EFFECTS OF FOAM ROLLING ON RANGE OF MOTION,

PEAK TORQUE, MUSCLE ACTIVATION, AND THE

HAMSTRINGS-TO-QUADRICEPS STRENGTH RATIOS
SAMANTHA N. MADONI, PABLO B. COSTA, JARED W. COBURN, AND ANDREW J. GALPIN
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, California
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3XI41p+sDLxYEJQUtfl99ixPKEUUKz7yBKdYXbL8lGsWA7hCZIxRiIA== on 06/25/2018

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

N
Madoni, SN, Costa, PB, Coburn, JW, and Galpin, AJ. umerous methods exist for evaluating athletic
Effects of foam rolling on range of motion, peak torque, performance and assessing risk factors. One of
muscle activation, and the hamstrings-to-quadriceps these is the hamstrings-to-quadriceps (H:Q)
strength ratios. J Strength Cond Res 32(7): 1821–1830, ratio, which can be beneficial in both athletic
and rehabilitation settings alike. The H:Q ratio is a measure
2018—To examine the effects of foam rolling (FR) on range
and comparison of the strength of both the hamstrings and
of motion (ROM), peak torque (PT), hamstrings-to-
quadriceps muscles (14,17). This ratio can be used to assess
quadriceps (H:Q) ratios, and muscle activation. Twenty-
the strength of the hamstrings and quadriceps as a unit,
two recreationally active women (mean age 6 SD = evaluate the risk of injury athletes may face, and can be
21.55 6 1.82 years, 161.91 6 6.58 cm, 61.47 6 10.54 useful for rehabilitation settings in deeming athletes’ readi-
kg) volunteered for this study. Participants performed pre- ness to return to play. An average ratio for athletes is typi-
and posttests analyzing PT and surface electromyography cally between 50 and 80% depending on the velocity tested,
(EMG) of their dominant limb, completing maximal knee and in a rehabilitation setting a ratio of 60% is generally
extension and flexion at 3 different velocities. Participants desired (29,32). Therefore, this ratio serves as an important
foam rolled the hamstrings muscles or sat for the control physical measurement for both athletes and recreationally
condition between the pre- and posttests. Hamstrings ROM active individuals.
increased in the FR condition from (mean 6 SE) 123.23 6 Risk of injury is an important aspect of sports perfor-
3.49 to 126.41 6 3.628 (p , 0.001) and decreased in the
mance, which coaches and athletes attempt to reduce. Using
the H:Q ratio, allied health professionals are able to examine
control condition from 118.82 6 4.25 to 117.95 6 4.298 (p
the injury risk of not only the hamstrings muscle, but also the
= 0.013). Concentric hamstrings PT and conventional H:Q
knee joint as well because it often acts as a unit within the
ratios decreased after both conditions, with smaller de-
individual (15). Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is
creases after FR (p # 0.05). No significant changes were
common in many different sports and activities for both the
found for eccentric hamstrings PT, eccentric hamstrings athlete and recreational individual. Many studies suggest that
EMG, or functional H:Q ratios (p . 0.05). Foam rolling ACL injuries are caused by actions of the larger and stronger
resulted in greater changes in hamstrings ROM without quadriceps, which can sometimes overpower the hamstrings
creating a deficit in PT or muscle activation when compared muscle group (2). In addition, studies have found that ACL
with the control group. When compared with other methods injuries are 2–8 times more common in females compared
of stretching, FR may be beneficial in increasing ROM with- with a male athlete (2). However, if properly trained, the
out decreasing functional H:Q ratios. hamstrings may assist the ACL in reducing the anterior force
on the ligament and possibly prevent an injury from occur-
KEY WORDS self-massage, electromyography, concentric, ring (2). If the hamstrings are analyzed and found to be weak
eccentric, flexibility, injury risk compared with the quadriceps, proper strategies may be
made to decrease the differences between the 2 muscles.
Having a greater H:Q ratio could potentially result in better
coactivation of hamstrings and quadriceps actions and
potentially help decrease the risk of injury in athletes suscep-
Address correspondence to Dr. Pablo B. Costa, [email protected]. tible to ACL tears and other injuries that athletes may face in
32(7)/1821–1830 the sports setting.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Previously, stretching has been used before athletic
Ó 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association events and practice to increase range of motion (ROM)

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2018 | 1821

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Foam Rolling, Range of Motion, and Strength

its role as connective tissue,

fascia moves in a thixotropic
fashion, where the more it is
moved, the softer and more
malleable it comes; however,
when it is not disturbed, it
tends to take on a more solid
consistency (35). Muscular
fascia has been found to help
with the mobility of the mus-
cle, cellular circulation, and
the elasticity of muscle; and
it is vital that the fascia be
loose and malleable (1). Foam
rolling has allowed athletes
and individuals to achieve
a way of increasing the
mobility of the fascia to gain
the benefits it may have on
performance. Foam rolling is
Figure 1. Research design of the experimental protocol.
used by applying the body
weight of an individual on
a foam roller to exert pressure
in joints and muscles (6,38,40). In addition, stretching has onto the targeted tissues, which allows the isolation of
been found to be beneficial in reducing imbalances in the specific muscles to be rolled over (25). Foam rolling in-
body due to decreased flexibility within the muscle and volves rolling over the muscle starting at either the prox-
fascia (15). Muscular fascia can be restricted for various imal or distal end and rolling to the opposite end of the
reasons, including a response to injury, disease, inactivity, muscle, which can also act as a form of self-massage for
or inflammation, all of which can cause a decrease in elas- the individual while on the foam roller (30,39). This roll-
ticity of the fascia and muscle and can be detrimental to ing motion can stimulate both physiological and mechan-
performance (30). However, recent advances in the field ical properties within the muscle (28). Foam rolling has
have shown that there may be few benefits of stretching to also been believed to correct muscle imbalance, reduce
prevent injuries during competition or practice muscle soreness, improve ROM and coordination,
(13,15,17,38,42). In recent years, there have been contra- improve neuromuscular efficiency, and help alleviate
dictory recommendations regarding the use of stretching stress on the joint; however, few studies have been con-
immediately before competition and athletic performance
ducted to confirm or refute these purported effects of FR
events, as well as regarding which form of stretching to
(5,21,30). Despite the lack of conclusive evidence, FR
use without risking decreased performance. Collectively,
continues to gain acceptance in the athletic and rehabil-
recent literature has reported acute decreases in perfor-
itation field, as well as with recreationally active individ-
mance in activities requiring power, high force, or econ-
uals who desire a massage-like effect from the
omy, following a stretching protocol (15,34,40). Other
manipulation.
studies have noted that static stretching specifically has
Although there have been a few studies, current
resulted in a decrease in performance if performed imme-
diately before an activity (3,16). Aware of the studies that research suggests positive benefits of FR on flexibility
static stretching may decrease performance if performed (8,10,30,38). The H:Q ratio is also a vital component for
immediately before sports and exercise, many professio- athletes in gauging performance and the risk of injury in
nals seek to find a method of increasing ROM without their activity. By assessing the athlete’s risk of injury, bet-
hampering performance. ter prevention and training can be achieved and the risk
Foam rolling (FR) or self-myofascial release has might perhaps decrease. Therefore, the purpose of this
recently gained popularity in the field for its use of study was to examine the effects of FR on ROM, peak
increasing ROM and applying a massage-like effect on torque (PT), H:Q ratios, and muscle activation. It was
the muscle and fascia. Fascia acts as a support, stability, hypothesized that FR would increase ROM after FR,
and cushion mechanism for bones and muscles and with no accompanying changes in PT, muscle activation,
surrounds many different organs and muscles (5,37). In or the H:Q ratios.

the TM

1822 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

Figure 2. Foam rolling protocol starting at proximal hamstrings (A), middle (B), and distal portion of hamstrings muscle (C).

METHODS Subjects
Twenty-two recreationally active women (mean age 6 SD =
Experimental Approach to the Problem
21.55 6 1.82 years [age range: 20-27 years old], height
The experiment consisted of 3 visits to the laboratory on
161.91 6 6.58 cm, body mass 61.47 6 10.54 kg, body mass
a within-subjects design (Figure 1). The first visit was
index [BMI] 23.32 6 2.82 kg$m22) volunteered for this
a familiarization session where anthropometric measure-
study. This number was determined by an a priori power
ments were collected. The second and third visits were
analysis using an alpha level of 0.05 and power of 0.80 using
randomly ordered, one being the experimental and the
G*Power software, which resulted in a minimum of 9 partic-
other being the control. During the familiarization session,
ipants (3.1, Dusseldorf, Germany) (7,23). Twenty-one women
participants signed a written informed consent and filled
reported engaging in 5.36 6 4.56 hours per week of aerobic
out a health status questionnaire. Height was measured
exercise, 14 reported 3.45 6 4.62 hours per week of resistance
using a stadiometer (SECA stadiometer, Chino, CA,
training, and 13 reported 1.66 6 2.32 hours of recreational
USA), and body mass was measured using an electric scale
sports. All participants stated some form of regular, weekly
(Ohaus ES Series scale, Parsippany, NJ, USA). The partic-
exercise. These participants were classified as recreationally
ipants then were familiarized with the ROM and FR pro-
active, which was defined as participating in physical activity
tocols. The subjects were next familiarized with the
at least 3 days per week, for at least 30 minutes each session, for
isokinetic dynamometer, participating in the same
at least 6 months. All participants were free from lower-body
warm-up and protocol they would perform on the second
injury within the previous 6 months of their participation in the
and third visits. While introducing the isokinetic dyna-
study or any previous injury that would preclude them from
mometer, electromyography (EMG) locations were
performing the tests. Participants also had a BMI under 30 to
shown to the participants and the process was explained.
ensure lower variability among participants and potential con-
The familiarization visit lasted approximately 45.64 6
founding effects from obesity. BMI was measured using the
0.81 minutes.
height and weight, which was collected during the familiariza-
On the experimental or control day, participants followed
tion visit. Before beginning the experiment, written informed
the same general protocol but sessions were randomized.
consent was obtained from all individual participants included
Visits were separated by at least 48 hours, but no more than
in the study. The study was approved by California State
72 hours, and were conducted approximately during the
University.
same time of the day (morning, afternoon, or evening).
Participants were instructed to maintain similar hydration Procedures
levels, food consumption on the day of the 2 testing periods, Foam Rolling Protocol. The FR protocol was designed to
and to complete similar exercise routines the day before the target the hamstrings muscle group and was developed
testing visits. On the experimental day, the participants were based on adaptations from previous studies (24,30) and
tested for isokinetic PT, muscle activation, and flexibility, extensive piloting. For the hamstrings protocol, partici-
before and after FR the hamstrings muscle group. The pants foam rolled only the dominant side. Subjects were
experimental session lasted approximately for 56.71 6 told to sit on a mat with the foam roller under the top of
1.34 minutes. The control session was identical to the exper- the hamstrings muscle and hands placed behind their back
imental visit, except that the subjects sat still for 3 minutes for balance (Figure 2). Limbs were extended in front of the
rather than receiving FR. The control visit lasted approxi- body and crossed at the ankles to obtain additional pres-
mately for 57.29 6 1.13 minutes. sure on the hamstrings. Subjects were instructed to roll

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2018 | 1823

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Foam Rolling, Range of Motion, and Strength

Electromyography Protocol. While

on the isokinetic dynamome-
ter, electrodes for muscle acti-
vation were placed on the
participant’s dominant thigh.
Two preamplified bipolar sur-
face electrodes (EL254S; Bio-
pac Systems Inc., Goleta, CA,
USA) were placed over the
biceps femoris and rectus fem-
oris muscles (13,15). The
biceps femoris electrode was
placed at the mid-point of
the ischial tuberosity and the
lateral epicondyle, whereas
the rectus femoris electrode
was placed at 50% of the dis-
tance between the anterior
superior iliac spine and the
superior part of the patella
Figure 3. Range of motion protocol with digital goniometer.
(13,15). Both EMG locations
were marked on the second
visit to ensure identical loca-
from the ischial tuberosity down to the popliteal fossa tion for the third visit. A reference electrode was placed
using small kneading motions on the way down. Subjects over the spinous process of the seventh cervical vertebrae
were instructed to roll the proximal one-third of the ham- and consisted of a pregelled, single-use electrode (EL501;
strings for 10 seconds (Figure 2A), working their way Biopac, Goleta, CA, USA). All electrodes were placed over
distally down the back of the hamstrings, divided into 3 shaved, slightly abraded skin that was cleaned with iso-
sections for a total of 30 seconds. propyl alcohol. Raw EMG scores recorded muscle activa-
Participants then rested for 10 seconds and repeated the tion using a Biopac data system (MP150WSW; Biopac
procedure. This was performed for a total of 3 times. Systems Inc.) while on the dynamometer during all mea-
Participants were told to place as much pressure on the sured tests. Data were displayed on a laptop computer (In-
foam roller as possible. The foam roller used in the study spiron 8200; Dell Inc., Round Rock, TX, USA) and
was a 36-inch Power Systems, high density foam roller analyzed offline using software (AcqKnowledge 5.0; Gole-
(Power Systems, Knoxville, TN, USA). The foam roller ta, CA, USA). Sampling frequency was set at 1,000 Hz, with
used was made of closed cell polyethylene foam for signals bandpass filtered at 10–500 Hz, and all
maximal firmness and maximum effectiveness (33). values recorded were expressed as root mean square. Mus-
cle activation of the repetition with the highest PT was
Range of Motion Protocol. Range of motion for the ham- analyzed at each velocity and all values were normalized
strings muscles was conducted using the straight leg raise to the maximum recorded value. The EMG signal within
on the dominant limb. For this test, the participant laid on the load range (9) was visually inspected and analyzed.
the mat with both limbs fully extended. The subject was
then instructed to lift the ipsilateral limb and maintain full Isokinetic Dynamometer Protocol. An isokinetic dynamometer
knee extension, whereas the opposite limb remained (Humac Norm CSMi, Stoughton, MA, USA) was used to
extended on the mat. The hip joint was flexed passively analyze PT at 3 different velocities; 60, 180, and 3008$s21 for
until resistance was met or the ipsilateral limb could no concentric PT and 60 and 1808$s21 for eccentric PT (13,17).
longer be fully extended with the hips remaining on the Subjects were in a seated position, with their dominant limb
mat (22). The ROM measurement of the hip joint angle secured to the machine while they held onto the seat han-
was determined using a digital goniometer (Halo Medical dles. Straps were place over their shoulders and across their
Devices, Subiaco, WA, Australia), by lining up the goni- lap to isolate the dominant limb. The contralateral leg was
ometer with the midline of the trunk, the greater trochan- placed behind the stabilization bar. The axis of the dyna-
ter of the hip, and the lateral epicondyle of the knee, with mometer was aligned with the axis of rotation of the knee,
the instrument placed in the middle of the thigh (Figure 3). and the shin was secured to a pad on the lever arm. A warm-
Once a maximal stretch was achieved, the number was up was conducted in both experimental and control condi-
recorded. tions, before each pre- and posttest. The warm-up consisted
the TM

1824 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 1. Mean 6 SE for range of motion of the

608$s21 1808$s21 3008$s21

26.46

23.42
hamstrings muscle in both conditions for pre-
and posttest.*

Percent Change
Percent
Pretest Posttest change

28.67

23.74
Control 118.82 6 4.25 117.95 6 4.29† 20.74
ROM
(8)

25.87

26.17
Foam 123.23 6 3.49 126.41 6 3.62† 2.58
ROM
(8)

6 2.51 33.09 6 2.77 68.55 6 4.32† 43.55 6 2.72† 30.95 6 3.13†

6 3.80 30.55 6 3.29 66.41 6 4.06† 40.91 6 3.21† 29.5 6 3.22†

6 4.10 54.77 6 2.79 117.14 6 6.69 76.73 6 3.53 54.73 6 2.48

6 4.31 51.5 6 2.79 111.86 6 6.82 69.64 6 3.79 50.27 6 2.65

*ROM = range of motion.

3008$s21
†Denotes significant difference from pre- to posttest.

*PTHam(c) = concentric hamstrings peak torque; PTHam(e) = eccentric hamstrings peak torque; PTQuad = quadriceps peak torque.
92.55 6 5.54 92.95 6 5.32

87.64 6 4.94 91.41 6 4.38

of 4 kicks at increasing intensity, approximately 25, 50, 75,

1808$s21
Posttest
and 100% of their perceived maximum effort at each veloc-
ity (13–17). The participant then completed 3 maximal
repetitions at each speed. Each participant was given verbal
cues as to what to do such as “kick,” “pull-back,” “drop,”
and “resist.” The conventional H:Q ratios were calculated
at each velocity by diving the highest concentric ham-

608$s21
TABLE 2. Mean 6 SE for peak torque under 3 different speeds, for pre- and posttest.*

strings PT by the highest concentric quadriceps PT, and

the functional H:Q ratios by dividing by the highest eccen-
tric hamstrings PT by the highest concentric quadriceps
PT (13,17).
3008$s21

Statistical Analyses
Hamstrings flexibility was analyzed using a 2-way
repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) (time
[pre-vs. post] 3 condition [experimental vs. control]).
Concentric quadriceps PT, concentric hamstrings PT,
6 5.13

6 4.70
1808$s21

eccentric hamstrings PT, conventional H:Q ratios, biceps

Pretest

femoris EMG, and rectus femoris EMG were analyzed †Denotes significant difference from pre- to posttest.
70.77 6 3.86 42.5
72.82 6 4.28 47.68
91.77 6 5.20 93.00
114.09 6 5.17 75.18

93.45 6 4.77 93.55

112.86 6 6.78 70.73

separately using three-way repeated measures ANOVAs

(velocity [60 8$s21 vs. 1808$s21 vs. 3008$s21] 3 time [pre-
vs. post] 3 condition [experimental vs. control]). Ham-
strings eccentric PT and functional H:Q ratios were
608$s21

analyzed using three-way repeated measures ANOVA

(velocity [608$s21 vs. 1808$s21] 3 time [pre-vs. post] 3
condition [experimental vs. control]). Paired t-tests and
post hoc tests with a Bonferroni correction were used
when appropriate. All data were expressed as mean 6
Foam rolling co.ndition
PTHam(C) (N$m21)

PTHam(C) (N$m21)
PTHam(E) (N$m21)

PTHam(E) (N$m21)

SE and analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social

PTQuad (N$m21)

PTQuad(N$m21)
Control condition

Sciences 24 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). An a level at

p # 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS
Range of Motion
There was a two-way interaction for time 3 condition
(p , 0.001). Range of motion increased from pre- to

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2018 | 1825

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Foam Rolling, Range of Motion, and Strength

TABLE 3. Mean 6 SE for H:Q ratios under 3 different speeds for pre- and posttest.*

Pretest Posttest Percent change

608$s21 1808$s21 3008$s21 608$s21 1808$s21 3008$s21 608$s21 1808$s21 3008$s21

Control
condition
H:QConv 0.64 6 0.65 6 0.03 0.63 6 0.05 0.59 6 0.03† 0.58 6 0.04† 0.57 6 27.79 210.31 29.45
0.03 0.05†
H:Q Func 0.81 6 1.26 6 0.05 0.80 6 0.04 1.22 6 0.05
0.03
Foam rolling
condition
H:QConv 0.64 6 0.60 6 0.05 0.57 6 0.06 0.60 6 0.03† 0.59 6 0.04† 0.56 6 26.14 22.23 21.38
0.03 0.06†
H:QFunc 0.86 6 1.38 6 0.07 0.81 6 0.05 1.35 6 0.06
0.05

*H:QConv = Conventional H:Q Ratio; H:QFunc = Functional H:Q Ratio.

†Denotes significant differences from pre- to posttest.

posttest (Table 1) under the FR condition (p , 0.001), condition (p = 0.136), velocity 3 condition (p = 0.648), or
whereas ROM decreased under the control condition (p = velocity 3 time (p = 0.918). There were also no main effects
0.013). for condition (p = 0.570) or velocity (p = 0.572). However,
there was a main effect for time (p = 0.010). Conventional
Concentric Hamstrings Peak Torque
H:Q ratios decreased from pre- to posttesting (Table 3).
There was no three-way interaction for velocity 3 time 3
condition (p = 0.778) and no 2-way interactions for time 3 Functional H:Q Ratio
condition (p = 0.506), velocity 3 condition (p = 0.748), or There was no three-way interaction for velocity 3 time 3
velocity 3 time (p = 0.334). In addition, there was no main condition (p = 0.388) and no two-way interactions for time
effect for condition (p = 0.273). However, there were main 3 condition (p = 0.647) or velocity 3 time (p = 0.948). In
effects for time (p = 0.022) and velocity (p , 0.001). PT addition, there were no main effects for condition (p = 0.200)
decreased from pre- to posttesting and decreased as angu- or time (p = 0.099). However, there was an interaction for
lar velocity increased (Table 2). velocity 3 condition (p = 0.040). Functional H:Q increased
Eccentric Hamstrings Peak Torque as angular velocity increased under both FR (p , 0.001) and
There was no three-way interaction for velocity 3 time 3 control conditions (p , 0.001) (Table 3).
condition (p = 0.131) and no two-way interactions for time Concentric Biceps Femoris Muscle Activation
3 condition (p = 0.075), velocity 3 condition (p = 0.523), or There was no 3-way interaction for velocity 3 time 3 con-
velocity 3 time (p = 0.369) (Table 2). In addition, there were dition (p = 0.724) and no 2-way interactions for time 3
no main effects for condition (p = 0.803), time (p = 0.193), or velocity (p = 0.807), condition 3 velocity (p = 0.555), or
velocity (p = 0.343). condition 3 time (p = 0.192). In addition, there were no
Concentric Quadriceps Peak Torque main effects for condition (p = 0.134) or velocity (p =
There was no three-way interaction for velocity 3 time 3 0.558). However, there was a main effect for time (p =
condition (p = 0.708) and no two-way interactions for time 0.028). Muscle activation decreased from pre- to posttest
3 condition (p = 0.258), velocity 3 condition (p = 0.655), or (Figure 4).
velocity 3 time (p = 0.771). In addition, there were no main
Eccentric Biceps Femoris Muscle Activation
effects for condition (p = 0.065) or time (p = 0.893). How-
There was no three-way interaction for velocity 3 time 3
ever, there was a main effect for velocity (p , 0.001). PT
condition (p = 0.511) and no two-way interactions for time
decreased as angular velocity increased (table 2).
3 velocity (p = 0.498), condition 3 velocity (p = 0.985), or
Conventional H:Q Ratio condition 3 time (p = 0.625) (Figure 4). In addition, there
There was no three-way interaction for velocity 3 time 3 were no main effects for condition (p = 0.901), velocity (p =
condition (p = 0.693) and no 2-way interactions for time 3 0.561), or time (p = 0.835).

the TM

1826 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

DISCUSSION
The primary results of the
study indicated that FR of the
hamstrings did not cause an
altered PT of the lower limb
when compared with a control.
Range of motion improved in
the FR condition, yet
decreased in the control con-
dition. Concentric hamstrings
PT also decreased from pre- to
posttesting for both conditions.
Concentric biceps femoris
muscle activation decreased
from pre- to posttest, whereas
the concentric rectus femoris
muscle activation resulted in
a difference between certain
velocities. Although conven-
tional H:Q ratios decreased
from pre- to posttesting, func-
tional ratios increased as veloc-
ity increased. Quadriceps and
concentric hamstrings PT
decreased as angular velocity
increased.
The results of the FR inter-
vention on ROM were consis-
tent with previous research
reporting an increase in ROM
as a result of a FR protocol on
specific muscle groups
(3,8,27,30,38,39). In a study
comparing the effects of FR
and proprioceptive neuromus-
cular facilitation stretching, re-
searchers reported significant
increases in flexibility with
both experimental conditions
(27). MacDonald et al. (30),
also examined flexibility of the
Figure 4. Mean 6 SE for EMG collapsed across velocity for the concentric rectus femoris muscle, concentric quadriceps muscle group and
biceps femoris, and eccentric biceps femoris muscle. *Denotes significance between pre- and posttest.
found an increase in ROM
after a bout of FR. This study
also reported that the increase
Concentric Rectus Femoris Muscle Activation in ROM did not decrease force production, nor did it affect
There was no 3-way interaction for velocity 3 time 3 con- muscle activation. Similarly, Sullivan et al. (39) also found an
dition (p = 0.112) and no 2-way interactions for time 3 veloc- increase in flexibility without a decrease in performance fol-
ity (p = 0.602), condition 3 velocity (p = 0.860), or condition lowing an FR protocol. In a recent study, researchers com-
3 time (p = 0.583). In addition, there were no main effects for pared multiple types of stretching modalities and found that
condition (p = 0.963) or time (p = 0.321). However, there was FR, when compared with static and dynamic stretching,
a main effect for velocity (p , 0.001). There was a significant caused significant increases in flexibility without impairing
difference between 608 s21 and 1808 s21 as well as 608 s21 and performance compared with the other methods of increas-
3008 s21 and 180-3008s21 (p # 0.05) (Figure 4). ing flexibility (38). In comparison, Arazi et al. (3) reported

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2018 | 1827

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Foam Rolling, Range of Motion, and Strength

that although FR did increase flexibility of the joints, perfor- Hamstrings-to-quadriceps ratio can be an important
mance measures decreased. By contrast, Behara and Jacob- aspect when examining the strength of lower limb muscles.
son (8) found that FR did increase flexibility, but did not The present research found that the conventional H:Q ratios
alter measures of performance. decreased from pre- to posttest after both conditions. We
Although the current FR protocol did not result in large anticipated the conventional H:Q ratios to decrease from
increases in ROM, other studies have found no significant pre- to posttest as there was a decrease in muscle activation,
increases in ROM after a bout of FR (11,18,31,41). In a study which was likely the cause of the decrease in muscle PT and
by Miller and Rockey (31), researchers reported no signifi- subsequent change in ratios. However, our study did not
cant changes in ROM between an FR group and a control attain the same results as previous studies. In a study by
group after an eight-week FR protocol. In this study, those in Costa et al. (17), following a hamstrings and quadriceps
the FR group completed an FR protocol 3 times per week stretching protocol, investigators reported that participants
for 2 months, and researchers found no significant differen- had a decrease in the functional H:Q ratio. However, for the
ces between the 2 groups. In a more recent study, research- same study, only the conventional ratio decreased when
ers tested bouts of hamstrings muscle FR that were both stretching only the hamstrings (17). Similarly, Ayala et al.
2 minutes and 4 minutes in duration and reported no signif- (4) reported no change in either of the H:Q ratios after a bout
icant increases in flexibility compared with baseline ROM of static and dynamic stretching. In another study examining
tests (18). Other research by Casanova et al. (11) found no the combined effects of static stretching and fatigue, there
significant increase in ROM following a roller massage pro- were no significant changes found for either of the H:Q
tocol on the ankle plantar flexor, whereas Vigotsky et al. ratios compared with a nonstretching group (14). Although
(41), reported that a bout of self-myofascial release did not we found that the conventional H:Q ratios decreased, it
improve hip flexibility. decreased across both groups from pre- to posttest. There-
When examining the results of the present study, con- fore, it may not have been caused by the FR intervention
centric hamstrings PT decreased from pre- to posttest under that was applied only in one group. To summarize, this is
both conditions. Two previous studies reported no signifi- a positive effect for the future of FR, whereas the results from
our study may underscore the hypothesis that FR may not
cant changes after a bout of FR and dynamic stretching on
affect or provide a decrease in the H:Q ratio, when com-
knee extension torque or static and dynamic stretching on
pared with a control condition.
the hamstrings PT, respectively (4,8). Discrepancies in the
Our results varied compared with current literature
results between previous studies and the present investi-
involving an FR intervention and muscle activation. The
gation could perhaps have been because of differences in
present research study demonstrated that muscle activation
testing interventions and protocols, as well as the use of
of the biceps femoris muscle decreased from pre- to posttest,
more highly trained populations. For instance, Behara and
although there was no significant change in eccentric EMG
Jacobson (8) used highly trained Division I NCAA football
activation of the biceps femoris. Similarly, one study
players as participants. Similarly, a study by Serefoglu et al.
reported that there was no significant change in muscle
(36) reported that when stretching either the hamstrings
activation following a static stretching protocol when
or quadriceps muscles, it resulted in no change in PT of examining knee extension or flexion (15). Likewise, the
the opposite nonstretched muscle. In addition, there were biceps femoris did not have any significant effects from the
no significant changes in eccentric hamstrings PT found in FR as it occurred in both interventions, which is similar to
this study (36). To our knowledge, the present study was the results found in the previous study (15). Despite the
the first to investigate FR and its effect on eccentric PT. current findings, this disagrees with a previous study where
However, our results contrast with a previous study by Cavanaugh et al. (12) reported that after following an FR
Costa et al. (16), where after static stretching, researchers protocol on the hamstrings, researchers found no significant
found a decrease in knee flexion PT following a static decrease in quadriceps activation. MacDonald et al. (30) also
stretching protocol. Nevertheless, the present results are found that following an FR protocol, there was an increase
similar to those of Cramer et al. (20), who reported that in ROM, but no decrease in force production or muscle
after a bout of static stretching, there were no significant activation when compared with the control condition. Sim-
changes in eccentric PT. Another study by Cramer et al. ilar to MacDonald et al., Serefoglu et al. (36) reported that
(19) found that after a bout of static stretching, there were stretching antagonist muscles resulted in no change in mus-
no significant changes in eccentric PT compared with the cle activation. In another form of self-myofascial release,
pretest. PT and muscle activation in the present study Huang et al. (26) found that a massage of 30 seconds, while
decreased from pre- to posttest, presumably as a result increasing hamstrings flexibility, did not result in a significant
of fatigue. Overall, the results of the current study align change in muscle activation. Overall, the results of this study
with previous literature, while differing with other showed a decrease in biceps femoris activation following
research, showing that more exploration is needed on both the FR and control group, which was different from
the topic. previous studies that did not report a change in muscle
the TM

1828 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

activation following a stretching protocol (12,30,36). As the 8. Behara, B and Jacobson, BH. Acute effects of deep tissue foam
current study did find a decrease in muscle activation fol- rolling and dynamic stretching on muscular strength, power, and
flexibility in division I linemen. J Strength Cond Res 31: 888–892,
lowing the protocol, this finding could be attributed to 2017.
fatigue the individual may have had or the relatively short 9. Brown, LE and Weir, JP. ASEP procedures recommendation I:
time between the pre- and posttests, which may not have Accurate assessment of muscular strength and power. J Exerc
been enough time for the participant to recover. Physiol Online 4: 1–21, 2001.
In future investigations, researchers could use this research 10. Bushong, JR. Foam rolling as a warm-up: The effect on lower
extremity flexibility to aerobic and stretching. Theses and Dissertations
design to investigate differences between men and women, 105, 2011.
as well as examining more highly trained individuals versus
11. Casanova, N, Reis, JF, Vaz, JR, Machado, R, Mendes, B, Button, DC,
recreationally active women. This change could possibly Pezarat-Correia, P, and Freitas, SR. Effects of roller massager on
elicit different results than the current ones based on muscle recovery after exercise-induced muscle damage. J Sports Sci
differences between sex or force output for the individuals. 36: 1–8, 2017.
Another potential future study could examine the chronic 12. Cavanaugh, MT, Aboodarda, SJ, Hodgson, D, and Behm, DG.
Foam rolling of quadriceps decreases biceps femoris activation. J
effects of a training study using FR as there is little research Strength Cond Res 31: 2238–2245, 2016.
in this area. 13. Costa, PB, Herda, TJ, Herda, AA, and Cramer, JT. Effects of
dynamic stretching on strength, muscle imbalance, and muscle
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS activation. Med Sci Sports Exerc 46: 586–593, 2014.
In conclusion, hamstrings ROM increased after following an 14. Costa, PB, Ruas, CV, and Smith, CM. Effects of stretching and
FR protocol for the hamstrings muscles. There was also no fatigue on peak torque, muscle imbalance and stability. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness, 2017. Epub ahead of print.
decrease in performance measures after the FR, when
15. Costa, PB, Ryan, ED, Herda, TJ, Defreitas, JM, Beck, TW, and
compared with a control condition. Overall, the results of Cramer, JT. Effects of static stretching on the hamstrings-to-
this study show that FR may be beneficial in increasing quadriceps ratio and electromyographic amplitude in men. J Sports
flexibility without resulting in a decrease in functional H:Q Med Phys Fitness 49: 401–409, 2009.
ratios and may be useful for increasing ROM in an athletic or 16. Costa, PB, Ryan, ED, Herda, TJ, DeFreitas, JM, Beck, TW, and
Cramer, JT. Effects of stretching on peak torque and the H: Q ratio.
rehab setting when comparing with other methods of Int J Sports Med 30: 60–65, 2009.
increasing flexibility. Strength and conditioning coaches
17. Costa, PB, Ryan, ED, Herda, TJ, Walter, AA, Defreitas, JM, Stout, JR,
and practitioners may wish to incorporate FR as a useful and Cramer, JT. Acute effects of static stretching on peak torque and
tool for increasing ROM in the lower limbs without resulting the hamstrings-to-quadriceps conventional and functional ratios.
in negative performance measures or increases in injury risk Scand J Med Sci Sports 23: 38–45, 2013.
when compared with a non-FR control condition. 18. Couture, G, Karlik, D, Glass, SC, and Hatzel, BM. The effect of foam
rolling duration on hamstring range of motion. Open Orthop J 9:
450–455, 2015.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
19. Cramer, JT, Housh, TJ, Coburn, JW, Beck, TW, and Johnson, GO.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Acute effects of static stretching on maximal eccentric torque
production in women. J Strength Cond Res 20: 354–358, 2006.
20. Cramer, JT, Housh, TJ, Johnson, GO, Weir, JP, Beck, TW, and
REFERENCES Coburn, JW. An acute bout of static stretching does not affect
1. Aboodarda, SJ, Spence, AJ, and Button, DC. Pain pressure threshold maximal eccentric isokinetic peak torque, the joint angle at peak
of a muscle tender spot increases following local and non-local torque, mean power, electromyography, or mechanomyography. J
Orthop Sports Phys Ther 37: 130–139, 2007.
rolling massage. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16: 265, 2015.
21. Curran, PF, Fiore, RD, and Crisco, JJ. A comparison of the pressure
2. Ahmad, CS, Clark, AM, Heilmann, N, Schoeb, JS, Gardner, TR, and
exerted on soft tissue by 2 myofascial rollers. J Sport Rehabil 17: 432–
Levine, WN. Effect of gender and maturity on quadriceps-to-
442, 2008.
hamstring strength ratio and anterior cruciate ligament laxity. Am J
Sports Med 34: 370–374, 2006. 22. Davis, DS, Quinn, RO, Whiteman, CT, Williams, JD, and Young,
CR. Concurrent validity of four clinical tests used to measure
3. Arazi, H, Aside, A, and Hosseini, K. Comparison of two different hamstring flexibility. J Strength Cond Res 22: 583–588, 2008.
warm-ups (static-stretching and massage): Effects on flexibility and
explosive power. Acta Kinesiologica 6: 55–59, 2012. 23. Faul, F, Erdfelder, E, Lang, AG, and Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A
flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral,
4. Ayala, F, De Ste Croix, M, Sainz De Baranda, P, and Santonja, F. and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39: 175–191, 2007.
Acute effects of static and dynamic stretching on hamstring
eccentric isokinetic strength and unilateral hamstring to quadriceps 24. Halperin, I, Aboodarda, SJ, Button, DC, Andersen, LL, and Behm,
strength ratios. J Sports Sci 31: 831–839, 2013. DG. Roller massager improves range of motion of plantar flexor
muscles without subsequent decreases in force parameters. Int J
5. Barnes, MF. The basic science of myofascial release: Morphologic Sports Phys Ther 9: 92–102, 2014.
change in connective tissue. JM Ther 1: 231–238, 1997.
25. Healey, KC, Hatfield, DL, Blanpied, P, Dorfman, LR, and Riebe, D.
6. Baxter, C, Mc Naughton, LR, Sparks, A, Norton, L, and Bentley, D. The effects of myofascial release with foam rolling on performance.
Impact of stretching on the performance and injury risk of long- J Strength Cond Res 28: 61–68, 2014.
distance runners. Res Sports Med 25: 78–90, 2017.
26. Huang, SY, Di Santo, M, Wadden, KP, Cappa, DF, Alkanani, T, and
7. Beck, TW. The importance of a priori sample size estimation in Behm, DG. Short-duration massage at the hamstrings
strength and conditioning research. J Strength Cond Res 27: 2323– musculotendinous junction induces greater range of motion. J
2337, 2013. Strength Cond Res 24: 1917–1924, 2010.

VOLUME 32 | NUMBER 7 | JULY 2018 | 1829

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Foam Rolling, Range of Motion, and Strength

27. Junker, DH and Stöggl, TL. The foam roll as a tool to improve 35. Sefton, J. Myofascial release for athletic trainers, part 1: Theory and
hamstring flexibility. J Strength Cond Res 29: 3480–3485, 2015. session guidelines. Athl Ther Today 9: 48–49, 2004.
28. Kelly, S and Beardsley, C. Specific and cross-over effects of foam 36. Serefoglu, A, Sekir, U, Gür, H, and Akova, B. Effects of static and
rolling on ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. Int J Sports Phys Ther dynamic stretching on the isokinetic peak torques and
11: 544–551, 2016. electromyographic activities of the antagonist muscles. J Sports Sci
29. Kong, PW and Burns, SF. Bilateral difference in hamstrings to Med 16: 6–13, 2017.
quadriceps ratio in healthy males and females. Phys Ther Sport 11: 37. Stecco, C and Schleip, R. A fascia and the fascial system. J Bodyw
12–17, 2010. Mov Ther 20: 139–140, 2016.
30. MacDonald, GZ, Penney, MD, Mullaley, ME, Cuconato, AL, 38. Su, H, Chang, NJ, Wu, WL, Guo, LY, and Chu, IH. Acute effects of
Drake, CD, Behm, DG, and Button, DC. An acute bout of self- foam rolling, static stretching, and dynamic stretching during warm-
myofascial release increases range of motion without a subsequent ups on muscular flexibility and strength in young adults. J Sport
decrease in muscle activation or force. J Strength Cond Res 27: 812– Rehabil 26: 1–24, 2016.
821, 2013. 39. Sullivan, KM, Silvey, DB, Button, DC, and Behm, DG. Roller-
31. Miller, JK and Rockey, AM. Foam rollers show no increase in the massager application to the hamstrings increases sit-and-reach
flexibility of the hamstring muscle group. J Undergraduate Res 9, range of motion within five to ten seconds without performance
2006. impairments. Int J Sports Phys Ther 8: 228–236, 2013.
32. Orchard, J, Marsden, J, Lord, S, and Garlick, D. Preseason hamstring 40. Trehearn, TL and Buresh, RJ. Sit-and-reach flexibility and running
muscle weakness associated with hamstring muscle injury in economy of men and women collegiate distance runners. J Strength
Australian footballers. Am J Sports Med 25: 81–85, 1997. Cond Res 23: 158–162, 2009.
33. Peacock, CA, Krein, DD, Silver, TA, Sanders, GJ, and Carlowitz, 41. Vigotsky, AD, Lehman, GJ, Contreras, B, Beardsley, C, Chung, B,
VON. KA. An acute bout of self-myofascial release in the form of and Feser, EH. Acute effects of anterior thigh foam rolling on hip
foam rolling improves performance testing. Int J Exerc Sci 7: 202– angle, knee angle, and rectus femoris length in the modified Thomas
211, 2014. test. PeerJ 3: e1281, 2015.
34. Rubini, EC, Costa, AL, and Gomes, PS. The effects of stretching on 42. Woods, K, Bishop, P, and Jones, E. Warm-up and stretching in the
strength performance. Sports Med 37: 213–224, 2007. prevention of muscular injury. Sports Med 37: 1089–1099, 2007.

the TM

1830 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.