Residual effects of static stretching and self-myofascial-release exercises on flexibility and lower body explosive strength in well-trained combat athletes

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The self-myofascial technique is a new exercise modality that is thought to improve muscular performance and restore soft tissue. However, there are limited empirical data demonstrating the efficacy of this technique on athletic performance. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of self-myofascial-releasing exercises on the residual characteristics of the sit and reach (S&R) and countermovement jump (CMJ) performance in well-trained combat athletes. METHODS: Sixteen well-trained male combat athletes (age: 23.9 ± 3.6 years, mass: 78.78 ± 10.41 kg, combat experience: 12.87 ± 5.23 years) performed three exercise sessions called "aerobic running (AR)", "aerobic running combined with static stretching (AR + SS)", and "aerobic running combined with self-myofascial release (AR + SMR)" at 48 hour intervals in a randomized crossover design. After each session, the subjects performed the S&R and CMJ tests successively with 30-s of rest between the tests at the 15th second and at the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 15th, and 30th minute during the recovery period. RESULTS: ANOVA and the post-hoc LSD (Least Significant Difference) test revealed that the AR + SMR treatment increased the flexibility greater than AR + SS (p = 0.029) at the 45th second. Additionally, the AR + SMR treatment resulted in less of a decrease in CMJ height compared to AR + SS at the 10th minute (p = 0.025). A larger decrease in the CMJ height was found after AR + SS compared to the AR and AR + SMR treatments at the 10th and 15th minute, respectively (p = 0.025 and p = 0.038). These results revealed that SMR had no advantage over AR and SS in terms of enhancing flexibility. A statistically insignificant inhibitory effect of SMR was detected on the CMJ performance. SS appeared to have an inhibitory effect on the CMJ performance for approximately 15 minutes. CONCLUSION: SMR may have a detrimental effect on CMJ performance. Trainers or athletes should consider using the SMR technique before training or competition to prevent possible power decrement.

Full text

Isokinetics and Exercise Science 25 (2017) 135–141 135
DOI 10.3233/IES-160656
IOS Press
Residual effects of static stretching and
self-myofascial-release exercises on
flexibility and lower body explosive strength
in well-trained combat athletes
˙
Isa Sa˘
giro˘
glua,∗,CemKurt
a, Ekim Pekünlüband ˙
Ilbilge Özsuc
aSchool of Physical Education and Sports, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey
bSport Sciences Faculty, Ege University, ˙
Izmir, Turkey
cSport Sciences Faculty, U¸sak University, U¸sak, Turkey
Received 22 November 2016
Accepted 14 December 2016
Abstract.
BACKGROUND: The self-myofascial technique is a new exercise modality that is thought to improve muscular performance and
restore soft tissue. However, there are limited empirical data demonstrating the efficacy of this technique on athletic performance.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of self-myofascial-releasing exercises on the residual
characteristics of the sit and reach (S&R) and countermovement jump (CMJ) performance in well-trained combat athletes.
METHODS: Sixteen well-trained male combat athletes (age: 23.9 ±3.6 years, mass: 78.78 ±10.41 kg, combat experience:
12.87 ±5.23 years) performed three exercise sessions called “aerobic running (AR)”, “aerobic running combined with static
stretching (AR +SS)”, and “aerobic running combined with self-myofascial release (AR +SMR)” at 48 hour intervals in a
randomized crossover design. After each session, the subjects performed the S&R and CMJ tests successively with 30-s of rest
between the tests at the 15th second and at the 2nd,4
th,6
th,8
th,10
th,15
th, and 30th minute during the recovery period.
RESULTS: ANOVA and the post-hoc LSD (Least Significant Difference) test revealed that the AR +SMR treatment increased
the flexibility greater than AR +SS (p=0.029) at the 45th second. Additionally, the AR +SMR treatment resulted in less
of a decrease in CMJ height compared to AR +SS at the 10th minute (p=0.025). A larger decrease in the CMJ height was
found after AR +SS compared to the AR and AR +SMR treatments at the 10th and 15th minute, respectively (p=0.025 and
p=0.038). These results revealed that SMR had no advantage over AR and SS in terms of enhancing flexibility. A statistically
insignificant inhibitory effect of SMR was detected on the CMJ performance. SS appeared to have an inhibitory effect on the
CMJ performance for approximately 15 minutes.
CONCLUSION: SMR may have a detrimental effect on CMJ performance. Trainers or athletes should consider using the SMR
technique before training or competition to prevent possible power decrement.
Keywords: Self-myofascial releasing exercises, foam roller, static stretching, combat athletes, muscular performance
∗Corresponding author: ˙
Isa Sa˘
giro˘
glu, School of Physical Educa-
tion and Sports, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey. Tel.: +90 284 236
04 35; Fax: +90 284 236 04 36; E-mail: isagiroglu83@gmail.com.
1. Introduction
Generally, athletes practice a warm-up routine be-
fore training or competition to maximize performance
and prevent injuries [1,2]. Traditionally, the warm-
up routine is composed of a submaximal aerobic ac-
ISSN 0959-3020/17/$35.00 c
2017 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
AUTHOR COPY

136 ˙
I. Sa˘giro˘glu et al. / Residual effects SS and SMR exercise on flexibility and lower body explosive strength
tivity and stretching exercises, such as static stretch-
ing (SS), dynamic stretching (DS), ballistic stretch-
ing (BS), and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilita-
tion (PNF) [3,4]. Stretching is believed to enhance
physical performance, prevent injury, alleviate muscle
soreness, and increase flexibility [5]. SS exercise is
typically preferred compared to other types of stretch-
ing exercises for many athletic events [6]. However,
recently, some research reported that static stretching
can be detrimental to maximal muscular performance,
in terms of isometric and isokinetic force, jump height,
sprint time, balance, reaction time, and agility perfor-
mance [5–8].
Bradley et al. [5] reported that the vertical jump
height decreased 4% after static stretching. Fletcher
and Jones (2004) suggested that SS had a negative ef-
fect on the 20-m dash of trained rugby union play-
ers. These detrimental SS effects were attributed to
both neuromuscular inhibition and a decrease in mus-
cle stiffness due to alterations in the viscoelastic prop-
erties of the musculotendinous unit [1,9].
Recently, a new technique termed self-myofascial
release (SMR) has shown promise for enhancing flex-
ibility without a subsequent decrease in muscular per-
formance [10,11]. Additionally, it is thought that SMR
acts as a potential warm-up effect [12].
It is well known that fascia fibrous collagenous tis-
sue surrounds each muscle and organ in the body [10].
Fascia is integrally involved in the biomechanics of
the musculoskeletal system and may be involved in the
transmission of force [13,14]. Healey et al. [12]and
Behara and Jacobson [15] suggested that this inflam-
matory response may lead to fascia scar tissue and fi-
brous adhesion over time, which in turn may lead to
muscular dysfunction, injuries, and muscular imbal-
ances.
Most of the benefits of SMR are inferred from re-
search on massage [12]. The benefits of SMR occur by
changing a muscle’s viscoelastic properties, increasing
mitochondria biogenesis, and increasing blood flow
possibly via increasing angiogenesis and the vascular
endothelial growth factor [12,16,17]. Healey et al. [12]
reported that a 30-s foam trial had no effect on the
isometric squat force, pro agility test, or vertical jump
height. Fama and Bueti [18] found that there was no
difference between the jump height following the dy-
namic warm up and the foam rolling routine for the
squat jump and depth jump.
Compared with Healey et al. [12], Fama and
Bueti [18] and MacDonald et al. [11] suggested that
SMR of the quadriceps was an effective treatment to
acutely enhance the knee joint range of motion (ROM)
without a concomitant deficit in muscle performance.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics of participants (n=16)
Variables Mean SD
Age (year) 23.9 3.7
Height (cm) 176.9 8.5
Mass (kg) 78.8 10.4
General training age (year) 14.2 4.9
Sport specific training age (year) 12.9 5.2
Training frequency (session/wk) 5.31 2.15
Aerobic training volume (h/wk) 2.28 1.51
Strength training volume (h/wk) 3.25 2.54
Sport specific training volume (h/wk) 3.38 2.63
h: hour; wk: week; SD: standard deviation.
Although the scientific research on SMR is limited,
it is commonly used by therapists, fitness profession-
als, and exercising individuals. This study compared
the residual effects of SS and SMR exercises using a
foam roller on the flexibility and lower body explosive
strength in well-trained combat athletes. We hypothe-
sized that SMR using the foam roller was advantageous
over SS in increasing the CMJ height and flexibility.
2. Methods
2.1. Subjects
Sixteen well-trained male combat athletes, who
were competing in Judo, Karate, Tae Kwon Do, and
Muay Thai, volunteered to participate in this study (see
Table 1 for the subjects’ characteristics). None of the
participants had previous experience with SMR. The
participants had no history of injury and health prob-
lems that would prohibit participation in the study. All
subjects were instructed regarding the procedures, pur-
pose, and risks of the study in detail, and they signed an
informed written consent form. Approval was granted
from the medical ethics committee of the medical fac-
ulty of the local university (protocol number: TÜTF-
GOKAEK 2015/193) in accordance with the Declara-
tion of Helsinki.
3. Procedures
3.1. Aerobic running (AR)
This session consisted of 5 minutes of light running
on a motorized treadmill (SportsArt, TPE) at 7 km/h
and 1% slope. Both the SS and SMR session began
with AR. Additionally, the AR sessions were used as
the control session. Right after the AR session, the sub-
jects completed 3 submaximal CMJs with a 10-second
rest as the specific warm-up. There was a 2-min of pas-
AUTHOR COPY

˙
I. Sa˘giro˘glu et al. / Residual effects SS and SMR exercise on flexibility and lower body explosive strength 137
Table 2
Increase in flexibility levels relative to pre-test measure after differ-
ent warm-up treatments (n=16)
Recovery pΔ(cm) %95 CI for
moment Δ(cm)
(min: sec) Lower Upper
After 00:45 0.34 0.28 −0.33 0.89
aerobic 02:30 0.04* 0.66 0.04 1.28
running 04:30 <0.001* 1.28 0.65 1.91
(Pre-test: 06:30 <0.001* 1.97 1.17 2.77
10.8 ±6.7 cm) 08:30 <0.001* 1.97 1.19 2.74
10:30 <0.001* 2.09 1.18 3.01
15:30 <0.001* 1.84 0.86 2.83
30:30 <0.001* 2.13 1.00 3.25
After 00:45 0.22 0.38 −0.25 1.00
aerobic 02:30 0.02* 0.84 0.15 1.54
running 04:30 <0.001* 1.06 0.50 1.63
+static 06:30 0.02* 1.16 0.19 2.12
stretching 08:30 <0.001* 1.22 0.45 1.99
(Pre-test: 10:30 0.01* 1.31 0.34 2.29
11.7 ±6.1 cm) 15:30 <0.001* 1.69 0.80 2.58
30:30 0.06 0.88 −0.04 1.79
After 00:45 <0.001* 0.97 0.41 1.52
aerobic 02:30 <0.001* 1.31 0.54 2.08
running 04:30 <0.001* 1.78 1.16 2.40
+self 06:30 <0.001* 1.53 0.76 2.31
myofascial 08:30 <0.001* 2.00 0.98 3.02
rolling 10:30 <0.001* 2.03 1.02 3.04
(Pre-test: 15:30 0.01* 1.53 0.42 2.64
11.5 ±7.1 cm) 30:30 0.18 0.94 −0.48 2.36
CI: Confidence Interval, Δ: Increase, min: minute; sec: second.
Fig. 1. SMR exercises used in the study.
sive rest between the specific warm-up and the SS or
SMR session.
3.1.1. Determination of the pre-test mean values for
the CMJ and the s&R tests
After the specific warm-up, the subjects completed
two CMJ tests and 2 S&R tests with a 30-s rest period
between the tests. The best CMJ height or S&R score
were accepted as pre-test mean values. These values
Table 3
Decrease in counter movement jump levels relative to pre-test mea-
sure after different warm-up treatments (n=16)
Recovery pΔ(cm) %95 CI for
moment Δ(cm)
(min: sec) Lower Upper
After 00:15 0.50 −0.34 −1.39 0.70
aerobic 02:00 0.21 −0.48 −1.26 0.30
running 04:00 0.68 −0.17 −1.03 0.70
(Pre-test: 06:00 0.17 −0.58 −1.43 0.27
40.3 ±3.0 cm) 08:00 0.99 0.01 −0.98 0.99
10:00 0.15 −0.65 −1.56 0.26
15:00 0.03* −1.17 −2.21 −0.13
30:00 <0.001* −1.69 −2.73 −0.66
After 00:15 <0.001* −2.01 −2.84 −1.17
aerobic 02:00 <0.001* −1.50 −2.38 −0.62
running 04:00 <0.001* −1.31 −2.15 −0.48
+static 06:00 <0.001* −1.48 −2.29 −0.66
stretching 08:00 <0.001* −1.48 −2.25 −0.71
(Pre-test: 10:00 <0.001* −1.77 −2.58 −0.95
41.3 ±3.3 cm) 15:00 <0.001* −2.38 −3.37 −1.39
30:00 <0.001* −2.62 −3.53 −1.71
After 00:15 <0.001* −2.08 −2.95 −1.20
aerobic 02:00 <0.001* −1.39 −2.19 −0.59
running 04:00 0.03* −0.89 −1.70 −0.09
+self 06:00 0.01* −1.00 −1.73 −0.27
myofascial 08:00 0.12 −0.73 −1.66 0.21
rolling 10:00 0.06 −0.75 −1.54 0.04
(Pre-test: 15:00 <0.001* −1.39 −2.15 −0.63
41.2 ±3.7 cm) 30:00 <0.001* −2.19 −3.01 −1.38
CI: Confidence Interval. Δ: Decrease. min: minute; sec: second.
were compared with those at the 15th second and 2nd,
4th,6
th,8
th,10
th,15
th, and 30th minute to determine
the residual effects of AR, AR +SS, and AR +SMR
on the CMJ and S&R tests.
3.2. Static stretching session (SS)
This session consisted of four stretching exercises as
2×30-s with 10-s of passive rest for each side of the
hamstring (seated unilateral hamstring stretch), quadri-
ceps (prone unilateral quadriceps stretch), hip (seated
unilateral gluteal stretch), and gastrocnemius muscles
(standing unilateral calf stretch). The proper stretching
technique was demonstrated prior to each stretching
exercise. The subjects were informed that the holding
point of the stretch was established at the point “just
before discomfort” [19]. The subjects had 30-s of rest
between each exercise.
3.3. Self-myofascial rolling exercises (SMR)
The subjects rolled a grid foam roller cylinder
(height: 13 inches, diameter: 5.5 inches; Trigger Point,
USA) from the top of the selected muscle to the bot-
AUTHOR COPY

138 ˙
I. Sa˘giro˘glu et al. / Residual effects SS and SMR exercise on flexibility and lower body explosive strength
Sessions
Special Warm-up
Pre-tests
Residuel Effects
AR
3 x Submaximal CMJ
2 min. Passive rest
CMJ + S&R Tests,
respectively
1 min. Passive rest
CMJ + S&R Tests,
respectively
AR + SS
3 x Submaximal CMJ
2 min. Passive rest
CMJ + S&R Tests,
respectively
1 min. Passive rest
CMJ + S&R Tests,
respectively
SS Exercises
AR + SMR
3 x Submaximal CMJ
2 min. Passive rest
CMJ + S&R Tests,
respectively
1 min. Passive rest
CMJ + S&R Tests,
respectively
SMR Exercises
Fig. 2. Experimental design flowchart.
tom and then returned to the starting position [12]. For
the foam roller session, they were instructed to use
an application rate of 5 rolls per 30-s of targeting the
area with as much pressure as they could [20]. SMR
exercises were applied to each side of the hamstring,
quadriceps, hip, and gastrocnemius muscles (see Ta-
ble 1 for the SMR exercises) as 2 ×30-s with 10-s
of passive rest. The subjects were allowed 30-s of rest
between the exercises.
3.4. Countermovement jump (CMJ) test
The CMJ heights were assessed using the My-
otest Pro System (Myotest Sport Pro, Sweden). In the
CMJ test, participants rapidly squatted down to a self-
selected depth and then immediately performed a ver-
tical jump with hands akimbo [21]. Strong verbal en-
couragement was provided to each participant to en-
sure that each jump was performed with maximal ef-
fort. The participants wore the same shoes during both
sessions.
3.5. Sit and reach (S&R) test
Lower back and hamstring flexibility was assessed
using a S&R testing box (Tartı Med, Turkey). The ath-
letes placed their feet 30 cm apart while contacting a
standard box in the seated position and then leaned for-
ward slowly to reach as far as possible while keeping
their hands adjacent to one another [20].
3.6. Residual measurements
During a 30-min recovery session after each testing
session, the subjects performed the CMJ and S&R tests
sequentially with 30-s of rest between the tests at the
15th second and 2nd,4
th,6
th,8
th,10
th,15
th, and 30th
minute of the recovery period.
The participants were required to refrain from vig-
orous physical activity, consumption of alcohol, any
food or drinks containing caffeine or any other types of
stimulants for at least 24 hours prior to the testing ses-
sion. All tests were performed by the same researcher
at the same time of day (13:00 to 16:00) to avoid the
effect of circadian rhythms on the study results.
4. Statistical analysis
IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 22 was
used for data analysis. The normality assumption for
the residuals in repeated measures was tested using
the Shapiro-Wilk test. One-way repeated measures
ANOVA with post-hoc Least Significant Difference
(LSD) tests were used to assess the possible differ-
ences in performance measures between the differ-
ent recovery periods within each treatment as well as
for the performance changes that occurred during the
same recovery periods between different treatments.
To avoid a statistical power loss, no confidence in-
terval adjustment was performed [22]. The sphericity
AUTHOR COPY

˙
I. Sa˘giro˘glu et al. / Residual effects SS and SMR exercise on flexibility and lower body explosive strength 139
assumption was checked using Mauchly’s Sphericity
test. The standard deviations and 95% confidence in-
tervals are reported together with the mean values. The
statistical significance level was set at p0.05.
5. Results
Flexibility increases were found to be statistically
greater only for the recovery times of 06:30 and 30:30
for the AR session than those of the AR +SS ses-
sion (p=0.040 and p=0.043, respectively). The AR
+SMR session increased the flexibility to a greater
extent relative to AR +SS for the recovery time of
00:45 (p=0.029). No statistically significant differ-
ence was found regarding flexibility changes for any
of the other recovery times for the different warm-up
treatments. The CMJ decreases at the recovery times
of 0:15, 02:00, 04:00, 06:00, 08:00, and 15:00 minutes
for the AR +SS session were found to be statistically
greater than for those of the control treatment (p<
0.05). However, the CMJ decrease only at the recovery
time of 0:15-s for the AR +SMR session was found to
be statistically greater than that of the AR session (p=
0.005). In addition, the CMJ decrease for the recovery
time of 10 minutes was significantly greater for AR +
SS compared to AR +SMR (p=0.025). No signif-
icant difference was detected for the CMJ decrease in
any of the other comparisons.
6. Discussion
In this study we looked into the effects of acute
SMR exercises on CMJ and S&R performance and
their residual effects in well-trained combat athletes.
We hypothesized that SMR exercises are advantageous
over SS exercises for increasing CMJ height and lower-
back and hamstring flexibility. However, our hypothe-
sis was not verified by the main findings of this study.
The primary results are: a) SMR presents no advantage
over AR or SS in terms of enhancing flexibility, b) no
statistically significant inhibitory effect of SMR on the
CMJ was detected, and c) SS appeared to have an in-
hibitory effect on CMJ for approximately 15 minutes.
That SS has an inhibitory effect on explosive muscu-
lar performance for approximately 15-min is not sur-
prising. A number of studies have reported that SS
exercise impaired strength, power, sprint, and agility
performance [23–26]. Herda et al. [25] reported that
SS decreased the isometric peak torque of the ham-
string muscle. Robbins et al. [26] found an decre-
ments in squat jump, repeated sprint, and change in di-
rection performance after SS exercises. Additionally,
Bacurau et al. [23] did not recommend SS exercises
before athletic events or physical activities that re-
quired a high level of force. Stretching-induced mus-
cular performance impairment is generally attributed
to two main factors [25]: a) mechanical factors, such
as decreases in muscle stiffness, may affect the length-
tension relationship and b) neural factors, such as al-
tered motor control strategies and/or reflex sensitivity.
Nelson et al. [27]andHerdaetal.[25] suggested that
the stretching-induced force deficit may be a mechani-
cal rather than a neural mechanism.
However, currently, therapists and fitness profes-
sionals suggest the implementation of a new exercise
modality called SMR. Some studies have shown that
SMR can improve flexibility of muscles, tendons, lig-
aments, and fascia by releasing tension in tight mus-
cles or fascia [17,28] while increasing blood flow and
circulation to the soft tissues, which in turn improves
flexibility and ROM [10,11]. However there are con-
flicting results regarding the effectiveness of SMR on
muscle performance.
Only one other study [11]compared the residual ef-
fect of SMR and SS on CMJ and S&R performance.
The results obtained suggested that 45-s after the AR
+SMR treatment flexibility increased greater than AR
+SS (p=0.029). However, in the present study this
increase in flexibility did not produce residual charac-
teristics during 30-min whereas in the above study it
was indicated that following SMR the subjects’ ROM
significantly increased by 10◦and 8◦at 2 and 10-min,
respectively. Thus, we cannot state that SMR is advan-
tageous over AR and SS in terms of enhancing flexi-
bility.
Other studies also found that SMR increased ROM
and S&R performance [20,29–31]. However, Patel et
al. [32] concluded that a single session of bilateral
SMR on the plantar aspect of the foot was effective for
increasing hamstring flexibility, but no improvement in
the lumbar spinal flexibility was noted. Similar to the
present study, MacDonald et al. [11] and McKechnie
et al. [33] reported that ROM appeared to increase by
a similar percentage after SMR and SS. One poten-
tial theory to explain the increase ROM after SMR is
the thixotropic property (fluid-like form) of the fascia
surrounding the muscle [34]. Another possible mecha-
nism is autogenic inhibition [35]. When muscles con-
tract at high tensions, the Golgi tendon organs (GTO)
are stimulated and relax the muscles. This reflex is
AUTHOR COPY

140 ˙
I. Sa˘giro˘glu et al. / Residual effects SS and SMR exercise on flexibility and lower body explosive strength
called autogenic inhibition [36]. According to McK-
echnie et al. [33], the enhanced flexibility after SMR
is connected to an increasing stretch tolerance. A re-
cently published study reported that reciprocal inhibi-
tion was responsible for increasing hamstring flexibil-
ity after SMR, which applies to quadriceps [37].
However, we found a larger decrease in CMJ height
after AR +SS compared to the AR and AR +SMR
treatments at the 10th and 15th minute, respectively
(p=0.025 and p=0.038). Additionally, no in-
hibitory effect of the SMR on CMJ was apparent. In
variance with our study, previous reports [11,15]in-
dicated that SMR had no detrimental effect on knee
extensor force, vertical jump power, or knee isomet-
ric torque. Li [35] suggested that a brief duration of
foam rolling could effectively increase joint flexibility
and maintain the level of peak muscle force produc-
tion. Additionally, Healey et al. [12] reported that SMR
had no detrimental or improving effect on muscular
performance. Similar to this study, Fama et al. [18]
found that foam roller implementation did not improve
performance and was actually detrimental to CMJ. At
this point in time, we do not know which physiolog-
ical mechanisms are responsible for the contradictory
results found in these studies. However, Sullivan et
al. [31] found that while SMR did not improve muscle
strength it increased S&R performance. These results
are attributed to longer rolling duration and the greater
rolling force used in the study by Sullivan et al. [31].
Former studies [11,37] have suggested that the
deeper pressure, which occurs after SMR, might give
rise to an H-reflex and spinal motor neuron inhibition.
Many believe that vigorous pressure on the soft tissue
may overload cutaneous receptors, possibly dulling the
sensation of the stretch endpoint and increasing stretch
tolerance; however, this mechanism decreases muscu-
lar power, which may increase flexibility [33,38,39].
Based on the present literature, we inferred that the
pressure which is applied to tissue via SMR is of great
importance during SMR exercises. Another important
factor is the SMR implementation volume (sets, rep-
etition, duration, etc.). One potential limitation in our
study was that our subjects did not have prior expe-
rience using foam rollers, but they had a familiariza-
tion session. An additional study on SMR using expe-
rienced athletes may be beneficial for achieving further
reliable results.
7. Conclusion
SMR exercises can be applied as a new exercise
modality, even though this study revealed that SMR
has no advantage over SS in terms of enhancing flex-
ibility. Due to the statistically insignificant inhibitory
effect of SMR that was detected in the CMJ in our
study, athletes or trainers should pay attention to the
possible force inhibition that is based on SMR. Combat
athletes could prevent possible decreases in muscular
performance by removing SS exercises from warm-up
routines that are used before training sessions and/or
competitions.
Acknowledgements
We would like to especially thank our subjects for
their cooperation during the data collection.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] Donti O, Tsolakis C and Bogdanis GC. Effects of baseline
levels of flexibility and vertical jump ability on performance
following different volumes of static stretching and potentiat-
ing exercises in elite gymnasts. Journal of Sports Science and
Medicine. 2014; 13(1): 105.
[2] Needham RA, Morse CI and Degens H. The acute effect of
different warm-up protocols on anaerobic performance in elite
youth soccer players. The Journal of Strength and Condition-
ing Research. 2009; 23(9): 2614–2620.
[3] Behm DG and Chaouachi A. A review of the acute effects
of static and dynamic stretching on performance. Eur J Appl
Physiol. 2011; 111(11): 2633–2651.
[4] Franco BL, Signorelli GR, Trajano GS, Costa PB and de
Oliveira CG. Acute effects of three different stretching proto-
cols on the wingate test performance. J Sports Sci Med. 2012;
11(1): 1–7.
[5] Bradley PS, Olsen PD and Portas MD. The effect of
static, ballistic, and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilita-
tion stretching on vertical jump performance. The Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research. 2007; 21(1): 223–226.
[6] McMillian DJ, Moore JH, Hatler BS and Taylor DC. Dynamic
vs. static-stretching warm up: The effect on power and agility
performance. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Re-
search. 2006; 20(3): 492–499.
[7] Holt BW and Lambourne K. The impact of different warm-
up protocols on vertical jump performance in male collegiate
athletes. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
2008; 22(1): 226–229.
[8] Murphy JR, D i Santo MC, Alkanani T and Behm DG. Aerobic
activity before and following short-duration static stretching
improves range of motion and performance vs. A traditional
warm-up. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2010; 35(5): 679–690.
[9] Avela J, Finni T, Liikavainio T, Niemelä E and Komi PV.
Neural and mechanical responses of the triceps surae muscle
AUTHOR COPY

˙
I. Sa˘giro˘glu et al. / Residual effects SS and SMR exercise on flexibility and lower body explosive strength 141
group after 1 h of repeated fast passive stretches. Journal of
Applied Physiology. 2004; 96(6): 2325–2332.
[10] Beardsley C and Skarabot J. Effects of self-myofascial re-
lease: A systematic review. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2015; 19(4):
747–758.
[11] MacDonald GZ, Penney MD, Mullaley ME, Cuconato AL,
Drake CD, Behm DG et al. An acute bout of self-myofascial
release increases range of motion without a subsequent de-
crease in muscle activation or force. The Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research. 2013; 27(3): 812–821.
[12] Healey KC, Hatfield DL, Blanpied P, Dorfman LR and Riebe
D. The effects of myofascial release with foam rolling on
performance. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Re-
search. 2014; 28(1): 61–68.
[13] Benjamin M. The fascia of the limbs and back – a review. J
Anat. 2009; 214(1): 1–18.
[14] Gerlach UJ and Lierse W. Functional construction of the su-
perficial and deep fascia system of the lower limb in man.
Acta Anat (Basel). 1990; 139(1): 11–25.
[15] Behara B and Jacobson BH. The acute effects of deep tissue
foam rolling and dynamic stretching on muscular strength,
power, and flexibility in division I linemen. J Orthop Trauma.
2015.
[16] Okamoto T, Masuhara M and Ikuta K. Acute effects of self-
myofascial release using a foam roller on arterial function.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2014;
28(1): 69–73.
[17] Schroeder AN and Best TM. Is self myofascial release an ef-
fective preexercise and recovery strategy? A literature review.
Current sports medicine reports. 2015; 14(3): 200–208.
[18] Fama BJ and Bueti DR. The Acute Effect Of Self-Myofascial
Release On Lower Extremity Plyometric Performance: Sa-
cred Heart University; 2011.
[19] Unick J, Kieffer HS, Cheesman W and Feeney A. The acute
effects of static and ballistic stretching on vertical jump per-
formance in trained women. The Journal of Strength and Con-
ditioning Research. 2005; 19(1): 206–212.
[20] Peacock CA, Krein DD, Antonio J, Sanders GJ, Silver TA and
Colas M. Comparing acute bouts of sagittal plane progression
foam rolling vs. frontal plane progression foam rolling. The
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2015; 29(8):
2310–2315.
[21] Perrier ET, Pavol MJ and Hoffman MA. The acute effects of
a warm-up including static or dynamic stretching on coun-
termovement jump height, reaction time, and flexibility. The
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2011; 25(7):
1925–1931.
[22] Perneger TV. What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments.
Bmj. 1998; 316(7139): 1236–2138.
[23] Bacurau RFP, Monteiro GA, Ugrinowitsch C, Tricoli V,
Cabral LF and Aoki MS. Acute effect of a ballistic and a static
stretching exercise bout on flexibility and maximal strength.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2009;
23(1): 304–308.
[24] Beckett JR, Schneiker KT, Wallman KE, Dawson BT and
Guelfi KJ. Effects of static stretching on repeated sprint
and change of direction performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2009; 41(2): 444–450.
[25] Herda TJ, Cramer JT, Ryan ED, McHugh MP and Stout JR.
Acute effects of static versus dynamic stretching on isometric
peak torque, electromyography, and mechanomyography of
the biceps femoris muscle. The Journal of Strength and Con-
ditioning Research. 2008; 22(3): 809–817.
[26] Robbins JW and Scheuermann BW. Varying amounts of acute
static stretching and its effect on vertical jump performance.
The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2008;
22(3): 781–786.
[27] Nelson AG, Guillory IK, Cornwell A and Kokkonen J. Inhi-
bition of maximal voluntary isokinetic torque production fol-
lowing stretching is velocity-specific. The Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research. 2001; 15(2): 241–246.
[28] Hanten WP, Olson SL, Butts NL and Nowicki AL. Effective-
ness of a home program of ischemic pressure followed by sus-
tained stretch for treatment of myofascial trigger points. Phys-
ical therapy. 2000; 80(10): 997–1003.
[29] Renan-Ordine R, Alburquerque-Sendin F, de Souza DP, Cle-
land JA and Fernandez-de-Las-Penas C. Effectiveness of my-
ofascial trigger point manual therapy combined with a self-
stretching protocol for the management of plantar heel pain: A
randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;
41(2): 43–50.
[30] Roylance DS, George JD, Hammer AM, Rencher N, Felling-
ham GW and Hager RL et al. Evaluating acute changes in
joint range-of-motion using self-myofascial release, postural
alignment exercises, and static stretches. International Journal
of Exercise Science. 2013; 6(4): 6.
[31] Sullivan K, Silvey DJ, Button DC and Behm DG. Roller-
massager application to the hamstrings increases sit-and-
reach range of motion within five to ten-s without perfor-
mance impairments. International Journal of Sports Physical
Therapy. 2013; 8(3): 228–236.
[32] Patel DG, Vyas NJ and Sheth MS. Immediate effect of appli-
cation of bilateral self myo-fascial release on the plantar sur-
face of the foot on hamstring and lumbar spine flexibility: A
quasi experimental study. International Journal of Therapeu-
tic Applications. 2016; 32: 94–99.
[33] McKechnie GJ, Young WB and Behm DG. Acute effects of
two massage techniques on ankle joint flexibility and power
of the plantar flexors. J Sports Sci Med. 2007; 6(4): 498–504.
[34] Hubbard T and Paolini J. Review of myofascial release as an
effective massage therapy technique. Athletic Therapy Today.
2009; 14(5): 30–34.
[35] Li Z. Acute effects of foam rolling on flexibility. Isokinetic
and Isometric Strength. 2015.
[36] Robertson M. Self-myofascial release purpose, methods and
techniques. Robertson training systems. 2008.
[37] Cavanaugh MT, Aboodarda SJ, Hodgson D and Behm DG.
Foam rolling of quadriceps decreases biceps femoris acti-
vation. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
2016.
[38] Freiwald J, Baumgart C, Kühnemann M and Hoppe MW.
Foam-rolling in sport and therapy – potential benefits and
risks: Part 2 – positive and adverse effects on athletic perfor-
mance. Sports Orthopaedics and Traumatology. 2016; 32(3):
267–275.
[39] Junker DH and Stöggl TL. The foam roll as a tool to improve
hamstring flexibility. The Journal of Strength and Condition-
ing Research. 2015; 29(12): 3480–3485.
AUTHOR COPY