Exploring the Impact of Different Durations of Foam Rolling as a Recovery Technique Following Intense Exercise in College-Aged Males

Introduction

Physically active individuals, whether elite athletes or recreationally active, spend more time in a recovery phase than they do training [1]. Recovery is a vital aspect to any training program to ensure the individual is ready for the following training session and/or competition. Following an intense bout of exercise, an individual may experience exercise induced muscle damage (EIMD) that results in delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) [2]. When assessing the impact of EIMD and DOMS on performance, both can severely decrease performance variables such as vertical jump, broad jump, agility, squat repetition, sprint time, and force output [3-5]. Although there are many techniques used to promote recovery [6], there seems to be no ‘gold standard’ when assessing recovery from EIMD and DOMS. Additionally, some techniques can be costly and/ or require additional personnel to perform. For the average, recreationally active individual this may leave few techniques to choose from.

A cost effective, self-performed modality of recovery that has received considerable attention in the past decade is that of self-myofascial release (SMR) using a foam roller (FR). SMR is an intensive self-treatment that mimics manual therapy techniques aiming to combat dysfunctions of both the skeletal muscle and connective tissue [7]. The SMR using a FR technique requires individuals to use their bodyweight while rolling a specific body region over a dense foam cylinder placing pressure on the tissue [8]. Though the exact mechanism(s) associated with the specific use of FR to promote MR are unknown, a proposed mechanism is that it may aid in recovery through the restoration of connective tissue disrupted during exercise [3]. Through FR, a decrease in pain perception/soreness [4,5,9,10] may allow for an increase in range of motion (ROM) [3,11] and greater utilization of the series elastic component (SEC) and stretch reflex. Though this may be a viable mechanism, past research assessing the overall impact of using a FR for recovery from EIMD and DOMS is inconclusive [12,13].

Research assessing SMR using a FR as a recovery tool for DOMS is still inconclusive. When assessing recovery, studies have utilized performance-based measures including vertical jump (VJ)/ countermovement jump (CMJ), agility, sprint speed (SS) and force output [2-5,10,14,15]. However, the findings for each of the variables have showed varying results. Other non-performance-based variables assessed include muscle soreness and pain perception (PP) with studies showing FR’s ability to significantly decrease both variables [2,3,5,9,10]. While further research is warranted to fully understand the effects of SMR using FR for recovery, there are deficiencies within the current literature that need to be addressed to provide a direction for future research endeavours.

Current literature assessing the impact of FR on recovery is very heterogeneous with a common difference amongst studies being the duration in which FR is performed. Durations have ranged from as little as 45-seconds per muscle group [4] up to 5-minutes per muscle group [14]. However, there seems to be a dearth of literature that has directly assessed the impact of two different durations of SMR using a FR and their impact on recovery. Assessing whether there is a duration-dose response will provide recreationally active individuals, athletes, and practitioners a better understanding as to whether SMR using a FR is beneficial for recovery as well as the appropriate duration one should FR for recovery. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to explore the impact of two different durations of SMR using a FR as a technique for recovery. Recovery was defined as the degree to which performance measures (vertical jump, agility, and sprint speed), ROM, and pain perception/soreness return to baseline values after performing a SMR foam rolling protocol following the completion of an exercise designed to elicit EIMD and DOMS. It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in recovery of performance (jump, sprint, agility) and non-performance (ROM, pain perception/soreness) variables following the completion of two different acute durations of foam rolling.

Materials and Methods

Subjects

Twelve adult males participated in this study. Participants were an average of 21 years old, 178.8cm tall, and weighed 83.25 kg’s. To partake in the study participants were to be college-aged males, recreationally active following ACSM guidelines and were currently free from any lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries. Upon meeting inclusion criteria, participants were randomly assigned to one of two foam rolling groups: 1-minute per muscle group or 2-minutes per muscle group. There was a total of six males in each foam rolling group and all participants served as their own control. All procedures were reviewed and approved by IRB committees from both East Stroudsburg University (ESU) and Seton Hall University (SHU).

Experimental Design

Individuals were randomly assigned to a FR group (either 1 or 2-minutes) and also served as their own control. Participants were then put through a 5-minute “down and back” dynamic warm-up covering a 10-m distance comprised of the following movements: knee-to-chest, alternating quad stretch, high knees, butt kicks, carioca, power skips, and side-shuffles. This warm-up was performed prior to each testing session. Following the warm-up, participants were familiarized with each performance (VJ, agility T-test, 10m sprint) and non-performance (ROM and pain perception/soreness) variable.

Following the NSCA guidelines for a battery of tests, tests were performed in the following order during the familiarization and testing days: vertical jump, agility, sprint, ROM, and soreness/pain perception. Following familiarization, baseline measures were collected. Participants performed 3-vertical jumps, two 10-meter sprints, three agility tests, and had their soreness/pain perception and range of motion measured once. For performance variables, the highest jump and fastest sprint and agility times were recorded. Following baseline measures, individuals were given a demonstration of the foam rolling protocol. Before leaving the lab, participants were asked to refrain from any physical activity and consumption of alcohol 24 hours prior to the beginning of testing as well as during the 4 days of testing. They were also asked to refrain from performing any additional recovery techniques outside of testing or taking any pain relief medications (Tylenol®, Aleve®, etc.) during testing weeks.

Within a week of completion of the familiarization session, participants arrived back at the lab for their first week of testing. Each participant completed two testing weeks (4-days for EXP group, 4-days for CON) with a 7-day washout period between testing weeks. Re-test times were immediately, 24, 48, and 72 hours post exercise. Each participant completed their testing sessions at the same time of day to minimize any impact that diurnal variation may have on performance. On the first day of testing the participants completed the 5-minute dynamic warm-up prior to completing a muscle damage protocol. Upon completion, participants were immediately re-tested for all variables (vertical jump, agility, sprint speed, soreness/pain perception, ROM). During the EXP week, participants then completed the foam rolling protocol for their prescribed time (1 or 2 minutes per muscle group), whereas during the CON week participants left the lab following immediate post-exercise measures. Upon completion of FR, participants were allowed to leave the lab and reminded that they would be returning with 24 hours for retesting. On testing days 2-4 during the EXP and CON weeks, participants only completed the battery of tests (no FR was completed). An overview of the study design can be seen in Figure 1.

Note*: Participants only completed the FR protocol they were randomly assigned too.

Figure 1: Visual Overview of Study Design.

Procedures

Muscle Damage Protocol: To elicit EIMD and DOMS, participants performed a 10x10 maximal countermovement vertical jump protocol using a Vertex (Jump USA, Sunnyvale, CA) with each set separated by a 1-minute passive recovery. The Vertex height was set so that the first vane was just above the individuals standing reach height. Once set, participants were asked to complete one maximal jump and hit the highest vane possible. This mark was then used as a target point for the participant to reach for on each subsequent jump to encourage maximal effort and help maintain jump height during the protocol. During the landing phase of each jump the participants were instructed to obtain a 90° angle at the knee to promote muscle damage due to the increase in eccentric loading upon landing. This protocol has successfully shown to induce muscle damage in previous studies [16,17].

Foam Rolling: The FR protocol used was adapted from previous research [15]. Using a TheraBand® (Theraband, Hygienic Corporation, Akron, OH) high-density foam roller, participants rolled the thigh (anterior, posterior, medial, and lateral), gluteus maximus, and the gastrocnemius for either 1 or 2-minutes depending upon their assigned foam rolling duration. Examples showing the positioning for FR each of the targeted muscles are shown in Figure 2. Participants were asked to place as much body mass (BM) as tolerable on the FR at all times. A metronome was set at 47-bpm to control the cadence allowing for 5-seconds per roll from proximal to distal (2.5-seconds) and back up again (2.5-seconds). The cadence allowed for 12 complete repetitions within 1-minute (24 repetitions for 2-minute FR group). For FR of the thigh, participants were instructed to start with the FR at the proximal end of the thigh and roll in one fluent motion distally towards the knee. Once reached, they were to reverse the motion rolling back towards the proximal end of the thigh in one fluent motion. This same process was completed for all four sides of the thigh. For the gluteus maximus, participants were instructed to sit on top of the FR with their hands behind them aiding as a support and crossing their left/right leg over their right/left leg allowing their weight to be placed directly on the gluteus maximus. The rolling motion was to be continuous from the origin of the muscle (outer surface of ilium, posterior lumbar fascia, lateral sacrum, sacrotuberous ligament and coccyx) to the insertion (deepest quarter in gluteal tuberosity of femur and three quarters into iliotibial tract). Finally, for the gastrocnemius, participants placed the FR at the proximal end of the muscle, crossed their left/right leg over their right/left leg, and placed their hands behind them as a support. They proceeded to roll in one fluent motion from proximal to distal and back up at the specified cadence. Foam rolling was performed for all muscle groups on one leg before switching to the other. For the 2-minute foam rolling group, they completed 1x60-second bout of foam rolling on all muscles on one leg, switched to the other leg completing 1x60-second bout of FR on all muscle groups, and then started over again on the first leg completing the second, one-minute bout for each muscle. All FR protocols were monitored to ensure participants were keeping pace with the metronome, were rolling the entire muscle from proximal to distal, and that their form was correct (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Foam Rolling Positioning.

Measurements

Vertical Jump: Three countermovement jumps (CMJ) were utilized to determine vertical jump height as used in previous research [18]. A jump mat (Just Jump, Probotics, Huntsville, AL) was used to record jump height. When ready, the participants stepped onto the mat and placed their hands around their neck to avoid using their arms during the jump. The depth and speed of the eccentric loading phase were not controlled to allow the movement to be as natural as possible. A total of three CMJ’s were performed, separated by a 1.5-minute rest period. Each jump was rounded to the nearest 0.25 inch with the highest jump recorded being used for analysis.

Agility: A T-test protocol was adapted from past research [19]. Single-beam, electronic photocells (TCI System, Brower Training System, Draper, UT) were placed at the starting line. When ready, participants (1) sprinted 10 meters as quickly as possible to the center cone, (2) side shuffled 5 meters either left or right (based on their preference) to a cone, (3) sidestepped 10 meters to the cone on the opposite side of the ‘T’, (4) sidestepped 5 meters back to the center cone, and (5) back peddled all the way through the finish line. Participants completed the test three times separated by a 60-second passive recovery. The fastest of the three times was used for analysis.

Sprint Speed: Using a protocol adapted from a previous study [17], participants performed two, 10-meter sprints from a standing start on an indoor track with a 3-minute passive rest between sprints. Sprint times were recorded using single-beam, electronic photocells (TCI System, Brower Training System, Draper, UT) placed at 0 (start), 5-meters, and 10-meters (finish). Sprint times for 0 to 5 meters and 5 meters to 10 meters were rounded to the nearest 0.01 second. The fastest times recorded over the 5-and-10- meter distance were used for analysis.

Muscle Pain/Soreness: Muscular pain/soreness was measured using a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). The NRS ranges from “0” indicating the individual is experiencing “No pain” to “10” indicating they were experiencing the “Worst pain possible”. Adopted from previous research [20], participants were asked to perform a bodyweight squat eccentrically loading until their thighs were parallel to the ground. When the individuals were in the appropriate position, they were asked to rate their pain/soreness using the NRS.

Range of Motion: Range of motion was assessed at the knee joint using a long-arm goniometer (JAMAR, Jackson, MI) while individuals laid in a prone position on a cushioned treatment table [2,21]. The fulcrum of the goniometer was positioned against the lateral epicondyle of the femur, the stationary arm in line with greater trochanter of the femur, and the movement arm in line with the lateral malleolus. Holding the ankle, the researcher moved the knee through a passive ROM until the initial sensation of pain was experienced by the participant or until the point where the knee could no longer be passively moved. During passive ROM, the researcher was also monitoring the pelvis to ensure that the hips did not lift off the table. The measurement was then taken and recorded. Measurements were taken a total of three times with the greatest ROM used for analysis.

Statistical Analysis

A 2x5 ANOVA (1-min. group, 2-min group x baseline, immediate, 24, 48, 72hrs post) was used. Differences in the mean delta (Δ) changes between groups were determined for each dependent variable at all measurement times using a repeated measures within - between interaction analysis of variance. Precision of differences were expressed with 95% confidence interval (CI), an effect size of 0.5, and significance set at P<0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 27; IBM statistics).

Results

Physical Performance

This study aimed to explore the impact of two different acute, single bout durations of self-myofascial release (SMR) using a foam roller (FR) as an intervention for recovery, defined as the degree to which values returned back to baseline measures, of vertical jump, sprint speed, agility speed, knee ROM, and pain/soreness from DOMS in recreationally active college-aged males. Specifically, this study assessed the recovery of performance-based variables including CMJ height, agility speed, and sprint speed, as well as non-performance- based variables including pain-perception/soreness and knee ROM. Twelve participants volunteered for this study and were randomly assigned to one of two EXP FR groups (1 or 2-minutes per muscle group), while also serving as their own control.

Countermovement Jump: Two-way ANOVA of mean Δ values showed there was no significant difference between EXP groups for the recovery of CMJ performance (F =.007; P = .933) at any time point post exercise (F = .931; P = .453) (Figure 3).

Note*: X-axis represents assessment times of DV. Solid black line=baseline. A negative mean Δ in CMJ performance indicates participants in both EXP groups experienced a lesser decrease in jump performance during the CON week than during the FR week, whereas a positive Δ indicates better performance during EXP week than the CON week groups at any post exercise measure (F = .171; P = .681).

Figure 3:

Agility: Two-way ANOVA of mean Δ values showed there was a significant difference in post exercise measures of agility performance when comparing baseline to post exercise measurement times (F = .3.612; P = .012). However, there was no significant difference in agility performance between EXP (Figure 4).

Note*: X-axis represents assessment times of DV. Solid black line=baseline. A positive mean Δ in agility performance indicates individuals experienced a lesser decrease in agility performance during the CON week than the EXP, whereas a negative Δ indicates better performance during EXP week than the CON week.

Figure 4:

Sprint Performance: Two-way ANOVA of mean Δ values showed there was no significant difference between EXP groups for the recovery of sprint performance (F = .024; P = .876) at any time points post exercise (F = .660; P = .623) (Figure 5).

Note*: X-axis represents assessment times of DV. Solid black line=baseline. A positive mean Δ in agility performance indicates individuals experienced a lesser decrease in agility performance during the CON week than the EXP, whereas a negative Δ indicates better performance during EXP week than the CON week.

Figure 5:

Pain Perception/Soreness: Two-way ANOVA of mean Δ values showed there was no significant difference between EXP groups for the recovery of pain perception/soreness (F = .013; P = .909) at any time point post exercise (F = .464; P = .762) (Figure 6).

Note*: X-axis represents assessment times of DV. Solid black line=baseline. A positive mean Δ in pain/soreness indicates participants in both EXP groups experienced a lesser increase in pain/soreness during the CON week than during the FR week, whereas a negative Δ indicates less pain/ soreness during EXP week than the CON week.

Figure 6:

Range of Motion: Two-way ANOVA of mean Δ values showed there was no significant difference between EXP groups for the recovery of range of motion (F = .000; P = 1.000) at any time point post exercise (F = .474; P = .755) (Figure 7).

Note*: X-axis represents assessment times of DV. Solid black line=baseline. A negative mean Δ in ROM indicates participants experienced a lesser decrease in ROM during the CON week than during the FR week, whereas a positive Δ indicates a greater decrease in ROM during EXP week than the CON week.

Figure 7: