Comparison of the effects of different foam rolling durations on knee extensors function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foam rolling (FR) intervention has recently attracted attention in sports and rehabilitation settings. However, the effects of FR using different rolling durations have not been fully clarified. Thus, this study focused on FR durations and examined the acute and prolonged (i.e., 20-min; 40-min, 60-min) effects of different FR intervention durations on maximal voluntary concentric contractions (MVC-CON), knee flexion range of motion (ROM), pain pressure threshold (PPT), and tissue hardness. The participants were 10 male university students (22.5 ± 1.0 years), and the target muscles were the dominant leg knee extensors. Three sets of 60-seconds FR interventions were performed in the randomized crossover trials in each condition. The three intervention conditions were fast (1 rolling/2 s, 30-repetition × 3 sets, 90 repetitions), medium (1 rolling/6 s, 10-repetition × 3 sets, 30 repetitions), and slow speed (1 rolling/12 s, 5-repetition × 3 sets, 15 repetitions). Before as well as immediately, 20-min, 40-min, and 60-min after the interventions, MVC-CON, ROM PPT, and tissue hardness were measured. The results showed no interaction effect in the acute effect but a main effect of time for all variables (p < 0.05). Also, no interaction was observed in prolonged effect, but main effects of time were observed in knee flexion ROM, PPT, and tissue hardness (p < 0.01) but not for MVC-CON. Post-hoc tests showed significant PPT (p < 0.05) and knee flexion ROM (p < 0.01) increases up to 20- and 60-minutes respectively after all interventions. Tissue hardness was significantly (p < 0.01) decreased up to 60-minutes after all interventions. This study showed that the FR intervention changed ROM, PPT, tissue hardness, and MVC-CON regardless of rolling duration and that the effects persisted up to 20-60 minutes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".