Research article - (2019)18, 172 - 180
Effects of Vibration and Non-Vibration Foam Rolling on Recovery after Exercise with Induced Muscle Damage
Blanca Romero-Moraleda1,4, Jaime González-García1, Ángel Cuéllar-Rayo1, Carlos Balsalobre-Fernández2,4, Daniel Muñoz-García5,, Esther Morencos3
1Faculty of Health. Camilo José Cela University,
2Department of Physical Education, Sport and Human Movement, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
3Exercise and Sport Sciences, Education and Humanities Faculty, Francisco de Vitoria University, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid
4Laboratory 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
5Motion in Brains Research Group, Instituto de Neurociencias y Ciencias del Movimiento, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain

Daniel Muñoz-García
✉ C/ La Salle 10, 28023, Madrid, Spain
Email: danimgsan@gmail.com
Received: 09-11-2018 -- Accepted: 15-01-2019
Published (online): 11-02-2019

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.

Key words: Foam roller, vibration foam roller, pressure pain threshold, oxygen saturation, countermovement jump, delayed onset muscle soreness

Key Points
  • The vibration foam rolling group showed substantially greater improvements in pain perception and passive hip extension ROM.
  • Both groups of foam rolling improve lateral vastus, rectus femoris and medial vastus pressure pain threshold, oxygen saturation and countermovement jump.
  • Future studies and clinical practice should consider these data with delayed-onset muscle soreness.








Back
|
Full Text
|
PDF
|
Share