4.3 Article

Foam Rolling for Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness and Recovery of Dynamic Performance Measures

期刊

JOURNAL OF ATHLETIC TRAINING
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 5-13

出版社

NATL ATHLETIC TRAINERS ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-50.1.01

关键词

pain; athletic performance; magnitude-based inference; massage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: After an intense bout of exercise, foam rolling is thought to alleviate muscle fatigue and soreness (ie, delayed-onset muscle soreness [DOMS]) and improve muscular performance. Potentially, foam rolling may be an effective therapeutic modality to reduce DOMS while enhancing the recovery of muscular performance. Objective: To examine the effects of foam rolling as a recovery tool after an intense exercise protocol through assessment of pressure-pain threshold, sprint time, change-of-direction speed, power, and dynamic strength-endurance. Design: Controlled laboratory study. Setting: University laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: A total of 8 healthy, physically active males (age = 22.1 +/- 2.5 years, height = 177.0 +/- 7.5 cm, mass = 88.4 +/- 11.4 kg) participated. Intervention(s): Participants performed 2 conditions, separated by 4 weeks, involving 10 sets of 10 repetitions of back squats at 60% of their 1-repetition maximum, followed by either no foam rolling or 20 minutes of foam rolling immediately, 24, and 48 hours postexercise. Main Outcome Measure(s): Pressure-pain threshold, sprint speed (30-m sprint time), power (broad-jump distance), changeof-direction speed (T-test), and dynamic strength-endurance. Results: Foam rolling substantially improved quadriceps muscle tenderness by a moderate to large amount in the days after fatigue (Cohen d range, 0.59 to 0.84). Substantial effects ranged from small to large in sprint time (Cohen d range, 0.68 to 0.77), power (Cohen d range, 0.48 to 0.87), and dynamic strength-endurance (Cohen d = 0.54). Conclusions: Foam rolling effectively reduced DOMS and associated decrements in most dynamic performance measures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据