. An acute out of self-myofascial release in the form of foam
rolling improves performance testing. Int J Exerc Sci 7: 202–211,
2014.
37. Power, K, Behm, D, Farrell, C, Carroll, M, and Young, W. An acute
bout of static stretching: Effects on force and jumping performance.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 1389–1396, 2004.
38. Simic, L, Sarabon, N, and Markovic, G. Does pre-exercise static
stretching inhibit maximal muscular performance? A meta-
analytical review. Scand J Med Sci Sports 23: 131–148, 2012.
39. ˇ
Skarabot, J, Beardsley, C, and Stirn, I. Comparing the effects of self-
myofascial release with static stretching on ankle range-of-motion in
adolescent athletes. Int J Sports Phys Ther 10: 203–212, 2015.
40. Sullivan, KM, Silvey, DBJ, Button, DC, and Behm, DG. Roller
massager application to the hamstrings increases sit and reach range
of motion within five to ten seconds without performance
impairments. Int J Sports Phys Ther 8: 228–236, 2013.
41. Trajano, GS, Nosaka, K, and Blazevich, AJ. Neurophysiological
mechanisms underpinning stretch-induced force loss. Sports Med
2017. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0682-6.
42. Vetter, RE. Effects of six warm-up protocols on sprint and jump
performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 819–823, 2007.
43. Weppler, CH and Magnusson, P. Increasing muscle extensibility: A
matter of increasing length or modifying sensation? Phys Ther 90:
438–449, 2010.
44. Whatman, C, Knappstein, A, and Hume, P. Acute changes in passive
stiffness and range of motion post-stretching. Phys Ther Sport 7: 195–
200, 2006.
45. Young, JD, Spence, AJ, and Behm, DG. Roller massage decreases
spinal excitability to the soleus. 2017 AU10.
Roller Massage Subsequent to Static Stretching and Roller Massage Warm-ups
12
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright ª2017 National Strength and Conditioning Association