Author(s): HEINKE, L.N., JAVANMARDI, S., ZEMKE, J., RAPPELT, L., KNICKER, A., FREIWALD, J., NIEDERER, D., BAUMGART, C., Institution: UNIVERSITY OF WUPPERTAL, Country: GERMANY, Abstract-ID: 847

INTRODUCTION:
In the last decade, foam rolling (FR) gained popularity as a pre-exercise tool, improving range of motion and performance [1]. However, the specific effects of active (AFR) and passive (PFR) FR remain unclear. This study aims to explore how AFR and PFR affect pain perception and jumping performance.
METHODS:
In a crossover RCT, 20 participants (10 men and 10 women) underwent both AFR and PFR sessions on their anterior thigh and calf muscles on two separate days. Prior to each treatment, participants engaged in a 5-minute warm-up on a stationary bicycle. Afterwards, each leg was treated twice for 3 minutes. Vertical force during AFR was measured with a force plate, and a custom constant-pressure rolling device was used for PFR, with pressure individualized to 32.1 ± 1.5% of body weight [2]. Countermovement jump (CMJ) performance was assessed before and after warm-up, and post-FR treatment. Pain perception, using the visual analog scale (VAS), was evaluated for both AFR and PFR during treatments. Two-factor (treatment x time) rANOVA`s using statistical parametric mapping (SPM) were employed to compare body weight-normalized vertical force data for the CMJs. SPM analyses were executed in Python using the open-source package spm1d, and further statistical analyses were calculated using R 4.2.2.
RESULTS:
Jumping performance showed a moderate, but not statistically significant group × time interaction effect (p = .078, ηp2 = .126). Pairwise comparison indicated a small reduction from POST1 to POST2 for both AFR (27.2 ± 6.1 cm to 25.9 ± 5.7 cm; SMD = .225) and PFR (27.1 ± 5.9 cm to 25.1 ± 5.5 cm; SMD = .343). Furthermore, at POST2, a trivial difference was observed between AFR and PFR (SMD = .145). The rANOVA`s of SPM showed no interaction effects. AFR and PFR rolling pressure analysis revealed statistically significant higher forces on the thigh in AFR (291.0 ± 74.3 N) compared to PFR (223.7 ± 35.1 N) (SMD = .822). Pain perception was significantly higher in PFR (6.1 ± 2.1) compared to AFR (3.9 ± 2.4) (SMD = .975).
CONCLUSION:
Both rolling conditions reduced the jumping performance. Surprisingly, participants rated PFR more painful than AFR, despite AFR applying substantially higher pressure. Speculatively, the non-contracted musculature in PFR may allow greater modulation of muscle and tissue stiffness, contributing to more pronounced negative effects on performance. It is noteworthy that in both conditions, the applied pressure could be twice as high as typically used in occlusion studies [3]. A concern for practical application is that, when comparing AFR and PFR, even higher mechanical pressure in AFR does not lead to increased pain perception compared to PFR. Adverse effects on connective tissue, nerves, blood vessels, and bones should be critically considered if both treatments are improperly used.
[1] Wiewelhove et al., Front Physiol, 2019
[2] Baumgart et al., Sports (Basel), 2019
[3] Abe et al., J Appl Physiol (1985), 2006