Comparison of Isolated or Combined Static Stretching and Foam Rolling on Knee Extensors’ Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Static stretching (SS), foam rolling (FR), and a combination of both are used as warm-ups for sports and training. However, no reports have compared or examined the warm-up effects of short-term interventions (i.e., 30-s). Therefore, this study was designed to compare and examine the effects of short-term SS, FR, and SS+FR on knee extensors. The dominant knee extensors of 14 male university students (22.0 ± 1.3 years old) were tested. Five conditions were randomized: 60-s SS, 60-s FR, 30-s SS+ 30-s FR, 30-s SS, and 30-s FR to examine differences in intervention method, duration, and combined. The measures were knee flexion range of motion (ROM), pain pressure threshold (PPT), tissue hardness, maximum voluntary contraction-isometric (MVC-ISO), and MVC-concentric (MVC-CON) torques, measured before and after the intervention. Knee flexion ROM (d = 0.40, d = 0.59, d = 0.54, d = 0.59, d = 0.52 respectively) and PPT (d = 0.77, d = 0.60, d = 0.90, d = 0.74, d = 0.52, respectively) were significantly increased (p < 0.01), and tissue hardness (d = -0.79, d = -0.63, d = -0.53, d = -0.59, d = -0.72, respectively) was significantly decreased (p < 0.01) in all conditions. However, MVC-ISO decreased significantly (p < 0.01) in the 60-s SS and 30-s SS conditions but did not affect MVC-CON in all conditions. The results of this study revealed that SS, FR, and SS+FR interventions for a short-term as a warm-up before exercise were effective in increasing ROM, PPT, and decreasing tissue hardness. However, SS intervention with more than 30-s on the knee extensors decreased muscle strength, so short-term FR intervention is recommended when the goal is to increase ROM while maintaining both MVC-ISO and MVC-CON torques. Similarly, a short-term FR intervention after a short-term SS can eliminate the effect of strength impairments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".