MANIATAKIS et al.,1212 Maniatakis A, Mavraganis N, Kallistratos E, Mandalidis D, Mylonas K, Angelopoulos P, et al. The effectiveness of Ergon Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization, foam rolling, and athletic elastic taping in improving volleyball players’ shoulder range of motion and throwing performance: a pilot study on elite athletes. J Phys Ther Sci. 2020;32(10):611-4.2020 |
Investigate the effectiveness of IASTM, SMR and EB at ROM shoulder and throwing performance in volleyball players |
15 elite volleyball players (Age= 24 ± 4,54 years old) |
Crossover trial: SMR, IASTM or EB |
Daily volleyball training sessions |
– Total: 10 min – 9 x 60 s – Pressure BW – Before the volleyball training session – Roller |
-Shoulders |
-IM after RP |
> ROM in the external rotation of the shoulder in SMR and IASTM compared EB pre to post > ROM in the shoulder flexion in SMR and IASTM compared EB pre to post |
YANAOKA et al.,1313 Yanaoka T, Yoshimura A, Iwata R, Fukuchi M, Hirose, N. The effect of foam rollers of varying densities on range of motion recovery. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2021;26:64-71. 2020 |
Compare the effect of different SMR rolls on ROM |
10 active participants (Age= 22,1 ± 1,4 years old) |
Crossover trial: medium dens SMR or high dens SMR with contralateral lower limb as control |
LIST -loughborough intermittent shuttle test |
Total: 2 min SMR – 2 x 60 s unilateral rest 30 s – IM after TP – Medium and High Dens Roll – Pressure force from 45% to 55% of body weight |
-Hamstrings |
– IM after TP – IM after RP – 20 min RP – 60 min RP – 24 h after RP – 48 h after RP |
> ROM hip SMR (0, 20, 60 min e 24, 48 h) compared CON No significant difference in PS and CK |
NAKAMURA et al.,1414 Nakamura M, Yasaka K, Kiyono R, Onuma R, Yahata K, Sato S, et al. The Acute Effect of Foam Rolling on Eccentrically-Induced Muscle Damage. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(1):75. 2021 |
Detect the acute effect of 90 s of SMR on soreness and muscle function of the quadriceps |
17 healthy and sedentary men (Age= 21,1 ± 0,5 years old) |
Pre and post test |
6 x 10 maximum repetitions of knee extension (eccentric exercise) |
Total: 90 s SMR – 3 x 30 s unilateral rest 30 s – 48 h after TP – Plastic core roller – Pressure BW with 7 out of 10 on the numerical rating scale (0 to 10) |
-Quadriceps |
– 48 h after TP – IM after RP |
> MVCC, MVIC and ROM knee pre to post SMR < PS on palpation, contraction and stretching (-22.5 mm) pre to post SMR |
PELANA et al.,1515 Pelana R, Apriantono T, Bagus B, Juniarsyah AD, Ihsani SI. Effects of foam rolling on blood lactate concentration in elite futsal players. Hum Mov. 2021;22(1):70-7. 2021 |
Evaluate the use of SMR in performance recovery and lactate reduction in futsal athletes |
30 futsal athletes (Age= 20 a 23 years old) |
controlled trial: SMR or AR |
Sprint 20 m and agility T-Test |
Total: 10 min SMR – 1 x 60 s each muscle group of each leg rest 15 s – IM after TP – Non-smooth high-dens roller – Pressure BW |
– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Gluteus – Gastrocnemius |
– IM after RP – 24 h after RP |
↑ lactate removal SMR compared to AR No significant difference in agility and sprint |
WATTIMENA; WINATA,1616 Wattimena FY, Winata B. Effect of Hot-Water Immersion and Foam Rolling on Recovery in Amateur Sepaktakraw Players. Int J Hum Mov Sports Sci. 2020;8(6):498-504.2020 |
Compare HWI and SMR in the recovery of Sepak takraw athletes |
18 sepak takraw athletes (Age= 18 a 20 years old) |
controlled trial: HWI or SMR or PR |
Takraw sepak game |
– Total: 10 min SMR – 1 x 60 s each muscle group of each leg rest 30 s – IM after TP – Non-smooth roll – Pressure BW |
– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Abductors – Gluteus – Gastrocnemius |
– IM after TP – 15 min after RP |
↑ Lactate removal HWI and SMR compared to PR > SPR HWI and SMR compared to PR |
ADAMCZYK et al.,1717 Adamczyk JG, Gryko K, Boguszewski D. Does the type of foam roller influence the recovery rate, thermal response and DOMS prevention? PloS One. 2020;15(6):e0235195. 2020 |
Determine which type of SMR roller is effective in lactate removal and DOMS prevention |
33 participants untrained and healthy males (Age= 19 a 25 years old) |
Controlled trial: PR or Smooth SMR or Non-smooth SMR |
Squats with full effort jumps in 1 min |
– Total: 12 min SMR – 1 x 60 s each muscle group of each leg. – IM after TP – Smooth and non-smooth rolls – Pressure BW |
– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Gluteus – Gastrocnemius – Iliotibial tract |
– IM after RP – 24 h after RP – 48 h after RP – 72 h after RP – 96 h after RP |
↑ removal lactate non-smooth SMR and smooth SMR compared to PR > skin temperature in smooth and non-smooth SMR compared to PR after 30 min of SMR < PS Smooth (48 h to 96 h) and non-smooth (24 h to 96 h) SMR compared to PR |
DE BENITO; VALLDECABRES,1818 de Benito AM, Valldecabres R. Effect of vibration vs non-vibration foam rolling techniques on flexibility, dynamic balance and perceived joint stability after fatigue. PeerJ. 2019;7:e8000. 2019 |
Determine the effects of SMR with and without vibration after a fatigue-inducing protocol |
24 active and healthy participants (Age= 18 a 28 years old) |
Crossover trial: SMR with or without vibration |
30 Reps lunges for min until voluntary fatigue |
– Total: 4 min SMR – 2 x 60 s each muscle group rest 30 s – IM after TP – Dense roll – Pressure BW |
– Quadriceps – Hamstrings |
– IM após FP – IM after RP |
↑ Flex ankle and hamstrings |
KALÉN et al.,77 Kalén A, Pérez-Ferreirós A, Barcala-Furelos R, Fernández-Méndez M, Padrón-Cabo A, Prieto JA, et al. How can lifeguards recover better? A cross-over study comparing resting, running, and foam rolling. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35(12):1887-91. 2017 |
Compare the effectiveness of RP, RA or SMR in removing lactate after an aquatic rescue. |
12 lifeguard (Age= 24 ± 4,9 years old) |
Crossover trial: AR, PR or SMR |
100 m aquatic rescue |
– Total: 20 min SMR – 1 min each leg – IM after aquatic rescue – High dens roll – Pressure BW |
– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Gluteus – Iliotibial tract |
– IM after FP – IM after RP |
< lactate concentration in SMR and AR compared to PR No significant difference RPE |
LAFFAYE et al.,1919 Laffaye G, Da Silva DT, Delafontaine A. Self-Myofascial Release Effect With Foam Rolling on Recovery After High-Intensity Interval Training. Front Physiol. 2019;10:1287. 2019 |
Assess the impact of SMR on a lower limb immediately after HIIT |
20 healthy participants (Age= 24,45 ± 3,35 years old) |
Contralateral lower limb as control |
8 x 20 s squat 10 s of rest |
– Total: 4 min SMR – 2 x 60 s each muscle group of the dominant leg – IM after TP – Non-smooth high dens roller – Pressure BW |
– FLT – Rectus femoris and sartorius |
– IM after RP – 24 h after RP – 48 h after RP |
No significant difference VJ and ROM < PS after 24 h SMR leg compared to control leg |
D’AMICO; PAOLONE,2020 D’Amico A, Paolone V. The Effect of Foam Rolling on Recovery Between Two Eight Hundred Metre Runs. J Hum Kinet. 2017;57(1):97-105. 2017 |
Examine SMR impact on recovery between two 800 m runs |
16 trained participants (Age= 20,5 ± 0,5 years old) |
Crossover trial: PR or SMR |
800m treadmill run |
– Total: 10 min SMR – 30 s each muscle group. – IM after run – EVA roll – Pressure BW |
– Hip flexors – Quadriceps – Iliotibial tract – Adductors – Gluteus – Gastrocnemius |
– IM after first run e IM before RP – IM after second run |
No significant difference in lactate removal, running hip extension and running time |
REY et al.,2121 Rey E, Padrón-Cabo A, Costa PB, Barcala-Furelos R. The Effects of Foam Rolling as a Recovery Tool in Professional Soccer Players. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(8):2194-2201. 2019 |
Examine the effectiveness of SMR and PR interventions performed immediately after a training session |
18 professional soccer players (Age= 26,6 ± 3,3 years old) |
Controlled trial: PR or SMR |
standardized soccer training |
– Total: 20 min SMR – 2 x 45 s rest 15 s each muscle group each leg. – IM after TP – High dens roll – Pressure BW |
– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Gluteus – Gastrocnemius |
-24 h after RP |
SPR Maintenance, PS maintenance, Maintenance agility after 24 h No significant difference VJ, Sprint and Flex |
FLECKENSTEIN et al.,2222 Fleckenstein J, Wilke J, Vogt L, Banzer W. Preventive and Regenerative Foam Rolling are Equally Effective in Reducing Fatigue-Related Impairments of Muscle Function following Exercise. J of Sport Sci Med. 2017;16(4):474-9. 2017 |
To compare the effects of a single preventive or regenerative SMR session on exercise-induced neuromuscular exhaustion |
44 healthy and physically active participants (23 men age = 24.8 ± 2.3 years old and 22 women age = 25 ± 2 years old) |
Controlled trial: PR, SMR antes FP or SMR after FP |
Functional agility short-term fatigue protocol (FAST-FP) |
– Total: 5 min SMR – 30 s each muscle group, in both legs-IM após PF – Roll – Pressure BW |
– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Iliotibial tract – Gastrocnemius |
-IM after FP and 5 min after FP or IM after RP and 5 min after RP |
< MVIC reduction IM after FP and 5 min after FP No significant difference PS and VJ |
JO et al.,2323 Jo E, Juache GA, Saralegui DE, Weng D, Falatoonzadeh S. The Acute Effects of Foam Rolling on Fatigue-Related Impairments of Muscular Performance. Sports (Basel, Switzerland). 2018;6(4):112. 2018 |
Examine the effects of SMR IM after strenuous activity on fatigue-related muscle performance |
25 healthy individuals (Age = 18 to 25 years old) |
Crossover trial: PR or SMR |
Treadmill maximal effort protocol and 3 x 10 reps of deep jumps |
– Total: 10 min SMR – 2 x 30 s each muscle group – IM after maximum effort protocol – High dens plastic core roller – Pressure BW |
– Hamstrings – Quadriceps – Adductors – Iliotibial tract – Gastrocnemius |
-IM after RP |
< Velocity decline, power and peak power in VJ No significant difference in dynamic reaction |
ROMERO-MORALEDA et al.,2424 Romero-Moraleda B, Gonzalez-Garcia J, Cuellar-Rayo A, Balsalobre-Fernandez C, Munoz-Garcia D, Morencos E. Effects of Vibration and Non-Vibration Foam Rolling on Recovery after Exercise with Induced Muscle Damage. J Sports sci Med. 2019;18(1):172-80. 2019 |
Compare the effects between SMR without and with vibration after causing muscle damage |
38 healthy participants (Age = 22.2±3.2 years old) |
Controlled trial: SMR without or with vibration |
10 x 10 reps of eccentric squats |
– Total: 10 min SMR – 5 x 60 s rest for 30 s, on both legs. – 48 h after TP – Polystyrene roller – Pressure BW |
-Quadriceps |
-48 h after TP e IM after RP |
< PS, > VJ height and ROM hip (active and passive) and knee (active) > Passive PS and lower pain threshold in SMR compared to vibrating roller |
ROMERO-MORALEDA et al.,2525 Romero-Moraleda B, La Touche R, Lerma-Lara S, Ferrer-Peña R, Paredes V, Peinado AB, et al. Neurodynamic mobilization and foam rolling improved delayed-onset muscle soreness in a healthy adult population: a randomized controlled clinical trial. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3908. 2017 |
Compare the immediate effects of a Neurodynamic Mobilization or SMR treatment after DOMS |
32 healthy participants (Age= 22.6 ± 2.2 years old) |
Controlled trial: Neurodynamic Mobilization or SMR |
5 x 20 reps in box jumps (0.5m) 2 min rest between sets |
– Total: 10 min SMR – 5 x 60 s rest for 30 s on both legs – 48 h after PT – Polystyrene roller – Pressure BW |
-Quadriceps |
-48 h after TP e IM after RP |
< PS SMR and Neurodynamic Mobilization group compared to pre TP ↑ of leg strength ↑ MVIC of the rectus femoris SMR |
AKINCI et al.,2626 Akinci B, Zenginler Yazgan Y, Altinoluk T. The effectiveness of three different recovery methods on blood lactate, acute muscle performance, and delayed-onset muscle soreness: a randomized comparative study. J Sports Med PhysFit. 2020;60(3):345-54. 2020 |
Compare AR, neuromuscular electrical stimulation and SMR in healthy young people |
45 healthy young participants (Age= 20 a 25 years old) |
Controlled trial: SMR ou AR ou neuromuscular electrical stimulation |
Circuit based on high intensity training |
– Total: 15 min SMR – 90 s each muscle group in both legs. – IM after circuit – Polyurethane and polypropylene roller – Pressure BW |
– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Adductors – Gluteus – Iliotibial tract |
– IM after RP (Flex, strength and resistance) – 5 and 20 min after RP (Lactate) – IM, 24 and 48 h after RP (PS) |
< Flex, hamstring strength and squat resistance SMR compared to neuromuscular electrical stimulation and RA No significant difference PS and lactate |
LEE et al.,2727 Lee EJ, Van Iterson EH, Baker SE, Kasak AJ, Taylor NE, Kang C, et al. Foam rolling is an effective recovery tool in trained distance runners. Sport Sci Health. 2020;16(1):105-15. 2020 |
Determine the influence of SMR on pain and running performance compared to the simulation of compression tights |
8 runners (Age=31 ± 7 years old) |
Crossover trial: SMR or placebo (compression tights) |
30 min downhill run at 75% speed of 5 km run |
– Total: 16 min SMR – 2 x 1 min muscle group in both legs – IM after run – Dense roller |
– Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Gluteus – Iliotibial tract |
-IM after running (IM before RP) and 48 h after RP |
< PS active SMR pre to post compared compression tights No significant difference RPE, CK and time on 3km counter |
DA SILVA; et al. et al.,2828 da Silva PRN, Monteiro ER, Peixoto CG, de Carvalho ABM, Monteiro TMG, de Figueiredo TC. Acute Effects of Inter-Set Rest Period Foam Rolling on Repetition Performance in Strength Training. J. Exerc. Physiol. Online. 2019;22(3). 2019 |
To investigate the effect of SMR during rest between sets on rep number |
10 men trained in resistance training (Age: 27.3 ± 5.1 years old) |
Crossover trial: SMR e PR |
2 x 70% of a 1 RM to concentric failure |
– Total: 60 s SMR – Between knee extension sets – Inner hard core EVA roller – Pressure BW |
-Quadriceps |
-IM after RP |
No significant difference in the number of repetitions between PR and SMR group |
ÖZSU et al.,2929 Özsu İ, Gurol B, Kurt C. Comparison of the Effect of Passive and Active Recovery, and Self-Myofascial Release Exercises on Lactate Removal and Total Quality of Recovery. J Educ Train Stud. 2018;6(9a):33-42. 2018 |
Compare the effects of PR, AR and SMR on the removal of lactate and SPR 22 well-trained team sports athletes |
22 well-trained team sports athletes (Age= 22.6 ± 2.9 years old) |
Crossover trial: SMR, PR e AR |
Wingate anaerobic test |
– Total:15 min SMR – 3 x 30 s, 10-30 s rest on both legs. – IM after FP – Trigger point roller – Max BW pressure |
– Hamstrings – Quadriceps – Hip – Iliotibial tract – Gastrocnemius – Anterior tibial |
-IM after RP |
> SPR SMR compared to PR and AR < RPE SMR compared to PR and AR > lactate removal SMR and AR compared to PR No significant difference in anaerobic power |
GIOVANELLI et al.,3030 Giovanelli N, Vaccari F, Floreani M, Rejc E, Copetti J, Garra M, et al. Short-term effects of rolling massage on energy cost of running and power of the lower limbs. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13(10):1337-43. 2018 |
Assessing the effects of SMR on the Running Economy |
13 students practicing sports (Age= 26.3±5.3 years old) |
Crossover trial: SMR or PR |
10 min treadmill run |
Total: 16 min SMR – 1 x 1 min each muscle group in both legs. – After the run protocol – Roll – Max BW pressure |
– Plantar fascia – Gastrocnemius – Tibial anterior – Quadriceps – Hamstrings – Gluteus – FLT |
-IM and 3 h after RP |
No significant difference VJ and RPE |
ZORKO et al.,3131 Zorko N, Škarabot J, Garcia-Ramos A, Štirn I. The acute effect of self-massage on the short-term recovery of muscle contractile function. Kinesiologia Slovenica. 2016;22(3):31. 2016 |
Provide data on the effects of SMR on the recovery of muscle contractile function |
10 active university students (Age= 18 to 24 years old) |
Contralateral lower limb as control |
3 x 15 rep knee extension with 70% of 1 RM |
– Total: 90 s SMR in the dominant leg. – After FP – Trigger point roller – Pressure BW |
-Quadriceps |
-IM after FP and IM after RP |
No significant difference MVIC |
MILLER et al.,3232 Miller K, Costa PB, Coburn JW, Brown LE. The effects of foam rolling on maximal sprint performance and range of motion. JASC. 2019;27(01):15-26. 2019 |
Examine the effects of SMR on peak sprint performance and ROM in recreational athletes |
22 physically active participants (11 men age = 22.16 years old and 11 women age = 21.7 years old) |
Crossover trial: SMR or PR |
Sprint protocol |
– Total: 12 min SMR – 3 x 30 s, 10 s of rest each muscle group in both legs. – IM after sprint protocol – High density polyethylene roller – Max BW pressure |
– Gastrocnemius – Quadriceps – Gluteus – Hamstrings |
-IM after RP |
↑ ankle, knee and hip ROM SMR compared to RP No significant difference speed |
POŻAROWSZCZYK et al.,3333 Pożarowszczyk B, Kisilewicz A, Kawczyński A. Effects of training and foam rolling on muscle properties in swimmers. SWIMMING VII. 2018:92-98. 2018 |
Understand the effectiveness of SMR on muscle stiffness, flexibility and tone in swimmers |
12 adolescent swimmers (Age= 14 ± 2 years old) |
Pre-Post test |
Aerobic swim training with 4 km and 75 min duration |
Total: 15 min SMR – 8 to 10 reps each muscle group. – IM after swimming training – Roll – Max BW pressure |
– Back – Legs (posterior) – Neck |
-IM after TP and IM after SMR |
↑ Flex postural muscles, pre to after SMR |