Six minutes of foam rolling or bodyweight holding impair subsequent drop jump performance: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Foam rolling (FR) is suggested to be a valid alternative movement preparation strategy to stretching, with comparable range of motion (ROM) increases without the performance decrements associated with prolonged static stretching. Nevertheless, prior literature used small FR volumes, while secondly comparing results to a passive control. Passive control comparisons do not allow for a differentiation between FR and general movement effects. Consequently, this study randomly allocated 60 participants (20 per group) to a control (CG), FR or bodyweight (BW) group. The BW performed FR movements without using a FR to explore whether using the roll would provide superior effects compared to the SR condition on drop jump (DJ) performance. While hypothesizing beneficial FR effects on subsequent performance, the results showed 6 min of FR and SR resulted in a significant, large magnitude effect size ( p < 0.001, ƞ 2 = 0.26 − 0.45, d = 0.64 – 0.85), reduction in the subsequent DJ height and the reactive strength index while no effects were observed in the CG. Consequently, the results demonstrated that similar to the reported impairments related to prolonged static stretching, high dosage FR could harm subsequent jump performance parameters. Further research is necessary to discriminate acute FR effects from general exercise effects.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".