Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Sports Sci Med. 2019 Feb 11;18(1):172-180. eCollection 2019 Mar.

Effects of Vibration and Non-Vibration Foam Rolling on Recovery after Exercise with Induced Muscle Damage.

Author information

1
Faculty of Health. Camilo José Cela University.
2
Laboratory of Exercise Physiology Research Group, Department of Health and Human Performance, School of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences-INEF, Technical University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
3
Department of Physical Education, Sport and Human Movement, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
4
Motion in Brains Research Group, Instituto de Neurociencias y Ciencias del Movimiento, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.
5
Exercise and Sport Sciences, Education and Humanities Faculty, Francisco de Vitoria University, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid.

Abstract

We aimed to compare the effects between non-vibration foam rolling (NVFR) and vibration foam rolling (VFR) on visual analogic scale (VAS), pressure pain threshold (PPT), oxygen saturation (SmO2), countermovement jump (CMJ) and hip and knee range of movement (ROM) after eliciting muscle damage through eccentric acute exercise using an inertial flywheel. Thirty-eight healthy volunteers (32 men, 6 women; aged 22.2±3.2 years) were randomly assigned in a counter-balanced fashion to either a VFR or NVFR protocol group. All participants performed a 10x10 (sets x repetitions) eccentric squat protocol to induce muscle damage. The protocols were administered 48-h post-exercise, measuring VAS, PPT, SmO2, CMJ and ROM, before and immediately post-treatment. The treatment technique was repeated on both legs for 1 minute for a total of five sets, with a 30-s rest between sets. The VFR group showed substantially greater improvements (likely to very likely) in the passive VAS (VFR -30.2%, 90% CI -66.2 to -12.8) with chances for lower, similar or greater VAS compared with the NVFR group of 82%, 14% and 4%, respectively and passive extension hip joint ROM (VFR 9.3%, 90% CI 0.2-19.2) with chances for lower, similar or greater ROM compared with the NVFR group of 78%, 21% and 1%, respectively. For intragroup changes, we observed substantial improvements in VAS (p=.05), lateral vastus, rectus femoris and medial vastus PPT. The results suggest that the VFR group achieved greater short-term benefits in pain perception and passive extension hip joint ROM. Both protocols were effective in improving PPT, SmO2, CMJ and knee joint ROM. The enhanced improvement in VAS and hip ROM measures could have significant implications for VFR treatment.

KEYWORDS:

Foam roller; countermovement jump; delayed onset muscle soreness; oxygen saturation; pressure pain threshold; vibration foam roller

PMID:
30787665
PMCID:
PMC6370959

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center