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

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Long-term static stretching as well as foam rolling training can increase a joint's range of motion (ROM). However, to date, it is not clear which method is the most effective for increasing ROM.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effects of static stretching and foam rolling training on ROM.

METHODS

The literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to find the eligible studies. Eighty-five studies (72 on static stretching; and 13 on foam rolling) were found to be eligible with 204 effect sizes (ESs). For the main analyses, a random-effect meta-analysis was applied. To assess the difference between static stretching and foam rolling, subgroup analyses with a mixed-effect model were applied. Moderating variables were sex, total intervention duration, and weeks of intervention.

RESULTS

Static stretch (ES =  - 1.006; p < 0.001), as well as foam rolling training (ES =  - 0.729; p = 0.001), can increase joint ROM with a moderate magnitude compared with a control condition. However, we did not detect a significant difference between the two conditions in the subgroup analysis (p = 0.228). When the intervention duration was ≤ 4 weeks, however, a significant change in ROM was shown following static stretching (ES =  - 1.436; p < 0.001), but not following foam rolling (ES =  - 0.229; p = 0.248). Thus, a subgroup analysis indicated a significant favorable effect with static stretching for increasing ROM compared with foam rolling (p < 0.001) over a shorter term (≤ 4 weeks). Other moderator analyses showed no significant difference between static stretch and foam rolling training on ROM.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results, both static stretching and foam rolling training can be similarly recommended to increase joint ROM, unless the training is scheduled for ≤ 4 weeks, in which case static stretching demonstrates a significant advantage. More studies are needed with a high-volume foam rolling training approach as well as foam rolling training in exclusively female participants.

Comparison of the effects of different foam rolling durations on knee extensors function

Foam rolling (FR) intervention has recently attracted attention in sports and rehabilitation settings. However, the effects of FR using different rolling durations have not been fully clarified. Thus, this study focused on FR durations and examined the acute and prolonged (i.e., 20-min; 40-min, 60-min) effects of different FR intervention durations on maximal voluntary concentric contractions (MVC-CON), knee flexion range of motion (ROM), pain pressure threshold (PPT), and tissue hardness. The participants were 10 male university students (22.5 ± 1.0 years), and the target muscles were the dominant leg knee extensors. Three sets of 60-seconds FR interventions were performed in the randomized crossover trials in each condition. The three intervention conditions were fast (1 rolling/2 s, 30-repetition × 3 sets, 90 repetitions), medium (1 rolling/6 s, 10-repetition × 3 sets, 30 repetitions), and slow speed (1 rolling/12 s, 5-repetition × 3 sets, 15 repetitions). Before as well as immediately, 20-min, 40-min, and 60-min after the interventions, MVC-CON, ROM PPT, and tissue hardness were measured. The results showed no interaction effect in the acute effect but a main effect of time for all variables (p < 0.05). Also, no interaction was observed in prolonged effect, but main effects of time were observed in knee flexion ROM, PPT, and tissue hardness (p < 0.01) but not for MVC-CON. Post-hoc tests showed significant PPT (p < 0.05) and knee flexion ROM (p < 0.01) increases up to 20- and 60-minutes respectively after all interventions. Tissue hardness was significantly (p < 0.01) decreased up to 60-minutes after all interventions. This study showed that the FR intervention changed ROM, PPT, tissue hardness, and MVC-CON regardless of rolling duration and that the effects persisted up to 20-60 minutes.

Comparison of acute and prolonged effects of short-term foam rolling and vibration foam rolling on the properties of knee extensors

Recently, Foam Rolling (FR) and Vibration Foam Rolling (VFR) have attracted attention in sports and rehabilitation fields. Previous studies have shown that FR and VFR acute interventions effectively increase the range of movement (ROM) and decrease tissue hardness. For application to sports and rehabilitation, it is necessary to compare the acute and prolonged effects of short duration FR and VFR. Therefore, this study aimed to compare and investigate the acute and prolonged (15 minutes) effects of short duration (30-s) FR and VFR interventions on knee extensors. The subjects were 14 male university students (22.4 ± 1.0 years old), in which the knee extensors of the dominant leg were tested. In a cross-over trial, 30-s of FR or VFR were performed with 2-s rolling of the anterior thigh (15 rolls). The frequency of VFR was 35 Hz. Measurements included knee flexion ROM, pain pressure threshold (PPT), tissue hardness, and countermovement jump height. The results of this study showed no interaction effects for all variables, but main time effects were observed for knee flexion ROM, PPT, and tissue hardness. Post-hoc tests showed that knee flexion ROM increased up to 10 minutes after the intervention. PPT significantly increased, and tissue hardness significantly decreased up to 15 minutes after intervention. This study showed that 30-s FR and VFR interventions effectively increased ROM, PPT, and decreased tissue hardness. The effects were prolonged up to 10-15 minutes after the intervention. The results of this study show no advantage of VFR over FR with acute short-term interventions.

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.

Effects of Self-Myofascial Release on Athletes' Physical Performance: A Systematic Review

Therapists and strength and conditioning specialists use self-myofascial release (SMR) as an intervention tool through foam rollers or massage rollers for soft tissue massage, with the purpose of improving mobility in the muscular fascia. Moreover, the use of SMR by professional and amateur athletes during warm-ups, cool downs, and workouts can have significant effects on their physical performance attributes, such as range of motion (ROM) and strength. The purpose of this study was to analyse the literature pertaining to these types of interventions and their effects found in different physical performance attributes for athletes. A systematic search was carried out using the following databases: PUBMED, ISI Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane, including articles up to September 2023. A total of 25 articles with 517 athletes were studied in depth. SMR seems to have acute positive effects on flexibility and range of motion, without affecting muscle performance during maximal strength and power actions, but favouring recovery perception and decreasing delayed-onset muscle soreness. Some positive effects on agility and very short-range high-speed actions were identified, as well. In conclusion, although there is little evidence of its method of application due to the heterogeneity in that regard, according to our findings, SMR could be used as an intervention to improve athletes' perceptual recovery parameters, in addition to flexibility and range of motion, without negatively affecting muscle performance.

Acute Effects of Different Foam Roller Intervention Techniques on Knee Extensors

The usefulness of Foam Roller (FR) even without a rolling stimulus (e.g., static compression with or without dynamic joint movements) has been recently demonstrated; however, the different effects of these methods remain unclear. Thus, this study aimed to compare and investigate the effects of such FR intervention methods on knee extensors. The dominant knee extensors of 20 male university students were investigated using the following four conditions: control (CON), FR with rolling (FR_rolling), FR with static compression (FR_SC), and FR with static compression + dynamic movement of the knee joint (FR_DM). FR_SC was intervened to compress the muscle belly of the knee extensors. FR_DM involved knee flexion and extension while maintaining the FR_SC condition. Knee flexion ROM, pain pressure threshold (PPT), tissue hardness, and countermovement jump (CMJ) height were outcome variables; they were compared before and immediately after the intervention. The results of this study showed that knee flexion ROM was significantly (p < 0.01) increased in FR_rolling (d = 0.38), FR_SC (d = 0.28), and FR_DM (d = 0.64). Tissue hardness was significantly (p < 0.01) decreased in FR_rolling (d = -0.55), FR_SC (d = -0.28), and FR_DM (d = -0.42). A main effect of time (p < 0.01) was observed in knee flexion ROM, PPT, and tissue hardness, but no change in CMJ was observed. The results of this study suggested that clinicians and athletes could choose any method they like as a warm-up routine.

The contralateral effects of foam rolling on range of motion and muscle performance

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.

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.

Alternative Flexibility Training

Over the last approximately 20 years, research has reported on performance impairments following prolonged durations of static stretching. This has led to a paradigm shift towards dynamic stretching. There has also been a greater emphasis using foam rollers, vibration devices, and other techniques. Recent commentaries and meta-analyses suggest that stretching need not be listed as a fitness component as other activities such as resistance training can provide similar range of motion benefits. The commentary aims to review and compare the effects of static stretching and alternative exercises for improving range of motion.

A 1-Week Comprehensive Foam Rolling Intervention Program Can Improve Knee Pain but Not Muscle Function and Range of Motion in Patients with Total Knee Arthroplasty

We investigate the effect of a 1-week comprehensive foam rolling (FR) intervention program on knee pain, range of motion (ROM), and muscle function in patients with TKA.Thirty patients with TKA were randomly allocated to FR (n = 15) or control (n = 15) groups. The control group received only regular physical therapy. Patients in the FR group performed the FR intervention in addition to their regular physical therapy twice daily from postoperative weeks two to three (60 s × 3 repetitions × 2 times/day × 6 days: total = 2160 s). Pain score, knee flexion and extension ROM, muscle strength, walking function, and balance function were measured before and after the FR intervention. From the second to third postoperative weeks, there were significant improvements in all variables, and the reduction in pain score at stretching was significantly greater in the FR group (-26.0 ± 1.4; p < 0.05) than in the control group (-12.5 ± 1.9). However, there was no significant difference in changes in the other variables except for the pain score at stretching between FR and control groups. A 1-week comprehensive FR intervention program in patients with TKA could reduce pain scores at stretching without a synergistic effect on physical function, i.e., walking speed, balance function, and muscle strength of the knee extensors muscles.

Foam Rolling vs. Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Stretching in the Hamstring Flexibility of Amateur Athletes: Control Trials

BACKGROUND

the use of stretching techniques in the sports world is frequent and common thanks to their many effects. One of the main benefits of stretching is an increased range of motion (ROM). Recently, the use of a foam roller has spread in sports practice due to benefits that are similar to those of shoes observed in stretching. The objective of the following study was to compare the results of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching (PNF) with foam rolling (FR).

METHODS

The design of the study was a single-blind, randomized controlled trial (clinicaltrial.gov NCT05134883), and the participants were 80 healthy young athletes. The range of motion was evaluated with a modified sit-and-reach test before, during (at 30 s), and at the end of the intervention (at 2 min). The subject's discomfort sensation was measured using the Borg scale. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d coefficient. Volunteers were randomized into the PNF group or FR group.

RESULTS

the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001) during the intervention in favor of PNF group. The differences at the end of intervention showed that the PNF group had a greater increase in flexibility, with this difference being statically significant (p < 0.001). The sensation of perceived exertion with PNF at the end of the intervention was similarly classified as moderate for both groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that the use of FR is spreading in the field of sports and rehabilitation, the results of the present study suggest that the gain in flexibility in the hamstrings is greater if PNF-type stretches are used instead of FR.

Effectiveness of an 18-week general strength and foam-rolling intervention on running-related injuries in recreational runners

RATIONALE

More research is needed to uncover the effectiveness of combined strength and foam-rolling interventions to prevent running-related injuries.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate effectiveness of an 18-week general strength and foam-rolling intervention on the incidence of running-related injuries.

METHOD

This is an 18-week observational comparative study. A total of 433 recreational runners participated (n = 203 female). The intervention group (n = 228) performed general strength and foam-rolling exercises twice weekly for 18 weeks, the control group (n = 205) maintained their regular training habits. Running volume and running-related pain were reported weekly. Secondary analyses were performed on the subgroups of the intervention group based on compliance; low compliance (n = 100), intermediate compliance (n = 63), and high compliance (n = 65). Cumulative incidence proportions were calculated and time-to-event statistics were performed to compare survival times between groups. Univariate cox proportional hazards ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of running-related injuries at 18 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 100 running-related injuries were sustained. The cumulative incidence proportion for the control and intervention groups was 27.1% (95% CI: 21.4-33.9) and 23.0% (95% CI: 17.8-29.4), respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the overall intervention group and control group (log-rank p = 0.31). A significant difference existed between the high-compliance subgroup and the control group (log-rank p = 0.00). Highly compliant runners were 85% less likely (hazard rate ratio = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.05-0.46) to sustain an injury during the study compared with controls.

CONCLUSION

Recreational runners highly compliant with the intervention were 85% less likely and took on average 57 days longer to sustain a running-related injury when compared with controls, with a cumulative incidence proportion of 4.6% after 18 weeks.