Comparing Acute Bouts of Sagittal Plane Progression Foam Rolling vs. Frontal Plane Progression Foam Rolling

Abstract

Many strength and conditioning professionals have included the use of foam rolling devices within a warm-up routine prior to competition and/or training. Multiple studies have investigated foam rolling in regards to performance, flexibility, and rehabilitation; however, additional research is necessary in supporting the topic. Furthermore, as multiple foam rolling progressions exist, researching differences that may result from each is required. To investigate differences in foam rolling progressions, 16 athletically trained males underwent a two-condition, within-subjects protocol comparing the differences of two common foam rolling progressions in regards to performance testing. The two conditions included a foam rolling progression targeting the mediolateral axis of the body (FRml) and foam rolling progression targeting the anteroposterior axis (FRap). Each was administered in adjunct with a full body dynamic warm-up. Following each rolling progression, subjects performed NFL combine drills, flexibility, and subjective scaling measures. The data demonstrated that FRml was effective at improving flexibility (P ≤ 0.05) when compared to FRap. No other differences existed between progressions.

Full text

COMPARING ACUTE BOUTS OF SAGITTAL PLANE
PROGRESSION FOAM ROLLING VS.FRONTAL
PLANE PROGRESSION FOAM ROLLING
COREY A. PEACOCK,
1
DARREN D. KREIN,
2
JOSE ANTONIO,
1
GABRIEL J. SANDERS,
3
TOBIN A. SILVER,
1
AND MEGAN COLAS
1
1
Exercise and Sports Science, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida;
2
Miami Dolphins, Strength and
Conditioning, Davie, Florida; and
3
Kinesiology, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, Kentucky
ABSTRACT
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. J Strength Cond Res 29(8): 2310–2315, 2015—Many
strength and conditioning professionals have included the use
of foam rolling devices within a warm-up routine prior to both
training and competition. Multiple studies have investigated
foam rolling in regards to performance, flexibility, and rehabili-
tation; however, additional research is necessary in supporting
the topic. Furthermore, as multiple foam rolling progressions
exist, researching differences that may result from each is
required. To investigate differences in foam rolling progres-
sions, 16 athletically trained males underwent a 2-condition
within-subjects protocol comparing the differences of 2 com-
mon foam rolling progressions in regards to performance test-
ing. The 2 conditions included a foam rolling progression
targeting the mediolateral axis of the body (FRml) and foam
rolling progression targeting the anteroposterior axis (FRap).
Each was administered in adjunct with a full-body dynamic
warm-up. After each rolling progression, subjects performed
National Football League combine drills, flexibility, and subjec-
tive scaling measures. The data demonstrated that FRml was
effective at improving flexibility (p#0.05) when compared with
FRap. No other differences existed between progressions.
KEY WORDS warm-up routines, strength and conditioning
INTRODUCTION
The performance-based philosophies of strength
and conditioning have been widely investigated
and researched. Particularly, warm-up technique
research has emerged as a current topic of interest
within the strength and conditioning community
(6,16,18,25,30,32,33,37). These warm-up techniques include
but are not limited to static, dynamic, mobility, and foam
rolling. Many of these techniques individually, as well as in
conjunction with one another, have been researched in re-
gards to differences in muscular performance, flexibility, and
subjective scaling (6,16,18,25,30,32,33,37,38). As investiga-
tions advanced, strength and conditioning professionals have
gained scientific-based warm-up technique research and
options for achieving optimal athletic performance.
Previous foam rolling research including myofascial release
techniques has explored rolling progressions as a rehabilitation
cooldown technique. Multiple studies have reported these
techniques as resulting in different physiological changes
including vascular plasticity, soft tissue restoration, recovery,
myogenic dilation, endothelial dilation, motor recruitment,
and nitric oxide availability may be taking place (1–
3,13,21,24,29,31,36). Recently, strength and conditioning
research has explored foam rolling as a prehabilitation warm-
up technique, which may elicit the aforementioned physiolog-
ical changes and/or myofascial release before performance and
range of motion (ROM) testing (25,26,31). Although research
has investigated localized and full-body rolling, there is a lack
of research comparing common foam rolling progressions.
Foam rolling has demonstrated effects on performance
with no unanimity, and it is uncertain whether different
commonly used rolling progressions will promote differ-
ences in performance. Strength and conditioning programs
typically implement a specific foam rolling progression;
however, it is common to see different rolling progressions
between strength and conditioning professionals and/or
sports. A commonly used foam rolling progression within
the strength field includes large musculature along the
mediolateral axis of the body. This rolling progression
incorporates spine, medial gluteal, hamstring, calf, and the
quadriceps regions to stimulate physiological processes such
as increased blood flow and nitric oxide stimulation (29).
Another commonly used progression involves rolling inser-
tion sites and deep fascia tissue along the anteroposterior
axis of the body. This rolling progression incorporates lat,
Address correspondence to Corey A. Peacock, cpeacock@nova.edu.
29(8)/2310–2315
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association
2310
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

midaxial, hip, iliotibial, calf, and the adductor regions to
stimulate motor recruitment and pain alleviation (13,36).
The purpose of this study was to compare and investigate
the aforementioned foam rolling progressions and the acute
differences in performance they may elicit. This will be
determined by a testing battery including National Football
League (NFL) combine drills, flexibility testing, and subjec-
tive scaling. It was hypothesized that different rolling pro-
gressions acutely impact performance variables differently as
a result of physiological stimulations.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
A counterbalanced, crossover, within-subjects design com-
paring 2 separate experimental conditions, including medio-
lateral foam rolling (FRml) and anteroposterior foam rolling
(FRap), was used to investigate the problem. The FRml
condition tested acute performance effects of foam rolling
along the mediolateral axis (sagittal plane) of the body,
whereas the FRap condition tested the acute performance
effects of foam rolling along the anteroposterior axis (frontal
plane) of the body (FRap). The performance effects included
post–foam rolling performance drills targeting power, explo-
sion, agility, muscular strength, and flexibility.
Subjects
Sixteen athletically trained adult males (age: 21.9 62.0 years;
height: 177.7 66.7 cm; weight: 78.0 69.3 kg; body fat: 10.8 6
2.2%) ranging from 19 to 24 agreed to participate in the study.
The athletes were asked to maintain a normal diet and to avoid
physical activity 24 hours before testing. Before experimenta-
tion, health history data were collected from each athlete to
avoid medical contraindications for physical activity. Athletes
both read and signed informed consent documentation after
the procedures were explained. After obtaining written
informed consent, trained research personnel measured each
athlete for physical demographics including height, weight,
and body composition. Height and weight were measured
using a standard stadiometer and balance beam scale (Health
O Meter, Chicago, IL, USA). Body composition was calculated
using the 7-site Jackson Pollock body fat equation measured
from the thigh, abdomen, suprailiac, midaxillary, chest, triceps,
and subscapular skinfold sites (4,20). The Nova Southeastern
University Institutional Review Board approved the human
subjects study.
Protocol
On completion of the physical measurements, the athletes
participated in 2 experimental counterbalanced condition
trials (FRml and FRap). A washout period of 7 days existed
between each. Each trial began with a total-body foam
rolling session specific to each designated condition. The
rolling sessions used a conventional foam roller (High
Density Molded Foam Roller—6 312 inch Round; Perform
Better, Cranston, RI, USA), as it has been documented pre-
viously effective in covering adequate surface area (9,31).
For the FRml condition (Figure 1), athletes were instructed
through a foam rolling session at an application rate of 5 rolls
per 30 seconds targeting the inferior spine region (erector
spinae, multifidus), the medial gluteal region (gluteus maxi-
mus, gluteus medius, gluteus minimus), the hamstring region
(semitendinosus, semimembranosus, biceps femoris), the pos-
terior calf region (gastrocnemius, soleus), the pectoral region
(pectoralis major, pectoralis minor), and the quadriceps region
(rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, and vastus medialis). During
the experimental condition FRap (Figure 2), athletes were also
instructed through a foam rolling progression at an application
rate of 5 rolls per 30 seconds targeting the lat region (superior
latissimus dorsi, teres major), the midaxial region (external
abdominal obliques, inferior latissimus dorsi), the hip region
(piriformis, sartorius, gluteus medius), the iliotibial band region
(tensor fasciae latae), the lateral calf region (peroneals), and
the adductor region (longus, brevis). Foam rolling was com-
pleted bilaterally during progressions when necessary. After
the foam rolling sessions, both conditions included the same
generalized dynamic warm-up targeting full-body musculature
and joint mobility. The warm-up included techniques of
shoulder joint mobility, hip mobility, knee mobility, and scap-
ular mobility. Each was instructed for 20 repetitions. After the
mobility techniques, the athletes were guided through a series
of frontal, sagittal, and transverse dynamic techniques includ-
ing high knees, butt kickers, lunging, log jumps, thoracic rota-
tions, and clapping push-up techniques. Each was instructed
to cover a total of 20 m in planar displacement or 20 repeti-
tions. After each conditional warm-up routine, the athletes
were tested in a series of performance drills similar to the
NFL combine. These tests included the vertical jump, broad
jump, shuttle run, and bench press. Other tests included sub-
jective scaling and the sit-and-reach testing. Tests of nonfati-
guing performance (sit-and-reach, vertical jump, broad jump)
were tested first, followed by tests of agility (shuttle run) and
maximum strength (bench press) (4). Subjective scaling was
obtained at the duration of each conditional testing period.
Acute Performance Testing Series: National Football League
Combine Drills, Other Measures
Vertical Jump. The NFL combine uses the vertical jump as
a measure of lower-body power and explosion. The athletes
performed the vertical jump using a commercial vertec device
(Sports Imports, Columbus, OH, USA). After using the stack
of adjustable horizontal vanes to determine the flat-footed
standing reach, the stack of vanes was raised to an estimated
height so that the athletes were capable of reaching the lowest
set of vanes but incapable of reaching the highest vane. After
the athletes generated power and jumped as high as possible
vertically, the difference between standing reach and vertical
reach was computed. The highest vertical difference trial was
used as the vertical jump measurement (8,10,15,22,26,39).
Broad Jump. Also known as the standing long jump, the NFL
combine uses the broad jump as another test of an athlete’s
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2015 | 2311
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

power, explosion, and strength. The athletes began each
testing trial with both feet behind a designated starting line
while maintaining an athletic balanced stance. Once in place,
the athletes performed a countermovement followed by an
explosive jump for maximum distance. A countermovement
is allowed to demonstrate true power performance (11,28).
The test differs from the vertical jump as the jump also tests
horizontal displacement and balance as landing under con-
trol is crucial. The best of the 3 trials was recorded as the
athletes broad jump distance.
Shuttle Run. Also known as the 18.3-m proagility test and the
5-10-5 cone drill, the NFL combine uses the shuttle run as
a test of lateral quickness and explosiveness. An athlete’s
ability to produce greater power and balance will ultimately
lead to better agility results (35). The athletes began the
shuttle run in a 3-point stance. They then exploded 4.6 m
(5 yards) to a line right of the center line. Once contact was
made, the athletes then exploded to a line 9.1 m to the left
(10 yards) and made contact with his left hand. They then
pivoted and exploded another 4.6 m (5 yards) through the
center line. The best trial time was recorded as shuttle run
result (14,39).
Bench Press. The NFL combine uses the bench press rep-out
test of 103 kg (225 pounds). This test is not only used to
Figure 1. FRml rolling progression includes in the following order: (A) inferior spine region, (B) medial gluteal region, (C) hamstring region, (D) posterior calf
region, (E) pectoral region, and (F) the quadriceps region.
Figure 2. FRap rolling progression includes in the following order: (A) lat region, (B) midaxial region, (C) hip region, (D) iliotibial band region, (E) lateral calf
region, and (F) the adductor region.
Foam Rolling Progressions Comparison
2312
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

assess strength but also to assess muscular endurance.
Multiple methods of bench press testing have been used
for research purposes (7,19,23), so this particular testing
series used an indirect 1 repetition maximum (RM) bench
press procedure. This also used both strength and endur-
ance, as a maximum rep-out was also used, but at 90% of
the estimated 1RM. The Adam’s equation [kg/(12(0.02 3
number of repetitions))] was calculated to determine an indi-
rect 1-RM bench press value for each athlete (17).
Sit-and-Reach. Using a sit-and-reach box (Baseline Evaluation
Instruments, White Plains, NY, USA) and standard protocol,
the athletes were tested for lower trunk and flexibility testing.
While seated, the athletes placed their feet 30 cm apart,
while contacting the standard box. The athletes leaned
forward slowly reaching as far as possible while keeping
their hands adjacent with one another. The best trial was
recorded to the nearest 0.05 cm (33).
Ratings of Perceived Exertion and Preference. Athletes were
asked to indicate their undifferentiated rating of perceived
exertion (RPE) using a validated Borg scale at the duration
of each condition (5,27,34). The athletes also indicated
which foam rolling condition they preferred between FRml
and FRap. Preferences of condition have been used as a mea-
sure of potential motivation, in this case, a possible motiva-
tion to include foam rolling into individual workouts (5).
Statistical Analyses
Mean and measures of variability (i.e., SD) were computed
for all variables studied. After the Shapiro-Wilk normality
assessment, an analysis of variance was used with post hoc
t-test analyses to evaluate mean differences in performance
measurements (sit-and-reach [cm], vertical jump [cm], broad
jump [cm], shuttle run [sec], and indirect 1RM bench press
[kg]). A t-test was also utilized to evaluate differences in RPE
between conditions (FRml vs. FRap). All statistical analyses
were performed using SPSS for Windows (version 20.0;
SPSS, Inc., Evanston, IL, USA).
RESULTS
All performance variables and comparisons are given in
Table 1. There was a significant difference in sit-and-reach
performance following the FRml condition (FRml, 36.3 6
5.9 cm; FRap, 34.4 66.1 cm; p= 0.003). There were no
significant differences between experimental conditions for
the vertical jump (FRml, 70.7 610.2 cm; FRap, 68.4 69.3
cm; p= 0.129), broad jump (FRml, 240.2 623.4 cm; FRap,
239.7 626.3 cm; p= 0.814), shuttle run (FRml, 4.8 60.2
seconds; FRap, 4.8 60.2 seconds; p= 0.149), and bench
press (FRml, 107.8 622.6 kg; FRap, 113.4 635.6 kg; p=
0.244). A trend toward significance was observed for RPE at
the duration of each experimental condition (FRml, 12.1 6
1.7; FRap, 13.5 62.6; p= 0.064). It is worth noting that
when preference was reported following the experimental
conditions, 8 athletes preferred FRml compared with FRap,
whereas 8 athletes preferred FRap compared with FRml.
DISCUSSION
The current research is unique as it was the first study to
compare differences in performance as a result of foam
rolling techniques and progressions. The FRml foam rolling
progression examined the acute effects of foam rolling passes
along the mediolateral axis of the body. Commonly, strength
and conditioning professionals have recognized this pro-
gression to stimulate blood flow and nitric oxide release to
the targeted muscular system (29). The FRap foam rolling
progression examined the acute effects of foam rolling passes
along the anteroposterior axis of the body. Strength and
conditioning professionals have used this progression to
stimulate neural factors such as recruitment and pain toler-
ance (1,2,13,24,36). Along the same lines, professionals have
suggested that FRap may also improve lymphatic function-
ing; however, this is yet to be researched. It was hypothe-
sized that different rolling progressions acutely impact
performance variables differently (FRml vs. FRap). Results
obtained during this study suggest that FRml has the poten-
tial to improve sit-and-reach testing ability when compared
with FRap; however, no other
performance or subjective scal-
ing improvements existed. This
evidence has recently been sug-
gested, as studies have exhibited
improved sit-and-reach scores as
a result of direct application of
the foam rolling device on the
hamstrings muscle group (37).
Other studies have also demon-
strated self-myofascial release
and direct application foam roll-
ing to enhance ROM and flexi-
bility in the hip, knee, and
lumbar joints (12,25,32,33). This
may be physiologically in part
TABLE 1. Acute performance testing series: NFL combine drills, other measures.*
Performance test FRml FRap
Sit-and-reach (cm) 36.3 65.9 34.4 66.1†
Vertical jump (cm) 70.7 610.2 68.4 69.3
Standing long jump (cm) 240.2 623.4 239.7 626.3
18.3-m proagility (s) 4.8 60.2 4.8 60.2
Indirect 1RM bench press (kg) 107.8 622.6 113.4 635.6
RPE (6–20) 12.1 61.7 13.5 62.6
*NFL = National Football League; RPE = rating of perceived exertion.
†Denotes significant improvement in performance test (p#0.05) (mean 6SD).
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2015 | 2313
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

because of the dilation response of the direct application of
the foam roller to the hamstring muscle. FRml showed an
improved sit-and-reach value as the progression included
direct hamstring application. No direct application of the
foam rolling device with the hamstring groups existed during
FRap and may have contributed to sit-and-reach testing
differences.
Conflicting data on the effects of foam rolling as it relates to
physical performance testing have recently been reported
(18,31). Healy et al. (18), along with other studies, have dem-
onstrated no evident foam rolling warm-up effects as it applies
to performance testing. Other research by Peacock et al. (31)
has demonstrated foam rolling effects in performance testing
when combined with a dynamic warm-up (31). The purpose
of this study was not to investigate performance improve-
ments but rather to investigate the differences in performance
as a result of 2 different rolling progressions. Aside from flex-
ibility testing, there were no additional differences in testing
variables including measures of power, strength, agility, and
subjective scaling. These results suggest both FRap and FRml
demonstrating to performance effects in regards to NFL com-
bine drills and preference.
Although this was the first study to measure the acute
performance effects of different foam rolling progressions, it
is not without limitations. With any maximum-effort phys-
ical performance study, there is no real control group it may
create an unnecessary risk of injury for subjects. It is worth
noting that no athletes were injured during the performance
variable testing. Further testing is currently underway
examining the relationship between football specific strength
and conditioning movements and foam rolling progressions.
This may prove beneficial to not only improve performance
testing but also on-field abilities.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Foam rolling may elicit physiological adaptations beneficial
for performance, ROM, and recovery. Although conflicting
research exists, there have been many positive effects as
a result of foam rolling warm-up and cooldown techniques.
Based primarily on this study, we suggest direct foam rolling
application on the targeted musculature for isolated testing,
as this may prove beneficial. Because there were no differ-
ences within our athletic population in regards to NFL
combine drills and subjective measures, we suggest using
a progression of choice. With the many benefits associated, it
is reasonable to incorporate foam rolling into any prehabi-
litation and/or rehabilitation strength and conditioning
program, as both progressions may be equally beneficial.
Our results demonstrated that athlete preference exists
between foam rolling progressions, and preference could then
be considered when programming a warm-up. Furthermore,
motivating an athlete to properly warm-up with a foam roller
device may increase if they have a preference and choice (5).
Further research is necessary as foam rolling is a topic of
interest within the strength and conditioning field.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors take this opportunity to acknowledge the
important supporting role of our performance colleagues
Robert Fioritto and Kyle Von Carlowitz of Elite Sports
Performance, Mentor, OH, for their advanced knowledge in
prehabiliation and performance battery testing.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, R, Wise, D, Sawyer, T, and Nathanson, BH. Safety and
effectiveness of an internal pelvic myofascial trigger point wand for
urologic chronic pelvic pain syndrome. Clin J Pain 27: 764–768,
2011.
2. Anderson, RU, Wise, D, Sawyer, T, Glowe, P, and Orenberg, EK.
6-day intensive treatment protocol for refractory chronic
prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome using myofascial release
and paradoxical relaxation training. J Urol 185: 1294–1299, 2011.
3. Arroyo-Morales, M, Olea, N, Martinez, M, Moreno-Lorenzo, C,
Dı
´az-Rodrı
´guez, L, and Hidalgo-Lozano, A. Effects of myofascial
release after high-intensity exercise: A randomized clinical trial.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther 31: 217–223, 2008.
4. Baechle, TR and Roger, WE; National Strength & Conditioning
Association (U.S.). Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning
(3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
5. Barkley, JE, Salvy, SJ, Sanders, GJ, Dey, S, Von Carlowitz, KP, and
Williamson, ML. Peer influence and physical activity Behavior in
young children: An experimental study. J Phys Act Health 11: 404–
409, 2013.
6. Carvalho, FL, Carvalho, MC, Sima
˜o, R, Gomes, TM, Costa, PB,
Neto, LB, Carvalho, RL, and Dantas, EH. Acute effects of a warm-
up including active, passive, and dynamic stretching on vertical
jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 26: 2447–2452, 2012.
7. Chapman, PP, Whitehead, JR, and Binkert, RH. The 225-lb-reps-to-
fatigue test as a submaximal estimate of the 1-rm bench press
performance in college football players. J Strength Cond Res 12: 258–
261, 1998.
8. Church, J, Wiggins, MS, Moode, MF, and Crist, R. Effect of warm-
up and flexibility treatments on vertical jump performance. J
Strength Cond Res 15: 332–336, 2001.
9. Curran, PF, Fiore, RD, and Crisco, JJ. A comparison of the pressure
exerted on soft tissue by 2 myofascial rollers. J Sport Rehabil 17 : 43 2 –
442, 2008.
10. Dunn-Lewis, C, Luk, HY, Comstock, BA, Szivak, TK, Hooper, DR,
Kupchak, BR, Watts, AM, Putney, BJ, Hydren, JR, Volek, JS,
Denegar, CR, and Kraemer, WJ. The effects of a customized over-
the-counter mouth guard on neuromuscular force and power
production in trained men and women. J Strength Cond Res 26:
1085–1093, 2012.
11. Ebben, WP and Petushek, EJ. Using the reactive strength index
modified to evaluate plyometric performance. J Strength Cond Res
24: 1983–1987, 2010.
12. Ebrahim, AW and Elghany, AWA. The effect of foam roller exercise
and nanoparticle in speeding of healing of sport injuries. J Am Sci 9:
450–458, 2013.
13. Fryer, G, Morse, CM, and Johnson, JC. Spinal and sacroiliac
assessment and treatment techniques used by osteopathic physicians
in the United States. Osteopath Med Prim Care 14: 3–4, 2009.
14. Fujiwara, LM, Perrin, DH, and Buxton, BP. Effect of three lateral
knee bracing on speed and agility in experienced and non-
experienced wearers. Athletic Train 25: 160–161, 1990.
15. Gonza
´lez-Rave
´, JM, Machado, L, Navarro-Valdivielso, F, and Vilas-
Boas, JP. Acute effects of heavy-load exercises, stretching exercises,
and heavy-load plus stretching exercises on squat jump and
countermovement jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 23: 472–
479, 2009.
Foam Rolling Progressions Comparison
2314
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

16. Haddad, M, Dridi, A, Moktar, C, Chaouachi, A, Wong, DP,
Behm, D, and Chamari, K. Static stretching can impair explosive
performance for at Least 24 hours. J Strength Cond Res 28: 140–146,
2014.
17. Haff, GG and Dumke, C. Laboratory Manual for Exercise Physiology.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2012.
18. Healey, KC, Hatfield, DL, Blanpied, P, Dorfman, LR, and Riebe, D.
The effects of myofascial release with foam rolling on performance.
J Strength Cond Res 28: 61–68, 2014.
19. Inacio, M, Dipietro, L, Visek, AJ, and Miller, TA. Influence of upper-
body external loading on anaerobic exercise performance. J Strength
Cond Res 25: 896–902, 2011.
20. Jackson, AS and Pollock, ML. Generalized equations for predicting
body density of men. Br J Nutr 40: 497–504, 1978.
21. Kraemer, WJ, Flanagan, SD, Comstock, BA, Fragala, MS, Earp, JE,
Dunn-Lewis, C, Ho, JY, Thomas, GA, Solomon-Hill, G,
Penwell, ZR, Powell, MD, Wolf, MR, Volek, JS, Denegar, CR, and
Maresh, CM. Effects of a whole body compression garment on
markers of recovery after a heavy resistance workout in men and
women. J Strength Cond Res 24: 804–814, 2010.
22. Lamont, HS, Cramer, JT, Bemben, DA, Shehab, RL, Anderson, MA,
and Bemben, MG. The acute effect of whole-body low-frequency
vibration on countermovement vertical jump performance in
college-aged men. J Strength Cond Res 24: 3433–3442, 2010.
23. LeSuer, DA, McCormick, JH, Mayhew, JL, Wasserstein, RL, and
Arnold, MD. The accuracy of prediction equations for estimating
1-RM performance in the bench press, squat, and deadliest.
J Strength Cond Res 11: 211–213, 1997.
24. Ma, C, Wu, S, Li, G, Xiao, X, Mai, M, and Yan, T. Comparison
of miniscalpel-needle release, acupuncture needling, and stretching
exercise to trigger point in myofascial pain syndrome. Clin J Pain 26:
251–257, 2010.
25. MacDonald, GZ, Penney, MD, Mullaley, ME, Cuconato, AL,
Drake, CD, Behm, DG, and Button, DC. An acute bout of self-
myofascial release increases range of motion without a subsequent
decrease in muscle activation or force. J Strength Cond Res 27: 812–
821, 2013.
26. McCann, MR and Flanagan, SP. The effects of exercise selection
and rest interval on postactivation potentiation of vertical jump
performance. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1285–1291, 2010.
27. Muyor, JM. Exercise intensity and validity of the ratings of perceived
exertion (Borg and OMNI scales) in an indoor cycling session.
J Hum Kinet 31: 93–101, 2013.
28. Nuzzo, JL, McBride, JM, Cormie, P, and McCaulley, GO.
Relationship between countermovement jump performance and
multijoint isometric and dynamic tests of strength. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 699–707, 2008.
29. Okamoto, T, Masuhara, M, and Ikuta, K. Acute effects of self-
myofascial release using a foam roller on arterial function. J Strength
Cond Res 28: 69–73, 2014.
30. Pagaduan, JC, Pojski´
c, H, Uˇziˇ
canin, E, and Babaji´
c, F. Effect of
various warm-up protocols on jump performance in college football
players. J Hum Kinet 35: 127–132, 2012.
31. Peacock, CA, Krein, DD, Silver, TA, Sanders, GJ, and Von
Carlowitz, KA. An acute bout of self-myofascial release in the form
of foam rolling improves performance testing. Int J Exer Sci 7: 202–
211, 2014.
32. Renan-Ordine, R, Alburquerque-Sendı
´n, F, de Souza, DP, Cleland, JA,
and Ferna
´ndez-de-Las-Pen
˜as, C. Effectiveness of myofascial 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 41: 43–50, 2011.
33. Roylance, DS, George, JD, Hammer, AM, Rencher, N,
Fellingham, GW, Hager, RL, and Myrer, WJ. Evaluating acute
changes in joint range-of-motion using self-myofascial release,
postural alignment exercises, and static stretches. Int J Exer Sci 6:
310–319, 2013.
34. Scherr, J, Wolfarth, B, Christle, JW, Pressler, A, Wagenpfeil, S, and
Halle, M. Associations between Borg’s rating of perceived exertion
and physiological measures of exercise intensity. Eur J Appl Physiol
113: 147–155, 2013.
35. Sekulic, D, Spasic, M, Mirkov, D, Cavar, M, and Sattler, T. Gender-
specific influences of balance, speed, and power on agility
performance. J Strength Cond Res 27: 802–811, 2013.
36. Sucher, BM. Myofascial manipulative release of carpal tunnel
syndrome: Documentation with magnetic resonance imaging. JAm
Osteopath Assoc 93: 1273–1278, 1993.
37. Sullivan, KM, Silvey, DB, Button, DC, and Behm, DG. Roller-
massager application to the hamstrings increases sit-and-reach range
of motion within five to ten seconds without performance
impairments. Int J Sports Phys Ther 8: 228–236, 2013.
38. Vetter, RE. Effects of six warm-up protocols on sprint and jump
performance. J Strength Cond Res 21: 819–823, 2007.
39. Wisloff, U, Catagna, C, Helgerud, J, Jones, R, and Hoff, J. Strong
maximal squat strength with sprint performance and vertical jump
height in elite soccer players. Br J Sports Med 38: 285–288, 2004.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
the
TM
|
www.nsca.com
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2015 | 2315
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.