The Effects of a Self-Myofascial Release Program on Isokinetic Hamstrings-to-Quadriceps Strength Ratio and Range of Motion of the Knee Joint Among Athletes With Hamstring Shortness

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.

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.

Myofascial release strategies and technique recommendations for athletic performance: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify the effects of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) and foam roller self-myofascial release (FRSMR) strategies and verify their results in athletic performance.

METHOD

Systematic review conducted in four databases from 2017. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of two forms of soft tissue mobilization on athletes' performance. The risk of bias was analyzed using the Cochrane Handbook scale.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included for qualitative analysis. IASTM increased range of motion, knee joint kinetic force, peak torque, and angular velocity in dorsiflexion and plantar flexion. The technique increases isometric strength and isokinetic power in vertical jumping. FRSMR was relevant in counter movement jumping between the pre- and post-intervention conditions, mainly by increasing strength in the initial jumping phase.

CONCLUSIONS

IASTM should be used in sports preparation to improve muscle response and explosive force production. FRSMR increases flexibility as it tends to restore tissue elasticity, but it does not improve aerobic activity. The suggested time for strategy intervention is at least 90 s per muscle group.

Self-Myofascial Release of the Foot Plantar Surface: The Effects of a Single Exercise Session on the Posterior Muscular Chain Flexibility after One Hour

This study evaluated the effects of a single exercise session of Self-Myofascial Release (SMR) on the posterior muscular chain flexibility after one hour from the intervention. Thirty-six participants performed SMR using a rigid ball under the surface of both feet. Participants were tested with the Sit and Reach (S&R) test at four different times: before (T0), immediately after (T1), 30 (T2), and 60 (T3) minutes after the SMR intervention. The sample (n = 36) was categorized into three groups: (1) flexible, (2) average, and (3) stiff, based on the flexibility level at T0 (S&R values of >10 cm, >0 but <10 cm and <0 cm, respectively). For the whole sample, we detected significant improvements in the S&R test between the T1, T2, and T3 compared to T0. The stiff group showed a significant (p < 0.05) improvement between T1−T2 and T1−T3. Results were similar between the average group and the whole sample. The flexible group did not show any significant difference (p > 0.05) over time. In conclusion, this investigation demonstrated that an SMR session of both feet was able to increase posterior muscular chain flexibility up to one hour after intervention. Considering that a standard training session generally lasts one hour, our study can help professionals take advantage of SMR effects for the entire training period. Furthermore, our results also demonstrate that physical exercise practitioners should also assess individuals’ flexibility before training, as the SMR procedure used in this work does not seem necessary in flexible individuals.

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.