Search

A single bout of foam rolling (FR) can acutely increase joint range of motion (ROM) without detrimental effects on subsequent muscle performance. Similarly, long-term FR training can increase ROM, while muscle performance seems to be unaffected. Although the acute and long-term effects of FR on the treated muscle are understood, the impact of FR on the contralateral side is not well known. Therefore, this scoping review aims to summarize the current evidence on the acute and long-term effect of FR on the ipsilateral limb on ROM and muscle performance (i.e., maximum force, rate of force development, jump height) for the contralateral (non-treated) limb. Potential explanatory mechanisms are also discussed. There is evidence that a single bout of FR on the ipsilateral limb increases ROM of the contralateral limb; however, evidence is limited for long-term effects. The most likely mechanism for contralateral ROM increases is a reduced perception of pain. With regard to isolated muscle contractions, no changes in muscle performance (i.e., maximum voluntary isometric contraction, maximum voluntary dynamic contraction) were found in the contralateral limb after a single bout of FR on the ipsilateral limb. Notably, only one study reported large impairments in rate of force development of the contralateral limb following FR on the ipsilateral leg, possibly due to decreased motor unit recruitment. Furthermore, to date there are only two studies examining the long-term FR training of the ipsilateral limb on performance (i.e., maximal strength and jump performance) which reported moderate improvements. Although, trivial to very large changes on a variety of parameters were found in this study, the functional and practical relevance of our findings should be interpreted with caution.

Background A single foam-rolling exercise can acutely increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint. However, to date the adaptational effects of foam-rolling training over several weeks on joint ROM are not well understood. Objective The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of foam-rolling training interventions on joint ROM in healthy participants. Methods Results were assessed from 11 studies (either controlled trials [CT] or randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) and 46 effect sizes by applying a random-effect meta-analysis. Moreover, by applying a mixed-effect model, we performed subgroup analyses, which included comparisons of the intervention duration (≤ 4 weeks vs > 4 weeks), comparisons between muscles tested (e.g., hamstrings vs quadriceps vs triceps surae), and study designs (RCT vs CT). Results Our main analysis of 290 participants with a mean age of 23.9 (± 6.3 years) indicated a moderate effect of foam-rolling training on ROM increases in the experimental compared to the control group (ES = 0.823; Z = 3.237; 95% CI 0.325–1.322; p = 0.001; I2 = 72.76). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences between study designs (p = 0.36). However, a significant difference was observed in the intervention duration in favor of interventions > 4 weeks compared to ≤ 4 weeks for ROM increases (p = 0.049). Moreover, a further subgroup analysis showed significant differences between the muscles tested (p = 0.047) in the eligible studies. Foam rolling increased joint ROM when applied to hamstrings and quadriceps, while no improvement in ankle dorsiflexion was observed when foam rolling was applied to triceps surae. Conclusion Longer duration interventions (> 4 weeks) are needed to induce ROM gains while there is evidence that responses are muscle or joint specific. Future research should examine possible mechanisms underpinning ROM increases following different foam-rolling protocols, to allow for informed recommendations in healthy and clinical populations.

Study aim: This study compared movement velocity and force-velocity profile parameters measured by a free video analysis software program, with the use of a high-speed video recording, and a validated linear position transducer (LPT). Material and methods: Ten team-sports athletes performed double-leg and single-leg ballistic lower limb extensions on a leg press machine against a wide range of resistive loads. Each repetition was recorded by the LPT a high-speed camera (300 fps), and later analysed with a free video analysis software program. Results: Mean and peak movement velocity presented high reliability (ICC: 0.990 and 0.988, p < 0.001) and agreement between the two measuring systems (systematic bias: –0.06 ± 0.04 and –0.01 ± 0.03 m/s, respectively). Force-velocity profile parameters were also similar: maximum velocity at zero load (Vo: 1.79 ± 0.15 vs. 1.78 ± 0.12 m/s, p = 0.64), slope (b: –1585 ± 503 vs. –1562 ± 438 N · s/m, p = 0.43), maximum force at zero velocity (Fo: 2835 ± 937 vs. 2749 ± 694 N, p = 0.41) and maximum power (1274 ± 451 vs 1214 ± 285 W, p = 0.38). Both measuring systems could similarly detect the individual force or velocity deficit (p=0.91). Conclusion: In conclusion, a free video analysis software combined with a high-speed camera was shown to be a reliable, accurate, low bias and cost-effective method in velocity-based testing.

The rate of force development (RFD) in the isometric leg press (ILP), the countermovement jump (CMJ) and the squat jump (SJ) were examined in twenty-three (9 females) team sport athletes aged 21-24 years. Peak force (Fpeak), peak rate of force development (RFDpeak) and RFD at different time epochs (0-50, 50-100, 100-150, 150-200) were calculated from the force-time curve, as well as CMJ and SJ height and the center of mass displacement. RFDpeak, RFD at 0-50, 50-100 and 100-150 ms and Fpeak were similar between the CMJ and the SJ (p = 0.26 to 0.99). Furthermore, RFD0-50 ms was similar between the ILP, the CMJ, and the SJ (p = 0.99 to 0.57). Higher values were observed in the ILP compared with the CMJ and the SJ in RFD50-100 ms and RFD100-150 ms (p < 0.001) and these differences were maintained even when RFD was scaled to body mass. The higher RFD normalized to Fpeak was attained at the 50-100 ms time interval with no differences between the ILP, CMJ and SJ and between males and females. These results suggest that the ability to exert rapid force is similar between the CMJ and the SJ, irrespective of the type of muscle action. Furthermore, RFD normalized to Fpeak is a muscle-force independent index of explosive force production, facilitating comparisons between individuals with different levels of muscle strength. The similarities between the CMJ and the SJ in RFDpeak, Fpeak, and RFD at different time epochs may imply that these types of jumps could be used interchangeably to assess explosive lower limb performance.