Background: Roller massage (RM) has become a common intervention among health and fitness professionals. Recently, manufacturers have merged the science of vibration therapy and RM with the development of vibration rollers. Of interest, is the therapeutic effects of such RM devices.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a vibration roller and nonvibration roller intervention on prone knee-flexion passive range of motion (ROM) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the quadriceps musculature.
Methods: Forty-five recreationally active adults were randomly allocated to one of 3 groups: vibration roller, nonvibration roller, and control. Each roller intervention lasted a total of 2 minutes. The control group did not roll. Dependent variables included prone knee-flexion ROM and PPT measures. Statistical analysis included parametric and nonparametric tests to measure changes among groups.
Results: The vibration roller demonstrated the greatest increase in PPT (180 kPa, P < .001), followed by the nonvibration roller (112 kPa, P < .001) and control (61 kPa, P < .001). For knee flexion ROM, the vibration roller demonstrated the greatest increase in ROM (7°, P < .001), followed by the nonvibration roller (5°, P < .001) and control (2°, P < .001). Between groups, there was a significant difference in PPT between the vibration and nonvibration roller (P = .03) and vibration roller and control (P < .001). There was also a significant difference between the nonvibration roller and control (P < .001). For knee ROM, there was no significant difference between the vibration and nonvibration roller (P = .31). A significant difference was found between the vibration roller and control group (P < .001) and nonvibration roller and control group (P < .001).
Conclusion: The results suggest that a vibration roller may increase an individual's tolerance to pain greater than a nonvibration roller. This investigation should be considered a starting point for future research on this technology.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2017-0164 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
A Comparison of the Effects of Foam Rolling and Stretching on Physical Performance. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Front Physiol
September 2021
Institute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata, Japan.
Foam rolling and stretching with its various techniques are frequently used as a warm-up routine to increase the range of motion of a joint. While the magnitude of the changes in range of motion between foam rolling and stretching (static and dynamic techniques) is similar, it is not clear if this also holds true for performance parameters (e.g.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEffect of vibration vs non-vibration foam rolling techniques on flexibility, dynamic balance and perceived joint stability after fatigue.
PeerJ
November 2019
Physical Activity and Sports Sciences Faculty, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Torrent, Valencia, Spain.
Background: Foam roller and vibration techniques are currently used to assist in recovery after fatigue. The main purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the use of a foam roller with and without vibration on dynamic balance, ankle dorsiflexion, hamstring and lumbar spine flexibility and perceived knee and ankle stability after an induced fatigue protocol.
Methods: A total of 24 healthy recreationally active participants (17 males and seven females) were recruited to a randomized cross over trial consisting of; no treatment (NT), foam roller treatment (FR) and vibration foam roller treatment (VFR).
The effects of vibration foam roller applied to hamstring on the quadriceps electromyography activity and hamstring flexibility.
J Exerc Rehabil
August 2019
Department of Integrated Medicine, Graduate School, Nambu University, Gwangju, Korea.
This study investigates the effect of vibration foam roller (VFR) applied to the hamstring, on the quadriceps electromyography (EMG) activity and hamstring flexibility. A total of 16 subjects were randomly assigned to either the VFR group (n=8) or the nonvibration foam roller group (NVFR, n=8). The two groups applied the foam roller or the VFR to the dominant hamstring, at a rate of 40 times per min, for a total of 200 times in 5 min.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEffects of Vibration and Non-Vibration Foam Rolling on Recovery after Exercise with Induced Muscle Damage.
J Sports Sci Med
March 2019
Exercise and Sport Sciences, Education and Humanities Faculty, Francisco de Vitoria University, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid.
We aimed to compare the effects between non-vibration foam rolling (NVFR) and vibration foam rolling (VFR) on visual analogic scale (VAS), pressure pain threshold (PPT), oxygen saturation (SmO2), countermovement jump (CMJ) and hip and knee range of movement (ROM) after eliciting muscle damage through eccentric acute exercise using an inertial flywheel. Thirty-eight healthy volunteers (32 men, 6 women; aged 22.2±3.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: Roller massage (RM) has become a common intervention among health and fitness professionals. Recently, manufacturers have merged the science of vibration therapy and RM with the development of vibration rollers. Of interest, is the therapeutic effects of such RM devices.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!