Behm, DG, Alizadeh, S, Hadjizadeh Anvar, S, Mahmoud, MMI, Ramsay, E, Hanlon, C, and Cheatham, S. Foam rolling prescription: a clinical commentary. J Strength Cond Res 34(11): 3301–3308, 2020—Although the foam rolling and roller massage literature generally reports acute increases in range of motion (ROM) with either trivial or small performance improvements, there is little information regarding appropriate rolling prescription. The objective of this literature review was to appraise the evidence and provide the best prescriptive recommendations for rolling to improve ROM and performance. The recommendations represent studies with the greatest magnitude effect size increases in ROM and performance. A systematic search of the rolling-related literature found in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted using related terms such as foam rolling, roller massage, ROM, flexibility, performance, and others. From the measures within articles that monitored ROM (25), strength (41), jump (41), fatigue (67), and sprint (62) variables; regression correlations and predictive quadratic equations were formulated for number of rolling sets, repetition frequency, set duration, and rolling intensity. The analysis revealed the following conclusions. To achieve the greatest ROM, the regression equations predicted rolling prescriptions involving 1–3 sets of 2–4-second repetition duration (time for a single roll in one direction over the length of a body part) with a total rolling duration of 30–120-second per set. Based on the fewer performance measures, there were generally trivial to small magnitude decreases in strength and jump measures. In addition, there was insufficient evidence to generalize on the effects of rolling on fatigue and sprint measures. In summary, relatively small volumes of rolling can improve ROM with generally trivial to small effects on strength and jump performance.

Background: Unilateral fatigue and static stretching (SS) can impair performance and increase range of motion of a non-exercised or non-stretched muscle respectively. An underdeveloped research area is the effect of unilateral stretching on non-local force output.Objective: The objective of this review was to describe the effects of unilateral SS on contralateral, non-stretched, muscle force and identify gaps in the literature for future research.Methods: A systematic literature search following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines was performed according to prescribed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Weighted means and ranges highlighted the non-local force output response to unilateral stretching. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to assess study risk of bias and methodological quality.Results: Unilateral stretching protocols, from six studies, involved 6.3±2 repetitions of 36.3±7.4 seconds with 19.3±5.7 seconds recovery between stretches. The mean stretch-induced force deficits exhibited small magnitude effect sizes for both the stretched (-0.35: 0.01 to -1.8) and contralateral, non-stretched, muscles (-0.22: 0.08 to -1.1). Control measures exhibited trivial deficits. Further research should investigate effects of lower intensity stretching, upper versus lower body stretching, different age groups, incorporate full warm-ups, and identify predominant mechanisms among others. Conclusion:The limited literature examining non-local effects of prolonged SS revealed that both the stretched and contralateral, non-stretched, limbs of young adults demonstrate small magnitude decrements in force output. However, the frequency of these effects were similar with three measures demonstrating deficits, and four measures showing trivial changes. These results highlight the possible global effects of prolonged SS.

Background The fatigue of a muscle or muscle group can produce global responses to a variety of systems (i.e., cardiovascular, endocrine, and others). There are also reported strength and endurance impairments of non-exercised muscles following the fatigue of another muscle; however, the literature is inconsistent. Objective To examine whether non-local muscle fatigue (NLMF) occurs following the performance of a fatiguing bout of exercise of a different muscle(s). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Search and Inclusion A systematic literature search using a Boolean search strategy was conducted with PubMed, SPORT-Discus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in April 2020, and was supplemented with additional 'snowballing' searches up to September 2020. To be included in our analysis, studies had to include at least one intentional performance measure (i.e., strength, endurance, or power), which if reduced could be considered evidence of muscle fatigue, and also had to include the implementation of a fatiguing protocol to a location (i.e., limb or limbs) that differed to those for which performance was measured. We excluded studies that measured only mechanistic variables such as electromyographic activity, or spinal/ supraspinal excitability. After search and screening, 52 studies were eligible for inclusion including 57 groups of participants (median sample = 11) and a total of 303 participants. ResultsThe main multilevel meta-analysis model including all effects sizes (278 across 50 clusters [median = 4, range = 1 to 18 effects per cluster) revealed a trivial point estimate with high precision for the interval estimate [− 0.02 (95% CIs = − 0.14 to 0.09)], yet with substantial heterogeneity (Q (277) = 642.3, p < 0.01), I 2 = 67.4%). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses showed that NLMF effects were not moderated by study design (between vs. within-participant), homologous vs. heterologous effects, upper or lower body effects, participant training status, sex, age, the time of post-fatigue protocol measurement, or the severity of the fatigue protocol. However, there did appear to be an effect of type of outcome measure where both strength [0.11 (95% CIs = 0.01-0.21)] and power outcomes had trivial effects [− 0.01 (95% CIs = − 0.24 to 0.22)], whereas endurance outcomes showed moderate albeit imprecise effects [− 0.54 (95% CIs = − 0.95 to − 0.14)]. Conclusions Overall, the findings do not support the existence of a general NLMF effect; however, when examining specific types of performance outcomes, there may be an effect specifically upon endurance-based outcomes (i.e., time to task failure). However, there are relatively fewer studies that have examined endurance effects or mechanisms explaining this possible effect, in addition to fewer studies including women or younger and older participants, and considering causal effects of prior training history through the use of longitudinal intervention study designs. Thus, it seems pertinent that future research on NLMF effects should be redirected towards these ...

Background Although it is known that resistance training can be as effective as stretch training to increase joint range of motion, to date no comprehensive meta-analysis has investigated the effects of resistance training on range of motion with all its potential affecting variables. Objective The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of chronic resistance training on range of motion compared either to a control condition or stretch training or to a combination of resistance training and stretch training to stretch training, while assessing moderating variables. Design For the main analysis, a random-effect meta-analysis was used and for the subgroup analysis a mixed-effect model was implemented. Whilst subgroup analyses included sex and participants’ activity levels, meta-regression included age, frequency, and duration of resistance training. Data Sources Following the systematic search in four databases (PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) and reference lists, 55 studies were found to be eligible. Eligibility Criteria Controlled or randomized controlled trials that separately compared the training effects of resistance training exercises with either a control group, stretching group, or combined stretch and resistance training group on range of motion in healthy participants. Results Resistance training increased range of motion (effect size [ES] = 0.73; p < 0.001) with the exception of no significant range of motion improvement with resistance training using only body mass. There were no significant differences between resistance training versus stretch training (ES = 0.08; p = 0.79) or between resistance training and stretch training versus stretch training alone (ES = − 0.001; p = 0.99). Although “trained or active people” increased range of motion (ES = 0.43; p < 0.001) “untrained and sedentary” individuals had significantly (p = 0.005) higher magnitude range of motion changes (ES = 1.042; p < 0.001). There were no detected differences between sex and contraction type. Meta-regression showed no effect of age, training duration, or frequency. Conclusions As resistance training with external loads can improve range of motion, stretching prior to or after resistance training may not be necessary to enhance flexibility.

Changing gait parameters through acoustic feedback is a promising approach in gait therapy. The question remains to what extent, if any, the theories and concepts of motor learning have been taken into account for acoustic feedback systems development. Fifteen studies were identified for further analysis using a scoping review framework, among which seven had individuals with disordered gait as their population and eight incorporated healthy individuals. It was found that most studies used error feedback and did not test for long-term effects on gait parameters. It can be concluded that future studies should apply motor learning theories and concepts to the development of acoustic feedback devices for gait therapy.