The Acute Effects of Pectoralis Major Foam Ball Rolling on Shoulder Extension Range of Motion, Isometric Contraction Torque, and Muscle Stiffness.

Although it is well known that foam rolling (FR) of the lower extremities can increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint while likely having no detrimental effect on muscle performance, to date, this is not clear if this is the case for the upper body. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of a 2-min FR intervention of the pectoralis major (PMa) muscle on muscle stiffness of the PMa, shoulder extension ROM, and maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) peak torque. Thirty-eight (n = 15 females) healthy, physically active participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention (n = 18) or a control group (n = 20). The intervention group performed a 2-min foam ball rolling (FBR) intervention of the PMa muscle (FB-PMa-rolling), while the control group rested for 2 min. Before and after the intervention, muscle stiffness of the PMa was measured with shear wave elastography, while shoulder extension ROM was recorded with a 3D-motion capture system, and shoulder flexion MVIC peak torque was measured with a force sensor. MVIC peak torque decreased in both groups (time effect: p = 0.01; η2 = 0.16), without any difference between groups (interaction effect: p = 0.49, η2 = 0.013). ROM (p = 0.24; η2 = 0.04) and muscle stiffness (FB-PMa-rolling p = 0.86; Z = -0.38; control group p = 0.7, Z = -0.17) did not change due to the intervention. The lack of changes in ROM and muscle stiffness following the FBR intervention might be explained by the small area of applied pressure with the FBR on the PMa muscle. Moreover, the decrease in MVIC peak torque is likely more related to the uncommon test situation of the upper limbs, rather than the FBR intervention itself.

The contralateral effects of foam rolling on range of motion and muscle performance.

A single bout of foam rolling (FR) can acutely increase joint range of motion (ROM) without detrimental effects on subsequent muscle performance. Similarly, long-term FR training can increase ROM, while muscle performance seems to be unaffected. Although the acute and long-term effects of FR on the treated muscle are understood, the impact of FR on the contralateral side is not well known. Therefore, this scoping review aims to summarize the current evidence on the acute and long-term effect of FR on the ipsilateral limb on ROM and muscle performance (i.e., maximum force, rate of force development, jump height) for the contralateral (non-treated) limb. Potential explanatory mechanisms are also discussed. There is evidence that a single bout of FR on the ipsilateral limb increases ROM of the contralateral limb; however, evidence is limited for long-term effects. The most likely mechanism for contralateral ROM increases is a reduced perception of pain. With regard to isolated muscle contractions, no changes in muscle performance (i.e., maximum voluntary isometric contraction, maximum voluntary dynamic contraction) were found in the contralateral limb after a single bout of FR on the ipsilateral limb. Notably, only one study reported large impairments in rate of force development of the contralateral limb following FR on the ipsilateral leg, possibly due to decreased motor unit recruitment. Furthermore, to date there are only two studies examining the long-term FR training of the ipsilateral limb on performance (i.e., maximal strength and jump performance) which reported moderate improvements. Although, trivial to very large changes on a variety of parameters were found in this study, the functional and practical relevance of our findings should be interpreted with caution.

Myofascial Treatment Techniques on the Plantar Surface Influence Functional Performance in the Dorsal Kinetic Chain.

Prior studies have shown that self- and manual massage (SMM) increases flexibility in non-adjacent body areas. It is unclear whether this also influences performance in terms of force generation. Therefore, this study investigated the effect of SMM on the plantar surface on performance in the dorsal kinetic chain. Seventeen young participants took part in this within-subject non-randomized controlled study. SMM was applied on the plantar surface of the dominant leg, but not on the non-dominant leg. A functional performance test of the dorsal kinetic chain, the Bunkie Test, was conducted before and after the intervention. We measured the performance in seconds for the so-called posterior power line (PPL) and the posterior stabilizing line (PSL). The performance of the dominant leg in the Bunkie Test decreased significantly by 17.2% from (mean ± SD) 33.1 ± 9.9 s to 27.4 ± 11.1 s for the PPL and by 16.3% from 27.6 ± 9.8 s to 23.1 ± 11.7 s for the PSL. This is in contrast to the non-dominant leg where performance increased significantly by 5.1% from 29.7 ± 9.6 s to 31.1 ± 8.9 s for the PPL and by 3.1% from 25.7 ± 1.5 s to 26.5 ± 1.7 s for the PSL. SMM interventions on the plantar surface might influence the performance in the dorsal kinetic chain.