![]() 2018) for e.g., ≥30 min post-intervention, other studies showed no such changes up to that time point for both modalities (stretching: Kay et al. 2004 Konrad and Tilp 2020a) or foam rolling (Monteiro et al. Whilst studies reported an increased ROM following stretching (Power et al. stretching) hence, there is a need to update this meta-analysis with the recent and more expansive body of literature.Īpart from the immediate (i.e., acute) effects of foam rolling and stretching on ROM, the time course (i.e., prolonged effects) of the changes in ROM following these modalities is highly relevant for sports practice (i.e., time between stretching or foam rolling and the start of the competition or training). ( 2020) was performed in February and March 2019 and only included nine comparative studies (foam rolling vs. Moreover, the search in the review of Wilke et al. Hence, in the search code, the term “stretching” was not included and these authors might have overlooked some studies which investigated the acute effects of both stretching and foam rolling. ( 2020) was to investigate the acute effects of foam rolling on ROM rather than comparing the acute effects of stretching and foam rolling on ROM. 2020), the magnitude of the changes following stretching and foam rolling on ROM are similar. According to a meta-analysis (Wilke et al. 2017), or a favorable effect of stretching on ROM compared to foam rolling (Fairall et al. 2014), a favorable effect of foam rolling on ROM compared to stretching (Su et al. Studies, which compared the acute effects of stretching and foam rolling on ROM, have either reported no difference between stretching and foam rolling (Halperin et al. 2017b, 2019 Behm 2018 Konrad and Tilp 2020b, a) (foam rolling: Behm 2018 Behm and Wilke 2019 Wilke et al. 1998) and foam rolling with or without vibration can acutely increase joint range of motion (ROM) (stretching: Behm and Chaouachi 2011 Behm et al. Stretching with its varying techniques (i.e., static, ballistic, dynamic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation) (Magnusson et al. Likely, similar mechanisms are responsible for the acute and prolonged ROM increases such as increased stretch tolerance or increased soft-tissue compliance. ![]() If the goal is to increase the ROM acutely, both interventions can be considered as equally effective. Moreover, subgroup analyses revealed no other significant differences between the acute effects of stretching and foam rolling ( P > 0.05). Meta-analyses revealed no significant differences between a single stretching and foam rolling exercise immediately after the interventions (ES = 0.079 P = 0.39) nor a difference 10 min (ES = − 0.051 P = 0.65), 15 min (ES = − 0.011 P = 0.93), and 20 min (ES = − 0.161 P = 0.275) post-intervention. The subgroup analyses included age groups, sex, and activity levels of the participants, as well as the tested muscles, the duration of the application, and the study design. For the main analysis, subgroup analysis, we applied a random-effect meta-analysis, mixed-effect model, respectively. In total, 20 studies with overall 38 effect sizes were found to be eligible for a meta-analysis. Thus, the purpose of this review was to compare the immediate and prolonged effects of a single bout of foam rolling with a single bout of stretching on ROM in healthy participants. However, possible differences in the magnitude of change on ROM between these two interventions on the immediate and prolonged effects (e.g., 10 min after the intervention) are not yet well understood. Stretching and foam rolling are common warm-up exercises and can acutely increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |