Cargando…

Effect of vibration vs non-vibration foam rolling techniques on flexibility, dynamic balance and perceived joint stability after fatigue

BACKGROUND: Foam roller and vibration techniques are currently used to assist in recovery after fatigue. The main purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the use of a foam roller with and without vibration on dynamic balance, ankle dorsiflexion, hamstring and lumbar spine flexibility a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Benito, Ana María, Valldecabres, Raúl, Ceca, Diego, Richards, Jim, Barrachina Igual, Joaquín, Pablos, Ana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6883953/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31788353
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8000
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Foam roller and vibration techniques are currently used to assist in recovery after fatigue. The main purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the use of a foam roller with and without vibration on dynamic balance, ankle dorsiflexion, hamstring and lumbar spine flexibility and perceived knee and ankle stability after an induced fatigue protocol. METHODS: A total of 24 healthy recreationally active participants (17 males and seven females) were recruited to a randomized cross over trial consisting of; no treatment (NT), foam roller treatment (FR) and vibration foam roller treatment (VFR). The assessments included; the Sit & Reach test, Y balance test and post-treatment perceived knee and ankle stability. Measurements were taken after a standardized warm up (baseline) and repeated following an exercise-induced muscle fatigue protocol consisting of repeated lunges until volitional fatigue. The three treatment conditions were assessed on three separate days in a randomized order. A 3 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA was used to investigate differences between the three treatments over the three time points and a one factor repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine any differences between treatments using the Global Rate of Change scale when considering perceived stability. RESULTS: FR and VFR conditions both showed a greater ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM) (p < 0.001), greater posteromedial and posterolateral reach distances (p < 0.001) and a better knee and ankle perceived stability (p < 0.001) when compared to the NT condition. A trend toward significance was observed in the hamstring and lumbar spine flexibility (p = 0.074) in both treatment conditions when compared to the NT condition. However, no differences were seen between the FR and VFR conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Both FR conditions seem to assist in exercise-induced muscle fatigue recovery with improvements in ROM, balance and perceived stability.