@article{GrabowYoungAlcocketal.2018,
  author    = {Grabow, Lena and Young, James D. and Alcock, Lynsey R. and Quigley, Patrick J. and Byrne, Jeannette M. and Granacher, Urs and Skarabot, Jakob and Behm, David George},
  title     = {Higher Quadriceps Roller Massage Forces Do Not Amplify Range-of-Motion Increases nor Impair Strength and Jump Performance},
  series = {Journal of strength and conditioning research : the research journal of the NSCA},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {Journal of strength and conditioning research : the research journal of the NSCA},
  number    = {11},
  publisher = {Lippincott Williams \& Wilkins},
  address   = {Philadelphia},
  issn      = {1064-8011},
  doi       = {10.1519/JSC.0000000000001906},
  pages     = {3059 -- 3069},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Grabow, L, Young, JD, Alcock, LR, Quigley, PJ, Byrne, JM, Granacher, U, Škarabot, J, and Behm, DG. Higher quadriceps roller massage forces do not amplify range-of-motion increases nor impair strength and jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 32(11): 3059-3069, 2018—Roller massage (RM) has been reported to increase range of motion (ROM) without subsequent performance decrements. However, the effects of different rolling forces have not been examined. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of sham (RMsham), moderate (RMmod), and high (RMhigh) RM forces, calculated relative to the individuals' pain perception, on ROM, strength, and jump parameters. Sixteen healthy individuals (27 ± 4 years) participated in this study. The intervention involved three 60-second quadriceps RM bouts with RMlow (3.9/10 ± 0.64 rating of perceived pain [RPP]), RMmod (6.2/10 ± 0.64 RPP), and RMhigh (8.2/10 ± 0.44 RPP) pain conditions, respectively. A within-subject design was used to assess dependent variables (active and passive knee flexion ROM, single-leg drop jump [DJ] height, DJ contact time, DJ performance index, maximum voluntary isometric contraction [MVIC] force, and force produced in the first 200 milliseconds [F200] of the knee extensors and flexors). A 2-way repeated measures analysis of variance showed a main effect of testing time in active (p < 0.001, d = 2.54) and passive (p < 0.001, d = 3.22) ROM. Independent of the RM forces, active and passive ROM increased by 7.0\% (p = 0.03, d = 2.25) and 15.4\% (p < 0.001, d = 3.73) from premeasure to postmeasure, respectively. Drop jump and MVIC parameters were unaffected from pretest to posttest (p > 0.05, d = 0.33-0.84). Roller massage can be efficiently used to increase ROM without substantial pain and without subsequent performance impairments.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GrabowYoungByrneetal.2017,
  author    = {Grabow, Lena and Young, James D. and Byrne, Jeannette M. and Granacher, Urs and Behm, David George},
  title     = {Unilateral Rolling of the Foot did not Affect Non-Local Range of Motion or Balance},
  series = {Journal of sports science \& medicine},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {Journal of sports science \& medicine},
  publisher = {Department of Sports Medicine, Medical Faculty of Uludag University},
  address   = {Bursa},
  issn      = {1303-2968},
  pages     = {209 -- 218},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Non-local or crossover (contralateral and non-stretched muscles) increases in range-of-motion (ROM) and balance have been reported following rolling of quadriceps, hamstrings and plantar flexors. Since there is limited information regarding plantar sole (foot) rolling effects, the objectives of this study were to determine if unilateral foot rolling would affect ipsilateral and contralateral measures of ROM and balance in young healthy adults. A randomized within-subject design was to examine non-local effects of unilateral foot rolling on ipsilateral and contralateral limb ankle dorsiflexion ROM and a modified sit-and-reachtest (SRT). Static balance was also tested during a 30 s single leg stance test. Twelve participants performed three bouts of 60 s unilateral plantar sole rolling using a roller on the dominant foot with 60 s rest intervals between sets. ROM and balance measures were assessed in separate sessions at pre-intervention, immediately and 10 minutes post-intervention. To evaluate repeated measures effects, two SRT pre-tests were implemented. Results demonstrated that the second pre-test SRT was 6.6\% higher than the first pre-test (p = 0.009, d = 1.91). There were no statistically significant effects of foot rolling on any measures immediately or 10 min post-test. To conclude, unilateral foot rolling did not produce statistically significant increases in ipsilateral or contralateral dorsiflexion or SRT ROM nor did it affect postural sway. Our statistically non-significant findings might be attributed to a lower degree of roller-induced afferent stimulation due to the smaller volume of myofascia and muscle compared to prior studies. Furthermore, ROM results from studies utilizing a single pre-test without a sufficient warm-up should be viewed critically.},
  language  = {en}
}