Effects of Bilateral and Unilateral Resistance Training on Horizontally Orientated Movement Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Effects of Bilateral and Unilateral Plyometric Training on Physical Performance in Male Postpubertal Basketball Players

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of bilateral and unilateral plyometric-training (PT) programs on jumping, sprinting, and change-of-direction (COD) ability in male postpubertal basketball players.

METHODS

Forty-three young male basketball players (14.2 [1.2] y), from 4 squads belonging to an elite basketball club, were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: (1) bilateral PT group (BG), (2) unilateral PT group (UG), and (3) control group (CG). The experimental groups followed a PT program twice weekly for 6 weeks, with BG and UG performing 2- and 1-legged jumps, respectively. Both groups completed the same number of vertical, horizontal, cyclic, and acyclic jumps. Pretraining and posttraining measurements included (1) countermovement jump (CMJ), (2) unilateral CMJ (CMJL and CMJR), (3) horizontal jump (HJ), (4) unilateral HJ (HJL and HJR), (5) straight-line sprint in 20 m (T20), and (6) V-Cut COD test (V-Cut).

RESULTS

CMJ, CMJL, and CMJR were significantly improved by BG and UG (P < .001), while CG did not change. Both the BG and the UG improved their performance significantly (P < .01) in HJL and HJR, but only BG significantly increased (P < .05) HJ and showed significantly greater improvements than CG. Furthermore, only BG improved V-Cut performance (P = .03). Neither group increased T20. CG did not improve in any tests.

CONCLUSIONS

BG enhances single-leg and double-leg jump performance in vertical and horizontal directions, as well as COD ability. In contrast, an equivalent volume of unilateral PT only improves vertical jumps and unilateral HJs.

Effects of Unilateral, Bilateral and Combined Plyometric Jump Training on Asymmetry of Muscular Strength and Power, and Change-of-Direction in Youth Male Basketball Players

This study aimed to compare the effects of unilateral (UT), bilateral (BT), and combined (UBT) plyometric training on muscular strength, power, and change-of-direction performance in youth male basketball players. Sixty-six male youth basketball players (age: 16.1 ± 0.8 years) participated in this randomized experimental study, which lasted 8 weeks with a training frequency of 2 sessions per week. The UT group performed only single-leg plyometric exercises, while the BT group conducted similar plyometric drills using both feet. The UBT group combined both approaches, performing one session of UT and one session of BT each week. The players were evaluated at baseline and after the 8-week period using a force platform for the unilateral countermovement jump test (UCMJ), isometric squat test (IST), isometric knee flexor strength test (KFS), leg land and hold test (LHT), and 5-0-5 tests. The asymmetry between legs per outcome was measured using the symmetry angle. The UT, BT, and UBT all significantly improved outcomes in the IST, UCMJ, KFS, LHT, and 5-0-5 tests (p < 0.05) following the intervention, with no significant differences among the three methods. However, while UT and UBT significantly reduced asymmetries in the tests (p < 0.05), BT increased asymmetries. Only, the UT group showed significant improvements over the control group in asymmetry measures: IST asymmetry (mean difference: 1.2%, p = 0.049), KFS asymmetry (mean difference: 2.5%, p < 0.001), and LHT asymmetry (mean difference: 1.1%, p = 0.013). While there are no substantial differences among UT, BT, and UBT in terms of improvements in unilateral tests and symmetry levels, UT stands out for its effectiveness in enhancing neuromuscular performance and reducing asymmetries among basketball players compared to the control condition. UT was the only method that showed significant benefits in this context. Strength and conditioning coaches might consider incorporating UT, either alone or alongside BT, to optimize individual limb strength and coordination.

Effect of vertical, horizontal, and combined plyometric training on jump, sprint and change of direction performance in male soccer players

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of vertical (VPT), horizontal (HPT) and combined vertical and horizontal (V+HPT) plyometric training on sprint, jump and change of direction (COD) performance in adult male soccer players.

METHOD

Participants were randomly allocated into VPT (n = 8), HPT (n = 8) and V+HPT (n = 8) groups which undertook eight weeks of PT, executing 100 foot contacts per session, twice weekly.

RESULTS

Though demonstrably effective, no specific one of the three applied programmes enhanced performance to a greater extent than another with only the 40 m sprint for the HPT group (mean difference = 0.07 s [HPT] vs. 0.04 s [VPT] and 0.04 s [V+HPT]) and the vertical jump for the V+HPT group (mean difference = 4.5 cm [V+HPT] vs. 4.0 cm [VPT] and 3.25 cm [HPT]) appearing to deviate from a uniform pattern of group level adaptation across the performance tests.

CONCLUSION

A total volume of 100 foot contacts per session, twice per week for eight weeks was sufficient to achieve the observed changes. Though jump and changing direction performance were enhanced, linear sprint performance was largely unchanged and so a more complete and intense programme may have been warranted. No method was superior to another in eliciting changes across these tests and a directionally-specific pattern of adaptation was not apparent.

Chronic effects of stretching on range of motion with consideration of potential moderating variables: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is well known that stretch training can induce prolonged increases in joint range of motion (ROM). However, to date more information is needed regarding which training variables might have greater influence on improvements in flexibility. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of stretch training on ROM in healthy participants by considering potential moderating variables, such as stretching technique, intensity, duration, frequency, and muscles stretched, as well as sex-specific, age-specific, and/or trained state-specific adaptations to stretch training.

METHODS

We searched through PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and SportDiscus to find eligible studies and, finally, assessed the results from 77 studies and 186 effect sizes by applying a random-effect meta-analysis. Moreover, by applying a mixed-effect model, we performed the respective subgroup analyses. To find potential relationships between stretch duration or age and effect sizes, we performed a meta-regression.

RESULTS

We found a significant overall effect, indicating that stretch training can increase ROM with a moderate effect compared to the controls (effect size = -1.002; Z = -12.074; 95% confidence interval: -1.165 to -0.840; p < 0.001; I2 = 74.97). Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference between the stretching techniques (p = 0.01) indicating that proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation and static stretching produced greater ROM than did ballistic/dynamic stretching. Moreover, there was a significant effect between the sexes (p = 0.04), indicating that females showed higher gains in ROM compared to males. However, further moderating analysis showed no significant relation or difference.

CONCLUSION

When the goal is to maximize ROM in the long term, proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation or static stretching, rather than ballistic/dynamic stretching, should be applied. Something to consider in future research as well as sports practice is that neither volume, intensity, nor frequency of stretching were found to play a significant role in ROM yields.

Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES): A Checklist Developed Using an Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

The issues of replication and scientific transparency have been raised in exercise and sports science research. A potential means to address the replication crisis and enhance research reliability is to improve reporting quality and transparency. This study aims to formulate a reporting checklist as a supplement to the existing reporting guidelines, specifically for resistance exercise studies.

METHODS

PubMed (which covers Medline) and Scopus (which covers Medline, EMBASE, Ei Compendex, World Textile Index, Fluidex, Geobase, Biobase, and most journals in Web of Science) were searched for systematic reviews that comprised the primary studies directly comparing different resistance training methods. Basic data on the selected reviews, including on authors, publication years, and objectives, were summarized. The reporting items for the checklist were identified based on the objective of the reviews. Additional items from an existing checklist, namely the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template, a National Strength and Conditioning Association handbook, and an article from the EQUATOR library were incorporated into the final reporting checklist.

RESULTS

Our database search retrieved 3595 relevant records. After automatic duplicate removal, the titles and abstracts of the remaining 2254 records were screened. The full texts of 137 records were then reviewed, and 88 systematic reviews that met the criteria were included in the umbrella review.

CONCLUSION

Developed primarily by an umbrella review method, this checklist covers the research questions which have been systematically studied and is expected to improve the reporting completeness of future resistance exercise studies. The PRIRES checklist comprises 26 reporting items (39 subitems) that cover four major topics in resistance exercise intervention: 1) exercise selection, performance, and training parameters, 2) training program and progression, 3) exercise setting, and 4) planned vs actual training. The PRIRES checklist was designed specifically for reporting resistance exercise intervention. It is expected to be used with other reporting guidelines such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials. This article presents only the development process and resulting items of the checklist. An accompanying article detailing the rationale for, the importance of, and examples of each item is being prepared.

REGISTRATION

This study is registered with the EQUATOR Network under the title "Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES)." PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021235259.

Acute Effects of Various Stretching Techniques on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Background

Although stretching can acutely increase joint range of motion (ROM), there are a variety of factors which could influence the extent of stretch-induced flexibility such as participant characteristics, stretching intensities, durations, type (technique), and muscle or joint tested.

Objective

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the acute effects of stretching on ROM including moderating variables such as muscles tested, stretch techniques, intensity, sex, and trained state.

Methods

A random-effect meta-analysis was performed from 47 eligible studies (110 effect sizes). A mixed-effect meta-analysis subgroup analysis was also performed on the moderating variables. A meta-regression was also performed between age and stretch duration. GRADE analysis was used to assess the quality of evidence obtained from this meta-analysis.

Results

The meta-analysis revealed a small ROM standard mean difference in favor of an acute bout of stretching compared to non-active control condition (ES = −0.555; Z = −8.939; CI (95%) −0.677 to −0.434; p  < 0.001; I2 = 33.32). While there were ROM increases with sit and reach (P  = 0.038), hamstrings (P  < 0.001), and triceps surae (P  = 0.002) tests, there was no change with the hip adductor test (P  = 0.403). Further subgroup analyses revealed no significant difference in stretch intensity (P  = 0.76), trained state (P  = 0.99), stretching techniques (P  = 0.72), and sex (P  = 0.89). Finally, meta-regression showed no relationship between the ROM standard mean differences to age (R2 = −0.03; P  = 0.56) and stretch duration (R 2 = 0.00; P  = 0.39), respectively. GRADE analysis indicated that we can be moderately confident in the effect estimates.

Conclusion

A single bout of stretching can be considered effective for providing acute small magnitude ROM improvements for most ROM tests, which are not significantly affected by stretch intensity, participants’ trained state, stretching techniques, and sex.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-023-00652-x.

The meta-analysis on joint range of motion (ROM) increases revealed a small effect size in favor of an acute bout of stretching compared to the control condition. Subgroup analysis revealed a significant increase in ROM with sit and reach, hamstrings, and triceps surae tests, but no improvement with the hip adductor tests. Whereas all moderating variables presented significant increases in ROM, further subgroup analyses revealed no significant difference in ROM gains with the stretch intensity, trained state of the participants, stretching techniques, and sex. A meta-regression showed no relationship between the effect sizes to age and stretch duration, respectively.

Acute and Long-Term Effects of Static Stretching on Muscle-Tendon Unit Stiffness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Static stretching can increase the range of motion of a joint. Muscle-tendon unit stiffness (MTS) is potentially one of the main factors that influences the change in the range of motion after static stretching. However, to date, the effects of acute and long-term static stretching on MTS are not well understood. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of acute and long-term static stretching training on MTS, in young healthy participants. PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO published before January 6, 2023, were searched and finally, 17 papers were included in the meta-analysis. Main meta-analysis was performed with a random-effect model and subgroup analyses, which included comparisons of sex (male vs. mixed sex and female) and muscle (hamstrings vs. plantar flexors) were also performed. Furthermore, a meta-regression was conducted to examine the effect of total stretching duration on MTS. For acute static stretching, the result of the meta-analysis showed a moderate decrease in MTS (effect size = -0.772, Z = -2.374, 95% confidence interval = -1.409 - -0.325, p = 0.018, I2 = 79.098). For long-term static stretching, there is no significant change in MTS (effect size = -0.608, Z = -1.761, 95% CI = -1.284 - 0.069, p = 0.078, I2 = 83.061). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences between sex (long-term, p = 0.209) or muscle (acute, p =0.295; long-term, p = 0.427). Moreover, there was a significant relationship between total stretching duration and MTS in acute static stretching (p = 0.011, R2 = 0.28), but not in long-term stretching (p = 0.085, R2 < 0.01). Whilst MTS decreased after acute static stretching, only a tendency of a decrease was seen after long-term stretching.

Long-term static stretching can decrease muscle stiffness: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Stretch training increases the range of motion of a joint. However, to date, the mechanisms behind such a stretching effect are not well understood. An earlier meta-analysis on several studies reported no changes in the passive properties of a muscle (i.e., muscle stiffness) following long-term stretch training with various types of stretching (static, dynamic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular stretching). However, in recent years, an increasing number of papers have reported the effects of long-term static stretching on muscle stiffness. The purpose of the present study was to examine the long-term (≥2 weeks) effect of static stretching training on muscle stiffness. PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO published before December 28, 2022, were searched and 10 papers met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. By applying a mixed-effect model, subgroup analyses, which included comparisons of sex (male vs. mixed sex) and type of muscle stiffness assessment (calculated from the muscle-tendon junction vs. shear modulus), were performed. Furthermore, a meta-regression was conducted to examine the effect of total stretching duration on muscle stiffness. The result of the meta-analysis showed a moderate decrease in muscle stiffness after 3-12 weeks of static stretch training compared to a control condition (effect size = -0.749, p < 0.001, I2  = 56.245). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences between sex (p = 0.131) and type of muscle stiffness assessment (p = 0.813). Moreover, there was no significant relationship between total stretching duration and muscle stiffness (p = 0.881).

The Effects of a 6-Week Unilateral Strength and Ballistic Jump Training Program on the Force-Velocity Profiles of Sprinting

ABSTRACT

Bettariga, F, Maestroni, L, Martorelli, L, Turner, A, and Bishop, C. The effects of a 6-week unilateral strength and ballistic jump training program on the force-velocity profiles of sprinting. J Strength Cond Res 37(7): 1390-1396, 2023-The aims of this study were (a) to investigate the effects of a unilateral training program, compared with a control group, on a force-velocity (F-V) profile in soccer players and (b) to explore such effects on linear speed. Twenty-four soccer players, randomly assigned to a 6-week unilateral strength and ballistic jump training (UNI) ( n = 12) or a control group (CON) ( n = 12), performed 30-meter linear sprint test. Findings showed small-to-moderate improvements ( p < 0.05) in linear speed time ( g = 0.66-0.81) and in most F-V variables: maximal running velocity ( V0 ) ( g = 0 .81), maximal power output ( Pmax ) ( g = 0.49), maximal ratio of force ( RFmax ) ( g = 0.55), optimal velocity ( Vopt ) ( g = 0.83), and maximal speed ( g = 0.84) from pre- to post-intervention in the UNI group, whereas no meaningful changes were found in the CON group. The between-group comparison indicated small to large significant changes in V0 ( g = 0.95), RFmax ( g = 0.48), Vopt ( g = 0.95), maximal speed ( g = 0.98), and linear speed time performance ( g = 0.42-1.02), with the exception of the 0-5 meter distance, in favor of the UNI group. Thus, a unilateral strength and ballistic jump training program can be used to improve the F-V profile and linear speed performance of amateur soccer players.

Methodological considerations for determining the volume and intensity of drop jump training. A systematic, critical and prepositive review

This systematic review provides critical and propositional information on criteria for determining the volume and intensity of drop jumps during plyometric training programs. Eligibility criteria were defined according to PICOS: Participants: male or female athletes, trained or recreationally active (16-40 years). Intervention duration: more than 4 weeks.

COMPARATORS

passive or active control group during a plyometric training program.

OUTCOMES

information on improvement with Drop Jump or Depth Jump, with other jumps, acceleration, sprint, strength, and power output.

DESIGN

randomized controlled trials. We searched articles published in PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Scopus. The search was conducted until 10 September 2022 for English-language articles only. The risk of bias was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) for randomized controlled studies. We identified 31495 studies, of which only 22 were included. We found that six groups presented results with women, 15 presented results with men, and the remaining four presented mixed studies. Of the 686 people recruited, 329 participants aged 25.79 ± 4.76 years were involved in training. Methodological problems in training intensity, volume distribution, and individualization were noted, but methodological recommendations for their solution are also provided. It is concluded that the drop height should not be understood as the intensity determinant of plyometric training. Intensity is determined by ground reaction forces, power output, and jump height, among other factors. Furthermore, the athletes' experience level selection should be based on the formulas recommended within this research. These results could be helpful for those who intend to conduct new plyometric training programs and research.

The effects of plyometric jump training on physical fitness attributes in basketball players: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of experimental evidence examining the effects of plyometric jump training (PJT) on physical fitness attributes in basketball players; however, this evidence has not yet been comprehensively and systematically aggregated. Therefore, our objective was to meta-analyze the effects of PJT on physical fitness attributes in basketball players, in comparison to a control condition.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, up to July 2020. Peer-reviewed controlled trials with baseline and follow-up measurements investigating the effects of PJT on physical fitness attributes (muscle power, i.e., jumping performance, linear sprint speed, change-of-direction speed, balance, and muscle strength) in basketball players, with no restrictions on their playing level, sex, or age. Hedge's g effect sizes (ES) were calculated for physical fitness variables. Using a random-effects model, potential sources of heterogeneity were selected, including subgroup analyses (age, sex, body mass, and height) and single training factor analysis (program duration, training frequency, and total number of training sessions). Computation of meta-regression was also performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were included, involving 818 total basketball players. Significant (p < 0.05) small-to-large effects of PJT were evident on vertical jump power (ES = 0.45), countermovement jump height with (ES = 1.24) and without arm swing (ES = 0.88), squat jump height (ES = 0.80), drop jump height (ES = 0.53), horizontal jump distance (ES = 0.65), linear sprint time across distances ≤10 m (ES = 1.67) and >10 m (ES = 0.92), change-of-direction performance time across distances ≤40 m (ES = 1.15) and >40 m (ES = 1.02), dynamic (ES = 1.16) and static balance (ES = 1.48), and maximal strength (ES = 0.57). The meta-regression revealed that training duration, training frequency, and total number of sessions completed did not predict the effects of PJT on physical fitness attributes. Subgroup analysis indicated greater improvements in older compared to younger players in horizontal jump distance (>17.15 years, ES = 2.11; ≤17.15 years, ES = 0.10; p < 0.001), linear sprint time >10 m (>16.3 years, ES = 1.83; ≤16.3 years, ES = 0.36; p = 0.010), and change-of-direction performance time ≤40 m (>16.3 years, ES = 1.65; ≤16.3 years, ES = 0.75; p = 0.005). Greater increases in horizontal jump distance were apparent with >2 compared with ≤2 weekly PJT sessions (ES = 2.12 and ES = 0.39, respectively; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Data from 32 studies (28 of which demonstrate moderate-to-high methodological quality) indicate PJT improves muscle power, linear sprint speed, change-of-direction speed, balance, and muscle strength in basketball players independent of sex, age, or PJT program variables. However, the beneficial effects of PJT as measured by horizontal jump distance, linear sprint time >10 m, and change-of-direction performance time ≤40 m, appear to be more evident among older basketball players.

The Effects of Foam Rolling Training on Performance Parameters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis including Controlled and Randomized Controlled Trials

Foam rolling (FR) is a new and popular technique for increasing range of motion. While there are a few studies that demonstrate increased performance measures after an acute bout of FR, the overall evidence indicates trivial performance benefits. As there have been no meta-analyses on the effects of chronic FR on performance, the objective of this systematic meta-analytical review was to quantify the effects of FR training on performance. We searched PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science for FR training studies with a duration greater than two weeks, and found eight relevant studies. We used a random effect meta-analysis that employed a mixed-effect model to identify subgroup analyses. GRADE analysis was used to gauge the quality of the evidence obtained from this meta-analysis. Egger's regression intercept test (intercept 1.79; p = 0.62) and an average PEDro score of 6.25 (±0.89) indicated no or low risk of reporting bias, respectively. GRADE analysis indicated that we can be moderately confident in the effect estimates. The meta-analysis found no significant difference between FR and control conditions (ES = -0.294; p = 0.281; I² = 73.68). Analyses of the moderating variables showed no significant differences between randomized control vs. controlled trials (Q = 0.183; p = 0.67) and no relationship between ages (R² = 0.10; p = 0.37), weeks of intervention (R² = 0.17; p = 0.35), and total load of FR (R² = 0.24; p = 0.11). In conclusion, there were no significant performance changes with FR training and no specific circumstances leading to performance changes following FR training exceeding two weeks.

Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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.

A Comparison of the Effects of Foam Rolling and Stretching on Physical Performance. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Foam rolling and stretching with its various techniques are frequently used as a warm-up routine to increase the range of motion of a joint. While the magnitude of the changes in range of motion between foam rolling and stretching (static and dynamic techniques) is similar, it is not clear if this also holds true for performance parameters (e.g., strength, jump height). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of an acute bout of foam rolling (with and without vibration) with an acute bout of stretching (with all techniques included) on performance parameters in healthy participants. We assessed the results from 13 studies and 35 effect sizes by applying a random-effect meta-analysis. Moreover, by applying a mixed-effect model, we performed subgroup analyses with the stretching technique, type of foam rolling, tested muscle, treatment duration, and type of task. We found no significant overall effect, and the analysis revealed only a trend of the performance parameters in favor of foam rolling when compared to stretching (when considering all techniques). Significantly favorable effects of foam rolling on performance were detected with subgroup analyses when compared to static stretching, when applied to some muscles (e.g., quadriceps) or some tasks (e.g., strength), when applied for longer than 60 s, or when the foam rolling included vibration. When foam rolling was compared to dynamic stretching or applied in the non-vibration mode, the same magnitude of effect was observed. While the present meta-analysis revealed no significantly different effect between foam rolling and stretching (including all techniques) prior to exercise, differences could be observed under specific conditions.

The Accumulated Effects of Foam Rolling Combined with Stretching on Range of Motion and Physical Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Although it is well known that both stretching and foam rolling can acutely increase the range of motion (ROM) and affect performance, the effects of a combined treatment (foam rolling and stretching) are not yet clear. Hence, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the combined effect to that of stretching or foam rolling alone on both ROM and performance. We assessed the effect of a combined treatment on ROM and compared it to the effect of stretching, foam rolling, and a control condition by applying a random-effect meta-analysis. We also applied the same model to compare the effect of the combined treatment on performance. Moreover, by applying a mixed-effect model, we performed subgroup analyses with the stretching technique, type of foam rolling, tested muscles, type of task, and the order of the combined treatment. We found a significant overall effect on ROM change when comparing the combined treatment with the control condition (effect size (ES) = -0.332); however, no significant effect was found when comparing it to stretching (ES = 0.032) or foam rolling alone (ES = -0.225). The meta-analysis revealed no significant overall effect on performance when the combined treatment was compared to stretching alone (ES = -0.029). However, the subgroup analysis for performance revealed a superior effect for the combined treatment compared to stretching alone, but only if foam rolling was followed by stretching (ES = -0.17), and not vice versa. Athletes do not have to combine stretching with foam rolling since no additional effect was observed. However, to increase performance, the combination of foam rolling followed by stretching can lead to greater improvements.

Multi-Location External Workload Profile in Women's Basketball Players. A Case Study at the Semiprofessional-Level

The external workload measured in one anatomical location does not determine the total load supported by the human body. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to characterize the multi-location external workload through PlayerLoad_RT of 13 semi-professional women’s basketball players, as well as to analyze differences among anatomical locations (inter-scapulae line, lumbar region, 2× knee, 2× ankle) and laterality (left vs. right) during five tests that represent the most common movements in basketball—(a) linear locomotion, 30-15 IFT; (b) acceleration and deceleration, 16.25-m RSA (c) curvilinear locomotion, 6.75-m arc (d) jump, Abalakov test (e) small-sided game, 10’ 3 vs. 3 10 × 15-m. Statistical analysis was composed of a repeated-measures t-test and eta partial squared effect size. Regarding laterality, differences were found only in curvilinear locomotion, with a higher workload in the outer leg (p < 0.01; η_p² = 0.33–0.63). In the vertical profile, differences among anatomical locations were found in all tests (p < 0.01; η_p² = 0.56–0.98). The nearer location to ground contact showed higher values except between the scapulae and lumbar region during jumps (p = 0.83; η_p² = 0.00). In conclusion, the multi-location assessment of external workload through a previously validated test battery will make it possible to understand the individual effect of external workload in each anatomical location that depends on the type of locomotion. These results should be considered when designing specific strategies for training and injury prevention.