Influence of Foam Rolling on Recovery From Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of foam rolling (FR) on recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD). Thirty-seven males performed 40 x 15 m sprints, inducing muscle damage. Immediately following sprinting and in the four days following, perceived muscle soreness, hip abduction range of motion (ROM), hamstring muscle length, vertical jump, and agility measures were recorded. Eighteen subjects (mean ± sd; age 22.4 ± 2.0 yrs; BMI 26.9 ± 4.2 kgm) foam rolled prior to testing each day (FR), while 19 (mean ± sd; age 23.2 ± 3.2 yrs; BMI 26.3 ± 4.0 kgm) served as a non-foam rolling control (CON). Measurements recorded during the five days of recovery from the repeated sprint protocol were compared to week one baseline measurements. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated by summing all five scores as they changed from baseline measurement, and these data were compared by condition using a two-tailed Mann-Whitney U test (alpha level = 0.05). Perceived soreness, hip abduction ROM, hamstring muscle length, and vertical jump were not significantly different between groups (p ≥ 0.25). Agility was less impaired in the FR condition (p = 0.0049) as AUC was higher in CON (2.88 s ± 2.45) than FR (0.33 s ± 2.16). Based upon these data, FR appears to expedite recovery of agility following EIMD instigated by a repeated sprint protocol. FR may be useful for athletes requiring adequate agility who need to recover quickly from demanding bouts of exercise.

A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Foam Rolling on Performance and Recovery

“…Furthermore, to minimize possible learning effects, twelve studies (Mikesky et al, 2002; MacDonald et al, 2013; Healey et al, 2014; Jones et al, 2015; Pearcey et al, 2015; Zorko et al, 2016; Cavanaugh et al, 2017; Cheatham et al, 2017; D'Amico and Gillis, 2017; Grabow et al, 2017; Casanova et al, 2018; Phillips et al, 2018) provided participants an organized familiarization with performance tests prior to the first testing session; in nine studies (MacDonald et al, 2013; Peacock et al, 2014; Jones et al, 2015; Pearcey et al, 2015; Cheatham et al, 2017; D'Amico and Gillis, 2017; Grabow et al, 2017; Casanova et al, 2018; Phillips et al, 2018), the participants were instructed to avoid strenuous exercise before and/or during the experimental period; in seven studies (MacDonald et al, 2013; Pearcey et al, 2015; Cavanaugh et al, 2017; D'Amico and Gillis, 2017; Grabow et al, 2017; Rey et al, 2017; Phillips et al, 2018), diet control was mentioned and/or the subjects were asked to maintain their normal dietary intake and to refrain from nutritional supplements and alcohol intake during the experimental period; and in six studies (Mikesky et al, 2002; Macdonald et al, 2014; Zorko et al, 2016; Cavanaugh et al, 2017; Cheatham et al, 2017; Rey et al, 2017), it was explicitly stated that each participant was always examined at approximately the same time of day.…”

“…The weighted-average overall performance change in response to post-rolling was +2.0% ( g = 0.19). The effects of post-rolling using a cylindrical foam roller (strength performance: +5.6%, g = 0.27; muscle pain: +6.0%, g = 0.55) were examined by four studies (Macdonald et al, 2014; Pearcey et al, 2015; Zorko et al, 2016; Fleckenstein et al, 2017), while the remaining three studies (D'Amico and Gillis, 2017; Rey et al, 2017; Casanova et al, 2018) used a type of roller massage bar/stick (strength performance: −0.1%, g = −0.01; muscle pain: +5.8%, g = 0.20).…”

“…However, the effects of post-rolling on performance should again be interpreted with caution, as the overall effects on sprint ( p = 0.12) and strength performance ( p = 0.28) were not significant and the number of available studies was limited. Merely one study found a clear benefit of post-rolling for sprint performance (D'Amico and Gillis, 2017), while only two studies showed post-rolling had a clear positive effect on strength performance (Zorko et al, 2016; Fleckenstein et al, 2017). In addition, the effects of post-rolling on jump capacity were negligible (Figure 7), although research has demonstrated a clear relationship between sprint, jump, and strength performance in athletes (Comfort et al, 2014).…”

Investigating the Nutritional and Recovery Habits of Tennis Players

“…Eighty percent reported using foam rollers, which has been previously shown to attenuate muscle soreness following a bout of physical activity [ 51 , 52 ]. However, there is currently little scientific evidence showing improved overall recovery benefits from its use [ 53 , 54 ]. Other cited methods included ice baths, protein shake intake, and hot baths.…”

Unilateral hamstring foam rolling does not impair strength but the rate of force development of the contralateral muscle

“…Briefly, SAFR consists of using one’s body weight to position a specific muscle group onto a dense foam roller while moving back-and-forth to simulate soft tissue mobilization. With the undulating massage-like mechanical pressure placed upon the target muscle(s), the SAFR is an effective tool to promote soft tissue extensibility (Barnes, 1997; MacDonald et al, 2013), as well as to enhance recovery from high-intensity exercise (D’Amico & Gillis, 2017; Macdonald et al, 2014; Pearcey et al, 2015). More specifically, the SAFR can improve joint range of motion (ROM) (Beardsley & Skarabot, 2015; Cheatham et al, 2015; Freiwald et al, 2016; Healey et al, 2014; Junker & Stoggl, 2015; MacDonald et al, 2013; Madoni et al, 2018; Monteiro et al, 2017; Su et al, 2017) and increase pain pressure threshold (PPT) (Cheatham & Baker, 2017; Cheatham, Stull & Kolber, 2019; Pearcey et al, 2015) without necessarily impairing subsequent athletic performance (Behara & Jacobson, 2017; Healey et al, 2014; MacDonald et al, 2013).…”