Acute Comparative Effect of Foam Rolling and Static Stretching on Range of Motion in Rowers

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/113823
Información del item - Informació de l'item - Item information
Title: Acute Comparative Effect of Foam Rolling and Static Stretching on Range of Motion in Rowers
Authors: Penichet-Tomás, Alfonso | Pueo, Basilio | Abad-Lopez, Marta | Jimenez-Olmedo, Jose Manuel
Research Group/s: Research in Physical Education, Fitness and Performance (RIPEFAP)
Center, Department or Service: Universidad de Alicante. Departamento de Didáctica General y Didácticas Específicas
Keywords: Traditional rowing | Flexibility | Sports | Performance
Knowledge Area: Educación Física y Deportiva
Issue Date: 24-Mar-2021
Publisher: MDPI
Citation: Penichet-Tomas A, Pueo B, Abad-Lopez M, Jimenez-Olmedo JM. Acute Comparative Effect of Foam Rolling and Static Stretching on Range of Motion in Rowers. Sustainability. 2021; 13(7):3631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073631
Abstract: Rowers’ anthropometric characteristics and flexibility are fundamental to increase stroke amplitude and optimize power transfer. The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of foam rolling and static stretching on the range of motion over time. Eight university rowers (24.8 ± 3.4 yrs., height 182.3 ± 6.5 cm, body mass 79.3 ± 4.6 kg) participated in an alternating treatment design study with two-way repeated measures ANOVA. The sit and reach test was used to measure the range of motion. Both in the foam rolling and in the static stretching method, a pre-test (T0), a post-test (T1), and a post-15-min test (T2) were performed. A significant effect was observed on the range of motion over time (p < 0.001), but not for time x method interaction (p = 0.680). Significant differences were found between T0 and T1 with foam rolling and static stretching (p < 0.001, d = 0.4); p < 0.001, d = 0.6). The differences between T0 and T2 were also significant with both methods (p = 0.001, d = 0.4; p < 0.001, d = 0.4). However, no significant difference was observed between T1 and T2 (p = 1.000, d = 0.1; p = 0.089, d = 0.2). Foam roller and static stretching seem to be effective methods to improve the range of motion but there seems to be no differences between them.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/113823
ISSN: 2071-1050
DOI: 10.3390/su13073631
Language: eng
Type: info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Rights: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Peer Review: si
Publisher version: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073631
Appears in Collections:INV - SCAPE - Artículos de Revistas
INV - HEALTH-TECH - Artículos de Revistas

Files in This Item:
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
ThumbnailPenichet-Tomas_etal_2021_Sustainability.pdf2,06 MBAdobe PDFOpen Preview


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons