Total Training Volume and Muscle Soreness Parameters Performing Agonist or Antagonist Foam Rolling between Sets.

Haroldo Gualter Santana,Gabriel Andrade Paz,Humberto Miranda,Filipe Canuto Almeida Da Silva,Pedro Medina Eiras,Bruno Lara,Jeffrey M Willardson

doi:10.3390/sports9050057

Haroldo Gualter Santana, Gabriel Andrade Paz + Show 5 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/sports9050057

Copy DOI

Abstract

Background: Foam rolling (FR) has become very popular in recent years; however, the practice of FR between sets of resistance training (RT) for the lower limbs needs further examination. Purpose: Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of FR for the agonists (quadriceps) and antagonists (hamstrings) between multiple sets of the leg extension on repetition maximum performance (RM), fatigue resistance index (FRI), and muscle soreness (MS). Study design: Quasi-experimental clinical trial. Methods: Twenty trained men participated in this study (30.35 ± 6.56 years, 1.77 ± 0.05 cm, 87.70 ± 7.6 kg) and attended seven sessions with 48 h between sessions, (one familiarization session; two 10-RM test and retest sessions; and four experimental sessions). The four experimental sessions were performed in random order and included: agonist foam rolling (AFR), antagonist foam rolling (ANTFR), agonist/antagonist foam rolling (A/ANTFR), and traditional control (TP, without foam rolling). All sessions consisted of three sets for maximal repetitions with a 10-RM load for the leg extension. In the AFR and ANTFR sessions, there was a 120 s rest interval between sets, during which FR was done for the agonists or antagonists, respectively. In the A/ANTFR protocol, there was a 120 s rest interval between sets, during which FR was done for the agonists and antagonists. In the traditional protocol (TP), there was a 120 s passive rest interval between sets. Results: Regarding the total training volume (TTV), significant differences were noted between sessions (F3,57 = 11.014; p = 0.0001). The AFR, ANTFR, and A/ANTFR sessions had significantly higher TTV versus the TP (p < 0.05). Regarding the FRI, significant differences were noted between sessions (F3,57 = 2917, p = 0.042). A significantly higher fatigue index was shown for the ANTFR and AFR sessions versus the TP (p < 0.05). Regarding the total number of repetitions, significant differences were noted between sessions (F3,57 = 11.086, p = 0.0001). The total number of repetitions was significantly higher in the A/ANTFR, ANTFR, and AFR versus the TP session (p < 0.05). MS was significantly lower in the A/ANTFR, ANTFR, and AFR sessions versus the TP session (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In conclusion, foam rolling between sets for the agonist or antagonist separately or in succession, resulted in greater neuromuscular performance and higher fatigue indices, as well as reducing the perception of acute muscle soreness.

Highlights

Foam rolling (FR) is a self-massage technique that, in recent years has become common practice and recommended by coaches and resistance training practitioners (RT)
Foam rolling between sets for the agonist or antagonist separately or in succession resulted in greater neuromuscular performance and higher fatigue indices, as well as reducing the perception of acute muscle soreness, confirming the initial hypothesis
The results presented in the current study suggest that FR was efficient in reducing the perception of muscle soreness after the training session; several mechanisms that clarify the perception of muscle soreness after exercise, such as damage to connective tissue and inflammation [29]

Summary

Introduction

Foam rolling (FR) is a self-massage technique that, in recent years has become common practice and recommended by coaches and resistance training practitioners (RT). This technique has the main characteristic of using body weight to exert pressure onto specific myofascial regions [1]. The literature proposes several mechanisms (global and local) that support the use of FR. The probable global mechanisms suggest that the results obtained with FR are a consequence of stimulating central pain modulators and significantly reducing parasympathetic activity [7]. Local mechanisms consist of changes in thixotropic properties and reduced afferent excitability [7]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion