Secondary Logo

Share this article on:

Comparing Acute Bouts of Sagittal Plane Progression Foam Rolling vs. Frontal Plane Progression Foam Rolling

Peacock, Corey A.1; Krein, Darren D.2; Antonio, Jose1; Sanders, Gabriel J.3; Silver, Tobin A.1; Colas, Megan1

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: August 2015 - Volume 29 - Issue 8 - p 2310–2315
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000867
Original Research

Peacock, CA, Krein, DD, Antonio, J, Sanders, GJ, Silver, TA, and Colas, M. Comparing acute bouts of sagittal plane progression foam rolling vs. frontal plane progression foam rolling. J Strength Cond Res 29(8): 2310–2315, 2015—Many strength and conditioning professionals have included the use of foam rolling devices within a warm-up routine prior to both training and competition. Multiple studies have investigated foam rolling in regards to performance, flexibility, and rehabilitation; however, additional research is necessary in supporting the topic. Furthermore, as multiple foam rolling progressions exist, researching differences that may result from each is required. To investigate differences in foam rolling progressions, 16 athletically trained males underwent a 2-condition within-subjects protocol comparing the differences of 2 common foam rolling progressions in regards to performance testing. The 2 conditions included a foam rolling progression targeting the mediolateral axis of the body (FRml) and foam rolling progression targeting the anteroposterior axis (FRap). Each was administered in adjunct with a full-body dynamic warm-up. After each rolling progression, subjects performed National Football League combine drills, flexibility, and subjective scaling measures. The data demonstrated that FRml was effective at improving flexibility (p ≤ 0.05) when compared with FRap. No other differences existed between progressions.

1Exercise and Sports Science, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida;

2Miami Dolphins, Strength and Conditioning, Davie, Florida; and

3Kinesiology, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, Kentucky

Address correspondence to Corey A. Peacock, cpeacock@nova.edu.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Introduction

The performance-based philosophies of strength and conditioning have been widely investigated and researched. Particularly, warm-up technique research has emerged as a current topic of interest within the strength and conditioning community (6,16,18,25,30,32,33,37). These warm-up techniques include but are not limited to static, dynamic, mobility, and foam rolling. Many of these techniques individually, as well as in conjunction with one another, have been researched in regards to differences in muscular performance, flexibility, and subjective scaling (6,16,18,25,30,32,33,37,38). As investigations advanced, strength and conditioning professionals have gained scientific-based warm-up technique research and options for achieving optimal athletic performance.

Previous foam rolling research including myofascial release techniques has explored rolling progressions as a rehabilitation cooldown technique. Multiple studies have reported these techniques as resulting in different physiological changes including vascular plasticity, soft tissue restoration, recovery, myogenic dilation, endothelial dilation, motor recruitment, and nitric oxide availability may be taking place (1–3,13,21,24,29,31,36). Recently, strength and conditioning research has explored foam rolling as a prehabilitation warm-up technique, which may elicit the aforementioned physiological changes and/or myofascial release before performance and range of motion (ROM) testing (25,26,31). Although research has investigated localized and full-body rolling, there is a lack of research comparing common foam rolling progressions.

Foam rolling has demonstrated effects on performance with no unanimity, and it is uncertain whether different commonly used rolling progressions will promote differences in performance. Strength and conditioning programs typically implement a specific foam rolling progression; however, it is common to see different rolling progressions between strength and conditioning professionals and/or sports. A commonly used foam rolling progression within the strength field includes large musculature along the mediolateral axis of the body. This rolling progression incorporates spine, medial gluteal, hamstring, calf, and the quadriceps regions to stimulate physiological processes such as increased blood flow and nitric oxide stimulation (29). Another commonly used progression involves rolling insertion sites and deep fascia tissue along the anteroposterior axis of the body. This rolling progression incorporates lat, midaxial, hip, iliotibial, calf, and the adductor regions to stimulate motor recruitment and pain alleviation (13,36). The purpose of this study was to compare and investigate the aforementioned foam rolling progressions and the acute differences in performance they may elicit. This will be determined by a testing battery including National Football League (NFL) combine drills, flexibility testing, and subjective scaling. It was hypothesized that different rolling progressions acutely impact performance variables differently as a result of physiological stimulations.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Methods

Experimental Approach to the Problem

A counterbalanced, crossover, within-subjects design comparing 2 separate experimental conditions, including mediolateral foam rolling (FRml) and anteroposterior foam rolling (FRap), was used to investigate the problem. The FRml condition tested acute performance effects of foam rolling along the mediolateral axis (sagittal plane) of the body, whereas the FRap condition tested the acute performance effects of foam rolling along the anteroposterior axis (frontal plane) of the body (FRap). The performance effects included post–foam rolling performance drills targeting power, explosion, agility, muscular strength, and flexibility.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Subjects

Sixteen athletically trained adult males (age: 21.9 ± 2.0 years; height: 177.7 ± 6.7 cm; weight: 78.0 ± 9.3 kg; body fat: 10.8 ± 2.2%) ranging from 19 to 24 agreed to participate in the study. The athletes were asked to maintain a normal diet and to avoid physical activity 24 hours before testing. Before experimentation, health history data were collected from each athlete to avoid medical contraindications for physical activity. Athletes both read and signed informed consent documentation after the procedures were explained. After obtaining written informed consent, trained research personnel measured each athlete for physical demographics including height, weight, and body composition. Height and weight were measured using a standard stadiometer and balance beam scale (Health O Meter, Chicago, IL, USA). Body composition was calculated using the 7-site Jackson Pollock body fat equation measured from the thigh, abdomen, suprailiac, midaxillary, chest, triceps, and subscapular skinfold sites (4,20). The Nova Southeastern University Institutional Review Board approved the human subjects study.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Protocol

On completion of the physical measurements, the athletes participated in 2 experimental counterbalanced condition trials (FRml and FRap). A washout period of 7 days existed between each. Each trial began with a total-body foam rolling session specific to each designated condition. The rolling sessions used a conventional foam roller (High Density Molded Foam Roller—6 × 12 inch Round; Perform Better, Cranston, RI, USA), as it has been documented previously effective in covering adequate surface area (9,31).

For the FRml condition (Figure 1), athletes were instructed through a foam rolling session at an application rate of 5 rolls per 30 seconds targeting the inferior spine region (erector spinae, multifidus), the medial gluteal region (gluteus maximus, gluteus medius, gluteus minimus), the hamstring region (semitendinosus, semimembranosus, biceps femoris), the posterior calf region (gastrocnemius, soleus), the pectoral region (pectoralis major, pectoralis minor), and the quadriceps region (rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, and vastus medialis). During the experimental condition FRap (Figure 2), athletes were also instructed through a foam rolling progression at an application rate of 5 rolls per 30 seconds targeting the lat region (superior latissimus dorsi, teres major), the midaxial region (external abdominal obliques, inferior latissimus dorsi), the hip region (piriformis, sartorius, gluteus medius), the iliotibial band region (tensor fasciae latae), the lateral calf region (peroneals), and the adductor region (longus, brevis). Foam rolling was completed bilaterally during progressions when necessary. After the foam rolling sessions, both conditions included the same generalized dynamic warm-up targeting full-body musculature and joint mobility. The warm-up included techniques of shoulder joint mobility, hip mobility, knee mobility, and scapular mobility. Each was instructed for 20 repetitions. After the mobility techniques, the athletes were guided through a series of frontal, sagittal, and transverse dynamic techniques including high knees, butt kickers, lunging, log jumps, thoracic rotations, and clapping push-up techniques. Each was instructed to cover a total of 20 m in planar displacement or 20 repetitions. After each conditional warm-up routine, the athletes were tested in a series of performance drills similar to the NFL combine. These tests included the vertical jump, broad jump, shuttle run, and bench press. Other tests included subjective scaling and the sit-and-reach testing. Tests of nonfatiguing performance (sit-and-reach, vertical jump, broad jump) were tested first, followed by tests of agility (shuttle run) and maximum strength (bench press) (4). Subjective scaling was obtained at the duration of each conditional testing period.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 2

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acute Performance Testing Series: National Football League Combine Drills, Other Measures

Vertical Jump

The NFL combine uses the vertical jump as a measure of lower-body power and explosion. The athletes performed the vertical jump using a commercial vertec device (Sports Imports, Columbus, OH, USA). After using the stack of adjustable horizontal vanes to determine the flat-footed standing reach, the stack of vanes was raised to an estimated height so that the athletes were capable of reaching the lowest set of vanes but incapable of reaching the highest vane. After the athletes generated power and jumped as high as possible vertically, the difference between standing reach and vertical reach was computed. The highest vertical difference trial was used as the vertical jump measurement (8,10,15,22,26,39).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Broad Jump

Also known as the standing long jump, the NFL combine uses the broad jump as another test of an athlete's power, explosion, and strength. The athletes began each testing trial with both feet behind a designated starting line while maintaining an athletic balanced stance. Once in place, the athletes performed a countermovement followed by an explosive jump for maximum distance. A countermovement is allowed to demonstrate true power performance (11,28). The test differs from the vertical jump as the jump also tests horizontal displacement and balance as landing under control is crucial. The best of the 3 trials was recorded as the athletes broad jump distance.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Shuttle Run

Also known as the 18.3-m proagility test and the 5-10-5 cone drill, the NFL combine uses the shuttle run as a test of lateral quickness and explosiveness. An athlete's ability to produce greater power and balance will ultimately lead to better agility results (35). The athletes began the shuttle run in a 3-point stance. They then exploded 4.6 m (5 yards) to a line right of the center line. Once contact was made, the athletes then exploded to a line 9.1 m to the left (10 yards) and made contact with his left hand. They then pivoted and exploded another 4.6 m (5 yards) through the center line. The best trial time was recorded as shuttle run result (14,39).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Bench Press

The NFL combine uses the bench press rep-out test of 103 kg (225 pounds). This test is not only used to assess strength but also to assess muscular endurance. Multiple methods of bench press testing have been used for research purposes (7,19,23), so this particular testing series used an indirect 1 repetition maximum (RM) bench press procedure. This also used both strength and endurance, as a maximum rep-out was also used, but at 90% of the estimated 1RM. The Adam's equation [kg/(1−(0.02 × number of repetitions))] was calculated to determine an indirect 1-RM bench press value for each athlete (17).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Sit-and-Reach

Using a sit-and-reach box (Baseline Evaluation Instruments, White Plains, NY, USA) and standard protocol, the athletes were tested for lower trunk and flexibility testing. While seated, the athletes placed their feet 30 cm apart, while contacting the standard box. The athletes leaned forward slowly reaching as far as possible while keeping their hands adjacent with one another. The best trial was recorded to the nearest 0.05 cm (33).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Ratings of Perceived Exertion and Preference

Athletes were asked to indicate their undifferentiated rating of perceived exertion (RPE) using a validated Borg scale at the duration of each condition (5,27,34). The athletes also indicated which foam rolling condition they preferred between FRml and FRap. Preferences of condition have been used as a measure of potential motivation, in this case, a possible motivation to include foam rolling into individual workouts (5).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical Analyses

Mean and measures of variability (i.e., SD) were computed for all variables studied. After the Shapiro-Wilk normality assessment, an analysis of variance was used with post hoc t-test analyses to evaluate mean differences in performance measurements (sit-and-reach [cm], vertical jump [cm], broad jump [cm], shuttle run [sec], and indirect 1RM bench press [kg]). A t-test was also utilized to evaluate differences in RPE between conditions (FRml vs. FRap). All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows (version 20.0; SPSS, Inc., Evanston, IL, USA).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Results

All performance variables and comparisons are given in Table 1. There was a significant difference in sit-and-reach performance following the FRml condition (FRml, 36.3 ± 5.9 cm; FRap, 34.4 ± 6.1 cm; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences between experimental conditions for the vertical jump (FRml, 70.7 ± 10.2 cm; FRap, 68.4 ± 9.3 cm; p = 0.129), broad jump (FRml, 240.2 ± 23.4 cm; FRap, 239.7 ± 26.3 cm; p = 0.814), shuttle run (FRml, 4.8 ± 0.2 seconds; FRap, 4.8 ± 0.2 seconds; p = 0.149), and bench press (FRml, 107.8 ± 22.6 kg; FRap, 113.4 ± 35.6 kg; p = 0.244). A trend toward significance was observed for RPE at the duration of each experimental condition (FRml, 12.1 ± 1.7; FRap, 13.5 ± 2.6; p = 0.064). It is worth noting that when preference was reported following the experimental conditions, 8 athletes preferred FRml compared with FRap, whereas 8 athletes preferred FRap compared with FRml.

Table 1

Table 1

Back to Top | Article Outline

Discussion

The current research is unique as it was the first study to compare differences in performance as a result of foam rolling techniques and progressions. The FRml foam rolling progression examined the acute effects of foam rolling passes along the mediolateral axis of the body. Commonly, strength and conditioning professionals have recognized this progression to stimulate blood flow and nitric oxide release to the targeted muscular system (29). The FRap foam rolling progression examined the acute effects of foam rolling passes along the anteroposterior axis of the body. Strength and conditioning professionals have used this progression to stimulate neural factors such as recruitment and pain tolerance (1,2,13,24,36). Along the same lines, professionals have suggested that FRap may also improve lymphatic functioning; however, this is yet to be researched. It was hypothesized that different rolling progressions acutely impact performance variables differently (FRml vs. FRap). Results obtained during this study suggest that FRml has the potential to improve sit-and-reach testing ability when compared with FRap; however, no other performance or subjective scaling improvements existed. This evidence has recently been suggested, as studies have exhibited improved sit-and-reach scores as a result of direct application of the foam rolling device on the hamstrings muscle group (37). Other studies have also demonstrated self-myofascial release and direct application foam rolling to enhance ROM and flexibility in the hip, knee, and lumbar joints (12,25,32,33). This may be physiologically in part because of the dilation response of the direct application of the foam roller to the hamstring muscle. FRml showed an improved sit-and-reach value as the progression included direct hamstring application. No direct application of the foam rolling device with the hamstring groups existed during FRap and may have contributed to sit-and-reach testing differences.

Conflicting data on the effects of foam rolling as it relates to physical performance testing have recently been reported (18,31). Healy et al. (18), along with other studies, have demonstrated no evident foam rolling warm-up effects as it applies to performance testing. Other research by Peacock et al. (31) has demonstrated foam rolling effects in performance testing when combined with a dynamic warm-up (31). The purpose of this study was not to investigate performance improvements but rather to investigate the differences in performance as a result of 2 different rolling progressions. Aside from flexibility testing, there were no additional differences in testing variables including measures of power, strength, agility, and subjective scaling. These results suggest both FRap and FRml demonstrating to performance effects in regards to NFL combine drills and preference.

Although this was the first study to measure the acute performance effects of different foam rolling progressions, it is not without limitations. With any maximum-effort physical performance study, there is no real control group it may create an unnecessary risk of injury for subjects. It is worth noting that no athletes were injured during the performance variable testing. Further testing is currently underway examining the relationship between football specific strength and conditioning movements and foam rolling progressions. This may prove beneficial to not only improve performance testing but also on-field abilities.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Practical Applications

Foam rolling may elicit physiological adaptations beneficial for performance, ROM, and recovery. Although conflicting research exists, there have been many positive effects as a result of foam rolling warm-up and cooldown techniques. Based primarily on this study, we suggest direct foam rolling application on the targeted musculature for isolated testing, as this may prove beneficial. Because there were no differences within our athletic population in regards to NFL combine drills and subjective measures, we suggest using a progression of choice. With the many benefits associated, it is reasonable to incorporate foam rolling into any prehabilitation and/or rehabilitation strength and conditioning program, as both progressions may be equally beneficial. Our results demonstrated that athlete preference exists between foam rolling progressions, and preference could then be considered when programming a warm-up. Furthermore, motivating an athlete to properly warm-up with a foam roller device may increase if they have a preference and choice (5). Further research is necessary as foam rolling is a topic of interest within the strength and conditioning field.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgments

The authors take this opportunity to acknowledge the important supporting role of our performance colleagues Robert Fioritto and Kyle Von Carlowitz of Elite Sports Performance, Mentor, OH, for their advanced knowledge in prehabiliation and performance battery testing.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Anderson R, Wise D, Sawyer T, Nathanson BH. Safety and effectiveness of an internal pelvic myofascial trigger point wand for urologic chronic pelvic pain syndrome. Clin J Pain 27: 764–768, 2011.
2. Anderson RU, Wise D, Sawyer T, Glowe P, Orenberg EK. 6-day intensive treatment protocol for refractory chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome using myofascial release and paradoxical relaxation training. J Urol 185: 1294–1299, 2011.
3. Arroyo-Morales M, Olea N, Martinez M, Moreno-Lorenzo C, Díaz-Rodríguez L, Hidalgo-Lozano A. Effects of myofascial release after high-intensity exercise: A randomized clinical trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 31: 217–223, 2008.
4. Baechle TR, Roger WE; National Strength & Conditioning Association (U.S.). Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
5. Barkley JE, Salvy SJ, Sanders GJ, Dey S, Von Carlowitz KP, Williamson ML. Peer influence and physical activity Behavior in young children: An experimental study. J Phys Act Health 11: 404–409, 2013.
6. Carvalho FL, Carvalho MC, Simão R, Gomes TM, Costa PB, Neto LB, Carvalho RL, Dantas EH. Acute effects of a warm-up including active, passive, and dynamic stretching on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2447–2452, 2012.
7. Chapman PP, Whitehead JR, Binkert RH. The 225-lb-reps-to-fatigue test as a submaximal estimate of the 1-rm bench press performance in college football players. J Strength Cond Res 12: 258–261, 1998.
8. Church J, Wiggins MS, Moode MF, Crist R. Effect of warm-up and flexibility treatments on vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 15: 332–336, 2001.
9. Curran PF, Fiore RD, Crisco JJ. A comparison of the pressure exerted on soft tissue by 2 myofascial rollers. J Sport Rehabil 17: 432–442, 2008.
10. Dunn-Lewis C, Luk HY, Comstock BA, Szivak TK, Hooper DR, Kupchak BR, Watts AM, Putney BJ, Hydren JR, Volek JS, Denegar CR, Kraemer WJ. The effects of a customized over-the-counter mouth guard on neuromuscular force and power production in trained men and women. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1085–1093, 2012.
11. Ebben WP, Petushek EJ. Using the reactive strength index modified to evaluate plyometric performance. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1983–1987, 2010.
12. Ebrahim AW, Elghany AWA. The effect of foam roller exercise and nanoparticle in speeding of healing of sport injuries. J Am Sci 9: 450–458, 2013.
13. Fryer G, Morse CM, Johnson JC. Spinal and sacroiliac assessment and treatment techniques used by osteopathic physicians in the United States. Osteopath Med Prim Care 14: 3–4, 2009.
14. Fujiwara LM, Perrin DH, Buxton BP. Effect of three lateral knee bracing on speed and agility in experienced and non-experienced wearers. Athletic Train 25: 160–161, 1990.
15. González-Ravé JM, Machado L, Navarro-Valdivielso F, Vilas-Boas JP. Acute effects of heavy-load exercises, stretching exercises, and heavy-load plus stretching exercises on squat jump and countermovement jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 23: 472–479, 2009.
16. Haddad M, Dridi A, Moktar C, Chaouachi A, Wong DP, Behm D, Chamari K. Static stretching can impair explosive performance for at Least 24 hours. J Strength Cond Res 28: 140–146, 2014.
17. Haff GG, Dumke C. Laboratory Manual for Exercise Physiology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2012.
18. Healey KC, Hatfield DL, Blanpied P, Dorfman LR, Riebe D. The effects of myofascial release with foam rolling on performance. J Strength Cond Res 28: 61–68, 2014.
19. Inacio M, Dipietro L, Visek AJ, Miller TA. Influence of upper-body external loading on anaerobic exercise performance. J Strength Cond Res 25: 896–902, 2011.
20. Jackson AS, Pollock ML. Generalized equations for predicting body density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497–504, 1978.
21. Kraemer WJ, Flanagan SD, Comstock BA, Fragala MS, Earp JE, Dunn-Lewis C, Ho JY, Thomas GA, Solomon-Hill G, Penwell ZR, Powell MD, Wolf MR, Volek JS, Denegar CR, Maresh CM. Effects of a whole body compression garment on markers of recovery after a heavy resistance workout in men and women. J Strength Cond Res 24: 804–814, 2010.
22. Lamont HS, Cramer JT, Bemben DA, Shehab RL, Anderson MA, Bemben MG. The acute effect of whole-body low-frequency vibration on countermovement vertical jump performance in college-aged men. J Strength Cond Res 24: 3433–3442, 2010.
23. LeSuer DA, McCormick JH, Mayhew JL, Wasserstein RL, Arnold MD. The accuracy of prediction equations for estimating 1-RM performance in the bench press, squat, and deadliest. J Strength Cond Res 11: 211–213, 1997.
24. Ma C, Wu S, Li G, Xiao X, Mai M, Yan T. Comparison of miniscalpel-needle release, acupuncture needling, and stretching exercise to trigger point in myofascial pain syndrome. Clin J Pain 26: 251–257, 2010.
25. MacDonald GZ, Penney MD, Mullaley ME, Cuconato AL, Drake CD, Behm DG, Button DC. An acute bout of self-myofascial release increases range of motion without a subsequent decrease in muscle activation or force. J Strength Cond Res 27: 812–821, 2013.
26. McCann MR, Flanagan SP. The effects of exercise selection and rest interval on postactivation potentiation of vertical jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1285–1291, 2010.
27. Muyor JM. Exercise intensity and validity of the ratings of perceived exertion (Borg and OMNI scales) in an indoor cycling session. J Hum Kinet 31: 93–101, 2013.
28. Nuzzo JL, McBride JM, Cormie P, McCaulley GO. Relationship between countermovement jump performance and multijoint isometric and dynamic tests of strength. J Strength Cond Res 22: 699–707, 2008.
29. Okamoto T, Masuhara M, Ikuta K. Acute effects of self-myofascial release using a foam roller on arterial function. J Strength Cond Res 28: 69–73, 2014.
30. Pagaduan JC, Pojskić H, Užičanin E, Babajić F. Effect of various warm-up protocols on jump performance in college football players. J Hum Kinet 35: 127–132, 2012.
31. Peacock CA, Krein DD, Silver TA, Sanders GJ, Von Carlowitz KA. An acute bout of self-myofascial release in the form of foam rolling improves performance testing. Int J Exer Sci 7: 202–211, 2014.
32. Renan-Ordine R, Alburquerque-Sendín F, de Souza DP, Cleland JA, Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C. Effectiveness of myofascial trigger point manual therapy combined with a self-stretching protocol for the management of plantar heel pain: A randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 41: 43–50, 2011.
33. Roylance DS, George JD, Hammer AM, Rencher N, Fellingham GW, Hager RL, Myrer WJ. Evaluating acute changes in joint range-of-motion using self-myofascial release, postural alignment exercises, and static stretches. Int J Exer Sci 6: 310–319, 2013.
34. Scherr J, Wolfarth B, Christle JW, Pressler A, Wagenpfeil S, Halle M. Associations between Borg's rating of perceived exertion and physiological measures of exercise intensity. Eur J Appl Physiol 113: 147–155, 2013.
35. Sekulic D, Spasic M, Mirkov D, Cavar M, Sattler T. Gender-specific influences of balance, speed, and power on agility performance. J Strength Cond Res 27: 802–811, 2013.
36. Sucher BM. Myofascial manipulative release of carpal tunnel syndrome: Documentation with magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Osteopath Assoc 93: 1273–1278, 1993.
37. Sullivan KM, Silvey DB, Button DC, Behm DG. Roller-massager application to the hamstrings increases sit-and-reach range of motion within five to ten seconds without performance impairments. Int J Sports Phys Ther 8: 228–236, 2013.
38. Vetter RE. Effects of six warm-up protocols on sprint and jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 819–823, 2007.
39. Wisloff U, Catagna C, Helgerud J, Jones R, Hoff J. Strong maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump height in elite soccer players. Br J Sports Med 38: 285–288, 2004.
Keywords:

warm-up routines; strength and conditioning

Copyright © 2015 by the National Strength & Conditioning Association.