FOUR WEEKS OF ROLLER MASSAGE TRAINING DID NOT IMPACT RANGE OF MOTION, PAIN PRESSURE THRESHOLD, VOLUNTARY CONTRACTILE PROPERTIES OR JUMP PERFORMANCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Roller massagers are popular devices that are used to improve range of motion (ROM), enhance recovery from muscle soreness, and reduce pain under acute conditions. However, the effects of roller massage training and training frequency are unknown. PURPOSE: The objective was to compare two different roller massage training frequencies on muscle performance. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled intervention study. METHODS: Twenty-three recreationally active university students were randomly allocated to three groups: control (n=8;), rolling three (3/W; n=8;) and six (6/W; n=7) times per week for four weeks. The roller massage training consisted of unilateral, dominant limb, quadriceps and hamstrings rolling (4 sets x 30 seconds). Both legs of participants were tested pre- and post-training for active and passive hamstrings and quadriceps range of motion (ROM), electromyography (EMG) activity during a lunge movement, unilateral countermovement jumps (CMJ), as well as quadriceps and hamstrings maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) forces and electromechanical delay. Finally, they were tested for pain pressure threshold at middle and distal segments of their quadriceps and hamstrings. RESULTS: There were no significant training interactions for any measure with the exception that 3/W group exhibited 6.2% (p=0.03; Effect Size: 0.31) higher CMJ height from pre- (38.6 ± 7.1 cm) to post-testing (40.9 ± 8.1 cm) for the non-dominant limb. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the literature has demonstrated acute responses to roller massage, the results of the present study demonstrate no consistent significant training-induced changes. The absence of change may highlight a lack of muscle and myofascial morphological or semi-permanent neurophysiological changes with rolling. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: 2c.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".