The Effects of Body Tempering on Force Production, Flexibility and Muscle Soreness in Collegiate Football Athletes

Taber, Christopher B.; Colter, Roy J.; Davis, Jair J.; Seweje, Patrick A.; Wilson, Dustin P.; Foster, Jonathan Z.; Merrigan, Justin J.

doi:10.3390/jfmk7010009

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study revealed that athletes who performed SMR exercises after football training sessions had better perceived recovery and less feeling of tiredness 24 h after the exertion during training, compared to those athletes performing a passive recovery. This statement has been supported by other studies of the athlete population, which applied co-pressure methodologies in potentiation and recovery, finding positive results in the reduction in delayed pain [104]. In the same spirit, Rahimi et al [72] reported better recovery results (lower HI scores) for the FR group compared to a passive rest group, especially on the second and third match days.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Effects of Self-Myofascial Release on Athletes’ Physical Performance: A Systematic Review

Martínez-Aranda,

Sanz-Matesanz,

García-Mantilla

et al. 2024

JFMK

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Therapists and strength and conditioning specialists use self-myofascial release (SMR) as an intervention tool through foam rollers or massage rollers for soft tissue massage, with the purpose of improving mobility in the muscular fascia. Moreover, the use of SMR by professional and amateur athletes during warm-ups, cool downs, and workouts can have significant effects on their physical performance attributes, such as range of motion (ROM) and strength. The purpose of this study was to analyse the literature pertaining to these types of interventions and their effects found in different physical performance attributes for athletes. A systematic search was carried out using the following databases: PUBMED, ISI Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane, including articles up to September 2023. A total of 25 articles with 517 athletes were studied in depth. SMR seems to have acute positive effects on flexibility and range of motion, without affecting muscle performance during maximal strength and power actions, but favouring recovery perception and decreasing delayed-onset muscle soreness. Some positive effects on agility and very short-range high-speed actions were identified, as well. In conclusion, although there is little evidence of its method of application due to the heterogeneity in that regard, according to our findings, SMR could be used as an intervention to improve athletes’ perceptual recovery parameters, in addition to flexibility and range of motion, without negatively affecting muscle performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Effects of Self-Myofascial Release on Athletes’ Physical Performance: A Systematic Review

Martínez-Aranda,

Sanz-Matesanz,

García-Mantilla

et al. 2024

JFMK

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neural/psychological outcomes including perceived pain [57, 99,187,251,292,304], soreness [139,245,277,278,286,320,324], and exertion [174, 203-205, 245, 248, 264, 287, 315, 349, 353] were the most commonly reported outcomes in this context, but other outcomes were considered as well (e.g., mood state [245,347]).…”

Section: Main Outcomes Assessed Per Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

What We Do Not Know About Stretching in Healthy Athletes: A Scoping Review with Evidence Gap Map from 300 Trials

Afonso,

Andrade,

Rocha-Rodrigues

et al. 2024

Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Stretching has garnered significant attention in sports sciences, resulting in numerous studies. However, there is no comprehensive overview on investigation of stretching in healthy athletes. Objectives To perform a systematic scoping review with an evidence gap map of stretching studies in healthy athletes, identify current gaps in the literature, and provide stakeholders with priorities for future research. Methods Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 and PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed. We included studies comprising healthy athletes exposed to acute and/or chronic stretching interventions. Six databases were searched (CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) until 1 January 2023. The relevant data were narratively synthesized; quantitative data summaries were provided for key data items. An evidence gap map was developed to offer an overview of the existing research and relevant gaps. Results Of ~ 220,000 screened records, we included 300 trials involving 7080 athletes [mostly males (~ 65% versus ~ 20% female, and ~ 15% unreported) under 36 years of age; tiers 2 and 3 of the Participant Classification Framework] across 43 sports. Sports requiring extreme range of motion (e.g., gymnastics) were underrepresented. Most trials assessed the acute effects of stretching, with chronic effects being scrutinized in less than 20% of trials. Chronic interventions averaged 7.4 ± 5.1 weeks and never exceeded 6 months. Most trials (~ 85%) implemented stretching within the warm-up, with other application timings (e.g., post-exercise) being under-researched. Most trials examined static active stretching (62.3%), followed by dynamic stretching (38.3%) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching (12.0%), with scarce research on alternative methods (e.g., ballistic stretching). Comparators were mostly limited to passive controls, with ~ 25% of trials including active controls (e.g., strength training). The lower limbs were primarily targeted by interventions (~ 75%). Reporting of dose was heterogeneous in style (e.g., 10 repetitions versus 10 s for dynamic stretching) and completeness of information (i.e., with disparities in the comprehensiveness of the provided information). Most trials (~ 90%) reported performance-related outcomes (mainly strength/power and range of motion); sport-specific outcomes were collected in less than 15% of trials. Biomechanical, physiological, and neural/psychological outcomes were assessed sparsely and heterogeneously; only five trials investigated injury-related outcomes. Conclusions There is room for improvement, with many areas of research on stretching being underexplored and others currently too heterogeneous for reliable comparisons between studies. There is limited representation of elite-level athletes (~ 5% tier 4 and no tier 5) and underpowered sample sizes (≤ 20 participants). Research was biased toward adult male athletes of sports not requiring extreme ranges of motion, and mostly assessed the acute effects of static active stretching and dynamic stretching during the warm-up. Dose–response relationships remain largely underexplored. Outcomes were mostly limited to general performance testing. Injury prevention and other effects of stretching remain poorly investigated. These relevant research gaps should be prioritized by funding policies. Registration OSF project (https://osf.io/6auyj/) and registration (https://osf.io/gu8ya).

show abstract

The Effects of Body Tempering on Force Production, Flexibility and Muscle Soreness in Collegiate Football Athletes

Cited by 2 publications

References 19 publications

Effects of Self-Myofascial Release on Athletes’ Physical Performance: A Systematic Review

Effects of Self-Myofascial Release on Athletes’ Physical Performance: A Systematic Review

What We Do Not Know About Stretching in Healthy Athletes: A Scoping Review with Evidence Gap Map from 300 Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About