Effect of vibration foam rolling on the range of motion in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Foam rolling and stretching do not provide superior acute flexibility and stiffness improvements compared to any other warm-up intervention: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute improvement in range of motion (ROM) is a widely reported effect of stretching and foam rolling, which is commonly explained by changes in pain threshold and/or musculotendinous stiffness. Interestingly, these effects were also reported in response to various other active and passive interventions that induce responses such as enhanced muscle temperature. Therefore, we hypothesized that acute ROM enhancements could be induced by a wide variety of interventions other than stretching or foam rolling that promote an increase in muscle temperature.

METHODS

After a systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus databases, 38 studies comparing the effects of stretching and foam rolling with several other interventions on ROM and passive properties were included. These studies had 1134 participants in total, and the data analysis resulted in 140 effect sizes (ESs). ES calculations were performed using robust variance estimation model with R-package.

RESULTS

Study quality of the included studies was classified as fair (PEDro score = 4.58) with low to moderate certainty of evidence. Results showed no significant differences in ROM (ES = 0.01, p = 0.88), stiffness (ES = 0.09, p = 0.67), or passive peak torque (ES = -0.30, p = 0.14) between stretching or foam rolling and the other identified activities. Funnel plots revealed no publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Based on current literature, our results challenge the established view on stretching and foam rolling as a recommended component of warm-up programs. The lack of significant difference between interventions suggests there is no need to emphasize stretching or foam rolling to induce acute ROM, passive peak torque increases, or stiffness reductions.

Discussing Conflicting Explanatory Approaches in Flexibility Training Under Consideration of Physiology: A Narrative Review

The mechanisms underlying range of motion enhancements via flexibility training discussed in the literature show high heterogeneity in research methodology and study findings. In addition, scientific conclusions are mostly based on functional observations while studies considering the underlying physiology are less common. However, understanding the underlying mechanisms that contribute to an improved range of motion through stretching is crucial for conducting comparable studies with sound designs, optimising training routines and accurately interpreting resulting outcomes. While there seems to be no evidence to attribute acute range of motion increases as well as changes in muscle and tendon stiffness and pain perception specifically to stretching or foam rolling, the role of general warm-up effects is discussed in this paper. Additionally, the role of mechanical tension applied to greater muscle lengths for range of motion improvement will be discussed. Thus, it is suggested that physical training stressors can be seen as external stimuli that control gene expression via the targeted stimulation of transcription factors, leading to structural adaptations due to enhanced protein synthesis. Hence, the possible role of serial sarcomerogenesis in altering pain perception, reducing muscle stiffness and passive torque, or changes in the optimal joint angle for force development is considered as well as alternative interventions with a potential impact on anabolic pathways. As there are limited possibilities to directly measure serial sarcomere number, longitudinal muscle hypertrophy remains without direct evidence. The available literature does not demonstrate the necessity of only using specific flexibility training routines such as stretching to enhance acute or chronic range of motion.

Effects of Myofascial Release Techniques on Joint Range of Motion of Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Although myofascial release techniques (MRTs) are commonly used to improve athletes' range of motion (ROM), the effectiveness of MRTs may vary depending on the specific method performed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of MRTs on the ROM performance of athletes. (2) Methods: The electronic databases of Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant articles published up to June 2023. This study utilized the PRISMA guidelines, and four databases were searched. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the PEDro scale, and the certainty of evidence was reported using the GRADE scale. The overall effect size was calculated using the robust variance estimator, and subgroup analyses were conducted using the Hotelling Zhang test. (3) Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall effect size results indicated that the myofascial release intervention had a moderate effect on ROM performance in athletes when compared to the active or passive control groups. (4) Conclusions: Alternative MRTs, such as myofascial trigger point therapy, can further improve the ROM performance of athletes. Gender, duration of intervention, and joint type may have a moderating effect on the effectiveness of MRTs.

Immediate effects of a vibrating foam roller on dorsiflexion rom, balance, and gait in stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial

The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate effects of vibration foam rolling on dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM), balance, and gait in stroke patients. Thirty stroke patients volunteered to participate and were randomly assigned to the vibrating foam roller group (n=15) and the foam roller group (n=15). The vibrating foam roller group performed a 30-min foam roller exercise program, with participants subjected to vibration at 28 Hz. The foam roller group performed the same exercise program as the vibrating foam roller group, but without vibration. Dorsiflexion lunge test, limits of stability, and Timed Up and Go were used to evaluate dorsiflexion ROM, balance, and gait before and after each intervention. The results revealed that the vibration foam roller group showed significant differences in dorsiflexion ROM and gait after the intervention, while the foam roller group exhibited a significant difference only in dorsiflexion ROM (P<0.05). In comparisons between the vibration foam roller group and the foam roller group, significant differences were observed in dorsiflexion ROM and gait (P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in balance, both before and after the intervention, as well as in the comparisons between the two groups (P>0.05). This study confirmed that a single-session vibrating foam roller exercise program improves dorsiflexion ROM and gait in stroke patients. Further studies with extended exercise program durations are needed to address limitations and explore long-term effects.

Effects of foam roller on pain intensity in individuals with chronic and acute musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effects of using foam roller on pain intensity in individuals with chronic and acute musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered in the National Institute for Health Research's prospective online registry of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under CRD42023456841. The databases Pubmed, Medline (via Ovid), Embase, BVS, and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) were consulted to carry out this systematic review. Notably, the records of clinical trials characterized as eligible were manually searched. The search terms were: (foam rolling OR foam rolling vibration) AND (acute musculoskeletal pain) AND (chronic musculoskeletal pain). The search was performed until August 22, 2023. For the analysis of the methodological quality, the PEDro scale was used for each of the manuscripts included in the systematic review. Due to the heterogeneity in the studies included in this systematic review, performing a meta-analysis of the analyzed variables was impossible.

RESULTS

Only six manuscripts were eligible for data analysis. The type of FR used was non-vibrational, being applied by a therapist in only one of the manuscripts. With an application time ranging from at least 45 s to 15 min, the non-vibrational FR was applied within a day up to six weeks. Using the PEDro scale, scores were assigned that varied between 4 and 8 points, with an average of 6 ± 1.29 points. Only two randomized clinical trials found a significant benefit in pain intensity of adding FR associated with a therapeutic exercise protocol in individuals with patellofemoral pain syndrome and chronic neck pain.

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review do not elucidate or reinforce the clinical use of FR in pain intensity in individuals with chronic and acute musculoskeletal pain.

Self-Massage Techniques for the Management of Pain and Mobility With Application to Resistance Training: A Brief Review

ABSTRACT

MacLennan, M, Ramirez-Campillo, R, and Byrne, PJ. Self-massage techniques for the management of pain and mobility with application to resistance training: a brief review. J Strength Cond Res 37(11): 2314-2323, 2023-Fascial restrictions that occur in response to myofascial trigger points (MTrP), exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD), and delayed onset of muscle soreness (DOMS) cause soft tissue to lose extensibility, which contributes to abnormal muscle mechanics, reduced muscle length, and decrements in joint range of motion (ROM) and actively contributes to musculoskeletal pain. Resistance training and in particular, weightlifting movements have unique mobility requirements imperative for movement efficacy and safety with ROM restrictions resulting in ineffective volume and intensity tolerance and dampened force output and power, which may lead to a failed lift or injury. Self-massage (SM) provides an expedient method to promote movement efficiency and reduce injury risk by improving ROM, muscular function, and reducing pain and allows athletes to continue to train at their desired frequency with minimal disruption from MTrPs-associated adverse effects. Thus, the aim of this review was to determine the efficacy of various self-massage tools in managing pain and mobility and to explore the potential benefits of SM on resistance training performance. Many SM devices are available for athletes to manage ROM restrictions and pain, including differing densities of foam rollers, roller massagers, tennis balls, and vibrating devices. To attenuate adverse training effects, a 10-to-20-minute bout consisting of 2-minute bouts of SM on the affected area may be beneficial. When selecting a SM device, athletes should note that foam rollers appear to be more effective than roller massagers, with vibrating foam rollers eliciting an increased reduction to pain perception, and tennis balls and soft massage balls were shown to be efficacious in targeting smaller affected areas.

Are Acute Effects of Foam-Rolling Attributed to Dynamic Warm Up Effects? A Comparative Study

Over the last decade, acute increases in range of motion (ROM) in response to foam rolling (FR) have been frequently reported. Compared to stretching, FR-induced ROM increases were not typically accompanied by a performance (e.g., force, power, endurance) deficit. Consequently, the inclusion of FR in warm-up routines was frequently recommended, especially since literature pointed out non-local ROM increases after FR. However, to attribute ROM increases to FR it must be ensured that such adaptations do not occur as a result of simple warm-up effects, as significant increases in ROM can also be assumed as a result of active warm-up routines. To answer this research question, 20 participants were recruited using a cross-over design. They performed 4x45 seconds hamstrings rolling under two conditions; FR, and sham rolling (SR) using a roller board to imitate the foam rolling movement without the pressure of the foam rolling. They were also tested in a control condition. Effects on ROM were tested under passive, active dynamic as well as ballistic conditions. Moreover, to examine non-local effects the knee to wall test (KtW) was used. Results showed that both interventions provided significant, moderate to large magnitude increases in passive hamstrings ROM and KtW respectively, compared to the control condition (p = 0.007-0.041, d = 0.62-0.77 and p = 0.002-0.006, d = 0.79-0.88, respectively). However, the ROM increases were not significantly different between the FR and the SR condition (p = 0.801, d = 0.156 and p = 0.933, d = 0.09, respectively). No significant changes could be obtained under the active dynamic (p = 0.65) while there was a significant decrease in the ballistic testing condition with a time effect (p < 0.001). Thus, it can be assumed that potential acute increases in ROM cannot be exclusively attributed to FR. It is therefore speculated that warm up effects could be responsible independent of FR or imitating the rolling movement, which indicates there is no additive effect of FR or SR to the dynamic or ballistic range of motion.

Comparison of the Prolonged Effects of Foam Rolling and Vibration Foam Rolling Interventions on Passive Properties of Knee Extensors

Foam rolling (FR) and vibration foam rolling (VFR) interventions have received attention as pre-exercise warm-ups because they maintain performance and increase range of motion (ROM). However, the immediate and prolonged effects and the comparisons between FR and VFR interventions are unknown. Therefore, this study was designed to compare the effects of FR and VFR interventions on passive properties of knee extensors over time (up to 30 min after interventions). A crossover, random allocation design was used with 14 male college students (22.1 ± 1.0 years old) in the control, FR, and VFR conditions. The knee flexion ROM, pain pressure threshold (PPT), and tissue hardness were measured before and immediately after, 10, 20, and 30 minutes after the intervention. The results showed that knee flexion ROM increased significantly immediately after the intervention in both the FR and VFR conditions and maintained up to 30 minutes after both conditions. PPT increased significantly (p < 0.01) immediately after the FR intervention. In the VFR condition, there was a significant increase in PPT immediately after the intervention (p < 0.01) and 10 minutes after the intervention (p < 0.05). Tissue hardness was significantly decreased (p < 0.01) immediately after and 10 minutes after the FR intervention. However, tissue hardness in the VFR condition was significantly decreased (p < 0.01) up to 30 minutes after the intervention. The results suggest that FR and VFR interventions increase knee flexion ROM, and the effect lasts at least 30 minutes, but the effects on PPT and tissue hardness are maintained a longer time in the VFR condition compared to the FR condition. Therefore, VFR can be recommended as a warm-up before exercise to change the passive properties of knee extensors.

Comparison of the Acute Effects of Foam Rolling with High and Low Vibration Frequencies on Eccentrically Damaged Muscle

Previous research has shown that vibration foam rolling (VFR) on damaged muscle shows greater improvement in muscle soreness and range of motion (ROM) compared with foam rolling (FR) without vibration. However, the effect of frequency in VFR on muscle soreness and loss of function caused by damaged muscles is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the acute effects of 90-s low-frequency (LF)- and high-frequency (HF)-VFR intervention on ROM, muscle soreness, muscle strength, and performance of eccentrically damaged muscle. Study participants were sedentary healthy adult volunteers (n = 28) who performed a bout of eccentric exercise of the knee extensors with the dominant leg and received 90-s LF-VFR or HF-VFR intervention of the quadriceps 48 h after the eccentric exercise. The dependent variables were measured before the eccentric exercise (baseline) and before (pre-intervention) and after VFR intervention (post-intervention) 48 h after the eccentric exercise. The results showed that both LF-VFR and HF-VFR similarly (p < 0.05) improved the knee flexion ROM (11.3 ± 7.2%), muscle soreness at palpation (-37.9 ± 17.2%), and countermovement jump height (12.4 ± 12.9%). It was concluded that it was not necessary to perform VFR with a high frequency to improve muscle soreness and function.

The Effect of Static Compression via Vibration Foam Rolling on Eccentrically Damaged Muscle

Previous research has shown that vibration foam rolling (VFR) on damaged muscle can result in improvements in muscle soreness and range of motion (ROM). Furthermore, static compression via VFR (i.e., VFR without rolling) can increase the ROM and decrease the muscle stiffness of non-damaged muscle. Therefore, it is likely that static compression via VFR on eccentrically damaged muscle can mitigate muscle soreness and the decrease in ROM, and the decrease in muscle strength. The purpose of this study was to investigate the acute effects of a 90 s bout of VFR applied as a static compression on an eccentrically damaged quadriceps muscle, measuring ROM, muscle soreness, muscle strength, and jump performance. This study was a single-arm repeated measure design. Study participants were sedentary healthy male volunteers (n = 14, 20.4 ± 0.8 years) who had not performed habitual exercise activities or any regular resistance training for at least 6 months before the experiment. All participants performed a bout of eccentric exercise of the knee extensors with the dominant leg and then received a 90 s bout of static compression via VFR of the quadriceps 48 h after the eccentric exercise. The knee flexion ROM, muscle soreness at palpation, and countermovement jump height were measured before the eccentric exercise (baseline), before (pre-intervention) and after the VFR intervention (post-intervention), and 48 h after the eccentric exercise. The results showed that the static compression via VFR significantly (p < 0.05) improved the knee flexion ROM (6.5 ± 4.8%, d = 0.76), muscle soreness at palpation (-10.7 ± 8.6 mm, d = -0.68), and countermovement jump height (15.6 ± 16.0%, d = 0.49). Therefore, it can be concluded that static compression via VFR can improve muscle soreness and function.