Research article - (2025)24, 485 - 494
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2025.485
Effects of Foam Roller, and Massage Ball with and Without Vibration on Squat Load-Velocity Profile of Resistance Trained Adults
José Carlos Aragão-Santos1,2,3,4, Marzo Edir Da Silva-Grigoletto3,4, David G Behm1,
1School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
2Graduate Program in Physical Education, Santa Cruz State University, Ilhéus-BA, Brazil
3Graduate Program in Physiological Sciences, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, SE, Brazil
4Department of Physical Education, Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, SE, Brazil

David G Behm
✉ School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
Email: dbehm@mun.ca
Received: 26-04-2025 -- Accepted: 09-06-2025
Published (online): 01-09-2025

ABSTRACT

Self-massage tools such as foam rollers and massage balls are widely used in warm-ups and recovery, but their effects on dynamic strength tasks like squatting remain unclear. To compare the effects of a foam roller (FR), massage ball (MB), and vibrating massage ball (MBV) versus a control condition on squat load velocity profiles and associated electromyographic (EMG) activity in resistance-trained individuals. In this crossover study, fourteen experienced resistance-trained participants performed four experimental conditions: FR, MB, MBV, and control. After an initial session for incremental load testing and protocol familiarization, each participant performed eight back squats before and after each experimental session, while movement velocity, hip vertical displacement (range of motion), and EMG of the vastus lateralis and semimembranosus were recorded. MBV produced a significant increase in quadriceps EMG during the fastest repetition (β = 0.107; p = 0.003). In contrast, all interventions elicited a reduction in the second fastest repetition versus control (FR: β = -0.033, p = 0.005; MB: β = -0.025, p = 0.029; MBV: β = -0.036, p = 0.002). Moreover, both FR and MBV similarly decreased third fastest repetition and mean velocities relative to control (FR: third fastest repetition β = -0.025, p = 0.027; mean β = -0.046, p = 0.046; MBV: third fastest repetition β = -0.032, p = 0.005; mean velocity β = -0.031, p = 0.004). There were no significant changes in the hip vertical displacement. All self-massage conditions modestly impaired squat velocity, with the MB showing the least detrimental effect on performance.

Key words: Self-myofascial release, force-velocity, recovery, warm-up, electromyography

Key Points
  • The non-vibrating foam roller and massage ball as well as the vibrating massage ball did not affect ROM and generally reduced squat movement velocity, with the massage ball showing the least detrimental effect on performance.
  • There was an increase in hamstrings EMG in the fastest squat repetition.
  • Squat movement velocity decrements may be attributed to alterations in muscle activation (stretch reflex inhibition and/or increased co-contractions). Further research is necessary regarding the effect of vibrating and non-vibrating massage ball on flexibility, and performance.
  • If the practitioner favours these types of devices, the massage ball could be the best option to not compromise the performance.








Back
|
Full Text
|
PDF
|
Share