Effect of vibration vs non-vibration foam rolling techniques on flexibility, dynamic balance and perceived joint stability after fatigue

Ana María de Benito; Raúl Valldecabres; Diego Ceca; Jim Richards; Joaquín Barrachina Igual; Ana Pablos

doi:10.7717/peerj.8000

Effect of vibration vs non-vibration foam rolling techniques on flexibility, dynamic balance and perceived joint stability after fatigue

PeerJ. 2019 Nov 26:7:e8000. doi: 10.7717/peerj.8000. eCollection 2019.

Authors

Ana María de Benito¹, Raúl Valldecabres², Diego Ceca³, Jim Richards⁴, Joaquín Barrachina Igual², Ana Pablos¹

Affiliations

¹ Physical Activity and Sports Sciences Faculty, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Torrent, Valencia, Spain.
² Doctorate School, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Valencia, Spain.
³ Department of Education, Universidad Internacional de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
⁴ Allied Health Research Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.

Abstract

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 assessments included; the Sit & Reach test, Y balance test and post-treatment perceived knee and ankle stability. Measurements were taken after a standardized warm up (baseline) and repeated following an exercise-induced muscle fatigue protocol consisting of repeated lunges until volitional fatigue. The three treatment conditions were assessed on three separate days in a randomized order. A 3 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA was used to investigate differences between the three treatments over the three time points and a one factor repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine any differences between treatments using the Global Rate of Change scale when considering perceived stability.

Results: FR and VFR conditions both showed a greater ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM) (p < 0.001), greater posteromedial and posterolateral reach distances (p < 0.001) and a better knee and ankle perceived stability (p < 0.001) when compared to the NT condition. A trend toward significance was observed in the hamstring and lumbar spine flexibility (p = 0.074) in both treatment conditions when compared to the NT condition. However, no differences were seen between the FR and VFR conditions.

Conclusions: Both FR conditions seem to assist in exercise-induced muscle fatigue recovery with improvements in ROM, balance and perceived stability.

Keywords: Ankle dorsiflexion; Foam roller; ROM; Recovery; Vibration foam roller.

Grants and funding

This work was supported by a Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir grant (UCV-2017-2018-30) and a Generalitat Valenciana grant (GV/2019/023). Raúl Valldecabres received a Generalitat Valenciana doctoral fellowship (ACIF2016/121) and grant (BEFPI 2017/014). Joaquín Barrachina received a Generalitat Valenciana doctoral fellowship (ACIF2017/126). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.