Foam rolling is thought to improve muscular performance and flexibility as well as to alleviate muscle fatigue and soreness. For this reason, foam rolling has become a popular intervention in all kinds of sport settings used to increase the efficiency of training or competition preparation as well as to speed post-exercise recovery. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of foam rolling applied before (pre-rolling as a warm-up activity) and after (post-rolling as a recovery strategy) exercise on sprint, jump, and strength performance as well as on flexibility and muscle pain outcomes and to identify whether self-massage with a foam roller or a roller massager is more effective. A comprehensive and structured literature search was performed using the PubMed, Google Scholar, PEDro, and Cochrane Library search engines. Twenty-one studies were located that met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies used pre-rolling, while seven studies used post-rolling. Pre-rolling resulted in a small improvement in sprint performance (+0.7%, g = 0.28) and flexibility (+4.0%, g = 0.34), whereas the effect on jump (−1.9%, g = 0.09) and strength performance (+1.8%, g = 0.12) was negligible. Post-rolling slightly attenuated exercise-induced decreases in sprint (+3.1%, g = 0.34) and strength performance (+3.9 %, g = 0.21). It also reduced muscle pain perception (+6.0%, g = 0.47), whereas its effect on jump performance (−0.2%, g = 0.06) was trivial. Of the twenty-one studies, fourteen used foam rollers, while the other seven used roller massage bars/sticks. A tendency was found for foam rollers to offer larger effects on the recovery of strength performance (+5.6%, g = 0.27 vs. −0.1%, g = −0.01) than roller massagers. The differences in the effects between foam rolling devices in terms of pre-rolling did not seem to be of practical relevance (overall performance: +2.7 %, g = 0.11 vs. +0.4%, g = 0.21; flexibility: +5.0%, g = 0.32 vs. +1.6%, g = 0.39). Overall, it was determined that the effects of foam rolling on performance and recovery are rather minor and partly negligible, but can be relevant in some cases (e.g., to increase sprint performance and flexibility or to reduce muscle pain sensation). Evidence seems to justify the widespread use of foam rolling as a warm-up activity rather than a recovery tool.

A comprehensive monitoring of fitness, fatigue, and performance is crucial for understanding an athlete's individual responses to training to optimize the scheduling of training and recovery strategies. Resting and exercise-related heart rate measures have received growing interest in recent decades and are considered potentially useful within multivariate response monitoring, as they provide non-invasive and time-efficient insights into the status of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) and aerobic fitness. In team sports, the practical implementation of athlete monitoring systems poses a particular challenge due to the complex and multidimensional structure of game demands and player and team performance, as well as logistic reasons, such as the typically large number of players and busy training and competition schedules. In this regard, exercise-related heart rate measures are likely the most applicable markers, as they can be routinely assessed during warm-ups using short (3–5 min) submaximal exercise protocols for an entire squad with common chest strap-based team monitoring devices. However, a comprehensive and meaningful monitoring of the training process requires the accurate separation of various types of responses, such as strain, recovery, and adaptation, which may all affect heart rate measures. Therefore, additional information on the training context (such as the training phase, training load, and intensity distribution) combined with multivariate analysis, which includes markers of (perceived) wellness and fatigue, should be considered when interpreting changes in heart rate indices. The aim of this article is to outline current limitations of heart rate monitoring, discuss methodological considerations of univariate and multivariate approaches, illustrate the influence of different analytical concepts on assessing meaningful changes in heart rate responses, and provide case examples for contextualizing heart rate measures using simple heuristics. To overcome current knowledge deficits and methodological inconsistencies, future investigations should systematically evaluate the validity and usefulness of the various approaches available to guide and improve the implementation of decision-support systems in (team) sports practice.

Data suggest that RM-induced neural inhibition decreased MVIC F200 and nullified the testing-induced increase in evoked pain associated with 70% tetanic stimulation.

Objective: Tensiomyography (TMG) is an indirect measure of a muscle's contractile properties and has the potential as a technique for detecting exercise-induced skeletal muscle fatigue. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity of tensiomyographic markers to identify reduced muscular performance in elite youth athletes.Methods: Fourteen male junior tennis players (age: 14.9 ± 1.2 years) with an international (International Tennis Federation) ranking position participated in this pre-post single group trial. They completed a 4-day high-intensity interval training (HIT) microcycle, which was composed of seven training sessions. TMG markers; countermovement jump (CMJ) performance (criterion measure of fatigue); delayed onset muscle soreness; and perceived recovery and stress were measured 24 h before and after the training program. The TMG measures included maximal radial deformation of the rectus femoris muscle belly (Dm), contraction time between 10 and 90% Dm (Tc) and the rate of deformation until 10% (V10) and 90% Dm (V90), respectively. Diagnostic characteristics were assessed with a receiver-operating curve (ROC) analysis and a contingency table, in which the area under the curve (AUC), Youden's index, sensitivity, specificity, and the diagnostic effectiveness (DE) of TMG measures were reported. A minimum AUC of 0.70 and a lower confidence interval (CI) >0.50 classified “good” diagnostic markers to assess performance changes.Results: Twenty-four hours after the microcycle, CMJ performance was observed to be significantly (p < 0.001) reduced (Effect Size [ES] = −0.68), and DOMS (ES = 3.62) as well as perceived stress were significantly (p < 0.001) increased. In contrast, Dm (ES = −0.35), Tc (ES = 0.04), V10 (ES = −0.32), and V90 (ES = −0.33) remained unchanged (p > 0.05) throughout the study. ROC analysis and the data derived from the contingency table revealed that none of the tensiomyographic markers were effective diagnostic tools for detecting impaired muscular performance in elite youth athletes (AUC, 95% CI, DE%; Dm: 0.46, 0.15–0.77, 35.7%; Tc: 0.29, 0.03–0.59, 35.7%; V10: 0.71, 0.27–1.00, 35.7%; V90: 0.37, 0.10–0.65, 35.7%).Conclusion: The tensiomyographic parameters that were assessed in this study were not sensitive enough to detect muscular performance changes in elite youth athletes.However, due to the preliminary nature of the study, further research is needed to investigate the sensitivity of TMG in this population.

PurposeTo investigate the effects of different recovery strategies on fatigue markers following a prolonged running exercise.Methods46 recreational male runners completed a half-marathon, followed by active recovery (ACT), cold water immersion (CWI), massage (MAS) or passive recovery (PAS). Countermovement jump height, muscle soreness and perceived recovery and stress were measured 24h before the half-marathon (pre), immediately after the recovery intervention (postrec) and 24h after the race (post24). In addition, muscle contractile properties and blood markers of fatigue were determined at pre and post24.ResultsMagnitude-based inferences revealed substantial differences in the changes between the groups. At postrec, ACT was harmful to perceived recovery (ACT vs. PAS: effect size [ES] = −1.81) and serum concentration of creatine kinase (ACT vs. PAS: ES = 0.42), with CWI being harmful to jump performance (CWI vs. PAS: ES = −0.98). It was also beneficial for reducing muscle soreness (CWI vs. PAS: ES = −0.88) and improving perceived stress (CWI vs. PAS: ES = −0.64), with MAS being beneficial for reducing muscle soreness (MAS vs. PAS: ES = −0.52) and improving perceived recovery (MAS vs. PAS: ES = 1.00). At post24, both CWI and MAS were still beneficial for reducing muscle soreness (CWI vs. PAS: ES = 1.49; MAS vs. PAS: ES = 1.12), with ACT being harmful to perceived recovery (ACT vs. PAS: ES = −0.68), serum concentration of creatine kinase (ACT vs. PAS: ES = 0.84) and free-testosterone (ACT vs. PAS: ES = −0.91).ConclusionsIn recreational runners, a half-marathon results in fatigue symptoms lasting at least 24h. To restore subjective fatigue measures, the authors recommend CWI and MAS, as these recovery strategies are more effective than PAS, with ACT being even disadvantageous. However, runners must be aware that neither the use of ACT nor CWI or MAS had any beneficial effect on objective fatigue markers.