Literature DB >> 25647651

Comparing Acute Bouts of Sagittal Plane Progression Foam Rolling vs. Frontal Plane Progression Foam Rolling.

Corey A Peacock1, Darren D Krein, Jose Antonio, Gabriel J Sanders, Tobin A Silver, Megan Colas.   

Abstract

Many strength and conditioning professionals have included the use of foam rolling devices within a warm-up routine prior to both training and competition. Multiple studies have investigated foam rolling in regards to performance, flexibility, and rehabilitation; however, additional research is necessary in supporting the topic. Furthermore, as multiple foam rolling progressions exist, researching differences that may result from each is required. To investigate differences in foam rolling progressions, 16 athletically trained males underwent a 2-condition within-subjects protocol comparing the differences of 2 common foam rolling progressions in regards to performance testing. The 2 conditions included a foam rolling progression targeting the mediolateral axis of the body (FRml) and foam rolling progression targeting the anteroposterior axis (FRap). Each was administered in adjunct with a full-body dynamic warm-up. After each rolling progression, subjects performed National Football League combine drills, flexibility, and subjective scaling measures. The data demonstrated that FRml was effective at improving flexibility (p ≤ 0.05) when compared with FRap. No other differences existed between progressions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25647651     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000867

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  9 in total

1.  THE EFFECTS OF SELF-MYOFASCIAL RELEASE USING A FOAM ROLL OR ROLLER MASSAGER ON JOINT RANGE OF MOTION, MUSCLE RECOVERY, AND PERFORMANCE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.

Authors:  Scott W Cheatham; Morey J Kolber; Matt Cain; Matt Lee
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2015-11

2.  Foam Rolling and Joint Distraction with Elastic Band Training Performed for 5-7 Weeks Respectively Improve Lower Limb Flexibility.

Authors:  Aymeric Guillot; Yann Kerautret; Florian Queyrel; William Schobb; Franck Di Rienzo
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 2.988

3.  Unilateral Rolling of the Foot did not Affect Non-Local Range of Motion or Balance.

Authors:  Lena Grabow; James D Young; Jeannette M Byrne; Urs Granacher; David G Behm
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 2.988

Review 4.  Effects of Self-myofascial Release Instruments on Performance and Recovery: An Umbrella Review.

Authors:  Ricardo M Ferreira; Pedro N Martins; Rui S Goncalves
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2022-06-01

5.  Does the type of foam roller influence the recovery rate, thermal response and DOMS prevention?

Authors:  Jakub Grzegorz Adamczyk; Karol Gryko; Dariusz Boguszewski
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Acute Effect of Quadriceps Myofascial Tissue Rolling Using A Mechanical Self-Myofascial Release Roller-Massager on Performance and Recovery in Young Elite Speed Skaters.

Authors:  Shaher A I Shalfawi; Eystein Enoksen; Håvard Myklebust
Journal:  Sports (Basel)       Date:  2019-12-07

7.  Does the Self-Myofascial Release Affect the Activity of Selected Lower Limb Muscles of Soccer Players?

Authors:  Tomasz Michalski; Tomasz Król; Piotr Michalik; Magdalena Rutkowska; Magdalena Dąbrowska-Galas; Damian Ziaja; Michał Kuszewski
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 2.923

8.  THE EFFECTS OF AN ACUTE BOUT OF FOAM ROLLING ON HIP RANGE OF MOTION ON DIFFERENT TISSUES.

Authors:  MacGregor Hall; J Chadwick Smith
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2018-08

9.  INFLUENCE OF FOAM ROLLING ON ELBOW PROPRIOCEPTION, STRENGTH, AND FUNCTIONAL MOTOR PERFORMANCE.

Authors:  Fatma Ozden; Sevgi Sevi Yesilyaprak
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 3.824

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.