Untitled

doi:10.7752/jpes.2019.02169

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each zone of the quadriceps, i.e. medial, lateral and external, was massaged for 10 s. This represents an effective SMR duration of 30 s. The standards for the present SMR routine matched those reported in previous experiments [32][33][34][35][36].…”

Section: Plos Onesupporting

confidence: 58%

Evaluating the effects of embedded self-massage practice on strength performance: A randomized crossover pilot trial

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Self-administered massage interventions with a roller massager are commonly used as part of warm-ups and post-workout recovery routines. There is yet no clear consensus regarding the practical guidelines for efficient embedded interventions. Objectives The present randomized crossover pilot trial aimed at examining the effects of a rolling intervention with a roller massager embedded within the rests periods of a resistance training protocol. The rolling intervention targeted quadriceps muscles. Setting Participants (n = 14) performed two resistance training protocols expected to elicit momentary muscle failure. The protocol consisted in 10 sets of 10 rest-pause repetitions of back squats, with a poundage set up at 50% of the maximal one-repetition. Two min were allocated to recovery between sets. During the recovery periods, participants completed a rolling routine with a roller massager for 60 s (Roller-massager), or underwent passive recovery (Control). The total workload, concentric power, thigh circumference rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and delayed onset of muscle soreness (DOMS) from 24 h to 120 h after completion of the protocol were the dependent variables. Results Roller-massager was associated with a reduction in total workload (-11.6%), concentric power (-5.1%) and an increase in perceived exertion compared to Control (p < 0.05). Roller-massager was also associated with reduced thigh circumference after the resistance training protocol, indicating reduced muscle swelling, and reduced DOMS 24 h to 120 h post-workout (p < 0.001). Conclusion These findings support that embedded rolling with a roller massager hinders performance and increases effort perception. Embedded interventions may not be suitable during conditioning periods designed to maximize training intensity.

show abstract

Section: Plos Onesupporting

confidence: 58%

Evaluating the effects of embedded self-massage practice on strength performance: A randomized crossover pilot trial

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, just like MM, functional tests, such as the sit-andreach or weight-bearing lunge tests, are usual tools to assess the effectiveness of FR on ROM (Sullivan et al, 2013;Halperin et al, 2014;Grieve et al, 2015;Peacock et al, 2015;Škarabot et al, 2015;Kelly and Beardsley, 2016;Patel et al, 2016;Boguszewski et al, 2017;Grabow et al, 2017;Jung et al, 2017;Paz et al, 2017;Sagiroglu, 2017;Garcia-Gutiérrez et al, 2018;Phillips et al, 2018;Guillot et al, 2019;Pathania and Muragod, 2019;Somers et al, 2019;Williams and Selkow, 2019; Table 6). Other clinical examinations, such as the Thomas test or the straight leg raise test, are also regularly used to quantify flexibility with manual or electric goniometers after FR (MacDonald et al, 2014;Mohr et al, 2014;Cho et al, 2015;Su et al, 2017;Do et al, 2018;Killen et al, 2018;Madoni et al, 2018;Guillot et al, 2019;Jeong et al, 2019;Kyranoudis et al, 2019;Lim and Park, 2019;Oranchuk et al, 2019; Table 6). Applied to FR research, goniometer/inclinometer index gains in terms of degrees of freedom of the joints (Peacock et al, 2015;Škarabot et al, 2015;Fairall et al, 2017;Le Gal et al, 2018; Table 6…”

Section: Psychometric and Behavioral Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective Effects of Manual Massage and Foam Rolling on Perceived Recovery and Performance: Current Knowledge and Future Directions Toward Robotic Massages

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manual massage and foam rolling are commonly used by athletes for warm-up and recovery, as well as by healthy individuals for well-being. Manual massage is an ancient practice requiring the intervention of an experienced physiotherapist, while foam rolling is a more recent self-administered technique. These two topics have been largely studied in isolation from each other. In the present review, we first provide a deep quantitative literature analysis to gather the beneficial effects of each technique through an integrative account, as well as their psychometric and neurophysiological evaluations. We then conceptually consider the motor control strategies induced by each type of massage. During manual massage, the person remains passive, lying on the massage table, and receives unanticipated manual pressure by the physiotherapist, hence resulting in a retroactive mode of action control with an ongoing central integration of proprioceptive feedback. In contrast, while performing foam rolling, the person directly exerts pressures through voluntary actions to manipulate the massaging tool, therefore through a predominant proactive mode of action control, where operations of forward and inverse modeling do not require sensory feedback. While these opposite modes of action do not seem to offer any compromise, we then discuss whether technological advances and collaborative robots might reconcile proactive and retroactive modes of action control during a massage, and offer new massage perspectives through a stochastic sensorimotor user experience. This transition faculty, from one mode of control to the other, might definitely represent an innovative conceptual approach in terms of human-machine interactions.

show abstract

What We Do Not Know About Stretching in Healthy Athletes: A Scoping Review with Evidence Gap Map from 300 Trials

Afonso,

Andrade,

Rocha-Rodrigues

et al. 2024

Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Stretching has garnered significant attention in sports sciences, resulting in numerous studies. However, there is no comprehensive overview on investigation of stretching in healthy athletes. Objectives To perform a systematic scoping review with an evidence gap map of stretching studies in healthy athletes, identify current gaps in the literature, and provide stakeholders with priorities for future research. Methods Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 and PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed. We included studies comprising healthy athletes exposed to acute and/or chronic stretching interventions. Six databases were searched (CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) until 1 January 2023. The relevant data were narratively synthesized; quantitative data summaries were provided for key data items. An evidence gap map was developed to offer an overview of the existing research and relevant gaps. Results Of ~ 220,000 screened records, we included 300 trials involving 7080 athletes [mostly males (~ 65% versus ~ 20% female, and ~ 15% unreported) under 36 years of age; tiers 2 and 3 of the Participant Classification Framework] across 43 sports. Sports requiring extreme range of motion (e.g., gymnastics) were underrepresented. Most trials assessed the acute effects of stretching, with chronic effects being scrutinized in less than 20% of trials. Chronic interventions averaged 7.4 ± 5.1 weeks and never exceeded 6 months. Most trials (~ 85%) implemented stretching within the warm-up, with other application timings (e.g., post-exercise) being under-researched. Most trials examined static active stretching (62.3%), followed by dynamic stretching (38.3%) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching (12.0%), with scarce research on alternative methods (e.g., ballistic stretching). Comparators were mostly limited to passive controls, with ~ 25% of trials including active controls (e.g., strength training). The lower limbs were primarily targeted by interventions (~ 75%). Reporting of dose was heterogeneous in style (e.g., 10 repetitions versus 10 s for dynamic stretching) and completeness of information (i.e., with disparities in the comprehensiveness of the provided information). Most trials (~ 90%) reported performance-related outcomes (mainly strength/power and range of motion); sport-specific outcomes were collected in less than 15% of trials. Biomechanical, physiological, and neural/psychological outcomes were assessed sparsely and heterogeneously; only five trials investigated injury-related outcomes. Conclusions There is room for improvement, with many areas of research on stretching being underexplored and others currently too heterogeneous for reliable comparisons between studies. There is limited representation of elite-level athletes (~ 5% tier 4 and no tier 5) and underpowered sample sizes (≤ 20 participants). Research was biased toward adult male athletes of sports not requiring extreme ranges of motion, and mostly assessed the acute effects of static active stretching and dynamic stretching during the warm-up. Dose–response relationships remain largely underexplored. Outcomes were mostly limited to general performance testing. Injury prevention and other effects of stretching remain poorly investigated. These relevant research gaps should be prioritized by funding policies. Registration OSF project (https://osf.io/6auyj/) and registration (https://osf.io/gu8ya).

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 3 publications

References 27 publications

Evaluating the effects of embedded self-massage practice on strength performance: A randomized crossover pilot trial

Evaluating the effects of embedded self-massage practice on strength performance: A randomized crossover pilot trial

Selective Effects of Manual Massage and Foam Rolling on Perceived Recovery and Performance: Current Knowledge and Future Directions Toward Robotic Massages

What We Do Not Know About Stretching in Healthy Athletes: A Scoping Review with Evidence Gap Map from 300 Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About