Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: A single foam-rolling exercise can acutely increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint. However, to date the adaptational effects of foam-rolling training over several weeks on joint ROM are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Konrad, Andreas, Nakamura, Masatoshi, Tilp, Markus, Donti, Olyvia, Behm, David G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9474417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35616852
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01699-8
_version_ 1784789712711450624
author Konrad, Andreas
Nakamura, Masatoshi
Tilp, Markus
Donti, Olyvia
Behm, David G.
author_facet Konrad, Andreas
Nakamura, Masatoshi
Tilp, Markus
Donti, Olyvia
Behm, David G.
author_sort Konrad, Andreas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A single foam-rolling exercise can acutely increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint. However, to date the adaptational effects of foam-rolling training over several weeks on joint ROM are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of foam-rolling training interventions on joint ROM in healthy participants. METHODS: Results were assessed from 11 studies (either controlled trials [CT] or randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) and 46 effect sizes by applying a random-effect meta-analysis. Moreover, by applying a mixed-effect model, we performed subgroup analyses, which included comparisons of the intervention duration (≤ 4 weeks vs > 4 weeks), comparisons between muscles tested (e.g., hamstrings vs quadriceps vs triceps surae), and study designs (RCT vs CT). RESULTS: Our main analysis of 290 participants with a mean age of 23.9 (± 6.3 years) indicated a moderate effect of foam-rolling training on ROM increases in the experimental compared to the control group (ES = 0.823; Z = 3.237; 95% CI 0.325–1.322; p = 0.001; I(2) = 72.76). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences between study designs (p = 0.36). However, a significant difference was observed in the intervention duration in favor of interventions > 4 weeks compared to ≤ 4 weeks for ROM increases (p = 0.049). Moreover, a further subgroup analysis showed significant differences between the muscles tested (p = 0.047) in the eligible studies. Foam rolling increased joint ROM when applied to hamstrings and quadriceps, while no improvement in ankle dorsiflexion was observed when foam rolling was applied to triceps surae. CONCLUSION: Longer duration interventions (> 4 weeks) are needed to induce ROM gains while there is evidence that responses are muscle or joint specific. Future research should examine possible mechanisms underpinning ROM increases following different foam-rolling protocols, to allow for informed recommendations in healthy and clinical populations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9474417
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94744172022-09-16 Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Konrad, Andreas Nakamura, Masatoshi Tilp, Markus Donti, Olyvia Behm, David G. Sports Med Systematic Review BACKGROUND: A single foam-rolling exercise can acutely increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint. However, to date the adaptational effects of foam-rolling training over several weeks on joint ROM are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of foam-rolling training interventions on joint ROM in healthy participants. METHODS: Results were assessed from 11 studies (either controlled trials [CT] or randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) and 46 effect sizes by applying a random-effect meta-analysis. Moreover, by applying a mixed-effect model, we performed subgroup analyses, which included comparisons of the intervention duration (≤ 4 weeks vs > 4 weeks), comparisons between muscles tested (e.g., hamstrings vs quadriceps vs triceps surae), and study designs (RCT vs CT). RESULTS: Our main analysis of 290 participants with a mean age of 23.9 (± 6.3 years) indicated a moderate effect of foam-rolling training on ROM increases in the experimental compared to the control group (ES = 0.823; Z = 3.237; 95% CI 0.325–1.322; p = 0.001; I(2) = 72.76). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences between study designs (p = 0.36). However, a significant difference was observed in the intervention duration in favor of interventions > 4 weeks compared to ≤ 4 weeks for ROM increases (p = 0.049). Moreover, a further subgroup analysis showed significant differences between the muscles tested (p = 0.047) in the eligible studies. Foam rolling increased joint ROM when applied to hamstrings and quadriceps, while no improvement in ankle dorsiflexion was observed when foam rolling was applied to triceps surae. CONCLUSION: Longer duration interventions (> 4 weeks) are needed to induce ROM gains while there is evidence that responses are muscle or joint specific. Future research should examine possible mechanisms underpinning ROM increases following different foam-rolling protocols, to allow for informed recommendations in healthy and clinical populations. Springer International Publishing 2022-05-26 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9474417/ /pubmed/35616852 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01699-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Konrad, Andreas
Nakamura, Masatoshi
Tilp, Markus
Donti, Olyvia
Behm, David G.
Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort foam rolling training effects on range of motion: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9474417/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35616852
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01699-8
work_keys_str_mv AT konradandreas foamrollingtrainingeffectsonrangeofmotionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT nakamuramasatoshi foamrollingtrainingeffectsonrangeofmotionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT tilpmarkus foamrollingtrainingeffectsonrangeofmotionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dontiolyvia foamrollingtrainingeffectsonrangeofmotionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT behmdavidg foamrollingtrainingeffectsonrangeofmotionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis