Acute effects of vibration foam rolling on the explosive strength properties of the plantarflexors during maximal isometric contraction

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Foam roller with vibration is a recent development and its implementation has not yet been provided with a sufficient scientific justification. Information on whether an implementation of vibration foam rolling for self-massage before the powerful muscular activities is a good strategy is scarce.

OBJECTIVE:

Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the acute effects of a single 15-s and 60-s vibrating foam rolling treatment on muscle contractile properties during maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC).

METHODS:

Twenty healthy and recreationally active subjects participated in this study. During first visit, baseline characteristics were collected, while on the second and third visit they performed a 15-s and a 60-s vibration foam rolling treatment, respectively. Their maximal force (F ${}_{\text{max}})$ and rate of force development (RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ ) were assessed using the MVIC of plantarflexors.

RESULTS:

The RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ was negatively affected ( $p\leqslant$ 0.05) after the 15-s treatment and 60-s treatment, staying reduced even after 10-min of recovery. No significant effects were observed for F ${}_{\text{max}}$ .

CONCLUSIONS:

When implementing vibration foam rolling, either as a pre-workout activity or as a pre-competition treatment, caution should be taken. Short duration treatment should be avoided for activities were RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ has a significant impact on performance.

Keywords

Self-myofascial release warm-up muscle contractile properties

1. Introduction

Foam rolling treatment has become widespread in the last decade among professional athletes. Foam roller is a tool for self-massage (self-myofascial release) where an athlete applies a direct mechanical pressure to a muscle tissue using his or her own body weight to roll a specific muscle over a foam roller. The applied mechanical pressure results in myofascial release, which helps relieve muscle tightness, soreness, and inflammation, all of which could improve performance [1]. As a connective tissue fascia moves in a thixotropic fashion where the more it is moved the softer and malleable it becomes [2]. Muscular fascia has been found to address mobility of the muscle, cellular circulation and elasticity of the muscle so it is vital that the fascia is loose and malleable [3]. Foam rolling has allowed athletes and individuals to achieve a way of increasing the mobility of the fascia to gain the possible benefits it may have on performance [4]. However, it has also been shown that the voluntary activation can be affected when applying mechanical pressure on a muscle tissue [5]. Therefore, the athletic performance and recovery protocols could be altered with muscle properties changes caused by the foam rolling. The potential impact of self-myofascial release on athletic performance if power output is a critical element durations greater of 1-min per muscle group should be discouraged [6].

Previously published data showed that the foam rolling may play an important role in variety of exercise-induced processes such as improvement of athletic performance, reduction in muscle pain, reduction in muscle, tendon, and fascia inflammation, improving cellular circulation, influencing muscle mobility by changing range of motion, etc. [1]. For instance, maximal voluntary contraction of knee extensors after 2-min of foam rolling on three consecutive days was found to be higher compared to the group of participants who rested [7]. Another study using foam rolling treatment with different duration, ranging from 30 to 300-s suggested that foam rolling for more than 90-s or more was effective in order to increase the range of motion immediately without changing muscle stiffness and muscle strength [8]. In contrast, foam rolling for three sets of 30-s had no effect on maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), while force developed in the first 200-ms showed 9.5% and 19.1% decrease at post-rolling treatment and after an additional 5-min rest [5]. Furthermore, a 5-min foam rolling treatment with a roller stick had no effect on the recovery of MVIC of elbow flexors [9].

Over the last two decades, the use of WBV as a physical exercise and therapy has become a promising approach for improving the strength and muscle power of lower extremities [10]. Increasing muscle strength is not surprising and is highly supported by other WBV (whole body vibration) studies [11]. Foam roller with vibration (VFR – vibration foam rolling) presents a new way of targeting muscle performance. Inside a foam roller is an electrical motor which is battery powered, thus creating vibrations. However, combining two treatments (i.e., rolling and vibration) at the same time in form of vibrating foam roller is creating a gap between the practice and science since clear evidence in favor of this treatment have not yet been established. It is established that during maximal voluntary contraction frequency of motor unit excitation is 30 Hz [12]. Optimal frequent range for most effective muscle activation is from 30 Hz to 50 Hz, especially vibration training could induce greater improvements in muscle strength and power at elite athletes then in lower level athletes [13].

Up to date there are very few studies that examined the effects of vibrating foam rolling treatment. García-Gutiérrez et al. [7] found an increase in dorsiflexion range of motion after the treatment with foam roller and vibrating roller. Authors further reported a cross-over transfer effect in the contralateral limb whereby the addition of the vibration stimulus with foam rolling did not further increase the range of motion compared to the foam rolling alone [14]. Nakamura et al. suggested that foam rolling for more than 90-s or more of foam rolling was effective in order to increase the range of motion immediately without changing muscle stiffness and muscle strength [8]. The same author compared the effects of a vibration roller at 48 Hz in duration of three sets of 1-min with and without rolling at the muscle-tendon junction or the muscle belly and found that vibration with rolling or static vibration on muscle belly could be effective to improve range of motion and muscle stiffness without adverse effects of muscle strength and athletic performance [15]. Acute effects of vibration at 26 Hz on voluntary activation of plantar flexors in duration of five sets of 1-min improved muscle strength [16]. A study that investigated the acute and sustained effects of three 60-s sets of VFR with different frequencies (35 Hz and 67 Hz) on knee flexion range of motion (ROM) and muscle strength of the knee extensors found results that suggested VFR can increase knee flexion ROM but induce a decrease in muscle strength up to 20 min after both high- and low-frequency VFR however, there were no significant changes in rate of force development [17]. A wider research in the future of the vibration foam rolling method is proposed by systematic review with meta-analysis [18], since it found a great potential to improve jump performance, agility, strength and recovery for this method.

Where to place the combined rolling-vibration treatment in a single training session or during the competition (e.g., pre-warmup, warm-up or pre-competition) is an important question as misplacing this treatment could have a significant impact on the muscle performance needed in the main part of training or during the high intensity or competitive activity. Researchers have used foam rolling treatment durations ranging from 5-s to 3-min and others have used sets of treatment while the effect of treatment duration is not well studied [6]. Mostly observed in exercise practice and in published data is foam rolling treatment duration up to 1-min per muscle group therefore, the aim of this study was set in terms with ecological validity to determine the acute effects of two very distinguishably different treatments in terms of duration, a 15-s and 60-s self-administered massage using vibrating foam roller on muscle contraction outputs of MVIC such as maximal force (F ${}_{\text{max}}$ ) and rate of force development (RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ ). As many conflicting findings and unknowns arise from this novel combined treatment, from a methodological standpoint it was hypothesized that both vibrating foam roller treatments would reduce the F ${}_{\text{max}}$ and RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ .

Figure 1.

Flow chart of the study design.

2. Methods

2.1 Subjects

Twenty healthy male adult subjects (23 enrolled, 3 dropped out) who were recreationally physically active volunteered for this study. The main characteristics of the sample were: age $=$ 24.5 $\pm$ 5, height $=$ 186 $\pm$ 7 cm, weight $=$ 81 $\pm$ 8 kg, percent of body fat $=$ 12 $\pm$ 5%, and percent of skeletal muscle mass $=$ 50 $\pm$ 3%. To be included in the study the participants had to he familiar with foam rolling and strength training (e.g., two to four weight trainings per week for the last 6 months). The exclusion criteria were having a history of neural conditions and major muscular and/or tendon injury, and using any antidepressants, medicines for anxiety or sleep disturbances during the three months preceding the beginning of the study. All subjects were instructed to refrain from performing any strenuous and high intensity exercise for 48-h and any exercise at least 24-h prior to testing session. Prior to beginning the study testing, subjects signed the written informed consent. Testing and treatment procedures were approved by the ethics board of the Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Belgrade (number III47015). The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration [20].

2.2 Experimental design

Randomized cross-sectional study design was used to investigate the acute effects of vibrating foam rolling on maximal force and explosive strength properties in MVIC. Each subject attended the research laboratory for three experimental sessions. The flowchart of the study is outlined in Fig. 1. During the first session, anthropometrics and body composition measurements were collected using an anthropometer and InBody 720 body composition analyzer (Biospace, Korea) according to previously described procedures [19]. The subjects then performed standardized warm up and four attempts of maximal isometric heel rises. The first attempt was used as a baseline, while other three attempts were performed after 1, 5, and 10-min of rest. The first testing session was used as a control session. At the second testing session, participants performed the same warm up protocol and maximal heel rise attempts just after the baseline assessment, they performed a 15-s vibrating foam rolling treatment (Treatment15s), and the second maximal heel attempt followed immediately. At the third testing session, subjects followed the same protocol but performed a 60-s vibrating rolling (Treatment60s) treatment instead of 15-s. Experimental sessions were done in a random order. Considering this, the first attempt was labeled Pre-treatment, while attempts after the rolling treatment were labeled Post-treatment 1 (i.e., second attempt in the control session or attempt immediately after the treatment in the second and third session), Post-treatment 2 (i.e., third attempt in the control session or 5-min after the treatment in the second and third session), and Post-treatment 3 (i.e., fourth attempt in the control session or 10-min after the treatment in the second and third session). Experimental sessions were separated by one week and were applied at the same time of the day.

2.3 Procedures

A warm up protocol included a stationary bicycle lasting 5-min at 70 watts with individually adjusted sitting height to achieve full leg extension during cycling. Next, subjects performed two sets of 10 standing heel raises with focus on fast concentric phase. This was followed with one set of 10 countermovement and one set of 10–15 quick ankle jumps. Upon completion of warm-up subjects rested for 2 to 3-min. Then, they were positioned in testing position and performed three submaximal attempts, to become familiar with the setting and instructions.

Figure 2.

The assessment of F ${}_{\text{max}}$ and RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ .

2.4 Force and power outputs from Isometric heel rise

A standardized test procedure and equipment were used to asses F ${}_{\text{max}}$ and RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ of calf muscles [21, 22]. Custom-made construction with a fixed force transducer (tensile/compressive sensitivity 2 mV/n, Hottinger, Type S9, Darmstadt, Germany) was used for collecting data. The signal was acquisitioned and processed using the Isometrics Lite, ver. 3.1.1 by Sport Medical Solutions, Belgrade, Serbia [21]. Trial-to-trial reliability was checked for the pretreatment test. The obtained ICC values for F ${}_{\text{max}}$ and RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ were 0.849 and 0.886, providing high reliability.

A subject was placed in a seated position with hips and knees at 90 ${}^{\circ}$ of flexion (Fig. 2), and keeping back straight without leaning on the backrest. A wooden horizontal plate connected to the floor with perpendicularly positioned force transducer was placed over the thighs of the subject. While full feet were on the floor, the wooden plate was individually adjusted to firmly keep the feet on the ground, preventing the possibility of heel raise. On the researcher’s word Ready, Steady, Go subjects had to initiate the calf rise as strong and fast as possible. They performed three trials, with 2-min rest between trials. The best of three trials was used for the analysis. The same procedure was repeated immediately after the vibrating foam rolling treatment, after 5-min of recovery, and after 10-min.

2.5 Vibration foam rolling treatments

After the pretreatment MVICs, subjects rested for 15-min prior the rolling treatment. A 30 $\times$ 13 cm vibrating foam roller (Thera Body, LA, USA) made of Hypo-allergenic EVA high-density foam was used for the foam rolling treatment (Figs 4 and 5). The vibration frequency was set at 29 Hz, while subjects were using their bodyweight to press the calves over the roller. From the sitting position on the floor with legs extended, participants positioned one calf over the foam roller, while the other leg was crossed over the leg that rolls. They rolled for 15 and 60-s from proximal to distal portion of the posterior calf muscles (muscle belly and tendons) and then they switched legs and rolled for the same duration. A metronome was used to standardize the speed of rolling over participants’ soleus and gastrocnemii muscles, so each participant performed the same number of rolls (2 rolls per second).

2.6 Variables

Figure 3.

Distribution of differences after both treatments and corresponding Cohen effect sizes (d).

Figure 4.

The Wave Roller ${}^{\text{TM}}$ (https://www.therabody.com/us/en-us/ wave-roller-us.html).

During MVIC testing two variables were examined, F ${}_{\text{max}}$ and RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ . The F ${}_{\text{max}}$ was expressed in Newtons (N), while RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ was expressed in Newtons per seconds (N/s). For each group, 4 main variables were examined for F ${}_{\text{max}}$ and 4 for RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ :

•

F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Pre – F ${}_{\text{max}}$ obtained at the pretest assessment, expressed in N,

•

F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post – F ${}_{\text{max}}$ obtained immediately posttreatment, expressed in N,

•

F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post5min – F ${}_{\text{max}}$ obtained 5-min post treatment, expressed in N,

•

F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post10min – F ${}_{\text{max}}$ obtained 10-min posttreatment, expressed in N,

•

RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Pre – RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ obtained at the pretest assessment, expressed in N/s,

•

RFDPost – RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ obtained immediately posttreatment, expressed in N/s,

•

RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post5min – RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ obtained 5-min post treatment, expressed in N/s,

•

RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post10min – RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ obtained 10-min posttreatment, expressed in N/s.

Using these variables, 3 additional were calculated to represent the effects produces by foam rolling treatment:

•

$\Delta$ F ${}_{\text{max}}$ – relative difference (%) in F ${}_{\text{max}}$ attained immediately after the treatment,

•

$\Delta$ F ${}_{\text{max}}$ 5min – relative difference (%) in F ${}_{\text{max}}$ attained 5-min after the treatment,

•

$\Delta$ F ${}_{\text{max}}$ 10min – relative difference (%) in F ${}_{\text{max}}$ attained 10-min after the treatment,

•

$\Delta$ RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ – relative difference (%) in RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ attained immediately after the treatment,

•

$\Delta$ RFD5min – relative difference (%) in RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ attained 5-min after the treatment,

•

$\Delta$ RFD10min – relative difference (%) in RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ attained 10-min after the treatment.

2.7 Statistical analysis

Figure 5.

The foam roller in use.

Table 1

Descriptive indicators for F ${}_{\text{max}}$ of experimental and control session

Assessment	Variables	Mean	SD	cV%
Control	F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Pre (N)	3734.0	555.4	14.9
	F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post (N)	3680.4	630.8	17.1
	F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post5min (N)	3669.2	616.9	16.8
	F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post10min (N)	3710.9	603.5	16.3
Treatment15s	F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Pre (N)	3495.6	422.7	12.1
	F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post (N)	3420.0	454.0	13.3
	F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post5min (N)	3453.5	437.5	12.7
	F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post10min (N)	3438.1	409.8	11.9
Treatment60s	F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Pre (N)	3600.8	633.4	17.6
	F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post (N)	3528.2	579.0	16.4
	F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post5min (N)	3512.5	553.9	15.8
	F ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post10min	3517.6	595.3	16.9

The basic descriptive statistics for mean, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (cV%), minimum (Min) and maximum (Max) values were calculated for all the examined variables. Prior to statistical analyses of treatment effects, the Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of data distribution. Variables showed normal data distribution ( $p=$ 0.572–0.989), thereby the parametric statistic tests were used. The effects of self-administered vibrating foam rolling on muscle force and power outcomes were established using the repeated measures ANOVA. The pairwise comparison was analyzed by Bonferroni post hoc test. Cohen’s d was calculated to emphasize the effect size for the observed differences between treatments and the results were interpreted using Cohen’s effect size classification [23]. The statistical significance was set at $p<$ 0.05. All statistical procedures were performed in the SPSS for Windows, Release 17.0 (Copyright © SPSS Inc., 1989–2002).

3. Results

The descriptive statistics for F ${}_{\text{max}}$ and RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ obtained pre and post treatment for control assessment, Treatment15-s, and Treatment60-s are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The CV% values suggest relatively homogeneous sample, with somewhat larger variability in RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ . The repeated measure ANOVA indicated that the applied rolling treatment did not produce significant difference between the F ${}_{\text{max}}$ at pre-test and post-tests. In contrast, significant differences occurred in RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ (Table 3).

The repeated measures ANOVA did not indicate significant effects of treatment on F ${}_{\text{max}}$ outputs in any of post-treatment time points, while RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ was significantly reduced immediately after the treatment ( $F=$ 14.18, $p<$ 0.001, $\eta^{2}=$ 0.332), 5-min ( $F=$ 7.83, $p<$ 0.001, $\eta^{2}=$ 0.216) and 10-min ( $F=$ 8.45, $p<$ 0.001, $\eta^{2}=$ 0.229) after the treatment. The differences obtained after 5 and 10-min rest did not vary significantly between treatments ( $p=$ 0.231). Pairwise comparison showed significantly larger effects of Treatment15-s compared to Control and Treatment60-s (Fig. 3). The relative reduction in RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ could be observed in majority of participants immediately after, 5-min and 10-min after the Treatment15-s. The shift in distribution could be noticed in Treatment15-s compared to control and Treatment60-s.

4. Discussion

Table 2
Descriptive indicators for RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ of experimental and control session

Assessment	Variables	Mean	SD	cV%
Control	RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Pre (N/s)	16319.6	3023.5	18.5
	RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post (N/s)	15969.5	2945.6	18.4
	RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post5min (N/s)	15532.8	2929.0	18.9
	RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post10min (N/s)	15577.7	2864.8	18.4
Treatment15s	RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Pre (N/s)	16683.9	2910.5	17.4
	RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post (N/s)	14828.0	2599.5	17.5
	RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post5min (N/s)	14477.8	2626.1	18.1
	RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post10min (N/s)	14188.4	2565.3	18.1
Treatment60s	RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Pre (N/s)	15113.2	3419.3	22.6
	RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post (N/s)	15095.4	3073.4	20.4
	RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post5min (N/s)	14815.1	2902.5	19.6
	RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post10min (N/s)	14363.8	2896.8	20.2

Table 3

The effects of vibrating rolling treatment on differences in RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ produced by two different treatment durations

Dependent variable			Mean difference	Std. error	$p$ value
RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Pre to RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post	Treatment15s	Control	$-$ 8.84	2.25	0.001
		Treatment60s	$-$ 11.42	2.25	0.000
	Control	Treatment60	$-$ 2.58	2.25	0.768
RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Pre to RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post5min	Experimental_15s	Control	$-$ 8.06	3.05	0.032
		Experimental60s	$-$ 11.83	3.05	0.001
	Control	Experimental60s	$-$ 3.77	3.05	0.667
RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Pre to RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ Post10min	Experimental_15s	Control	$-$ 10.19	2.90	0.003
		Experimental60s	$-$ 10.46	2.90	0.002
	Control	Experimental60s	$-$ 0.27	2.90	1.000

This study investigated acute effects of a 15-s and 60-s self-administered massage using vibrating foam roller on F ${}_{\text{max}}$ and RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ of plantarflexion. The main results of the study indicate that the vibration foam rolling treatment of both durations did not affect the F ${}_{\text{max}}$ of produced by the plantarflexors. The RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ , however, was significantly reduced by the 15-s vibrating foam rolling treatment but not by the 60-s treatment. Considering this, the hypothesis was only partially valid for the 15-s treatment but not valid for the 60-s treatment.

Considering F ${}_{\text{max}}$ , the results are consistent with the findings from the study where higher vibration frequency and duration was applied [15, 24]. In the study authors used three sets of 60-s foam rolling at a frequency of 48 Hz for the calf muscles. Similar results were also found in a study were 3 sets of 20-s were applied at a vibration frequency of 49 Hz, where authors found no significant MVIC difference for plantar and dorsal flexion were observed. The study used a very similar testing design to our study [14]. In contrast, a study utilizing self-massage with a roller stick (no vibration) for three sets of 30-s led to a significantly greater force (8.2%) production relative to static stretching and to a small increase in MVIC of about 4%, 10-min after the intervention [25], authors of the study used a similar setup for isometric testing to our study, treatment and testing were done on one leg and for the same muscle group as in our study. A study where participants applied three sets of 30-s vibration foam rolling treatment at 28 Hz on hamstring and quadriceps muscles, vibration rolling was effective in increasing quadriceps isokinetic muscle strength by 2-fold [26]. A recent study comparing the vibration foam rolling and non-vibration foam rolling treatment yielded an increase in both conditions in terms of MVIC peak torque during knee extension, with a higher percentage increase in the vibration foam rolling group [27]. The most recent study examined the combined effects of static stretching and foam rolling (with and without vibration) in duration of 60-s for both treatments on mechanical tissue properties, pain sensitivity and motor function [28]. The authors found that adding vibration to foam rolling does not affect the magnitude of changes observed in the examined outcomes.

Unilateral hamstring foam rolling treatment with a duration of 10 sets of 30-s decreased the non-intervened contralateral limb ability to generate force, especially during the early phase (e.g., 50-ms) of the maximal explosive isometric contraction [29]. A recent study using low 35 Hz and high 67 Hz frequency vibration foam rolling in duration of three sets of 60-s [17] found that maximum voluntary isometric contraction torque and maximum voluntary concentric contraction torque decreased significantly immediately after the vibration foam rolling intervention and remained significantly lowered up to 20-min, regardless of the vibration frequency however, there were no significant changes in RFD. This is in variance with the findings of our study. One possible explanation is presented through the findings that RFD is influenced by different physiological factors in the early (less than 100-ms) and late (more than 100-ms) phases of isometric contraction [30].

To the best of our knowledge this is the first study comparing different duration vibration foam rolling treatment on maximal rate of force development (RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ ). In the current study we found that RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ decreased by $-$ 10.81 to $-$ 14.44% after 15-s treatment. The present study used a vibration frequency of 29 Hz during foam rolling treatment. A previous study reported that the frequency of 30 Hz generated the highest muscular EMG activity in a half-squat position on a sinusoidal vertical vibration platform [31].

Vibration results in mechanical oscillatory motion, which enhances reflex activity by stimulating the muscle spindle Ia to initiate a tonic vibratory reflex [26]. When a mechanical vibration is applied to the muscle belly or tendon that could elicit a tonic vibration reflex contraction of the target muscle [32]. When applying vibration and triggering muscle spindles this mechanism is activated by a sequence of rapid muscle stretching, thereby causing an involuntary production of strength [32, 33]. The vibration stimulation is supposed to produce a more in-depth stimulation of the muscle and myofascial tissue due to a greater contribution of the mechanoreceptors, specifically the interstitial type I and II receptors, which respond to sustained pressure and modulate the sympathetic and parasympathetic activity [34]. However we did not observe these changes in our study. The results of the present study are in partial agreement in terms of force production with a relatively old research by Johnston and colleagues [35] and with another study suggesting that the application of vibration stimulation at 50 Hz during the contraction does not contribute to muscle activation, or enhance force production for maximal isometric contractions [36]. The authors suggested that the muscle response was linked to muscle architecture [35] with the muscles attached via long thin tendons displaying a better response to stimulation. Better results could be expected in our study, in concurrence with the previous claim but that was not the case. Humphries et al. [36] proposed one possible explanation for the lack of significant results reported in their study which may be accounted for by the contraction velocity since contraction velocity of an isometric contraction is limited via the testing protocol [36].

Another study that aimed to explore functional capabilities of the central nervous system of young boxers after vibroacoustic stimulation indicated that to increase the functional capabilities of the central nervous system of young boxers, calf muscles should be stimulated by using the Vitofon portable device for 10 to 15-min [37]. Furthermore, a study in which participants were elite male taekwondo athletes who performed general warm-up, followed by three sets of vibration foam rolling for 30-s at 48 Hz for exercising bilaterally the quadriceps and hamstrings demonstrated superior effects of general warm-up $+$ vibration foam rolling in the hexagon test. In addition the general warm-up $+$ vibration foam rolling and general warm-up $+$ double vibration foam rolling protocols for the weaker leg increased the number of kicks and enhanced fatigue resistance compared with the general warm-up control protocol [38].

Isometric plantar flexor performance decreased immediately following five 60-s bouts of whole body vibration at 45 Hz and as a result authors suggested that Ia pathways was compromised [39]. Elevated parasympathetic responses and lower activation of the vastus medialis during maximal voluntary contraction after myofascial release treatment was reported relative to sham ultrasound and massage may induce a transient loss of muscle strength or a change in the muscle fiber tension-length relationship [40]. Decreases in vertical jump performance were observed in a study using foam rolling treatment. The authors speculated that this could be the result of decreased motor unit recruitment [6]. This may be the first study to present such findings which may be explained by some type of neural modulation. However, to elucidate the exact mechanisms further research is needed.

5. Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that muscle contractile characteristics cannot probably be improved through the use of short duration vibrating foam rolling treatment. On the contrary, the acute effects of this treatment was detrimental in terms of the maximal explosive muscle strength ability and particularly so with the shorter duration treatment. Interestingly, the 60-s treatment had a lesser negative impact. On the other and, maximal muscle strength ability remained unaffected by either duration. Future studies should address this issue on a larger subject sample size with amateur and professional athletes involved in explosive sports. At the moment, the potential impact of this novel self-administered combined vibration-rolling treatment on athletic performance should be carefully assessed and addressed by athletes and coaches especially as a part of pre-event warmup routine.

Author contributions

CONCEPTION: AB, MD and MĆ.

PERFORMANCE OF WORK: AB, GJ and MĆ.

INTERPRETATION OR ANALYSIS OF DATA: AB, FK and MD.

PREPARATION OF THE MANUSCRIPT: AB and FK.

REVISION FOR IMPORTANT INTELLECTUAL CONTENT: MD.

SUPERVISION: MD.

Ethical considerations

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects. Testing and treatment procedures were approved by the ethics board of the Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Belgrade (number III47015).

Funding

The paper is a part of the project “Effects of the Applied Physical Activity on Locomotor, Metabolic, Psychosocial and Educational Status of the Population of the Republic of Serbia”, number III47015, funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia – Scientific Projects 2011–2021 Cycle.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support and participation from members as subjects in the research provided by sport-recreational club “Athletic Body Response” from Belgrade, Serbia. The authors also acknowledge the support from “DD wellness solutions”, Belgrade, in providing the vibrating foam roller.

Conflict of interest

All authors read and approved the final manuscript and all data in the study were available to all authors. All authors declare no conflict of interest, or financial, or other interest in any product or product distributor. All authors take responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the data and data analysis.

References

Wiewelhove

Döweling

Schneider

Hottenrott

Meyer

Kellmann

Pfeiffer

Ferrauti

. A meta-analysis of the effects of foam rolling on performance and recovery. Front Physiol. 2019; 10: 376.

Sefton

. Myofascial Release for Athletic Trainers, Part I: Theory and Session Guidelines. Athl Ther Today. 2004; 9(1): 48-49.

Aboodarda

Spence

Button

. Pain pressure threshold of a muscle tender spot increases following local and non-local rolling massage. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015; 16(265): 015-0729.

Madoni

Costa

Coburn

Galpin

. Effects of foam rolling on range of motion, peak torque, muscle activation, and the hamstrings-to-quadriceps strength ratios. J Strength Cond Res. 2018; 32(7): 1821-1830.

Cavanaugh

Döweling

Young

Quigley

Hodgson

Whitten

JHD

Reid

Aboodarda

Behm

. An acute session of roller massage prolongs voluntary torque development and diminishes evoked pain. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017; 117(1): 109-117.

Phillips

Diggin

King

Sforzo

. Effect of Varying Self-myofascial Release Duration on Subsequent Athletic Performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2021; 35(3): 746-753.

Macgregor

Fairweather

Bennett

Hunter

. The Effect of Foam Rolling for Three Consecutive Days on Muscular Efficiency and Range of Motion. Sports Med Open. 2018; 4(1): 26-26.

Nakamura

Onuma

Kiyono

Yasaka

Sato

Yahata

Fukaya

Konrad

. The Acute and Prolonged Effects of Different Durations of Foam Rolling on Range of Motion, Muscle Stiffness, and Muscle Strength. J Sports Sci Med. 2021; 20(1): 62-68.

Medeiros

FVA

Bottaro

Martins

Ribeiro

DLF

Marinho

EBA

Viana

Ferreira-Junior

Carmo

. The effects of one session of roller massage on recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage: A randomized controlled trial. J Exerc Sci Fit. 2020; 18(3): 148-154.

10.

Chuang

Yang

Chang

Chen

Liu

Shiang

. Managing Vibration Training Safety by Using Knee Flexion Angle and Rating Perceived Exertion. Sensors. 2021; 21(4).

11.

Esmaeilzadeh

Akpinar

Polat

Yildiz

Oral

. The effects of two different frequencies of whole-body vibration on knee extensors strength in healthy young volunteers: a randomized trial. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2015; 15(4): 333-40.

12.

Silva

Nubi

Vaamonde

Fernandez

Garcia-Manso

Lancho

. Effects of different frequencies of whole body vibration on muscular performance. Biol Sport. 2006; 23: 124-132.

13.

Luo

McNamara

Moran

. The Use of Vibration Training to Enhance Muscle Strength and Power. N Zeal J Sports Med. 2005; 35: 23-41.

14.

García-Gutiérrez

, et al. Cross transfer acute effects of foam rolling with vibration on ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2018; 18(2): 262-267.

15.

Nakamura

Sato

Kiyono

Yoshida

Murakami

Yasaka

Yahata

Konrad

. Acute Effect of Vibration Roller With and Without Rolling on Various Parts of the Plantar Flexor Muscle. Front Physiol. 2021; 12: 716668.

16.

Pellegrini

Lythgo

Morgan

Galea

. Voluntary activation of the ankle plantar flexors following whole-body vibration. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010; 108(5): 927-34.

17.

Nakamura

Sato

Kiyono

Yoshida

Yasaka

Yahata

Konrad

. Comparison of The Effect of High- and Low-Frequency Vibration Foam Rolling on The Quadriceps Muscle. J Sports Sci Med. 2022; 21(3): 376-382.

18.

Alonso-Calvete

Lorenzo-Martínez

Padrón-Cabo

Pérez-Ferreirós

Kalén

Abelairas-Gómez

Rey

. Does Vibration Foam Roller Influence Performance and Recovery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Med Open. 2022; 8(1).

19.

Dopsaj

Kukić

Koropanovski

Radovanović

Miljuš

Subošić

Tomanić

Dopsaj

. Indicators of Absolute and Relative Changes in Skeletal Muscle Mass during Adulthood and Ageing. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(16).

20.

Williams

. The Declaration of Helsinki and public health. Bull World Health Organ. 2008; 86(8): 650-2.

21.

Majstorović

Dopsaj

Grbić

Savić

Vićentijević

Aničić

Zadražnik

Toskić

Nešić

. Isometric Strength in Volleyball Players of Different Age: A Multidimensional Model. Appl Sci. 2020; 10(12): 4107.

22.

Majstorović

Nesic

Grbic

Savic

Zivkovic

Aničić

Marković

Dopsaj

. Reliability of a simple novel field test for the measurement of plantar flexor muscle strength. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte. 2021; 27: 98-102.

23.

Sullivan

Feinn

. Using Effect Size – or Why the P Value Is Not Enough. J Grad Med Educ. 2012; 4(3): 279-282.

24.

Nakamura

Sato

Kiyono

Yoshida

Yasaka

Yahata

Konrad

. Comparison Between Foam Rolling With and Without Vibration on Passive and Active Plantar Flexor Muscle Properties. J Strength Cond Res. 2021; 1(10): 0000000000004123.

25.

Halperin

Aboodarda

Button

Andersen

Behm

. Roller massager improves range of motion of plantar flexor muscles without subsequent decreases in force parameters. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014; 9(1): 92-102.

26.

Lee

Chu

Lyu

Chang

. Comparison of vibration rolling, nonvibration rolling, and static stretching as a warm-up exercise on flexibility, joint proprioception, muscle strength, and balance in young adults. J Sports Sci. 2018; 36(22): 2575-2582.

27.

Reiner

Glashüttner

Bernsteiner

Tilp

Guilhem

Morales-Artacho

Konrad

. A comparison of foam rolling and vibration foam rolling on the quadriceps muscle function and mechanical properties. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2021; 121(5): 1461-1471.

28.

Nakamura

Konrad

Kasahara

Yoshida

Murakami

Sato

Aizawa

Koizumi

Wilke

. The Combined Effect of Static Stretching and Foam Rolling With or Without Vibration on the Range of Motion, Muscle Performance, and Tissue Hardness of the Knee Extensor. J Strength Cond Res. 2022; 37(2): 322-327.

29.

Killen

Zelizney

Miller

Jeon

. Unilateral hamstring foam rolling does not impair strength but the rate of force development of the contralateral muscle. PeerJ. 2019; 29(7).

30.

Andersen

Aagaard

. Influence of maximal muscle strength and intrinsic muscle contractile properties on contractile rate of force development. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006; 96(1): 46-52.

31.

Cardinale

Lim

. Electromyography activity of vastus lateralis muscle during whole-body vibrations of different frequencies. J Strength Cond Res. 2003; 17(3): 621-4.

32.

Germann

El Bouse

Shnier

Abdelkader

Kazemi

. Effects of local vibration therapy on various performance parameters: a narrative literature review. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2018; 62(3): 170-181.

33.

Pamukoff

Ryan

Blackburn

. The acute effects of local muscle vibration frequency on peak torque, rate of torque development, and EMG activity. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2014; 24(6): 888-94.

34.

Behm

Wilke

. Do Self-Myofascial Release Devices Release Myofascia? Rolling Mechanisms: A Narrative Review. Sports Medicine. 2019; 49(8): 1173-1181.

35.

Johnston

Bishop

Coffey

. Mechanical vibration of skeletal muscles. Phys Ther. 1970; 50(4): 499-505.

36.

Humphries

Warman

Purton

Doyle

Dugan

. The Influence of Vibration on Muscle Activation and Rate of Force Development during Maximal Isometric Contractions. J Sports Sci Med. 2004; 3(1): 16-22.

37.

Khasanov

Shayakhmetova

Matveev

Matveeva

Matveev

. Functional capabilities of the central nervous system of young boxers under vibroacoustic stimulation. Human Sport Medicine. 2021; 21(1): 23-28.

38.

Chen

Chiu

Hsu

Wang

Chou

Tsai

Lin

Chen

. Acute Effects of Vibration Foam Rolling Warm-Up on Jump and Flexibility Asymmetry, Agility and Frequency Speed of Kick Test Performance in Taekwondo Athletes. Symmetry. 2021; 13(9): 1664.

39.

Harwood

Scherer

Brown

Cornett

KMD

Kenno

Jakobi

. Neuromuscular responses of the plantar flexors to whole-body vibration. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017; 27(12): 1569-1575.

40.

Arroyo-Morales

Olea

Martínez

Hidalgo-Lozano

Ruiz-Rodríguez

Díaz-Rodríguez

. Psychophysiological effects of massage-myofascial release after exercise: a randomized sham-control study. J Altern Complement Med. 2008; 14(10): 1223-9.

Acute effects of vibration foam rolling on the explosive strength properties of the plantarflexors during maximal isometric contraction

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

OBJECTIVE:

METHODS:

RESULTS:

CONCLUSIONS:

Keywords

1. Introduction

2.1 Subjects

2.2 Experimental design

2.3 Procedures

2.5 Vibration foam rolling treatments

2.6 Variables

4. Discussion

Table 2 Descriptive indicators for RFD max of experimental and control session

Author contributions

Ethical considerations

Funding

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

Table 2
Descriptive indicators for RFD ${}_{\text{max}}$ of experimental and control session