Acute effects of foam roller or stick massage on indirect markers from exercise-induced muscle damage in healthy individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of foam roller or stick massage performed after exercise-induced muscle damage protocols on indirect markers of muscle damage compared to a non-intervention control group in healthy individuals. METHODS: PubMed, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library database were searched in August 2, 2020, with last update on February 21, 2021. Were included clinical trials involving healthy adult individuals who received foam roller/stick massage versus a non-intervention group and evaluated indirect markers of muscle damage. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. Standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were used to measure the foam roller/stick massage effect on muscle soreness. RESULTS: The five included studies investigated 151 participants (136 men). Overall, the studies presented a moderate/high risk of bias. A between-groups meta-analysis showed no significant difference between massage and non-intervention control groups on muscle soreness immediately after (0.26 [95%CI: 0.14; 0.65], p = 0.20), 24 h (-0.64 [95%CI: 1.34; 0.07], p = 0.08), 48 h (-0.35 [95%CI: 0.85; 0.15], p = 0.17), 72 h (-0.40 [95%CI: 0.92; 0.12], p = 0.13), and 96 h (0.05 [95%CI: 0.40; 0.50], p = 0.82) after an exercise-induced muscle damage protocol. Moreover, the qualitative synthesis showed that foam roller or stick massage had no significant effect on range of motion, muscle swelling, and maximal voluntary isometric contraction recovery. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the current literature appears to not support the advantage of foam roller or stick massage to improve recovery of muscle damage indirect markers (muscle soreness, range of motion, muscle swelling, and maximal voluntary isometric contraction) compared to a non-intervention control group in healthy individuals. Furthermore, due to the heterogeneity of the methodological designs among the included studies, making it difficult to compare the results. In addition, there are not enough high-quality and well-designed studies on foam roller or stick massage to draw any definite conclusions. REVIEW PROTOCOL NUMBER: The study was pre-registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (PROSPERO) on August 2, 2020, with last update on February 21, 2021. Protocol number: CRD2017058559.

Effects of myofascial release of the ankle plantar flexors on static postural balance of young men: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Myofascial release (MR) has been widely used in sports and clinical environment. There are studies that have already evaluated the effect of MR on postural control, however, the data found are inconclusive. OBJECTIVES: Investigate the effect of MR on ankle plantar flexor muscles over static postural balance. METHOD: Sixty-five young men were randomized allocated into one of three groups: 1) MR group (n = 25, Myofascial Release); 2) Sham (n = 25, fake intervention); or 3) Control group (n = 15). Both MR and Sham techniques were applied during 5 min in the ankle flexors of each leg. The bipodal static postural balance test was performed before and 2 min post each intervention on a force plate with eyes closed during the test. All subjects performed 3 sets of 30-s with 1 min of rest. Mean values to the center of pressure velocity (COPvel) was used for analysis. RESULTS: The bipodal balance test showed that there was no significant difference between groups (p > 0.05), but there was a significant time effect (p < 0.05). A significant decrease (p < 0.05) in post-test COPvel (cm.s-1) values (sham 4.9 ± 1.2; MR 4.5 ± 0.6; CON 4.22 ± 0.8) was found when compared to values of pre-test (sham 5.3 ± 1.0; MR 5.0 ± 0.8; CON 4.94 ± 1.3) for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrated that MR performed on ankle flexors did not affect static postural balance in young man. This study is a clinical trial (Register Number: RBR-48k5jm).

The effects of one session of roller massage on recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Roller massage has become a popular intervention in sports settings in order to treat muscle soreness and stiffness, as well as improving post-exercise recovery, although there is limited evidence for these assumptions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a single session of roller massage, applied with a controlled force after an exercise-induced muscle damage protocol, on muscle recovery. METHODS: A randomized controlled study was performed using a repeated-measures design. Thirty-six young men completed four sets of six eccentric actions of elbow flexors at 90°/s with a 90s rest interval between sets. Participants were randomly assigned into one of three groups: 1) Roller massage (n = 12), 2) Sham (n = 12), and 3) Control (n = 12). Maximal isometric voluntary contraction (MIVC), delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS), range of motion (ROM), and muscle thickness were measured at baseline, and at 24, 48, and 72 h post exercise. RESULTS: There was no significant group by time interaction for MIVC (p = 0.090) and ROM (p = 0.416). Also, although there was a significant group by time interaction for muscle thickness (p = 0.028), post hoc test did not find significant difference between groups (p > 0.05). DOMS was recovered at 72 h for roller massage (p < 0.001) and control (p < 0.001) groups, while the Sham group did not recover from DOMS across 72 h (p < 0.001). There was also no significant difference between groups in DOMS at any time (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A single session of roller massage applied on elbow flexors had no effect on recovery of MIVC, muscle swelling, ROM and DOMS.