Foam Rolling of Quadriceps Decreases Biceps Femoris Activation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cavanaugh, MT, Aboodarda, SJ, Hodgson, DD, and Behm, DG. Foam rolling of quadriceps decreases biceps femoris activation. J Strength Cond Res 31(8): 2238-2245, 2017-Foam rolling has been shown to increase range of motion without subsequent performance impairments of the rolled muscle, however, there are no studies examining rolling effects on antagonist muscles. The objective of this study was to determine whether foam rolling the hamstrings and/or quadriceps would affect hamstrings and quadriceps activation in men and women. Recreationally, active men (n = 10, 25 ± 4.6 years, 180.1 ± 4.4 cm, 86.5 ± 15.7 kg) and women (n = 8, 21.75 ± 3.2 years, 166.4 ± 8.8 cm, 58.9 ± 7.9 kg) had surface electromyographic activity analyzed in the dominant vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), and biceps femoris (BF) muscles on a single leg landing from a hurdle jump under 4 conditions. Conditions included rolling of the hamstrings, quadriceps, both muscle groups, and a control session. Biceps femoris activation significantly decreased after quadriceps foam rolling (F(1,16) = 7.45, p = 0.015, -8.9%). There were no significant changes in quadriceps activation after hamstrings foam rolling. This might be attributed to the significantly greater levels of perceived pain with quadriceps rolling applications (F(1,18) = 39.067, p < 0.001, 98.2%). There were no sex-based changes in activation after foam rolling for VL (F(6,30) = 1.31, p = 0.283), VM (F(6,30) = 1.203, p = 0.332), or BF (F(6,36) = 1.703, p = 0.199). Antagonist muscle activation may be altered after agonist foam rolling, however, it can be suggested that any changes in activation are likely a result of reciprocal inhibition due to increased agonist pain perception.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".