ArticlePDF Available

The Parameters of Foam Rolling, Self-Myofascial Release Treatment: A Review of the Literature


Abstract and Figures

Self-myofascial release (SMR) is a well-known and popular therapy. Its growing popularity is based on high effectiveness and availability. However, there is a lack of agreement about which parameters should be used to optimize the effects of the therapy. The purpose of this review is to critically select and assess current literature and ascertain the values of the follow­ing parameters: (1) therapy duration, (2) volume of applied pressure, (3) speed and (4) frequency of roll, (5) type of roller, (6) the number of treatment applications during one session, (7) the duration of intervals between applications that yield the best results in terms of soft tissue. The authors launched their research in May 2018. The search strategy included the electronic databases EBSCOhost and PubMed. The following inclusion criteria were assessed: - English language, high quality manuscripts (evaluation in PEDro scale) - at least one of the groups using the foam roller, tennis ball or the stick to fascial release - basic parameters of therapy described.A total 55 articles met the inclusion criteria. Patients can usually withstand a maximum tolerable pressure for 30-120 seconds, repeated 1-3 times, separated by 30 seconds of rest. The intensity of a single rolling movement should be moderate, and the movement should last about 3 seconds. Keeping the roller on particularly sensitive areas is recommended to release tension and enhance blood perfusion.Currently, there is no consensus on an optimal FR programme. However, there is a tendency to use SMR tools with a physiol­ogy-based method to enhance therapeutic efficiency.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Biomedical Human Kinetics, 11, 36–46, 2019
DOI: 10.2478/bhk-2019-0005
Review Paper
The parameters of foam rolling, self-myofascial release treatment:
a review of the literature
Przemysław Dębski1, Ewelina Białas1, Rafał Gnat2
1 Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical Education, Katowice, Poland; 2 Motion Analysis Laboratory, Department of
Physiotherapy, Jerzy Kukuczka Academy of Physical Education, Katowice, Poland
Self-myofascial release (SMR) is a well-known and popular therapy. Its growing popularity is based on high effectiveness
and availability. However, there is a lack of agreement about which parameters should be used to optimize the effects of the
therapy. The purpose of this review is to critically select and assess current literature and ascertain the values of the follow-
ing parameters: (1) therapy duration, (2) volume of applied pressure, (3) speed and (4) frequency of roll, (5) type of roller, (6)
the number of treatment applications during one session, (7) the duration of intervals between applications that yield the best
results in terms of soft tissue.
The authors launched their research in May 2018. The search strategy included the electronic databases EBSCOhost and
PubMed. The following inclusion criteria were assessed:
– English language, high quality manuscripts (evaluation in PEDro scale)
– at least one of the groups using the foam roller, tennis ball or the stick to fascial release
– basic parameters of therapy described.
A total 55 articles met the inclusion criteria. Patients can usually withstand a maximum tolerable pressure for 30–120 seconds,
repeated 1–3 times, separated by 30 seconds of rest. The intensity of a single rolling movement should be moderate, and the
movement should last about 3 seconds. Keeping the roller on particularly sensitive areas is recommended to release tension and
enhance blood perfusion.
Currently, there is no consensus on an optimal FR programme. However, there is a tendency to use SMR tools with a physiol-
ogy-based method to enhance therapeutic efciency.
Keywords: Self-myofascial release – Foam rolling – Connective tissue – Fascia – Therapy
Self-myofascial release (SMR) is a collective term for
manual therapy techniques based on the effects of applying
mechanical force to soft body tissue [55]. Self-myofascial
release is widely used by people who are physically active,
is one of the tools used by physiotherapists in their work
with patients, and is useful for athletes from all sporting dis-
ciplines at all levels of competition [14, 42]. The main ob-
jective of adding SMR to a set of therapeutic techniques or
to training aids is improvement in range of motion (ROM)
and a reduction in post-training muscular pain [21, 68].
Although rollers of various density are used increasingly
in SMR, many authors point out that there is still a lack of
robust scientic evidence documenting their effects on the
fascia in the literature [71]. Furthermore, a lack of agree-
ment on the values of basic therapeutic parameters is very
apparent: the duration of treatment and of breaks, the type
of roller to be used, the force to be applied on the tissue,
the speed and frequency of rolling, and also the number of
times the treatment should be repeated in one session [14,
57, 65]. As the literature contains few details on the meth-
ods of treatment, it is more difcult to establish a theoreti-
cal estimate of the therapeutic benets of SMR. It could
be said that some of the descriptions of the benets of this
kind of therapy are anecdotal in nature, and demand a much
more methodologically precise approach to the topic [66].
This issue is even more signicant these days, as SMR has
been successfully adapted to the needs of the tness mar-
ket and physiotherapy [67]. As a result, the tools used in
SMR have become accessible for the domestic user with
Author’s address Przemysław Dębski, University of Physical Education, Reymonta 3/I/11, 41–206 Sosnowiec, Poland
The parameters of foam rolling: a review of the literature
little experience, limited awareness of their body, and a lack
of basic knowledge of the way the treatment works, and
also for people who treat patients with symptoms of muscu-
loskeletal system dysfunction [61, 67].
The basics of the way SMR affects the body are similar
to the mechanisms that are activated during self-massage,
and these terms are often used interchangeably. This also
applies to the forms of SMR which use rollers (FR – foam
rolling). The rollers are used to lengthen and apply pres-
sure to the fascia, which in turn stimulates histological
tissue changes in the area being treated, which has under-
gone pathological changes through strain, traumatising
movements, metabolic dysfunction and even psychologi-
cal factors [32, 42]. Self-treatment is supposed to lead to
the elimination of symptoms known as fascial restrictions
and adhesions, such as pain and decreased ROM [34, 68].
There are many theories which attempt to explain the
effects obtained during myofascial release, and which also
occur during foam rolling therapy. These effects include:
changes in elasticity caused by the thixotropic properties
of soft tissue [37, 44, 65, 68], a piezoelectric effect [9, 55]
release of fascial adhesions [51, 55] cellular response to
pressure [9, 55], stimulation of tissue uid ow [9, 44],
neural inhibition [68] and release of trigger points [43, 55,
66, 77]. It is worth emphasizing that the authors often
do not limit their work to the identication of one of the
mechanisms above, but rather give two or three of them,
which are related to each other logically. As an example,
the increase of tissue temperature by friction will surely
lead to thixotropic changes, and, as a result, easier release
of adhesions. Similarly, increased blood ow to the tissue
will lead to oxygenation and may put an end to the ener-
getic crisis which is referred to as one reason behind the
formation of trigger points [74].
There is no lack of evidence for the effectiveness of
self-myofascial release. It is worth emphasizing that the
results of treatments carried out differ from each other sig-
nicantly. One of the principal factors which might have
an effect on this signicant variation is an unspecied re-
search methodology, and in particular, the basic parameters
of treatment: time, intensity and speed of rolling, length of
pause between each set of rolling, and also the number of
rolling sets during one self-treatment session.
For example, Vigotsky et al. [71], MacDonald et al. [37]
and Markovic [41] used two sets of self-release for 60 sec-
onds during one treatment session, Kelly and Beardsley
[34], Peacock et al. [56] and Skarabot et al. [65] obtained
statistically signicant effects from 30-second treatments,
and Sullivan et al. [68] used 5- and 10-second sets as ap-
propriate. Such large differences in signicant treatment
parameters make the evaluation of SMR as a generally
accessible and widely used treatment method difcult.
Very important outcomes were observed in the study by
Bradbury-Squires et al. [4]. They used the same protocol
of rolling in 5 repetitions but in one group 20 seconds of
rolling was recommended whereas in the other group it
was 60 seconds. A 10% increase in knee ROM was ob-
served in the rst group and a 16% increase was observed
in the group with longer treatment.
Regarding the force applied, there arises the ques-
tion whether greater pressure exerted on tissues provides
greater therapeutic effects. Aboodarda et al. [1] described
high muscle vertical pressure as a 1–3 cm deep muscle
therapy, but they obtained this outcome with a hard rubber
roller massager and the command not to produce a greater
value than 7/10 on the Visual Analogue Scale. There is
a tendency to use a command such as AMAP as much
pressure as possible and AMAT – as much pressure as
tolerable. Kelly and Beardsley [34] suggested, based on
Schleip’s work, that the force applied during rolling may
serve to increase parasympathetic nervous activity through
the stimulation of mechanoreceptors. However, a key is-
sue for this parameter is perception of pain. Pain is a very
complex multidimensional process involving the central
nervous system and other systems of the body [13] that
can occur if too much pressure is used. It is also suggested
that higher density tools may have a stronger effect than
softer density [15].
Another parameter that requires discussion is frequen-
cy of rolling determined by the number of repetitions and
cadence of motion. This parameter can play the key role
in improving uid ow in tissues, which is described as
one of the mechanisms responsible for changes in range
of motions [44] as well as the often mentioned release of
brous adhesions between the different layers of the fas-
cia [68]. There is a possibility that researchers could ob-
tain a different result if they applied a xed cadence and
a xed pressure. Also it is hypothesized that changes in
fascia are caused to some extent by friction resulting from
rolling [68].
Among the most important parameters are the number
of sets during one treatment session and the duration of
pause maintained between sets. There is a lack of agree-
ment how many times the application should be repeated
to maximize positive outcomes. For practical purposes it
should be determined whether an additional set of rolling
could possibly bring more valuable results. The potential
association between volume of the therapy and the results
was rst suggested by Skarabot and Beardsley [65], be-
cause they suspected that greater duration of treatment
was responsible for their results.
The aim of the study was to compare the treatment pa-
rameters used up to now by researchers and then, on the ba-
sis of the data collected, to answer the following question:
Which parameter value duration of treatment, level
of force applied to tissue, type of therapeutic tool, speed
and frequency of rolling, and also number of applications
of treatment during one treatment session and duration of
P. Dębski et al.
the break between these applications demonstrates the
greatest effect on soft tissue in the current literature?
Material and methods
The authors divided the evaluation into several stages
based on the PRISMA search strategy [40]. Firstly, ab-
stracts and titles were identied through a database search.
The desired research papers had to contain the key words
“self-myofascial release” or “foam rolling”. The search
engines EBSCOhost, Google Scholar and PubMed were
used for this purpose. Only papers in English were includ-
SMR: 261 items
FR: 326 items (as of 25.10.2018)
Secondly, duplicates and commercial items were re-
jected. Then, remaining articles were screened through in-
clusion criteria and assessed for eligibility. The remaining
criteria for inclusion were:
the use of a cylindrical roller, tennis ball or a hand rol-
ler for massage in the treatment
a description of the basic treatment parameters
a PEDro scale evaluation of the research [40,50,52] of
6 or higher
the research compared an FR group with another FR/
SMR group, another treatment technique and/or a con-
trol group.
In the last stage, the remaining articles were included
in the synthesis.
Fifty-ve of the 587 papers analysed met the criteria
for inclusion. This result suggests that there is not much
high quality research on the topic of rolling in the avail-
able literature. Most research in the databases consists
of overviews or commercial research, generally with no
scientic merit. After the initial selection, the next stage
involved evaluating the articles based on their research
Fig. 1. Data obtained from the articles included into the review. SMR – Self Myofascial Release, FR – Foam Rolling, PPT –
Pressure Pain Threshold, S&R Sit and Reach test. In the ,,groups to compare” graphics, presented is the data describing
groups to which the baseline therapy (SMR or FR) was compared
Year of
Tool used
The pipe
Groups to
Groups to
compare FR
Intense warm-
up groups
Other FR
Control groups
Subject showing
detectable changes
vertical jump
S&R test
Range of
The parameters of foam rolling: a review of the literature
methodology using the PEDro scale. Many papers were
rejected at this stage as well. The average PEDro score for
the selected papers was 6.4. When the article was given
a high PEDro score, but the authors did not include infor-
mation on the treatment parameters used, the paper was
also excluded from this literature review. The basic data of
papers included in the analysis are presented in Figure 1.
Most of the research papers described are from 2014
onwards (51 papers = 93%), of which as many as 37 papers
are from 2016–2018 (67%). The older works date from
2002 (1), 2008 (1), and 2013 (2). These statistics are evi-
dence of the growing popularity of the topic of myofascial
release using rollers, and that knowledge about the useful-
ness of this treatment has still not been systematized.
In 32 selected papers, the authors decided to use a foam
roller. Firm rollers made up 58% of the equipment used in
the research. Four authors (7%) chose the more comforta-
ble version of the roller (the pipe), which is long and made
of softer materials. Another four authors (7%) used hand
roller massagers, while three (6%) used a special stick to
roll the soft tissue. In  ve papers (9%) different balls were
used (in each case, this was due to the paper being on the
release of the sole of the foot). In this last case, the authors
consistently used the term SMR rather than FR.
The groups used to compare results with the FR groups
were most often control groups (21 papers), other FR
groups (15), static stretching groups (5), combined treat-
ment groups (7), intense warm up (1) or a placebo (1).
In the set of SMR articles (papers in which tennis balls
were used for rolling), the results were compared to con-
trol groups (7). In eight papers, rolling was used in com-
bined treatment. For example, in one of them, an SS (static
stretching) group was compared with an FR + SS group,
while in another paper, groups which rolled using a roller
and a tennis ball were given the same treatment, but with
different application times [46]. The most common no-
menclature is described in Figure 2.
In the clear majority of papers, statistical differences
between groups were sought mainly in the ROM range
of motion (32 papers – 58%). Among the many remaining
parameters used to compare the results of SMR therapy,
the most common were MVC (maximal voluntary con-
traction – 24%), pain pressure threshold (22%) and EMG
parameters (electromyography – 15%).
In the papers included in this article, the most common
time values for a single rolling period were 30, 60 and 120
seconds. The authors usually choose “as much pressure as
possible”, or the subjective level of the participant’s pain
felt during therapy to determine the level of force applied
to the roller. The authors evaluated the value of the force
applied to the tissue in the case of applying the whole body
to the roller. In the case of the hamstrings group, depend-
ing on the place of measurement on the thigh, the percent-
age amounts for the role of the whole body mass ranged
from 25.44 ± 3.86% by the knee joint to 46.44 ± 4.7% by
the hip joint [57]. The most commonly used number of
repetitions was one, two or three rolling sets during a treat-
ment session, separated usually with a 30-second break or
shorter. The authors noted the type of roller used in the
studies. It was found that harder rollers are more effective
in achieving myofascial release [15]. Basic parameters of
papers included in the review are presented in Table 1.
In the interests of greater transparency, the authors
have decided to analyse the individual parameters in sepa-
rate paragraphs.
Type of roller
Curran et al. [15] dedicated all of their paper to com-
paring two kinds of roller available on the market: the
hard version (MRR Multilevel Rigid Roller), and the
Single event during which forces are applied to the tissues. Several repetitions/ rolls applied
with exact cadence, constitute one set/ application/ treatment.
Periods consisting of several repetitions/ rolls (see below) during which forces are applied to
the tissues with exact intensity (number and cadence of repetitions), separated by breaks.
Single therapeutic meeting with the patient.
Fig. 2. Due to the discrepancies in the literature associated with the course of therapeutic intervention, the most common
terminology was presented and explained to what the de nitions apply
P. Dębski et al.
soft version (BFR – Bio-Foam Roller). The researchers
found that a statistically signicantly stronger effect oc-
curred with the hard roller during three rolling periods on
the side of the thigh (the values expressed in kPa were al-
most twice as high). Also Cheatham and Stull [12] used
different types of roller. For range of motion they found
no statistically signicant differences between medium,
hard (both increased passive knee ROM by 8°) and soft
density roller (increased ROM by 7°). Similar results were
observed in pressure pain thresholds (PPT). There was
a post-intervention increase of 180 kPa (p < 0.001) for the
medium density roller, 175 kPa (p < 0.001) for the soft
density roller, and 151 kPa (p < 0.001) for the hard density
roller. Referring to the existing literature, the researchers
expressed the opinion that working on a given tissue with
greater force brings about a deeper, and so more thorough,
penetration of the tissue, more intensive stimulation of the
autonomic nervous system and a greater resulting relaxa-
tion, when compared to the softer equivalent [15]. Other
authors note that it is best to assign conventional rollers
to inexperienced users, whilst if the application of a larger
dose of treatment is required, hard rollers should be used
Parameter Most common methodology Quantity of most common
Quantity of positive
Type of roller
Firm rollers 32 (58%) 25
Foot rollers 5 (9%) 3
Hand roller massagers 4 (7%) 4
The pipe 4 (7%) 4
Special sticks/poles 3 (6%) 3
Other 7 (13%)
Force of rolling
AMAT 2 (4%) 2
AMAP 16 (29%) 15
TBW 2 (4%) 2
VAS scale 7/10 6 (10%) 3
Other 29 (53%)
Duration of application
30 sec 17 (31%) 15
60 sec 18 (33%) 15
120 sec 14 (25%) 10
Other 6 (11%)
Number of applications in
one treatment session
Single 26 (47%) 24
Three repetitions 16 (29%) 13
Other 13 (24%)
Number of a treatment
One session 41 (74%) 33
Three sessions 5 (9%) 5
More than three sessions 7 (13%) 6
Other 2 (4%)
Intensity of rolling
Short time (1-3 sec) 18 (33%) 16
Long time (3 sec +) 9 (16%) 7
Other 28 (51%)
Length of break
No break 5 (9%) 4
Up to 30 sec 18 (33%) 17
60 sec 4 (7%) 2
Other 28 (51%)
Table 1. Basic analysis of papers included to review. The most common parameters and methods used in papers has been
presented. Shortcuts: AMAT – As Much As Tolerable, AMAP – As Much As Possible, TBW – (Subject’s) Total Body Weight,
VAS – Visual Analogue Scale
The parameters of foam rolling: a review of the literature
[66]. Bradbury-Squires et al. [4] and Sullivan et al. [68]
used programmed devices in their research, which on the
one hand allowed for the force used on the whole length
of the myofascial unit being treated to be uniform, while
on the other hand it reduced the practical value of the re-
search. In the case of treating difcult-to-reach surfaces
of small surface area, such as the sole of the foot, the use
of tools of an appropriate size appears to be justied. Dif-
ferent types of ball (tennis, golf, lacrosse) are tools of
this sort, and were used by some authors in their research
[20, 25, 45, 55, 69]. Macdonald et al. [37] used a polyvi-
nyl chloride pipe wrapped in 1 cm thick neoprene foam
in their research. In this way, it was possible to limit the
contact area of the roller with the body, and so increase the
application force on the areas being treated, while main-
taining a fairly high level of rmness. SMR carried out
with the constructed roller produced statistically signi-
cant changes in range of movement, of to 20° 2 min-
utes after, and 3–17° 10 minutes after treatment [37]. This
conrms the theory that release can take place supercial-
ly, but a therapeutically signicant effect demands work
with a greater force on deeper tissue [17, 65]. De Bruyne
et al. [17] point to the greater therapeutic value of the
hand roller, compared to the classic cylindrical foam roll-
er. Monteiro et al. [45] came to the opposite conclusion,
noting better results in each foam roller group compared
to the equivalent hand roller groups, but only the group
with 120-second treatment showed a statistically signi-
cant difference compared to its 60-second equivalent from
the hand roller group.
Force of application
The instructions on how strongly the research subjects
should be applied to the roller can be organized into two
groups. The rst of these is application with the greatest
possible force (AMAP – as much as possible), and the sec-
ond option is working with pressure not causing more dis-
comfort than 7 on a 10-point scale. Few studies used total
body weight (TBW) as a basic parameter but it probably
means that participants tried to place their entire weight at
the place of contact with the roller. In clinical treatment
of trigger points, pressure is applied up until the rst mo-
ment at which resistance turns into pain, and application is
maintained until the sensation is removed or signicantly
lessened, and then the new boundary between pain and
discomfort is sought [58]. Pearcey et al. [57] were rst to
use the concept of taking the subjective sensations of the
patient as the upper limit of treatment, marking out the tol-
erance of the research subject (AMAT – as much as tolera-
ble). Bradbury-Squires et al. [4] suggested force amounting
to 25% of the body weight of the patient, while Sullivan et
al. [68] stood out by suggesting a uniform force of appli-
cation of 13 kg for all research participants. This kind of
approach helps to unify the methodological procedure, but,
bearing in mind the varied morphology (and personality)
of patients, it is justied only if the research group is very
uniform. During self-massage with a roller with one’s own
body weight (bearing one’s weight only on the contact point
with the roller), it is difcult to achieve any greater pres-
sure, meaning that the TBW and AMAP values are close
or even identical. For the same reason, in order to reduce
tension and pain at a particularly sensitive point when roll-
ing with constant pressure, keeping the roller in the place
where increased discomfort is felt is recommended. It is
worth emphasizing that rolling itself, like sports massage,
can lead to pain, micro-bleeding and inammation, which
can last for up to 24 hours [58].
In the light of the benets of applying pressure to tis-
sue, the question should be posed: is the curve represent-
ing the relationship between the effect of treatment and
the force of treatment directly proportional, or rather up to
what point is this the case? In other words, to what extent
will greater pressure on the tissue be reected in a greater
range of movement without damage to the tissue?
The authors suggest that directed pressure combined
with tensing or relaxing muscles can shape the length of
the sarcomeres and number of them (myobrillogenesis),
reducing pain as a result [64,74]. However, this is only
a scientic theory.
Duration of application
The times most commonly used by the authors were
30, 60 and 120 seconds. This is probably due to the fact
that manual techniques for fascial work with patients t
into these time intervals [68]. However, none of the au-
thors specied which intervals were effective for manual
self-release techniques [4,68]. The second reason behind
these time values is certainly the fact that comparisons of
the therapeutic effect of FR/SMR and stretching are often
made [20, 34, 35, 44, 50, 62, 65, 75]. Macdonald et al.
[37] suggest using an application time of between 60 and
90 seconds. Patel et al. [55] lean towards the statement
that most research subjects obtain a therapeutic effect in
a time period that ranges between 60 and 120 seconds of
treatment. In opposition to this hypothesis, Couture et al.
[14] stated that a time period of less than 2 minutes is not
sufcient to obtain improvement in the range of movement
in the knee joint. Vigotsky et al. [71] and MacDonald et al.
[37] used two repetitions of 60 seconds in their studies.
Bushell et al. [5] used 60 seconds of rolling but repeated
this more frequently, both in terms of number of appli-
cations and number of treatment sessions. In these cases,
statistically signicant differences in the parameters under
examination were achieved compared to the control group.
In shorter times, a few authors also obtained positive re-
sults [24, 27, 65]. In recent studies there is a tendency to
roll a few groups of muscles called “regions”, one after an-
other [54, 69, 31, 22, 35, 39]. Also Cheatham et al. divided
P. Dębski et al.
the quadriceps muscle into two zones [8,11]. Despite the
short duration of application of one muscle group, positive
outcomes often occur. It may be caused by adding up ben-
ets of therapy of a few regions that are lying close to each
other. Especially the methodology described by Madoni
et al. [39] is worth citing. The authors divided hamstring
groups into three sections. Every application lasts for 10
seconds on one section. Myofascial release of all three
sections (10 seconds per section, 30 seconds in total) was
followed by a 10-second break. After that, the whole set
of rolling was repeated two more times. Very short dura-
tion of application in one section (30 seconds divided into
three sets) was enough to achieve a positive result.
In the context of this issue, the study by Sullivan et al.
[68] is very valuable, as the number of repetitions and their
duration were varied while the pressure and frequency of
rolling remained the same. An increase in range of move-
ment in the sit and reach test of 4.3% was observed in sub-
jects who rolled for 10 seconds, compared to those who
rolled for 5 seconds. The authors themselves point out that
this is not sufcient to draw conclusions, and that there is
a need to study the relationship between length and inten-
sity of treatment and effects obtained. Monteiro et al. [46]
also chose to compare the effects of treatment of different
durations. Their analysis indicates that treatments lasting
above 90 seconds produce better effects in improvement
of FMS (functional movement screen) “overhead deep
squat” than treatments lasting less than 90 seconds.
The results indicate that there is a relationship between
a greater duration of application and greater secretion of
cytokine and growth factor [6].
Number of applications in one treatment session
In terms of the number of rolling periods in one ses-
sion, the studies can be divided into two groups. The rst
is made up of studies in which the authors used a single
rolling set [8, 10, 16, 19, 22, 24, 29, 33, 38, 45, 53, 55, 57,
59, 68, 69, 73]. In the other studies, the values 2, 3, 4 and
5 appeared with similar frequency, with three rolling sets
being the most commonly chosen option [3, 5, 15, 23, 26,
35, 39, 46, 57, 62].
Number of treatment sessions
As many as 41 authors carried out their studies in one
treatment session. In the remaining studies, two [47,48,68]
or three [15, 33, 37, 38, 57] treatment sessions were used
as well. Seven researchers used a longer protocol. Six out
of these noted statistically signicant differences in their
treatments [3, 5, 31, 44, 47]. This is not necessarily the
result of the additive effects of subsequent sessions, since
many other authors reached statistical signicance despite
carrying out only one session. The signicance of the
number of treatment sessions parameter loses its signi-
cance in the context of the study by Kelly and Beardsley
[34], who noted a tendency for the effects of FR therapy to
be maintained only for up to 20 minutes.
Intensity of rolling
Due to their properties, fascia do not respond to short,
quick stimuli at high amplitude [70]. Their thixotropic prop-
erties make them reminiscent of plasticine: when shaped
with appropriate force for a specied period of time they
change their structure signicantly. As a result, the use of
techniques that affect the fascia with low speed appears to
be justied. A classic example of a slow effect on soft tissue
is the widely used method of deep tissue massage, in which
the therapist reduces friction to a minimum.
The relatively slow rolling technique with a moderate
cadence is also attractive due to the more effective ow
of uids which are drawn mechanically by force of appli-
cation. Directed pressure through slow rolling and a uid
ow appear to be justied physiologically.
Despite the scientic theories in 30% of studies the au-
thors who described this parameter in their research meth-
odology used dynamic, one – to three-second movements
[7, 14, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 31, 35, 38, 44, 53, 54, 56, 62].
This means that the pressure from the roller moved through
the space from the beginning to the end of the treated area
in this time. Curran et al. [15] were one of the exceptions
to the rule, using 10-second repetitions when studying the
difference between rollers of various levels of hardness.
D’amico & Paolone [16] suggested a length of repetition
of 5 seconds. They did not obtain statistically signicant
differences in their research.
Morton et al. [51] suggested an entirely different meth-
odology, comparing the results of static stretching with the
same therapy preceded by four 60-second repetitions of
rolling. This long period of time turned out to be entire-
ly ineffective, and no statistically signicant differences
were found between the basic treatment and the treatment
enriched by SMR.
Length of break
The break between sessions in the studies usually
amounted up to 30 seconds (33% of studies). This short
break is due to the specic nature of the treatment, which
is associated with fast, short-term results [34, 65]. Addi-
tionally, it should be remembered that rolling is often not
an end in itself, but precedes or rounds off a training ses-
sion or a sporting competition. For this reason, competi-
tors cannot spend a long time rolling.
Summary and conclusion
The authors of the selected studies vary in terms of
methods they propose for myofascial release using a hand
roller or conventional roller. Nevertheless, the majority
The parameters of foam rolling: a review of the literature
use parameter values which are justied from a physiolog-
ical point of view. Using the treatment parameter values
described here does not guarantee therapeutic success, but
may be sufcient to obtain satisfactory results. In the fu-
ture, it will be necessary to specify what the mechanisms
of the application of myofascial release tools on soft tissue
are, in order make it easier to create a more precise treat-
ment programme, both for FR therapy and for all treat-
ments such as myofascial release.
The most desirable forms of treatment in terms of ther-
apeutic effect are treatments using a rmer type of roller,
with as great a force of application as possible (as tolerat-
ed by the patient) for a period of 30–120 seconds. The in-
tensity of a single rolling movement should be moderate,
and the movement should last about 3 seconds. Keeping
the roller on particularly sensitive areas is recommended.
During the course of one session, it is worth using between
1 and 3 applications, separated by a 30-second break. If
deeper therapeutic penetration of the tissue is needed,
a rmer version of the roller is recommended.
Conict of interest: Authors state no conict of interest.
1. Aboodarda S.J., Greene R.M., Philpott D.T., Jaswal R.S.,
Millet G.Y., Behm D.G. (2017) The effect of rolling mas-
sage on the excitability of the corticospinal pathway. Ap-
pl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab., 43(4): 317-323. DOI: 10.1139/
2. Aboodarda S.J., Spence A.J., Button D.C. (2015) Pain pres-
sure threshold of a muscle tender spot increases following
local and non-local rolling massage. BMC Musculoskeletal
Disorders, 16(295). DOI: 10.1186/s12891-015-0729-5.
3. Bishop C., Aune A.A.G., Turner A.N., Papadopulos K.,
Budd S., Richardson M., Maloney S.J. (2018) Acute
and chronic effects of foam rolling vs eccentric exercise
on ROM and force output of the plantar exors. DOI:
4. Bradbury-Squires D.J., Noftall J.C., Sullivan K.M., Be-
hm D.G., Power K.E., Button D.C. (2015) Roller-mas-
sager application to the quadriceps and knee-joint range
of motion and neuromuscular efciency during a lunge.
J. Ath. Train, 50(2): 133-140.
5. Bushell J.E., Dawson S.M., Webster M.M. (2015) Clini-
cal relevance of foam rolling on hip extension angle in
a functional lunge position. J. Strength Cond. Res., 29(9):
6. Cao T., Hicks M., Campbell D., Standley P. (2013) Dosed
myofascial release in three-dimensional bioengineered
tendons: effects on human broblast hyperplasia, hyper-
trophy and cytokine secretion. J. Manipulative Physiol.
Ther., 36(8): 513-521.
7. Casanova N., Reis J.F., Vaz J.R., Machado R., Men-
des B., Button D.C., Pezarat-Correia P., Freitas S.R.
(2017) Effects of roller massager on muscle recovery af-
ter exercise-induced muscle damage. J. Sports Sci., DOI:
8. Cheatham S.W., Baker R. (2017) Differences in pressure
pain threshold among men and women after foam roll-
ing. Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies 21:
978-982. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.06.006.
9. Cheatham S.W., Kolber M., Cain M., Lee M. (2015) The
effects of self-myofascial release using a foam roll or
roller massager on joint range of motion, muscle recov-
ery and performance: a systematic review. Int. J. Sports
Phys. Ther., 10(6): 827-838.
10. Cheatham S.W., Kolber M.J., Cain M. (2017) Compari-
son of video-guided, live instructed, and self-guided foam
roll interventions on knee joint range of motion and pres-
sure pain threshold: a randomized controlled trial. Int. J.
Sports Phys. Ther., 12(2): 242-249.
11. Cheatham S.W., Stull K.R. (2018) Comparison of a foam
rolling session with active joint motion and without joint
motion: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Body-
work & Movement Therapies, 22(3): 707-712. DOI:
12. Cheatham S.W, Stull K.R., Kolber M.J. (2018) Com-
parison of a vibration roller and a nonvibration roller
intervention on knee range of motion and pressure pain
threshold: a randomized controlled trial. DOI: 10.1123/
13. Cheatham S.W., Stull K.R. (2018) Comparison of three
different density type foam rollers on knee range of mo-
tion and pressure pain threshold: a randomized controlled
trial. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther., 13(3): 474-482. DOI:
14. Couture G., Karlik S., Glass S., Hatzel B. (2015) The ef-
fect of foam rolling duration on hamstring range of mo-
tion. Open Orthop. J., 9: 450-455.
15. Curran P., Flore R., Crisco J. (2008) A comparison of the
pressure exerted on soft tissue by 2 myofascial rollers.
J. Sport Rehabil., 17: 432-442.
16. D’Amico A., Paolone V. (2017) The effect of foam roll-
ing on recovery between two eight hundred metre runs.
J. Hum. Kinet., 57: 97-105.
17. DeBruyne D.M., Dewhurst M.M., Fischer K.M.,
Wojtanowski M.S., Dural C. (2017) Self-mobilization us-
ing a foam roller versus a roller massager: which is more
effective for increasing hamstrings exibility? J. Sport
Rehabil., 26: 94-100.
18. Deguzman L., Flanagan S.P., Stecyk S., Montgomery
M.M. (2018) The Immediate Effects of Self-administered
Dynamic Warm-up, Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Fa-
cilitation, and Foam Rolling on Hamstring Tightness.
Athletic Training & Sports Health Care, 10(3): 108-116.
DOI: 10.3928/19425864-20171101-07.
P. Dębski et al.
19. Do K., Kim J., Yim J. (2018) Acute effect of self-myo-
fascial release using a foam roller on the plantar fascia
on hamstring and lumbar spine supercial back line ex-
ibility. Phys. Ther. Rehabil. Sci., 7(1): 35-40.
20. Fairall R., Cabell L., Boergers R.J. Battaia F. (2017)
Acute effects of self-myofascial release and stretching
in overhead athletes with GIRD. Journal of Bodywork &
Movement Therapies, 21: 648-652.
21. Findley F., Shelzola M. (2013) Fascia research congress
evidence from the 100y perspective of Andrew Taylor
22. Fleckenstein J., Wilke J., Vogt L., Banzer W. (2017) Pre-
ventive and regenerative foam rolling are equally effective
in reducing fatigue-related impairments of muscle function
following exercise. J. Sports Sci. Med., 16: 474-479.
23. Grabow L., Young J.D., Byrne J.M., Granacher U., Be-
hm D.G., (2017) Unilateral Rolling of the Foot did not
Affect Non-Local Range of Motion or Balance. J. Sports
Sci. Med., 16: 209-218.
24. Griefahn A., Oehlmann J., Zalpour C., von Piekartz H.
(2017) Do exercises with the foam roller have a short-
term impact on the thoracolumbar fascia? – A random-
ized controlled trial. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther., 21: 186-193.
25. Grieve R., Clark J., Pearson E., Bullock S., Boyer C., Jar-
rett A. (2011) The immediate eect of soleus trigger point
pressure release on restricted ankle joint dorsiexion:
a pilot randomised controlled trial. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther.,
15(1): 42-49.
26. Hall M., Smith J.C. (2018) The effects of an acute bout of
foam rolling on hip range of motion on different tissues.
Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther., 13(4): 652-660. DOI: 10.26603/
27. Halperin I., Aboodarda S.J., Button D.C., Andersen L.L.,
Behm D.G. (2014) Roller massager improves range of
motion of plantar exor muscles without subsequent de-
creases in force parameters. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther.,
9(1): 92-102.
28. Hansen A., Beltz N.M., Janot J., Martenson A., Sieg-
mann A., Jagielo A., Erdmann A., Wiggins, M. (2016)
A dose response relationship between myofascial release
and anaerobic power output in active college-aged males.
Journal of Fitness Research, 5(2): 10-17.
29. Healey K.C., Hateld D.L., Blanpied D., Dorfman L.R.,
Riebe D. (2014) The effects of myofascial release with
foam rolling on performance. J. Strength Cond. Res.,
28(1): 61-68.
30. Hinz B., Celetta G., Tomasek J.J., Gabbiani G., Chapon-
nier C.H. (2001) Alpha-smooth muscle actin expression
upregulates broblast contractile activity. Mol. Biol.
Cell., 12: 2730-2741.
31. Hodgson D., Lima C., Low J., Behm D. (2018) Four
weeks of roller massage training did not impact range
of motion, pain pressure threshold, voluntary contractile
properties or jump performance. Inter. J. Sports Phys.
Ther., 13(5): 835-845. DOI: 10.26603/ijspt20180835.
32. Hong C.Z., Simons D. (1998) Pathophysiologic and elec-
trophysiologic mechanisms of myofascial trigger points.
Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 79: 863-872.
33. Jung J., Choi W., Lee Y., Kim J., Kim H., Lee K., Lee J.,
Lee S. (2017) Immediate effect of self-myofascial release
on hamstring exibility. Phys. Ther. Rehabil. Sci., 6(1):
34. Kelly S., Beardsley C. (2016) Specic and cross-over ef-
fects of foam rolling on ankle dorsiexion range of mo-
tion. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther., 11(4): 544-550.
35. Lee C.L., Chu I.H., Lyu B.J., Chang W.D., Chang N.J.
(2018) Comparison of vibration rolling, nonvibration
rolling, and static stretching as a warm-up exercise on
exibility, joint proprioception, muscle strength, and bal-
ance in young adults. J. Sports Sci., 36(22): 2575-2582.
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1469848.
36. MacDonald G.Z., Button D.C., Drinkwater E.J., Be-
hm D.G. (2014) Foam rolling as a recovery tool after an
intense bout of physical activity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.,
37. MacDonald G.Z., Penney M.D.H., Mullaley M.E., Cu-
conato 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 mus-
cle activation or force. J. Strength Cond. Res., 27(3):
38. Macgregor L.J., Fairweather M.M., Benett R.M., Hunt-
er A.M. (2018) The effect of Foam Rolling for three con-
secutive days on muscular efciency and range of motion.
Sports Med., 4(26), DOI: 10.1186/s40798-018-0141-4.
39. Madoni S.N., Costa P.B., Coburn J.W., Galpin A.J.
(2018) Effects of foam rolling on range of motion, peak
torque, muscle activation, and the hamstrings-to-quad-
riceps strength ratios. J. Strength Cond. Res., 32(7):
40. Maher C.G., Sherrington C., Herbert R.D., Moseley A.M.,
Elkins M. (2003) Reliability of the PEDro Scale for rat-
ing quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys. Ther.,
83: 713-21.
41. Markovic G. (2015) Acute effects of instrument assisted
soft tissue mobilization vs. foam rolling on knee and hip
range of motion in soccer players. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther.,
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.04.010.
42. Mauntel T.C., Clark M.A., Padua D.A. (2014) Effective-
ness of myofascial release therapies on physical per-
formance measurements: A systematic review. Athletic
Training & Sports Health Care, 6(4): 189-96.
43. McKenney K., Sinclair A., Elder C., Hutchins A. (2013)
Myofascial release as a treatment for orthopaedic con-
ditions: a systematic review. J. Athl. Train., 48(4):
The parameters of foam rolling: a review of the literature
44. Mohr A., Long B., Goad C. (2014) Effect of foam rolling
and static stretching on passive hip-exion range of mo-
tion. J. Sport Rehabil., 23: 296-299.
45. Monteiro E.R., Cavanaugh M.T., Frost D.M., Novaes
J.S. (2017) Is self-massage an effective joint range-of-
motion strategy? A pilot study. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther., 21:
46. Monteiro E.R., Skarabot J., Vigotsky A.D., Brown A.F.,
Gomes T.M., Novaes J.S. (2017) Acute effects of different
self-massage volumes on the FMS overhead deep squad
performance. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther., 12(1): 94-104.
47. Monteiro E.R., Skarabot J., Vigotsky A.D., Brown A.F.,
Gomes T.M., Novaes J.S. (2017) Maximum repeti-
tion performance after different antagonist foam rolling
volumes in the inter-set rest period. Int. J. Sports Phys.
Ther., 12(1): 76-84.
48. Monteiro E.R., Vigotsky A.D., Novaes J.S., Skarabot J.
(2018) Acute effects of different anterior thigh self-
massage on hip range of motion in trained men. Int. J.
Sports Phys. Ther., 13(1): 104-113. DOI: 10.26603/ij-10.26603/ij-
49. Monteiro E.R., Vigotsky A.D., Skarabot J., Brown A.F.,
de Melo Fiuza A.G.F., Gomes T.M., Halperin I., da Silva
Novaes J. (2017) Acute effects of different foam rolling
volumes in the interset rest period on maximum repeti-
tion performance. Honk Kong Physiotherapy Journal, 36:
50. Morton N.A. (2009) The PEDro scale is a valid measure
of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demo-
graphic study. Aust. J. Physiother., 55: 129-133.
51. Morton R.W., Oikawa S.Y., Phillips S.M., Devries M.C.,
Mitchell C.J. (2016) Self-myofascial release: no improve-
ment of functional outcomes in ,,tight” hamstrings. Int. J.
Sports Physiol. Perform., 11: 658-664.
52. Moseley A.M., Herbert R.D., Sherrington C., Maher C.G.
(2002) Evidence for physiotherapy practice: A survey of
the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Aust. J.
Physiother., 48: 43-49.
53. Murray A.M., Jones T.W., Horobenau C., Turner A.P.,
Sproule J. (2016) Sixty seconds of foam rolling does not
affect functional exibility or change muscle temperature
in adolescent athletes. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther., 11(5):
54. Ozsu I., Gurol B., Kurt C. (2018) Comparison of the Ef-
fect of Passive and Active Recovery, and Self-Myofascial
Release Exercises on Lactate Removal and Total Quality
of Recovery. Journal of Education and Training Studies,
6 (9a): 33-42. DOI: 10.11114/jets.v6i9a.3511.
55. Patel D.G., Vyas N.J., Sheth M.S. (2016) Immediate ef-
fect of application of bilateral self myofascial release on
the plantar surface of the foot on hamstring and lumbar
spine: a quasi experimental study. IJTA, 32: 94-99.
56. Peacock C.A., Krein D.D., Silver T.A., Sanders G.J., Von
Karlovitz K.P. (2014) An acute bout of self – myofascial
release in the form of foam rolling improves performance
testing. Int. J. Exerc. Sci., 7(3): 202-211.
57. Pearcey G.E.P., Bradbury-Squires D.J., Kawamoto J.E.,
Drinkwater E.J., Behm D.G., Button D.C. (2015) Foam roll-
ing for delayed-onset muscle soreness and recovery of dy-
namic performance measures. J. Athl. Train, 50(1): 5-13.
58. Renan-Ordine R., Alburquerque-Sendin F., de Souza
D.P.R., Cleland J.A., De-Las-Penas C.F. (2011) Effec-
tiveness of myofascial trigger point manual therapy com-
bined with a self-stretching protocol for the management
of plantar heel pain: a randomized controlled trial. J. Or-
thop. Sports Phys. Ther., 41(2): 43-50.
59. Phillips J., Diggin D., King D.L., Sforzo G.A. (2018) Ef-
fect of varying self-myofascial release duration on sub-
sequent athletic performance. J. Strength Cond. Res.,
Ahead of Print, DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002751.
60. Romero-Moraleda B., La Touche R., Lerma-Lara S., Fer-
rer-Pena R., Paredes V., Peinado A.B., Munoz-Garcia D.
(2017) Neurodynamic mobilization and foam rolling im-
proved delayed-onset muscle soreness in a healthy adult
population: a randomized controlled trial. DOI: 10.7717/
61. Schroeder A.N., Best T.M. (2015) Is self myofascial re-
lease an effective preexercise and recovery strategy? A lit-
erature review. Curr. Sports Med. Rep., 4(3): 200-208.
62. Schroeder J., Renk V, Braumann K-M., Hollander K.
(2017) Acute Foam Rolling effects on contractile proper-
ties of the m. biceps femoris. A randomized cross – over
pilot study. Ger. J. Exerc. Sport Res., 47: 294-300. DOI:
63. Simmonds N., Miller P., Gemmel H. (2012) A Theoreti-
cal Framework for the Role of Fascia in Manual Therapy.
J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther., 16: 83-93.
64. Simons D.G. (2002) Understanding effective treatments
of myofascial trigger points. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther., 6(2):
65. Skarabot J., Beardsley C., Stirn I. (2015) Comparing the
effects of self-myofascial release with static stretching
on ankle range-of-motion in adolescent athletes. Int. J.
Sports Phys. Ther., 10(2): 203-212.
66. Stevens D. (2013) Foam rolling as a recovery aid for ath-
letes. J. Aust. Strength Cond., 21(2): 43-51.
67. Stull K. (2016) Why should foam rolling be used in group
training. American tness, (4).
68. Sullivan K.M., Silvey D.B.J., Button D.C., Behm D.G.
(2013) Roller-massage application to the hamstrings in-
creases sit and reach ROM within 5 to 10 seconds with-
out performance impairements. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther.,
8(3): 228-36.
69. Tatham J., Robergs R., Cameron M. (2016) The inuence
of self-myofascial release on countermovement jump
force-time variables in pre-elite Academy Rubgy Union
Players. J. Athl. Enhanc., 5(5), DOI: 10.4172/2324-
P. Dębski et al.
70. Van den Berg F. (2012) Macierz pozakomórkowa. In:
Powięź. Badanie, prolaktyka i terapia dysfunkcji sieci
powięziowej, red. Saulicz E., Wrocław, Elsevier Urban &
Partner, 197-203.
71. Vigotsky A.D., Lehman G.J., Contreras B., Beardsley C.,
Chung B., Feser E.H. (2015) Acute effects of anterior
thigh foam rolling on hip angle, knee angle and rectus
femoris length in the modied Thomas test. PeerJ, DOI:
72. Weerapong P., Hume P.A., Kolt G.S. (2005) The mecha-
nisms of massage and effects on performance, muscle
recovery and injury prevention. Sports Med., 35(3):
73. Wilke J., Vogt L. (2018) Immediate effects of self – myo-
fascial release on latent trigger point sensitivity: a ran-
domized, placebo – controlled trial. Biol. Sport, 35(4):
74. Wines M.J. (2006) A complete meta analysis of myofas-
cial release: application and efcacy for strength athletes.
University of Carolina, EXSC 499.
75. Wiseman G. (2017) Effect of static stretching or foam
rolling on hamstrings range of motion and strength.
Received 29.06.2018
Accepted 04.02.2019
© University of Physical Education, Warsaw, Poland
This work was supported by the Academy of Physical
Education of Jerzy Kukuczka’s, Katowice, Poland.
... In R-AMSTAR, each domain's score ranges between 1 (minimum) and 4 (maximum), which means the total scores have a range of 11 (minimum) to 44 (maximum) (44). Therefore, the overall score can be translated into a quality grade, such as: A (high quality: 33-44), B (moderate quality: 23-32), C (low quality: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] and D (very low quality: 11-12) (44). Following the recommendations that only ratings of 23/44 on the R-AMSTAR total score have at least moderate methodological quality, that was established as the criteria to include a systematic review in this overview (44). ...
... A set of 33 records were identified via searching databases. After the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 15 articles have emerged (2,6,7,13,21,22,33,37,46,64,79,84,87,96,97). A diagram (see Figure 4) summarizes the selection process. ...
... After the selection of the studies, the reviewers independently applied the R-AMSTAR to evaluate the methodological quality of the 15 selected papers (2,6,7,13,21,22,33,37,46,64,79,84,87,96,97). After this process, they reached an agreement through verbal discussion or arbitration. ...
Full-text available
Introduction: Currently, the use of self-myofascial release (SMR) instruments is not uncommon in our society, especially in sports. The most common SMR instruments are foam rollers, roller massagers, and balls. Regardless of the instrument used, the main objectives are to enhance performance and recovery. Nevertheless, many studies point out that there is still a lack of robust scientific evidence documenting the exact mechanisms that explain its true effects, therefore some authors affirm that the reported benefits are anecdotal in nature. Objective: This overview aims to summarize, from systematic reviews, the effectiveness of SMR instruments on performance and recovery. Material and methods: This study followed the PRISMA principles. Systematic reviews were found on the electronic databases according to an established P (healthy active individuals) I (SMR using instruments) C (other treatment, placebo, sham, or no treatment) O (performance and recovery) S (systematic reviews) search strategy. Additionally, methodological analysis was performed using R-AMSTAR. Results: Initially, it was found 15 systematic reviews. However, after methodological analysis, only 7 systematic reviews had sufficient quality to be included. From those, it was found that SMR using instruments is beneficial to enhancing short-term flexibility-related and recovery-related outcomes. Inconstant data was reported in muscular-related outcomes. Nevertheless, beyond pain during SMR, no major adverse effects were found. Different effects between time, pressure and other instrument characteristics were also found. Conclusion: SMR using instruments can be a safe intervention used in sports to enhance performance and recovery from previous training/competition or between matches.
... The most supported hypothesis to explain these changes would be a modification of the autonomic nervous system responses (Joshi et al., 2018;Dębski et al., 2019;Wiewelhove et al., 2019). The slow deep pressure would induce a decrease in the tone of related skeletal motor units by stimulating mechanoreceptors. ...
... Few protocols have been tested and replicated enough to lead to real consensus. Indeed, between the protocols, many parameters differed such as outcome measures, FR tool, target muscles, type of population, participants' FR experience, and FR instructions (e.g., pressure level, duration and rate of treatment) (Burk et al., 2019;Dębski et al., 2019). It is likely that this experimental disparity justifies the heterogeneity of the results reported in the literature. ...
L’objectif de ce travail doctoral est d’étendre les connaissances sur les massages manuels et autogènes, et d’évaluer les effets de solutions de massage robotiques autonomes et interactives. Dans un premier temps, les travaux expérimentaux ont permis de préciser les caractéristiques du massage autogène, notamment ses effets interférents avec les performances en force lors d’une pratique intégrée aux séances d’entraînement, et l’absence de bénéfices additionnels lorsque des mouvements de pression glissée étaient intégrés aux routines. Nous avons ensuite comparé sur la base d’indicateurs psychométriques, comportementaux et neurophysiologiques massage manuel et massage autogène. Les deux méthodes de massages ont induit des états de relaxation supérieurs à la condition contrôle. Toutefois, le massage manuel semblait induire un état de relaxation plus marqué que le massage autogène, tant sur la base d’indicateurs objectifs que subjectifs. Sur le plan du contrôle moteur, le massage manuel engage le sujet dans un mode de contrôle de l’action essentiellement rétroactif. À l’inverse, le massage autogène implique la production de mouvements volontaires et engage donc le sujet dans un mode de contrôle proactif. Nous avons cherché à situer le massage robotique au sein de ce continuum. Le massage robotique, en offrant la possibilité au sujet d’interagir en temps réel avec les mouvements du robot, permet l’alternance entre modes de contrôle proactif et rétroactif. Le massage robotique représente donc une expérience sensorimotrice distincte du massage manuel et autogène. Dans une dernière étude, nous avons comparé l’efficacité du massage robotique à celle d’un massage manuel réalisé par un professionnel expérimenté. Les deux interventions ont produit des effets sur les indicateurs de bien-être et de relaxation, mais ceux-ci demeuraient plus marqués à l’issue du massage manuel. Toutefois, l’effet des deux interventions sur les sensations perçues était comparable. Les dispositifs de massages robotisés n’ont pas vocation à remplacer les praticiens. Ils représentent une solution d’assistance pour des tâches répétitives et élémentaires. Le massage robotique pourrait permettre, par exemple, de pallier la fatigue induite par la répétition des massages qui fut enregistrée au cours de l’étude. Les effets du massage robotique sur les indicateurs objectifs et subjectifs de bien-être laissent envisager des possibilités de démocratisation.
... Specifically, a commercial foam roller (FitPlus premium high-density 6-in diameter × 12-in length foam roller; Fabrication Enterprises, Inc., White Plains, NY) was placed between the popliteal fossa and a mat with the DOM leg maintained in an extended position and the non-DOM leg crossed on top of the DOM leg. 19 Then the subject was instructed to support the body weight with both arms extended on the ground (Figure 1). ...
... The SMR protocol was designed to target the hamstrings muscle group and was developed based on adaptations from previous studies and pilot study 14,19,20 (Table 2). ...
Context: Range of motion (ROM) and muscular strength are the main factors that affect athletic performance. Self-myofascial release is a flexibility technique, which is used to inhibit overactive muscle fibers. Objective: To investigate the effects of the 8-week self-myofascial release on the isokinetic hamstrings-to-quadriceps strength ratio (H/QRatio) and the ROM of the knee joint among male athletes with the hamstring shortness. Design: A randomized controlled trial. Setting: Research laboratory. Participants: Twenty-four college-aged male athletes with hamstring shortness were selected for this study and were randomly assigned to a foam rolling group (FOAM, n = 12) and a control group (n = 12). Interventions: Participants in the FOAM group performed supervised self-myofascial release program 3 times per week for 8 weeks. The control group received no intervention. Methods: Data were analyzed via 2-way repeated-measure analysis of variance at the significance level of .05. Main outcome measures: ROM and the H/QRatio at the velocities of 60°/s, 120°/s, and 180°/s were measured by an isokinetic dynamometer. Results: The results of 2-way repeated-measure analysis of variance demonstrated that hamstring ROM increased in FOAM group (P = .001). No significant changes were found in H/QRatio after self-myofascial release for FOAM group (P ≥ .05). Conclusions: When compared with other methods of stretching, self-myofascial release with foam rolling may be beneficial in increasing ROM without decreasing H/QRatio in people with the hamstring shortness.
... However, the final success of the treatment is influenced by many factors, from the choice of graft type and the method of its fixation, to the process of postoperative physiotherapy and patient education [51]. As far as these two issues are concerned the range of approaches is, however, somewhat broad [13,17,29,37,46]. Even after returning to sport activity, there is still a risk of injury to both the reconstructed ACL and the ACL in the healthy extremity. ...
Full-text available
Study aim : The functional assessment of patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the key points in deciding whether one can safely return to physical activity. The aim of this study is to investigate the usefulness of the NEURAC® tests and single leg balance test (SLBT) in the functional evaluation of adolescent patients after ACLR to detect differences between the operated and non-operated extremity. Material and methods : A total of 31 physically active, adolescent patients (mean age: 15.7 ± 1.4 years) who underwent primary single-bundle ACLR using the autogenous semitendinosus-gracilis tendon graft were evaluated using the NEURAC® and SLBT tests (mean time from surgery to examination was 6.6 ± 1.0 months). All patients were operated on by the same surgeon, and postoperative physiotherapy was carried out using a standardized protocol. Results : Only one of the NEURAC® tests showed significant differences between the operated and non-operated extremities: prone bridging (3.58º vs. 3.97º, P = 0.01). Several weak and moderate, significant correlations between NEURAC® and SLBT tests were observed in the operated (r from –0.42 to 0.37) and non-operated (r from –0.37 to –0.43) extremities Conclusions : The NEURAC® tests in comparison to SLBT seems to be more effective for detecting functional differences between the operated and non-operated extremity in adolescent patients about 6 months post-ACLR. Correlations between the outcomes of the NEURAC® tests and SLBT are not clear.
... In such cases, numerous sources delineate the most useful therapeutic approaches (e.g. [8,48,49]). In children, low postural tone constitutes a common symptom of insufficient core control [20,26,40] in which the transversus abdominis muscle (TrA) seems to play an important role [18,19]. ...
Full-text available
Study aim : The aim of the study was to evaluate asymmetry of activation of lateral abdominal muscles (LAM) in response to neurodevelopmental traction technique in children with pelvic asymmetry. Material and methods : Measurements of LAM activation asymmetry were performed during traction with the force of 5% body weight in two experimental conditions: 1) in neutral position, 2) in 20° posterior trunk inclination. Twenty-three healthy children with pelvic asymmetry participated in the study. To evaluate LAM activation asymmetry ultrasound technology was employed (two Mindray DP660 devices (Mindray, Shenzhen, China)). Activation asymmetry indices for each individual LAM were calculated. Results : The magnitude of LAM activation asymmetry indexes formed a gradient, with the most profound transversus abdominis (TrA) showing the greatest asymmetry, and the most superficial obliquus externus – the smallest. The inter-muscle differences were most pronounced between the TrA and the two more superficial oblique muscles. There were no correlation between the magnitude of pelvic asymmetry and LAM activation asymmetry. Conclusions : During the neurodevelopmental traction technique there is a difference in individual LAM activation symmetry, with deeper muscles showing greater asymmetry. The activation asymmetry of the LAM does not seem to be associated with the pelvic asymmetry. Results are similar to those recorded in earlier studies in samples where no pelvic asymmetry were subjected to analysis.
... Como guía general se puede considerar que se han reportado efectos positivos en el ROM y DOMS, realizando de 1 a 3 series por grupo muscular, con 30 segundos de micropausa pasando el rodillo o masajeador lentamente, con una duración aproximada (para recorrer el músculo a tratar) de entre 2 a 4 segundos, acumulando un tiempo total por serie de entre 30 a 120 segundos. Idealmente deteniéndose en zonas sensibles, y prefiriendo los elementos densos, para que la intensidad sea en el POD (Behm, D.G., et al., 2020;Dębski, P., et al., 2019). ...
Full-text available
En este libro,bajo un enfoque critico revisionista, se abordan temas relacinados con la planificacion y los componentes de la magnitud de la carga del entrenamiento para el fitness y el deporte de rendimiento. Se proponen guias generales para el entrenamiento de la fuerza; la velocidad, rapidez y agilidad; la resistencia; la movilidad; y la estabilidad.
Full-text available
zet Bu çalışmada yüksek yoğunluklu fiziksel egzersizlerden sonra organizmada meydana gelen yorgunluğu azaltmak ve toparlanmayı hızlandırmak için gerçekleştirilen foam roller toparlanma yönteminin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Fiziksel yüklenmeler sonucunda sporcuların performanslarında görülen azalmalar yorgunluk durumunu ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Meydana gelen yorgunluğun takip edilmesi, sporcuların antrenmana adaptasyonlarını kontrol etmek, yarışmaya hazır olmalarını sağlamak, sportif yaralanmalara ve hastalıklara karşı hassasiyetlerini azaltmak için önem kazanmaktadır. Bu durumda ise toparlanma programlarının oluşturulması ve uygulanması, sporcuların bir sonraki antrenmana veya müsabakaya tamamen dinlenmiş bir şekilde çıkmalarını sağlamakla birlikte sportif performanslarını artırmaktadır. Yorucu fiziksel egzersizlerin sonunda toparlanmayı hızlandırmak amacıyla birçok yöntem gerçekleştirilmektedir. Son yıllarda kullanımı artan, uygulanması basit, organizma üzerinde etkili ve düşük maliyetli olması sebebi ile foam roller toparlanma yöntemi sıklıkla tercih edilmektedir. İskelet kaslarının silindir biçimindeki bir aparatın üzerine konularak vücut ağırlığı ile kasın üzerinde ileri geri hareket ederek yapılan bu yöntem, fizik tedavi uzmanları ve sportif yaralanmalar sonrası rehabilitasyon gibi çeşitli alanlarda geniş bir sporcu kitlesi tarafından yoğun ilgi görmektedir. Özellikle egzersiz öncesi ısınma protokollerini en uygun hale getirmek, performansı artırmak, egzersiz sonrası iyileşmeyi kolaylaştırmak ve aynı zamanda bağ doku bozukluklarını tedavi etmek için kullanılabilmektedir. Roller yönteminin en önemli etki mekanizmasının sürtünmeyle birlikte kas dokularındaki miyofasiyal 1 Arş.
Full-text available
Bu bölümde beden eğitimi ve sporda cinsiyete yönelik stereotiplerin toplumsal yansımaları ile erkek ve kadın bireyler üzerindeki etkileri hakkında bilgilere yer verilmiştir. Kelime anlamı olarak “kalıp yargı” olarak dilimize geçen stereotip terimi eğitimden spora birçok alanda araştırma konusu olmuştur. Stereotipler, belli birey türleri ve gruplar hakkında bilimsel kanıtı olmayan, yaygın olarak benimsenmiş düşüncelerdir. Kalıp yargılar, her toplumda bireyleri farklı şekillerde etkilese de genellikle benzer özellikler göstermektir. Stereotipler, bir sosyal sınıfa, ırka yönelik olabildiği gibi bir dine ve cinsiyete yönelik de olabilir. Bireyler ve toplumlar, zamanla cinsiyete ilişkin bazı kalıp yargılar oluşturarak bunları cinsiyet gruplarına yükleyebilmektedir. Bu kalıp yargılar, örneğin; bireyin akademik başarısı, spor performansı veya beden eğitimi dersine yönelik motivasyonu üzerinde olumlu ve olumsuz etkiler meydana getirebilirler. Beden eğitimi ve sporda kadın ve erkekler arasındaki cinsiyet farklılıklarını çeşitli değişkenler açısından açıklamaya çalışan çok sayıda çalışma mevcuttur. Bu çalışma konularından birisi de bu alanda stereotiplerin erkekler ve kadınlar üzerindeki etkilerini ortaya çıkarmaya yönelik araştırmaları kapsamaktadır. Stereotiplerin cinsiyet açısından beden eğitimi ve spora katılımı, fiziksel performansı nasıl etkilediği merak konusudur. Ülkemizde beden eğitimi ve spor alanında cinsiyet stereotiplerine dayanan çalışma sayısının oldukça az olduğu görülse de dünya genelinde araştırmacılar tarafından konuya ilginin arttığı söylenebilir. Bu araştırmada hem beden eğitimi derslerinde hem de sporda cinsiyete yönelik stereotipler üzerine yapılan çalışmalar incelenerek bazı genel bilgilere ulaşılmıştır.
Foam rolling (FR) is a practice that has increased in popularity before and after resistance training. The purpose of this study was to compare the acute effects of different foam rolling periods for the lower body muscles on subsequent performance, myoelectric activity and rating of perceived exertion in trained men. Fourteen men (26.2 ± 3.2 years, 178 ± 0.04 cm, 82.2 ± 10 kg and body mass index 25.9 ± 3.3kg/m-2) volunteered for this study. Four repetition maximum (4-RM) loads were determined for hexagonal bar deadlift and 45°-angled leg press during test and retest sessions over two nonconsecutive days. The experimental conditions included a traditional protocol (TP) with no prior foam rolling, and four other conditions that involved FR applied to the quadriceps, hamstrings and triceps surae for one set of 30 sec (P1), two sets of 30 sec (P2), three sets of 30 sec (P3), or four sets of 30 sec (P4).The resistance training consisted of five sets with 4-RM loads. The number of repetitions completed, the myoelectric activity of lower limbs were recorded, as well as the rating of perceived exertion for each protocol. There were no differences between the protocols in the total repetitions for the hexagonal bar deadlift and 45° angled leg press exercises. Similar results between protocols were also noted for muscle activity and rated perceived exertion (RPE). Therefore, the results of the present study indicated that the FR didn't provide effects on performance, myoelectric activity and rating of perceived exertion responses during high intensity resistance performance for lower limb exercises.
Full-text available
Background: Roller massagers are popular devices that are used to improve range of motion (ROM), enhance recovery from muscle soreness, and reduce pain under acute conditions. However, the effects of roller massage training and training frequency are unknown. Purpose: The objective was to compare two different roller massage training frequencies on muscle performance. Study design: Randomized controlled intervention study. Methods: Twenty-three recreationally active university students were randomly allocated to three groups: control (n=8;), rolling three (3/W; n=8;) and six (6/W; n=7) times per week for four weeks. The roller massage training consisted of unilateral, dominant limb, quadriceps and hamstrings rolling (4 sets x 30 seconds). Both legs of participants were tested pre- and post-training for active and passive hamstrings and quadriceps range of motion (ROM), electromyography (EMG) activity during a lunge movement, unilateral countermovement jumps (CMJ), as well as quadriceps and hamstrings maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) forces and electromechanical delay. Finally, they were tested for pain pressure threshold at middle and distal segments of their quadriceps and hamstrings. Results: There were no significant training interactions for any measure with the exception that 3/W group exhibited 6.2% (p=0.03; Effect Size: 0.31) higher CMJ height from pre- (38.6 ± 7.1 cm) to post-testing (40.9 ± 8.1 cm) for the non-dominant limb. Conclusions: Whereas the literature has demonstrated acute responses to roller massage, the results of the present study demonstrate no consistent significant training-induced changes. The absence of change may highlight a lack of muscle and myofascial morphological or semi-permanent neurophysiological changes with rolling. Levels of evidence: 2c.
Full-text available
Recovery from exercise-induced fatigue is crucial for subsequent performance. Self-myofascial release (SMR) using a foam roller is an alternative to active recovery (AR). This study aims to compare the effects of passive recovery (PR), AR, and SMR on blood lactate [La-] removal and total quality of recovery (TQR). Twenty-two well trained male athletes (age: 22.6±2.9 years) underwent three testing sessions conducted 72 hours apart but at the same time of each day in a randomized order. After determining resting [La-] and heart rate (HR), the subjects completed a Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT), triggering muscular fatigue. HR and [La-] were measured three minutes after the WAnT, following which the subjects underwent one of the three different recovery interventions over 15 minutes: PR (lying supine), AR (cycling at 40% of the estimated maximum HR of the respective subject), and SMR (using foam roller on lower extremity muscles). After each recovery intervention, [La-], HR, and TQR were measured. There was no statistically significant difference in [La-] and HR values obtained before the WAnT test (p=0.368, p=0.691, respectively) and right after the WAnT test (0.264, p=0.629) Both AR and SMR were more effective than PR for [La-] removal and obtaining a higher TQR (p<0.001). However, SMR and AR were not superior to one another for blood [La-] removal (p>0.05). In contrast, a significantly higher TQR was observed with SMR than AR and PR (p<0.001). Athletes can apply AR or SMR to recover from strenuous exercise. SMR can be an alternative to PR and AR as a recovery tool.
Full-text available
Background: Foam rolling (FR) has been shown to alleviate some symptoms of exercise-induced muscle damage and has been suggested to increase range of motion (ROM) without negatively impacting strength. However, it is unclear what neuromuscular effects, if any, mediate these changes. Methods: In a randomized, crossover design, 16 healthy active males completed 2 min of rest or FR of the knee extensors on three consecutive days. Mechanical properties of vastus lateralis (VL) and rectus femoris (RF) were assessed via Tensiomyography. Knee extension maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) and knee flexion ROM were also assessed, and surface electromyography amplitude (RMS) was recorded during a submaximal isometric contraction (50% of MVC). Measures were performed before and after (0, 15, and 30 min) FR or rest. Results: MVC was reduced on subsequent days in the rest condition compared to FR (p = 0.002, pη2 = 0.04); ROM was not different across time or condition (p = 0.193, pη2 = 0.01). Stiffness characteristics of the VL were different on the third day of FR (p = 0.002, pη2 = 0.03). RMS was statistically reduced 0, 15, and 30 min after FR compared to rest (p = 0.006, pη2 = 0.03; p = 0.003, pη2 = 0.04; p = 0.002, pη2 = 0.04). Conclusions: Following FR, MVC was elevated compared to rest and RMS was transiently reduced during a submaximal task. Excitation efficiency of the involved muscles may have been enhanced by FR, which protected against the decline in MVC which was observed with rest.
Full-text available
Foam rolling and eccentric exercise interventions have been demonstrated to improve range of motion (ROM). However, these two modalities have not been directly compared. Twenty-three academy soccer players (age: 18 ± 1; height: 1.74 ± 0.08 m; body mass: 69.3 ± 7.5 kg) were randomly allocated to either a foam rolling (FR) or eccentric exercise intervention designed to improve dorsiflexion ROM. Participants performed the intervention daily for a duration of four weeks. Measurements of dorsiflexion ROM, isometric plantar flexion torque and drop jump reactive strength index were taken at baseline (pre-intervention) and at three subsequent time-points (30-min post, 24-hours post and 4-weeks post). A significant time x group interaction effect was observed for dorsiflexion (P = 0.036), but not for torque or reactive strength index. For dorsiflexion, there was a significant increase in both acute (30-min; P < 0.001) and chronic (4-week; P < 0.001) ROM for the eccentric group, whilst FR exhibited only an acute improvement (P < 0.001). Eccentric training would appear a more efficacious modality than foam rolling for improving dorsiflexion ROM in elite academy soccer players.
Full-text available
Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate effect of applying self-myofascial release (SMR) to the plantar fascia using a foam roller on hamstring and lumbar spine superficial back line (SBL). Design: Randomized controlled trial. Methods: Thirty-one healthy adults agreed to the method and purpose of the study. Selection and exclusion criteria were screened, and baseline measurements for the Toe Touch test and passive straight leg raise (PSLR) test were obtained. The participants were then randomly assigned to the SMR group or the sham group. After group assignment, the SMR group rolled the surface of the foot from the heel to the metatarsal head using a foam roller for 5 minutes. The sham group received passive mobilization of the ankle joint in the supine position. Afterwards, the Toe Touch test and the passive straight leg-raise test were re-assessed. Results: In the SMR group, the Toe Touch test results showed significant improvement (p<0.05). Left and right PSLR test results showed a significant increase (p<0.05). In the sham group, there was no significant difference between pre and post-test results. The SMR group showed a significant difference in the PSLR test and Toe Touch test compared to the sham group (p<0.05). Conclusions: The results of this study showed that SMR on the plantar fascia was immediately effective for improving the flexibility of the SBL of the lumbar spine and hamstring.
Full-text available
Objectives: Latent myofascial trigger points (MTrP) have been linked to several impairments of muscle function. The present study was conducted in order to examine if a single bout of self-myofascial release using a foam roller is effective in reducing MTrP sensitivity. Material and methods: Fifty healthy, pain-free subjects (26.8±6 yrs, 21 men) with latent MTrP in the lateral gastrocnemius muscle were included in the randomized, controlled trial. One week after a familiarization session, they were randomly allocated to three groups: (1) static compression of the most sensitive MTrP using a foam roll, (2) slow dynamic foam rolling of the lateral calf and (3) placebo laser acupuncture of the most sensitive MTrP. Treatment duration in each group was 90 seconds. Pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the most sensitive MTrP was assessed using a handheld algometer prior and post intervention. Results: A repeated measures analysis of variance (3x2) did not yield indications for between group interactions (p>.05) but for a time effect (F=7.715, p<.05). While placebo and dynamic self-myofascial release did not change MTrP sensitivity (p>.05), static compression of MTrP increased PPT (2.6±0.8 to 3.0±1.1, d=.35; p<.05). Conclusions: Static self-myofascial release using a foam roller might represent an alternative to reduce pressure pain of latent MTrP. Additional research should aim to extend these findings to patients and athletes with myofascial pain syndromes.
Full-text available
Purpose: To examine the effects of foam rolling (FR), on range of motion, (ROM), peak torque (PT), hamstrings-to-quadriceps (H:Q) ratios, and muscle activation . Methods: Twenty-two recreationally active women (mean age ± SD = 21.55 ± 1.82 years, 161.91 ± 6.58 cm, 61.47 ± 10.54 kg) volunteered for this study. Participants performed pre- and post-tests analyzing PT and surface electromyography (EMG) of their dominant limb completing maximal knee extension and flexion at three different velocities. Participants foam rolled the hamstrings muscles or sat for the control condition between the pre- and post-tests. Results: Hamstrings ROM increased in the FR condition from (mean ± SE) 123.23 ± 3.49 to 126.41 ± 3.62° (p < 0.001), and decreased in the control condition from 118.82 ± 4.25 to 117.95 ± 4.29° (p = 0.013). Concentric hamstrings PT and conventional H:Q ratios decreased following both conditions, with smaller decreases after FR (p < 0.05). No significant changes were found for eccentric hamstrings PT, eccentric hamstrings EMG, or functional H:Q ratios (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Foam rolling resulted in greater changes in hamstrings ROM without creating a deficit in PT or muscle activation, when compared to the control group. Practical Applications: When compared to other methods of stretching, foam rolling may be beneficial in increasing ROM without decreasing functional H:Q ratios.
Background: Foam Rolling (FR) has steadily gained in popularity as an intervention to increase range of motion (ROM) and reduce pain. It is believed that FR can remove restrictions due to fascial adhesions, thus improving ROM. FR has been proposed as a means to increase ITB length as a means to achieve these outcomes. Previous research has focused on the effects of FR over both muscle and fascia tissue together. However, no studies have examined the effects of FR over fascial tissue not containing muscle. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the acute effect of a single bout of foam rolling (FR) over the Iliotibial Band (ITB) compared to FR over the gluteal muscle group on hip adduction passive range of motion (PROM). Methods: Twenty-seven participants were recruited for the study. Each participant performed three sessions: FR over tissue devoid of muscle, the ITB (PFR), FR over contractile tissue, the gluteal muscles (AFR), and a session without FR (control) in a randomized order. Hip adduction PROM was measured in a pre-post manner for each session. Results: Results of the repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant interaction across session and time (F(2, 25) = 25.202, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.502, 1 - β = 1.000). Post-hoc analysis showed the AFR post-test measure was significantly different from both control (p < 0.001) and PFR counterparts (p < 0.001). FR over the gluteal muscle group lead to a 14.8% improvement in hip adduction ROM, with PFR only a 2% improvement. Conclusion: A single bout of FR over a myofascial group appears to increase PROM in healthy young adults, whereas FR over the ITB itself (primarily fascial tissue) does not. This suggests the conventional theory behind FR may need to be reevaluated. Level of evidence: Level 1B, laboratory study, repeated measures design.
Phillips, J, Diggin, D, King, DL, and Sforzo, GA. Effect of varying self-myofascial release duration on subsequent athletic performance. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-Self-myofascial release (SMR) treatments can enhance joint range-of-motion and restore movement function. The effects of different SMR durations on athletic performance have yet to be examined. Twenty-four volunteers had ankle and knee joint range-of-motion assessed using modified weight-bearing and kneeling lunge (KL) tests. Vertical jump and pro-agility sprint performance were also examined. All tests were conducted before and immediately after 1 (SMR_1) and 5 minutes (SMR_5) of foam rolling, and immediately after a control (CONTR) condition. Results showed KL scores increased after SMR_5 (16.4%; effect size [ES] = 0.85) when compared with SMR_1 (12.5%; ES = 0.58). Weight-bearing lunge scores showed little change after either SMR treatment. The CONTR condition exhibited little effect on joint range-of-motion. Vertical jump performance decreased after SMR_5 (5.1%; ES = 0.26) but changed little after SMR_1 (0.7%; ES = 0.03) and CONTR (1.9%; ES = 0.10) conditions. Pro-agility performance improved slightly after SMR_1 (1.1%) but deteriorated after CONTR (1.2%) and SMR_5 (0.5%). Effect size calculations for changes in pro-agility sprint times were trivial across all conditions (0.06-0.15). Data suggest that extended periods of SMR may be recommended, should improvements in joint range-of-motion be required. If power output is a critical requirement of subsequent exercise/performance tasks, prolonged SMR treatment (i.e., 5 minutes) should be avoided. Practitioners should be cautious when implementing SMR treatments within warm-ups.
Warm-up is an essential component for optimizing performance before an exercise session. This study investigated that the immediate effects of vibration rolling (VR), nonvibration rolling (NVR), and static stretching as a part of a warm-up regimen on the flexibility, knee joint proprioception, muscle strength, and dynamic balance of the lower extremity in young adults. Compared with the preintervention, VR induced the range of motion of knee flexion and extension significantly increased by 2.5% and 6%, respectively, and isokinetic peak torque and dynamic balance for muscle strength and dynamic balance increased by 33%–35% and 1.5%, respectively. In the three conditions, most outcomes between VR and NVR were comparable; however, the participants had a significantly higher knee joint reposition error after NVR than after VR, indicating that NVR would have a hampering knee joint proprioception effect. In particular, compared with static stretching, VR significantly increased the quadriceps muscle strength by 2-fold and dynamic balance by 1.8-fold. These findings suggest that athletic professionals may take VR into account for designing more efficient and effective preperformance routine to improve exercise performances. VR has high potential to translate into an on-field practical application.