A Comparison between Self Myofascial Release and Static Stretching for Flexibility and Exercise Adherence

Abstract

Because there is limited research on the long term effectiveness of self myofascial release (SMR) or foam rolling, static stretching (SS) remains the standard protocol used by clinicians and fitness professionals for increasing flexibility. No previous study has compared exercise adherence between SS and SMR. Since exercise adherence is low for home based flexibility programs, SMR should be investigated as a possible alternative independent exercise modality. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and patient adherence between SMR and SS home based protocols. METHODS: Nineteen healthy volunteers (half with initial scores at or below the 20th percentile for the modified-sit-and-reach test) were divided into two groups (SMR and SS). Each group was instructed to perform 15 stretches (SMR or SS respectively) three times per week for four weeks. Subjects self-monitored their stretching and recorded the number of completed and partial sessions. Pre- and Post- flexibility measurements and Modified Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire 2 (BREQ-2) were recorded. An independent t-test was used to compare the total number of sessions completed by each group. Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to identify changes in flexibility and Pre-and Post- BREQ-2 survey responses. RESULTS: A significant timepoint difference (pre-to-post) was identified for the modified-sit-and-reach measurements (F1, 17 = 6.32, P < 0.05) but there was no difference between groups. No significant difference in number of sessions was found between groups (t = -1.593, P = 0.130). There were no changes (pre-to-post) or differences (SS to SMR) for BREQ-2 scores. CONCLUSION: The SS and the SMR groups saw similar improvements in flexibility after one month of self-monitored flexibility training. This study is the first to show that participants asked to perform SMR were equally as adherent as the SS group to their respective protocols. We found that there was no change in motivation (BREQ-2 score) in either group over the month of training. SMR is as effective and adhered to as well as SS but offers no additional flexibility benefits or adherence improvements compared to SS. Based on this study, clinicians should consider SMR an equivalent alternative to SS in otherwise healthy patients.